The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-09-14
WHY NOT PROSECUTE
SHERIFF EMERY?
he Appointed, IrreguIarIy, a
Deputy Sheriff to Act
for Luke.
DEPUTY MADE NO
ACCOUNTING OF ACTS
What Was Done With Fees
Collected by the County
Official?

The prosecution for conspiracy of the
Luke Collection agency, G. F. Durand,
Justice of the Peace mt Murray, and
the others associated with that outfit
should be complete. and 10 he so Sheriff
4. Frank Emery of Salt Lake county
should be included as defendant in
the complaint. For if some of the Off
clal acts of Sheriff Emery in ccnnec-
ton with the malodorous Murray JUS
tice and the collection agency do not
prove collusion or connivance, then
nothing is capable OF proof in a court
Of justice.
When the Sheriff Of county ap.
points deputy sheriff to act wholly
and solely for a private corporation,
Knowing that that corporation pursues
a questionable calling; and when that
deputy aids and abets the corporation
IN Its work, making no accounting of
his acts or fees, do not these facts con
srltute collusion with or conniv
ance at the illegal practices of that
organizationI This is what Sheriff C.
Frank Emery has done, and still Coun-
" Attorney Farley p. Christensen and
his assistant, Willard Hanson. overlook
these facts in drawing their complaint.
1T may be that Christensen and Han
son, being candidates of the same po-
litical cult as Emery. desired to pro-
tect their fellow patriot and purposely
omitted him from the indictment, thus
saving him from prosecution and them
selves from political injury.
Facts In the Case.
The facts Of Sheriff Emery's com
plicity are as follows: On January 10,
1906, Charles Bell was appointed a dep
uty sheriff by Sheriff c. Frank Emery
TO act without pay, and the appoint
T.
County Commissioners. Bell was ap-
pointed, apparently, as deputy for Mill
Creek; in reality he was in the employ
of the Luke Collection agency, This
was known by Sheriff Emery, and he
accepted a cash bond of $3.50 from
Luke for the faithful performance by
Bell of his duties. Bell has served
papers out of Durand's court in many
cases for the Luke agency; he is still
a deputy sheriff,
The question of the payment Of Bell
is not one that caused any difficulty
OF uneasiness, because Luke, 1T is un-
derstood, paid him a salary. But what
became Of the fees collected by Bell7
Did he turn them into the Luke Col
lection agency3 The law provides that
the Sheriff shall keep fee book and
enter therein the fees collected by him
and his deputies. The last information
obtained was that Bell has not turned
the fees which he collected into the
public treasury, failure to do which
is clear and distinct violation OF the
statutes. Is he collecting fees and re.
tanning them for his own usc7 Whom
he collected them for the Luke agency
did that protective association ''take,
steal and carry them away contrary
to the statutes made and provided7"
And what has become of that cash
bond of $3.50 lodged by Luke with
Sheriff Emerv9 When n trial is being
had it is well that every act and cir
cumstance be investigated, so that the
truth shall be arrived at and equal Jus.
tice meted out,
Bell Was Legal Tool.
The appointment Of Bell as the legal
tool of the collection agency was ir-
regular. He had no right to act, under
the circumstances, for and in behalf
of Luke. He was not acting for the
corporation AS a guardian Of the peace;
he was not preserving the peace, but
was the plant servant of a rapacious
organization He piled his vocation at
will, unhindered and unhampered; he
apparently gave no official accounting
of his acts, and for all his acts, sew
orally and collectively, Sheriff G. Frank
Emery is responsible. He knew the
purpose for which he appointed him
ms act was n part and parcel Of the
illegal acts of the Luke agency, for
which prosecution is now brought; why
is Sheriff c. Frank Emery not called