Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1908-05-26

FIVE SPECIFICALLY
NAM ED
Other Men Quoted to the Effect That
Liquor Vendors Pay ss5 Per Month
to a Lawyer to See That They Are
Not Molestod Unless Citizens Com
plain.

The second chapter of the county at
torney discussion has been issued in
the form of a. reply signed by Messrs.
H. r. Mcmahon, w. H. Jones, VIM. A.
Smith, N. A. Evans, ]. S. McNeel and
d. j. Ferguson, and delivered to Coun-
ty Attorney Egermayer. Each of his
five questions are taken up in their
order and specific reply made, giving
the names and places which he re-
quested. This reply was prepared
Saturday. but
was delivered to
Mr.. Egermayer before published. His
reply will follow very shortly.
Egermayer's question No. / was:
do you know or have reason to be-
lieve that any man in Marshall coun-
ty is selling liquor illegally? II so.
will you furnish any information by
which legal evidence can be had OF
such fact?''
know that there are four and until a
few days ago, five openly conducted
liquor joints One at Laurel, one at
State Center one at Melbourne, one at
Clemens. and until few days ago, one
at Gilman, conducted by men whose
names they give in detail. They prom
Use to furnish Egermayer such evil
dence by men who have been In these
Joints, who have drunk there and who
know it to be beer that they drank"
Question No. p
Do you know any one in the county
operating slot machines or other
gambling devices and if 80 will you
furnish any information that will lead
to legal evidence sufficient to warrant
a prosecution?
AS to the slot machines, you might
go to Melbourne or Laurel and see for
yourself, as part Of the undersigned
have so done, or you might trace the
one sold the other day by Robertson y
Strub to party in Laurel.
Question No. 81
Do you know or have reason to be-
lieve that any attorney of Marshall
town is receiving money from any al
legged liquor joints under promise OF
immunity for prosecution? IT so, Will
YOU give me his name and any evidence
of such fact?
Answer
We do have reason to believe that
an attorney is receiving money from
these liquor joints from such evidence
as follows:
First-They name a resident of Mar
shalltoWn, who they say states that he
formerly lived in Gilman and kept a
LIQUOR joint there. That he ran such
for the period Of six months, last year."
That he paid to certain lawyer,
whose name they give, 'the sum OF
$35 per month for six months. That the
arrangement with this lawyer was that
as long as such an amount was paid,
he would see to it that this mans
place was not molested unless some
citizen filed some information This man
says that he was never molested. He
says that the other joints Of the coun-
ty were paying in the same manner.
The above statements were made 10y
him to nine reputable citizens of Mar
shalltown and Gilman, whose names
we will furnish to you whenever you
need them"
Second-4They give the name of
resident Of Gilman, who they say
Estates that he was running the joint
at Gilman until few days ago. That
he was paying the same lawyer the
sum of $500 per month and he said
that such was paid for protection. That
the arrangement with the lawyer was
that he would see to it that the place
was not harmed unless some citizen
filed information" They claim that
this same resident of Gilman said that
"an the Joints of the county were pay
ing likewise" The above statement by
the Gilman man, they say, was made
to three reputable citizens of Marshall
county, whose names we can furmsh
should you need them"
Third-To question 3.
They give the name of resident OF
Laurel, who, they say, made the
statement that he used to run the
Joint at Laurel. That he paid to par
ties in Marshalltown a certain sum
every month for protection" He stated
that sit was cheaper than paying
dines." The above statement, they
claim, was made by the Laurel man
"to certain reputable citizen OF this
city, whose name can be furnished
when you need 1t"
Fourth.
They state that the son of the above
named Laurel citizen, giving the name
told certain citizen Of this city, whose
name we can furnish, that his father
paid in to certain parties, a certain
sum every month for protection"
Question No. f.
Do YOU want to be understood as
imputing to me as being the authority
for this so-called promise of immuni-
ty. il so will you put such in tangible
form so there can be no evasion?
Question No. g.
If you have no such information ant
do not mean to insinuate that l am
party to any such scheme, will you
withdraw the imputation or at least
explain what you do mean?
Answers to questions four and five
We cast no insinuations. make no in
ferences nor draw any conclusions We
have made no imputations and have
| none to withdraw. Here you have the
evidence. to work on and you have
stated you would do your duty ant
what course you would pursue.
You claim it is your duty to move