The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-04-20
nAcK ro rLAGuE rHEM.

The hurly-burly of more recent pass ing events has doubtless caused most of our readers to forget one Represen- tative Comerford, of the Illinois Legfs- iature, though 1t hasn't been many weeks since he was a very much talked of individual. Comerford was a new man, with something of the Don Quixotte in his makeup. and early in the session of the Legislature he made some very serious charges of corrup- ton against certain members of that body which stirred up things not a little. The other members might have passed the matter over in silence if they had been allowed to do so, but the newspapers butted in. as usual. and gave the matter such notoriety that it could no longer be ignored.
 When they found the charges could not be passed by with silent contempt. and that Comerford was not a man to be silenced by his colleagues, they did the only thing left them and appointed a committee to investigate and report That committee made what was called an investigation, but 1t was plain from the start that the members didn't want to get at the facts. In truth, the facts were just what they did not want. hence they gave Comerford little op- portunity to make his charges good, or to sustain himself. The committee made q report recommending that he be expelled. the report was adopted by the majority and they hustled him out.
 But if the accused members thought
 such p-judgment proceedings would
 settle Comerford it Is evident that they
 didn't know their man. The Governor
 ordered special election to fill the
 vacancy and both parties nominated
 Comerford and elected him. Now, the
 question Is. what arc they going to do about 1t? After such a marked evi- dence of popular sentiment among both Republicans and Democrats of his
 legislative district it is plain that they
 cannot ignore him. If he is the man
 we think he is he will not be ignored. but will renew his charges and file such
 specifications, that the matter will have
 to be fairly investigated and the guilty punished, if there is guilt. If he
 cannot prove his charges after being given a fair opportunity to do so it will show that there were no grounds for them, and then it will be up to him to
 make suitable apologies or be again expelled. But it is fair to predict that
 they will not again undertake to expel him without full and fair investiga- tion.
 | In this connection it Is somewhat l interesting to speculate on the reasons
 that controlled his constituents. regard
 less of party lines, to send him back to the body which had treated him so unfairly. It is evident that one of two
 things controlled their action. Either
 they believed the charges true and
 were determined to give the man a
 chance to substantiate them. or else
 they resented the summary treatment
 he had received. Perhaps both these
 causes operated together in his behalf. but in any case he goes back, and we
 may reasonably predict that he will
 make it interesting for his enemies. As a Western contemporary observes, the incident will teach officials against
 whom charges are preferred that they
 cannot convince the public of their
 innocence by the simple device of shouting liar at the man who makes | the charges"