The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1908-06-20

OeeQ extensively Gu
throughout the state. This has
been done with the notion that
it would in some way iniure me.
Concerning this matter, there is
nothing / need to conceal The
facts are as follows:
Senator Warner requested me,
as a matter of favor, to present
the bill for him. He prepared it,
and it was his bill. He stated that
had been engaged to aid in the
defense of young Dyer, who had
been indited for e~mblezing the
sci, 800 purloined from the sub
treasury, of which he was a sub
ordinate official; and the Senator
said that, as there would probably
be conflicts in the course of that
trial between Dyer and Atkins,
he would regard it as a favor if /
would present the bin for him.
This l did as a matter of ordinary
courtesy without assuming re-
sponsibility for it. While the bill
on its face was for the relief of
Mr.. Atkins, it's first and most inn
portant effect would be to cause
a congressional Investigation into
the facts connected with the sub
treasury loss, and to have the
facts authoritatively reported.
The bill was in the form such
measures usually take. Atkins
claimed, as l was informed, that
he was not personally guilty of
any neglect or official fault; that
he was guiltIess of any wrong
doing, either of commission or
omission, and that while he
might be technically liable in a
court proceeding, he ought not,
in equity and good conscience, to
be held personally responsible
for the loss, and upon this he
+ asked a chance to be heard. The
/ only way possible for him t.
have a hearing ON his claim was
t through Congress, and he prayed
{. for an opportunity to present thu
( facts through proper committee
: to the Congress for consideration
: Personally, l think every maj
who claims a right to be heard o.
a matter vital to him should a
least be given a fair and impair
i tial hearing. That is the univel
J. sal American rule of fair play
II What Missourian would wis
!, either of his Senators to stan
h in the way and deny one of hi
le constituents on narrow partisa
grounds the right to be heard i
3 support of his claim when he ash
ed it? There may be Missourian
e who look at things in that wa!
a. but, happily or unhappily, | al
" not so constituted, and / am a.
counted a pretty good partisan
o. too. What would you think of n
st if l were Governor, or a membC
is of the State Legislature, and
man, who had been a public of
e. cial, should come to me and sa
IN II have suffered a loss witho
IS fault of mine, and | want to Ii
my case before you, and l shou
en- in a partisan spirit and for par
IT. san reasons, decline to give hi
in a hearing? / think no man W
IT. impeach my devotion to party
as my consistent advocacy Of par
no organization and discipline, b
n l have never been so partisan
i'll to deny a man a hearing and tn
is afterwards pass upon the merI
III of his claim. So far as party ST
la vice and devotion go, perhaps
nd might be well for those who raj
ne this question to look to their o'
wv records. / stand on the bro
er proposition that every man /
a right to be heard, when he as
ct. it, before the constituted auth
5es tiles of his state or count.
an Moreover, in matters of this kin
ed the hearing would make it n