The French Broad hustler. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1896-1912, 1906-03-08
Anderson, the Warrior,
Again in the Breach

-. -
wrong g-doing on his part, or that he was
guilty of any moral turpitudc.
NethinG Awainss PrIlcharA.
In the next issue of your paper saw
where certain lawyers and citizens OF Ashe-
vile were undertaking to defend him from
the charges oontailed 10 my letter. There
were no charges against Judge Pritchara
in my letter intended to be such. The
charges were against District Attorney
aolton. Then what were the signers of
this certificate trying TO defend Judge
Pritchard from?
Further on in the article in which the
certificate appears this language 10 used:
There was no concealment of 1t (referrinR
to the practice of congressman and senators
appearing before the departments) because
at that time it had eenruled that the prac-
tice was against the law" Then if there
was no concealment Of the fact why should
Judge Pritchard's friend object to my mem
tuoning it? Aud when / say there was no
intentional wrongdoing. what does that
lack of being complete vindication?
What better defense can any of these sign
ers Of certificates make for him? What
better defense Can he make tor himself? II
he violated the law, all that any man cat
say for him Ia thai he did not Intentionally
do wrong. That, in itself, includes every
other Gefense. But wonld not attempt
to put up such defense for q sheep-killing
dog a. thlse men have put up for him..
This language occurs in the article In ques-
ton: ''1t IL admitted even by those who
make the charges that at the time 1t was a
common practice for congressman to appear
fer clients and that there was no conceal
nent of 1t, because at that time 1t had NOT
been ruled that the practice was against
the law"
Now would not say In defense OF 9
sheep-killiug cur, that he ought to be ex
cused because 1t was common practice.
Again lt had not been ruled that the prac-
tice was against the law. The Law itself
vaa,un the statute books and the senators
and congressman should have understood
1t. It was the rule itself. In it any defense
violate it.
1t was at one time customary for high
waymen to hold men up on the road and
relieve men of their money and valua1les,
but hardly think that it would have been
q sufficient defense for one of thom to have
said that there were lots of other people
doing it at the same time or that it occurred
long time ago. If this kind of reasoning
is to prevail, then Mr.. Blackburn, If he Is
guilty, which We do not believe, should
have the benefit of It, fol- he has the pre-
cedent set by Pritchard as well as all of
those common cases by which Pritchsrd
was governed.
We regret TO say that It was very CON-
mon, in fact too common, and led to snch
scandals and abuses as to cause subsequent
investigation, and many men to be prose-
cuted and convicted for these offenses. Is
it any defense of man, Is 1t any Compll-
ment TO say that he took part In this carni-
val of corruption? Maybe 80, but / would
not make such q defense for q suck-egg
dog. unless wanted to provoke someone
to kill him.
Judge Pritchard, however, is not TO blame
for this kind of talk, and all he can say Is:
II did not knowingly und Intentionally
violate the law" That have already said
for him and hope I may not be forced to
change my opinion.
/ can find no excuse for the conduct OF
District Attorney. .Holton. In his position
he should be no respector of persons. And
If, after having failed or refused to indict
Mr.. Pritchsrd, high sense Of honor and
propriety would have compelled him to re-
sign his position before prosecuting Mr..
Blackburn for exactly the same offense, al
though Mr.. Blackburn may not be able to
plead that he had as much company in vio-
lating the law, If he did violate it, as Mr..
Pritchard had. III. b. ANDERSON.