The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-30
BRANDENBuRG ACQUITTED.

The acqulttai Of BroUghton R~ar.
dcuburg Of the charge of larceny in
Isciling a fraudulent article TO the Now
York Times. docs NOT speak we'll for
the kecnness Of the ideas on NOR.
ality and Justice entertained by the
jury which acquitted him.
Brandenburg offered 10 the Times.
and IN" Times accepted and published.
an article which purportcd TO be n
signed statement from the late Grover
! Cleveland. rs 10 his views Of American
politics and public lifc. containing A
good many expressions like those the
public expected in his time from Mr..
Cleveland The Times bought and
| pad for this article on the ASSUMPTION
that n was n genuine production. that
MIR. Cleveland had in fact written it
and that it was Mr.. Brandenburp : TO
dispose of. II turned uut aftcr;yard rds
that neither Of those things was trnc
so far as ANYTHING genuine from Mr..
cleveland was concerned. Brandenburp
afterwards confessed ms TO the make
up of his production and that he had
compiled if from expressions and talks
ne had with Mr.. Cleveland although
he claImcd that MI Cleveland gave
those talks and expressions with the
understanding that they were to be
printed. This, however is quite n diff
fcrcnt thing from its being an article
written by Mr.. Cleveland ard signed
by himself, as this article bought and
published by the Times purpo-tcd 20
be
ct the Times became suspicious. and
then convinced that 1T had been vic
tmlzed, and that The production il had
bought wss not Mr Clevcland's s. but
Brandenburg :. written by Brandcn
burg himself. Ii began an nvcstigu-
ffon, finally placed the case in tho
hands of the District Attorney Of New
, ork, and warrant was sworn out
against Brandenburg. lie fled, and on
the way, picked up his step son. James |
Shepard Cabanue, in ST. Louis. and |
took him on with MIN 10 California
BrandcnbuTg was arrested 10 Califor. |
MA, and taken back 10 New York for
trial. He insisted that the article
which he sold TO the Times was in
fact signed by Mr.. Cleveland. although
ne admitted that Cleveland had not
written it. Cleveland, be said, had
written certain memoranda, and he had
written out these memoranda on type.
written sheets and submitted them TO
Mr.. Cleveland. He denied. however.
that the signature of Mr.. Cleveland as
produced at the trial was the signature
that Mr.. Cleveland affixed TO the artj.
Gle which he had prepared. If there
was any such signature it was not
produced, and the jury was left to set
lie the question whether Cleveland had
signed any article for Brandenburp.
lheY apparently believed that he had.
md so acquitted Brandcnburg of the
,harge of larceny and imposing upon
he Times. Yet there can be no real
ioubt but he did impose upon the Times,
md ne dld not give that paper what
t supposed IT was buying. It is like.
y that the Jury was confused somewhat
n this matter by the elusive property |
'ight in the article which was in oues.
ION. The like confusion has not been
Unknown elsewhere and the like failure {
o grasp the idea of property as con. I
lected with news and articles used by {
newspapers.
But the outcome is that the article
TO be from Mr. Cleveland
s thoroughly discredited, and no one
low takes any further interest in il.
But it was a clever imitation. it passed :
s genuine without question until Henry {
Natterson of the Louisville Courier.
ournal, by no means an admirer of
'leveland, pointed out suspicious things
bout it. The investigation which was
'ursued led to the arrest and trial
Which has Just ended
NOW that the main question has been