Semi-weekly herald., 1908-10-22

they had from time to time bough
hundreds OF head of stock from othe
persons in southern Colorado; an
they paid Nichols for them-all the
were worth. and then appears upo
the scene George w. Lane, who kne,
that the sheriff and the district attoy
ney had extracted from Nichols tn
afhdavit which was published in tn
Democrat of Sunday morning. and h,
goes to the firm of Wood & Morga,
TO blackmail them into paying Hottie
for the cattle. Nichols had confesse,
tnat he had stolen the cattle frou
Hotter. He was to be sentenced eithel
TO the penitentiary or reformatory. II,
could be given light sentence or {
severe one. He was in jail He want
ed TO get out. He wanted to receive q
nght sentence. He was an old offend
er against the lava seif-confessed
thlef. He was ready and willing to
swear as occasion required. to the end
that he escape as much punishment as
was possible, and so, as his mother
says. the district attorney and the
| sheriff of La Plata county got him 10
make the affidavit which the Demo.
crat parades before the public, and
which his mother says is untrue; and
George w. Lane, whose unfitness for
the office of district attorney, for
which he aspires. is punctuated and
emphasized by his action on this occa.
sion, knew, If he knew anything at all,
and he don't know much, that. If this
affidavit was believable--if 1t were
true, that Wood & Morgan had com
mitted crime and yet, this affidavit
reposed in the files of the district at.
torney's office for more than a year
but during the year George w. Lane
got busy to hold Wood G. Nor.
gan up for more than the value of the
cattle. to the end that he could make
fee while crime went unwhipped
of justice.
When 1t was established that Wood
& Morgan had bought the stolen cattle
OF Martin Hotter, from Nichols, they
were advised by their attorneys that
legally, they would have to pay for
them, however innocently they may
have bought them; they could not es
cape paying the owner therefor, and
when the proposition was presented to
the law firm who attend to their bust.
ness, they advised their clients to set.
tie the bill as it was cheaper to pay
the difference between what the cat.
tie were really worth-which they paid
Nichols. in the first place, and the $50
head demanded by the deputy dis
trict attorney. George w. Lane In his
effort to wink at crime and get fees.
uaGSsorlsDe Is ~ banfotna1n ft5b Heexbf5it "'fft #
is said and believed that II he didn't
his principal did. And George W
Lane knew it. Knew they had 1t. and
he knew for year that he was hiding
the affidavit from the public, but used
it to extract money from Wood & Nor
gan. Justice was for sale and George
w. Lane sells cheap at George w.
Lanes place of business where they
sport three letter heads-used as oc
casion required.
Does George w. Lane care to deny
that he used his office and threatened
to secure the collection OF
civil debts, not only in the cases above
set forth, but again and again since
he has been deputy district attorney?
But John Clarke, who is paraded
by the Democrat as SO immaculate,
who Mrs. Nichols says was there and
induced young Nichols to swear
to the affidavit. now acquiesces and
becomes a party to the use of it to try
to down his antagonist. And yet, for
year before this time. he has been
as silent as the grave.
Below follow an array of affidavits
that should forever set the seal of
condemnation upon the Day-Clarke-
Pulliam-Lane combine, and result In
an everlasting rebuke by the people
at the polls on election day. The
first affidavit is that of
". J. w. MORGAN.
State OF Colorado,
County of La Plata, SIS:
Comes now John W. Morgan, who,
being first duly sworn, says that he
is a resident Of and taxpayer in La
Plata county, Colorado, and has been
for fourteen years last past, and has
lived in southern Colorado for twenty
years last past.
That he has read the Durango Dem
ocrat of the issue of October IS, 1905
and also the affidavit contained there
In signed by Charles Sumner Nichols,
and he says that the charges contained
in said paper of said date, as well
as the issues of said paper of each and
every date which he has ever seen -
wherein he was referred to-is ma
liciously false and untrue and that
the said affidavit of said Nichols is
untrue in fact and In substance, and
affiant further says that as a matter
OF fact. on or about the 29th day OF
August, 1907, his firm bought the nine
head of cattle referred to in the aft
davit from the said Nichols. but that
they had not the slightest knowledge
that there was anything wrong OF
crooked about the said cattle, and thai
the said Nichols did not tell affiani
] that said cattle were wet" cattle, Of
that there was any question about the
title thereto, but the said Nichols cam'
to affiant on the street In Durango
early In the morning OF August 29
1907. and told him that he had SOM
cattle, which he gave affiant to under
stand were his own property which h