The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1908-05-22
LLn VI uUlLII III
ATTORNEY ERICSSON
Regent Erickson Virtually Plead,
Guilty to Indictment
Against Crawford
To the Argus.Leader:

70 the Argus-Leader:-
IN this mornings Press. MI. Er.
icson pleads guilty to the charges
GGonlalned IN the Indictment against
client when asked by the court (tha
v!ters) Have you any legal sause to
how Why the Judgment OF the our
snS ~ q fbat De etR Rassed d,d pp sp yoas" by
The others who did the same are
not on trial. The publ:s wilt take
care Of their cases when they come
before it. He does not cite a single
instance where n Of ne others had
Iessed client.
Mr.. Ericsson is q good man. He
Is q regent under the present admin.
ist:ation: Nevertheless ne is liable
to mistakes the same as other men.
veyor general" changed his vote and
as authority This is the record: "Ab.-
sent and not voting: Messrs. Ben.
nett. Lillibridge,. MorEs." While I
icson should have said Just before
his charge against General Norris:
OF the " members from Craw-
ford's district Lillibridse, of sully did
same printed line. / was a seatmate
Of General Morris during both SEES
sions Of 1887 and 1889 and I know
him and know that he would have
would have voted to exempt the land
of the Northern Pacific from taxa
ton.
Mr.. Crawford's explanation for
changing his vote for q law unconsti-
the board Of trade Of Pierre asked it
is no excuse. because, first:. 1t was
against his express instructions con
tanned in the Harold platform on
which he was elected: second, it was
few of his district men. and thirds
because he gave a false reason when
he said that it was the only express
SION have from my district on the
The board of trade of Pierre! A
great source upon which to Justify q
vote against ones Judgment, espe-
cially when that vote conferred up
on the most gigantic of corporations,
a privilege that was 4nlawfgul.
started in to build upon possible ru-
ms caused by indiscrim:nate and in
definite charges? Was it the stall
wart wing or was it the man who has
it, but one vote on the side of the
WHO has said that one man (and he
his opponent) has controlled for the
corporations all the state legislatures
from 1897 to 1907? Anyone but
Crawford? Who a entered q plea
of guilty and asked for reward upon
his bare statement of sanctification
but Crawford? Who has said that
When others did what he has done
for years it was against the masses
but that his doing it was blameless?
No one but Crawford. Is this by.
pocrisy?
ator Kittredge has used mud to ce-
nent. his case. His addresses have
been uniformly courteous Int digni-
fed. He has employed none Of the
'muck-rake" tactics of the sanctiied
one. His friends have simply UNI
masked the slanderer who has posed
as a perfect a He Is proven when
mixed to be tatooed from head to
foot and the voters realize this.
The stalwarts have reason to thank
Mr.. Ericsson for his plea of guilty.
Crawford's silence has bee SO con-
stIued but now it is an open and pub
lie confession. Will the public re-
tire q good man to make room for
one whose extenuation for guilt is
that "others were likewise guilty?'"
The same plea vas doubtless antici-
ppated in the land grab" case; But
a clergyman without a political pull
is now serving time for a like Of
Tense. The issue is hypocrisy against
trustworthiness. The verdict will
be rendered June 9. 1905.
A Legislator of 'S9,