The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-11-22
WHO DID THE LYINGs

WMV gAD A1 4h AfN1k
 Not since the exposition of the Pa cific Railway scandals has there been given to the public such sickenins de- tails of official corruptioni not only among insurance officials. but of men in high places in. politics as has been brought forth fin connection with the insurance investigations now under way in New York. Of one phase of 1t The Chicago Journal has this to say:
 There Is question of veracity be- tween James Hazen Hyde and Benjamin B. Odell. MT. Hyde took oath that Gov. ernor Odeli was returned $75.00o he haG lost In the shipbuilding trust. and, m return. refrained from using his lnhu. ence to forfeit the Mercantile IruSt Company's charter. Governor Odeii. with mach heat. says the charge IS false, so far as the implication oi blackmail is concerned.
 Tn determining who Is the liar the public will have to consider the char acter of the disputants.
 MT. Hyde, a rich mans son, educatea In bellies lettres. thrust Into the Equi- table at salary of s30.0oe year as soon as he got out of college, devotihs almost if not quite all his attentlon ,o pleasure allowing others to manage HIS property-this personality IS very oii- ferent from Odelfs.
 Odell--cnce poor, hustling, prac- tical business man. a shrewd and ac- tive politician, wire butler, a macninc worker. acquiring wealth by pecuiffar ways, out of the light of the sun; Ia miliar with the corporation hoidup game as 1t is practiced in State Legis- latures, in Illinois as well as Tn New York; bold speculator. hungry TOT ter that makes MT. Hyde's accusation improbable?
 But there is something else that throws still stronger light on the matter. It is known that member or the New York Legislature, henchman of Odelfs, did introduce bill forfeit ing the charter under which the Mer- cantile Trust does business. Odeli does shipbuilding stock. He does not deny that S75,000 was returned to him-.Mr. Hyde says by the owners of the Mer- cantile Trust. And 1t is known that, after this transaction, nothing more was heard of the bill introduced in the New York Legislature by odelrs hench- man annulIing the charter of the Mer- cantile Trust Company.
 Taking all these things into consid- cration, tho public will not put much confidence in Odel1s denial. If some body has lied, in all probability 1t was not MT. Hyde.
 The easy insouciance with which prominent men on oath contradict each other would be refreshing if it were not so disgusting. We can understand how one man may have forgotten de- tails which another will remember. We can understand that an honest and con scientious witness may remember and testify to occurrences which another equally honest witness had overlooked
 lz aAk ~na Ind hear alike. and all do not have the same exact memory for details. as is shown every day In court trials, both civil and criminal
 But while such variations of memory are common they cannot be used to ex- plain the testimony of some of the | prominent witnesses connected with | the insuf ance scandals. Looking at the | matter from an impartial standpoint the only conclusion we can reach i: that each of the prominent persons con
 nected with the affair went on thu
 witness stand and swore strictly in hi; | own interest with a total and cheerfu
 disregard for the facts in the case | Hyde, Hartman and ex-Governor Odel seem 10 nave Vteu Wftn eacn other II the business of swearing of their owr sins, and apparently neither had mucl 1 regard for the truth. As The Hartfort
 Times puts it:
 The testimony of ex-Governor Odel before the Armstrong Committee witt | reference to the allegation that tn | Mercantile Trust Company's charte was Threatened with retaliatory legis 1ation by the former Governor fiatly directly and unqualihedly contradict | statements and insinuations made ol | the witness stand by James Hazei 1 Hyde. There is no truth in that, s help me God" declares Odell. impetu ously, concerning the alleged threa against the Mercantile Trust franchise l Who's lying?
 | Reconciliation of some of the state ments made by the two men under oatl Is impossible. Effort to harmonize tn 1 contradictory utterances Is hopeless If some of the things which Mir. Hyd
 said are true, some of the things whicl MT. Odell said are false. If all tha
 Mir. Odell affirmed squares with accu | racy, a part of what Mir. Hyde tol
 the committee Is misstatement.
 Who's lying?
 That is a pertinent question--who'
 lying? As it is impossible that all o
 them told the truth Is 1t not legitimat | to conclude that none of them did?