Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-05-28

NN>N.t-~-
; to the answer sent to me. No letter
!. nor anything to indicate who sent II
came with it. I got it thru the mails
again called on c. c.. Caswell 10 see
the original of your answer and he in
formed me that one of your number
n. A. Evans had it. I called on N. A.
Evans, a reliable witness being pres
emit, and he admitted he had it but re-
n fused to aet me see it. He declined to
admit or deny that he signed 1t. / asked
/ him for the names of the witnesses
4 alluded to in your reply, whom you
4 claim would substantiate the charges
made by you. He refused to give them
In your published reply you cut out
all the names of persons whom you say
are operating liquor joints. the attor-
ney whom you say Is receiving mon
ey under a promise OF immunity, the
names of the persons whom you say
are paying 1t, in short everything W !" n
amounts to definite information and
have failed to put your signatures to
your communication to me or to even
indicate that you sent it. It looks as
tho you fear to take the responsibility
4 Of your own covert statements. You
4
responsibility in this matter, when you
will not furnish me the infor-
nation you claim to have, or produce
the names of the persons who you
claim can furnish it. You certainly
don't expect me to go into court rely
ing upon the evidence of the alleged
guilty party for a conviction, or the
admission, of such party out Of court
to nine or even more reputable citizens.
You know that one accused of
crime cannot be made to tes-
tify against himself, and his
admissions out of court would
not alone be sufficient to con-
Wet, and the evidence of the nine rep
utable citizens as to the certain attor-
ney would be hearsay testimony and
wholly incompetent. What you do fur
n1shj does not in any sense amount to
legal evidence, but you or the one of
your number called upon who has the
original refused to even furnish me the
names Of the nine reputable citizens,
or the names Of the men whom you say
drank in the alleged liquor joints.
Why has your zeal in this matter been
SO aroused just at this time? Why
did you not present this information
to the last grand jury, where you
would have been protected by its Sc
crecy, and where you could put me to
the test? This whole matter on your
part will appear to the average voter
as a game of bluff for political pur-
poses.
You do not say there are slot ma
chimes at Melbourne or Laurel but do
say might go there and see for my
self as some OF you have
done. If you have seen them,
and know they are running,
why should / go? Bring me the in
formation you have, and if it is legal
evidence you may be sure I will make
use of 1t, or is the evidence you have
like your next suggestion. You say,
"You might trace the one sold the 9TH
er day by Robertson & Strub to a par
ty in Laurel? Who is the party?
What use is made of the slot machine?
Do you call this information legal evil
dence? Yet you say you do not ask
any county attorney to be q. detective
or spy, and then suggest to me that
trace out this slot machine at Lau-
rel Would it not require some de-
tective work or spying around to trace
it to some person in Laurel?
have never claimed, as you state,
that consider it my duty to move
only when crowded into doing so by
private citizens" for there were eight
liquor cases investigated directly by |
the grand jury, and private citizens
have not been taxed with the costs in
liquor prosecutions during my term of |
Office.
II am familiar with section 2446 re-
lating to the nlulct tax, and did advise
the board of supervisors that it might |
be levied Mr.. Jones, of the board,
took the matter in charge, directed the
county auditor to forward blanks to
the assessors in two townships, which
the auditor did. I received letter
from one of the assessors, who asked
for advice, and I informed him that
the assessment should be made, and
the time when it should be made. In
the other case am informed that the
property had been sold after the de-
PENDANTS had been discharged in the H
Justice court and the defendants bond
released. am also informed that the
assessor refused to make the assess
nent on account Of the change of
D
ownership to innocent parties. You
say the board of supervisors called my
attention to these joints and asked me
% levy the mulct tax on them.
hink you are mistaken. They did di-
,ect the assessors to levy the tax, and
am not an assessor and have no
light to levy the mulet tax.
I did get a certified list of retail
liquor sellers holding government per
nits and tried to introduce them in
violence in the cases referred to by
rou, but this list was ruled out by
he court
The mayor of Melbourne did tell me
hat at one time the council licensed
liquor joints, rather accepted money
rom them, and he wanted to know If
hey could license them, and told
i'm that they could not
You say that I saw nine cases of
Ger branded potosi Wisconsin Brew
ag Company. at Clemens last We'd