Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1908-10-01

ant in this case to the cost OF send
ing representative to the County
OF Pennington in pursuance of this
notice to take depositionss When
the attorney general says in his let
ter that he had made arrangements
to try the case on the 2lst, does he
refer to this act of his in requiring
the defen dant to appear at Wall, in
Pennington county, to attend a pre-.
tended examination of witnesses ?
This would be good place for him
to rise and explain.
Another explanation is due from
the attorney general. He charged
in his complaint which has been
exhibited to us, that the Williams
Bros. Lumber company had COM
bined with the Lampert Lumber
company and the Tuthill Lumber
company to form combination or
trust to keep up prices. If this was
true, then of course the Tuthill
Lumber company and the Lampert
Lumber company are equally guilty.
Now will the attorney general, who
claims to have been actuated by
good motives, explain why he
selected the Williams Bros. Lumber
company only as the object OF his
attack? According to his sworn
complaint he was informed and
believes that the other two compan-
les were equally guilty. If so, no
man can deny that it was his duty
equally to prosecute the Lampert
Lumber company and the Tuthill
Lumber company Why has he not
done itH Perhaps the attorney gen.
eral will write another letter to us
in explanation of his discrimination
in this respect. We shall gladly
publish it if he does,
Then, too, this resolution which |
he refers to was passed at the SEES
sion of 1907. Why did he delay
commencing this proceeding for
more than a year, until just before
the primary in the State OF South
Dakota?
If the attorney general denies
that Mr.. Dougherty, his deputy was
here on paivate business on the 10Th
then let him do 80 in another letter;
we can produce the sworn evidence
to show that he was here on business
connected with the firm of Robert
son & Doughterty.
If he again asserts that the attor-
neys for the lumber company ever
asked for continuance in this case,
let him do so in another letter and
we will produce the evidence of the
court records and the officers of the
court to show that no such applica
ton was ever made.
If he again insists that he did
make preparations for the trial of
this case, let him show what he has
done and leave it to the people to
judge whether or not he made any
such preparations.
If he did not serve the notice of
taking dispositions at Wall for the
purpose of embarrassing Mr.. Will
liams and his friends, as we. have
heretofore stated, let him show some
facts which would indicate that he
acted in good faith. Until he does
80 the presumption is all against
him, as evidenced by his failure to
appear at the time and place of TAX
ing the dispositions.
In relation to his charge that we
pretend TO be running republican
newspaper, we say this to the attor-
ney general, that the test of our
is not loyalty to him.
The records which we have examined
and the facts which are undisputed
show conclusively that we were right
IN our inference that this action as
commenced and prosecuted was not
lone in good faith, nor with the
purpose of bringing it to trial. Of
course the attorney general may
low see that it is essential to his {
'wn political standing that he
exhibits some activity in the way of ,
preparing this case for trial, but ifl /
le does Il will be an entire change
i method. All his transactions upl
Q the time the Reporter and
Farmer made the charge against
lin in last weeks issue, have been !
UGH ss 4 indisate an entire Absence I
N his p y Of any conscientious pur-