Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-02-19

VOS.s - sss .S.bNVuN eoy
Who Has Been INDICATED After Thor
oush Probe Of Grand Jury.
order Of court. No grand juror will
talk and the evidence in detail can not
be obtained except as many of the
thirty-f five witnesses subpoenaed in the
prosecution have talked freely on the
streets as to what they testified, and
a large share Of the charges have been
aired in public long before this hear
ing
Immunity.
The old charge that certain sellers
of liquor in the illicit joints about the
county had paid money to their at
torney, to be turned over in part to the
county attorney for immunity was re-
vived and many of the witnesses called
were the same as those who had testi
fled to these charges. Some said they
had paid money to him with the un-
derstanding that they were to have inn
munity and some were not clear on
this point. The county attorneys de-
fense has always been that he had new
er received a cent of illegal money
from the liquor mems attorney and he
showed that the witnesses testifying
had been indicted under his direction.
The attorney maintains that what
money he received was for his legal
services in defending or looking after
the troubles of these men and that
he never let any of it get away from
him. He was subpoenaed.
1t was also charged that when the
county attorney had secured indict-
ments and injunctions against liquor
joints he had neglected to assess the
mulct tax against the properties but
the county attorneys reply is that he
did not know that it was his duty to
do SO until a recent court decision af-
ter which time he had used due dill
gence in the matter and he has the
records in his cases to prove his point
Gifford's Charges.
Mr.. F. II. Clifford has said that
he had paid the county attorney
money for concessions and it has
also been retailed about that Attorneys
Northup and Boardman understood
that this arrangement had been made
by Mr.. Clifford but that they had adj
vised him not to pay the money They
all appeared before the grand jury. A
banker has told it that Mr.. Clifford
once passed his desk in the bank with
a roll of money in his hand which he
remarked was hold-up money and this
banker was subpoenaed Mr.. Eyer
mayors reply to this charge is that he
did not receive one cent from Clifford
or for his dismissal of indictments,
that when he and Mr.. Cosson, special
counsel for the state, had agreed to
the famous injunction DEGREES, they
had also consented to dismiss the In
dictments and that he received only
the fees allowed by law in the injunc-
ton cases and that he had voluntarily
waived his rights to fees in the Grim
inal cases. Mr.. Cosson has always sup
ported Egermayer in this contention
and he with Egermayers partner,
Burnham, were the only two witnesses
used by Egermayer in opposition to
the thirty-five against him.
Paying Burnham.
It was told about while the hearing
was on that Peter Mayer, administrator
for the Bierman estate, had paid $3.50
to Judge Burnham, partner OF the
county attorney, to secure some con-
cession regarding the Bierman saloon
property. When first heard of Mr..
Mayer said to a friend of the county
attorney, that he had never received
any concessions, that when Bierman
died there was some doubt as to the
legal right of the administrator to sell
the saloon in bulk, the administrators
himself not having a saloon keepers
license to sell liquor, and that Judge
Burnnam had been paid $50 for his
services in preparing papers and in
uuirirlS Il &c the !a which finally made
it possible for the administrator to
sell the Bierman saloon property in
bulk to Mr.. Dietrich who had saloon
license Both Mayer and Dietrich ap-
peared before the grand jury at the re-
quest Of the accusers.
McGuire's Charges.
A so-called detective by the name OF
Mcclure appeared before the grand
Jury at his own request. Because OF
his general reputation the attorney
general did not recognize his first re-
quest but he insisted. Mcclure was
once employed by Egermayer to obtain
certain evidence in the north part OF
the county which he was unable to do
so he proceeded to round up evidence
In other parts Of the county, which the
county attorney claimed that he al
ready had. A dispute arose over pay
ing for services when the detective had
accepted employment on terms Of evil
dence or no pay and quarrel ensued.
Mr.. Egermayer has always contended
that he secured indictments against
two Of the joints reported by MCGUIRE
without McGuire's assistance and that
the Mcguire evidence against the State
Center joint once published in the Pro-
h!hittexstst was submitted to grand
jury which refused to indict. Eyer
mayer holds evidence OF .McGuire's pen
itentiary record and insists that the
detective as an accuser is always under
suspicion.