The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-17

nave been completed sometime ago. but
 this service we have been unable to get
 Fees for Deputies.
 seventh. It has come to our knowi. . egde and 1t Is fact before the grand
 jury that the sheriff in open violation
 oL the law. during the recent strike when called upon and appealed to by
 the coal companies for protection of
 their property and the lives of their
 employees, the sheriff charged such conl- panies in excess of a legal and leRiti- mate fee, $I per day for each commits l sion issued. He furnished the deputies to the companies and paid his deputies s2 per day, and in turn forced the com l panies to reimburse him for the serv- fees of such men. @ per day. thereby
 realizing ei per day for each deputy hsheriff so furnished during the continu-
 alton of the strike.
 Not only Is this a fact, but evid. ence shows that the sheriff not being satisfied with this amount of extortion from the companies, forced them to also pay him q peF<day for commissions held by guards employed at such com | panies' plants months and years before l the strike, and who were regularly car- rfed on their pay roll as employees. This sl per day was not exacted from the companies for the guards and employees during the time of peace, but the very moment the strike was declared on, he forced the payment of s1 for each com mission held by their own guards, even though such commissions had been held for months previous to the strike, and no other duties being placed upon the regular guards regularly employed by l tha companies, than those heretofore I performed by them.
 If this is not graft fund, what Is it r 1 s1s 1t proper under the law to extort | from companies amounts which the law does not recognize during strikes? If | not, it appears to us that 1t is of an iril- peachable nature. and we therefore rec-
 ofnmend that such proceedings be insti- tuted ct once.
 "Eighth--There has been some criti-
 cism made by the sheriff upon the grand jury for their failure to inves- | tigate certain cases, which were nol pressed by the solicitor and Judge
 Dan A. Greene, senior judge of the l Criminal Court of this county, and to place ourselves right before the pub | lie. we called upon Judge Samuel l.. Weaver, for further instruction in the | matter, and we were informed by Judge Weaver that the law empow- l cred the solicitor and judge with such authority where they felt t should be
 done for the good of the county, and | that if we saw it, we could use our
 discretion in the matter, but we decid- \ cd that inasmuch as the solicitor and Judge Greene had acted according to their authority, and feeling that it had | appeared to them to be right, we felt l that we could accomplish nothing by
 summoning the witnesses and billing 1 great expense upon the county In these cases. and, therefore, decided to not | go into said cases. We feel that the l solicitor and Judge Green did that which their heart and conscience dic- 1 tated as right at the same time look l ing to the interest of the county.
 Another matter coming before our attention is this: The sheriff under
 takes the criticise the grand jury for 1 their failure to resummon witnesses
 and go over a case once heard and
 determined by the grand jury. In | this case each witness was questioned l closely, and in every instance where 1t developed In the evidence that the
 accused parties were guilty of other 1 crimes than those docketed, the clerk
 of the grand jury was informed to
 docket such cases, which was done. We ask the public what good could 1 have been accomplished In going over and rehashinN this evidence at a great lexpense 10 the county? We did go
 DO far as to have some of the wit
 heBses brought back to feel sure that we had indiote8 under eve~ offense possible. and in each case witness
 testiaed to the fact that he ,.ld previ- ously told theA grand jury all he knew | about the matter, and knew nothing new to testify to. We felt that we
 had done our duty in the matter, and, 1 therefore, for the sake of saving the | county all expense possible, we refused
 to again go into case, where there was nothing new to be developed. Fraud fn Election.
 "Tenth--We have also had brought I to our attention, and 1t is a fact from
 the evidence adduced before us, that the sheriff during his recent race for | the office he now holds, went out into
 the community and solicited young men who had never belonged to a military
 company to accept without being prop | erly elected a member of the, mill tary, certificate stating to the Judges and clerks of election, as well
 as the citizens of the county. that such
 young men we're legally entitled to vote
 in the election, when in reality the
 young men were carried to the had l quarters of Sherih Higdon, where blank 1 certificates had been signed up by I l.. c. Brown. the now chief deputy | shexin of the sheriff, and in companies | which the said Brown was not an of- fcer, and there they were filled in for the different companies adding the
 name of the young men. Is this right? | Ae AAtAi6Ht AVE tue or a county.
 the conservator of the peace, and
 man the people look to for the up- | holding of the laws of the State, to go
 out in a community and entice young
 men to commit crime? For what
 purpose did the sherifH do this. was it for the purpose of illegally gaining of- | flee, or what?
 Nov, in conclusion, we feel that 1t
 Is due the county and the court, as we'll as ourselves, to come before the
 public squarely and fairly however
 much we may regret It. setting ont
 what we believe to be right, and what
 under our oaths as grand jurors we 1 endeavored to do, but for the action
 of the following grand jurors: Stew
 art, F. B. Daniels, Allen. Goine. Rev | holds. Vann, and Laird.
 We respectfully submit to vour
 honor this our report and for the
 above causes set out. we say that inc
 shertff ought to be removed from of nce, and impeachment proceedings in.
 stituted for that purpose at once. as
 provided by law.
 (Signed)
 atC rs,,an.