The Democratic advocate., 1909-12-31
COMMUNICATIONS.

For the Advocate.
December 2Sth, 1909.
Joseph d. Brooks, Esq,
Editor of 'sThe American Sentinel -
Westminster, Maryland.
Dear Sir:
Our attention has been called to
YOUR issue of December oath, 1909,
which contains letter from Mr.. Will
liam H. Bright, Editor of ''The Hamp-
stead Enterprise addressed to you
and bearing date December goth,
1909. In this letter Mr.. Bright makes
unfounded and unwarranted asser-
tions in respect to the disposition OF
the case of the State of Maryland
against William H. Bright for criminal
libel by the entry of nOlle prOSequ1.
We represented the State of Mary
land in the entry of the n0Ile
prcsequi; and at no time did
we or Mr.. Reifsnider see Mr..
Bright, nor have we any personal
acquaintance with him. Mr.. Bright
employed Michael E. Walsh, ESQ.,, to
defend him; Mr.. Walsh represented
him throughout, and the terms upon
which the State was willing to enter
nOlle prOSeQui were stated to Mr..
Walsh The few, but precise and inn
perative conditions to be complied
with by Mr. Bright before the State Of
MARYLAND would consent to the entry
of a nOIIe prOsequi were that Mr..
Bright would make a written retrac-
| ton of the libel, and sign the same
in duplicate so that one would be
filed in the case in Court and the
other would be delivered to Mr.. Reif-
snider. These conditions we're COM
piled with by Mr.. Bright and, with the
consent of the Court, the entry Of
nOIle prOsequi was made by the State.
This ended the case, so far as the
counsel for the State and Mr.. Reif-
snider were concerned, and they
neither desired nor had anything
whatever to do with any of the pub
lications of the newspaper notices OF
the termination of the case.
The statement, however, OF Mr..
Bright's that it was explicitly agreed
between the prosecution and the de-
fence that no publicity should be given
the matter" of the nOlle prOsequ1 is
not true. No such agreement was
ever made. Moreover, M. Bright's
signed retraction was read i'll open
! Court and statement by the State OF
the reasons for the acceptance of the
nOlle prOsequi was made in the pres
ence of Mr.. William Fl. Bright, the
traverser, Michael E. Walsh, ESQ.,,
his counsel, the court officials, the
jurors, members of the bar and those
attending Court. And 1t was only
after all these things were done that
the Court directed the retraction Of
Mr.. Bright to be filed and the nOlle
prOsequi to be entered by the Clerk on
the records. These court records are
the property of the public, open to
the eye of any one, with full right
to be used by any individual or news
paper; and no one has the power to
restrict or impair that right. This
fact is we'll known to every one, and
leaves nothing more to be said.
The only other assertion of Mr..
Bright we care to notice is that he
signed the retraction "only after earn
est and continued solicitation on the
part of the prosecution" This
| statement is wholly at variance with
the facts, and there is no basis for 1T.
Mr.. Walsh was expressly told that
if Mr.. Bright had any idea there was
any foundation for his libellous ar
ticle upon John Milton Reifsnider,
the States Attorney, the State would
not accept a retraction of any kind
from Mr.. Bright but would insist on
the trial of the case. There never
was the slightest deviation from this
position by the counsel for the State.
And when Mr.. Bright made amends
for the publication of the libel by
saying over his own signature II de-
sire to state that it was not the pur-
pose of the article to impute to John
Milton Reifsnider, ESQ.,, any miscon-
4 duct or dereliction of duty a States
Attorney; and find there is no fOun-
datiOn for any such charge" the State
felt that such total disclaimer justi-
fed the entry of the nOlIe prOsequi in
the case against Mr.. Bright.
Yours truly,
J BOND & PARKE