Omaha daily bee., 1906-01-07
Judge Munger Defended,


Judge Munger Defended.
OMAHA. Jan. G.-To the Editor of The
Bee: In the World-Herald of Saturday,
January 6, appears a dispatch from Lincoln
giving an interview with ex-senator Diet
rich with reference to the prosecution of
cattlemen In Nebraska for maintaining
fences upon the public domain in violation
of the law.
This interview is of more than ordinary
interest at this time, by reason OF the
senator's explanation of the attitude of the
president of the United States and the
secretary of the interior with reference to
the fencing of the public domain during
the winter of 1902 and 1903
Senator Dietrich states that at that time
Bartlett Richards and delegation of cat
tlemen called upon him In Washington for
the purpose of getting extension of time
in which to remove their fences, a demand
having been made by the president of the
United States for such removal; that this
delegation at that time sought to have the
administration take no action with refer
ence to the fences, giving their promise to
the president that II given until June 1 Of
the following year to arrange for the re-
moval of fences it should be done.
In view of the indirect criticism of the
administration upon the action Of Judge
Munger In imposing q light fine upon
Messrs. Richards and Comstock, who had
plead guilty of unlawfully maintaining
fences upon the public domain, the follow
ing excerpt from the senator's interview
is not only interesting. but significant:
While the president did not say to them
that he would himself violate the statute
by permitting them to continue to violate
1t, he saw the force of their argument that
many interests would suffer II the fences
were removed at once. He did not want to
be the cause of such distress. We were all
satisfied when we left the White House
be made by the administration until the
expiration of the time covered by the prom
ises of Bartlett Richards and the other
members of the delegation.
Senator Dietrich then goes on to say that
the cattlemen instead of complying with
their promise and pledge to the president,
continued to erect fences and that the
president and the secretary of the interior
felt outraged by their action in thus will
fully violating their pledge.
So 1t appears that the indignation of the
administration over the action OF Judge
Munger in imposing a light sentence was
not due to any feeling that the character
of the offense was such as to call for con-
dign punishment, but rather because of the
fact that these cattlemen having been al
lowed by the president of the United States
and the secretary of the interior to violate
| the laws Of the United States for more
than a year with impunity, had refused to
fulfill the promise made to the administra-
ton that they would cease violating the
law after certain length Of time agreed
upon between the cattlemen and the ad-
ministration
1t seems that the president OF the United
States and the secretary of the interior
took the same view of this statutory viola
ton of the law, as did his honor, Judge
Munger, for 1t Is evident that II the presi-
dent had for a moment thought that the
maintaining Of these fences upon the public
domain involved any moral turpitude, he
would not have consented to the arrange
ment which Senator Dietrich said was made
on behalf of the cattlemen between tho
senator and the president of the United
States
The administration evidently recognized
the hardship involved in the removal OF
these fences, and the criticism OF the Judge
who imposed the fine is based not upon the
failure Of the court to sufficiently punish
these men for the violation of law, but
rather upon his failure to infiict a heavy
penalty, because, forsooth, II is claimed
that they misrepresented the facts to the
president when they stated that they would
remove the fences within given time
Surely every thoughtful man and every
loyal citizen upon sober reflection will find
cause to regret that the national admins
tratiOn, or any officer thereof in the ex-
ecutive or administrative branch Of the
government, should endeavor to influence
judicial action by unwarranted criticism Of
the judgment OF the court.
1t must be also a source OF keen regret
to the people of this state that such I'M
warranted criticism should be INDUCED in
with reference TO the action Of a Judge OF
such high character and stainless integrity
as the Judge who imposed the sentence in
the Richards case; and It cannot but seem
that the national administration is fairly
precluded from INDUCING in any such criti-
cism when 1t appears from the interview of
Senator Dietrich that the president of the
United States and the secretary of the in
terror in the winter of 1893 took precisely
the same view of the character Of this of
Tense as was taken by the Judge who i'm
posed the sentence I'm the Richards case. He
imposed a fine of $500 for the violation Of a
law which the president of the United
States saw Mt for more than year to ig-
more, and to withhold prosecution on the
part Of the government by virtue of a
pledge made to cease such violation of the
law at some time I'm the future
WILLIAM F. GURLEY.