Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-04
.FREDERICKS DENIES
CHARGES OF WOOLWINE
District Attorney Makes General
Reply and Says He Will
ParticuIarize Later

The Herald has received from Dis
trict Attorney j. D. Fredericks an ar
ticle in which he denies in genera
terms the charges hurled at him Fri
day night by Thomas Lee WoolWine
but declines to supply at this time
bill of particulars. MI. Frederick
says that he is too busy now and tha
he will not answer Mr.. Woolwine'
charges in detail until he has hear
them all. His letter follows:
You have asked me to reply to
the address of my opponent made
last Friday evening"
This office is too busy with
matter of much greater Importance
to the public than this to devote
great deal of time or energy to such
subjects now. The question of
choosing a district attorney is one
with which the public must wrestle
and be responsible for. A man is
known by what he has done and
stood for during all the days and
weeks and months and years-not
by what personal and political enc
mics may say of him in campaign
times for their own selfish ends.
1 do not intend to embitter my life
by entering into prolonged per-
sonal controversy with man
whose whole nature is reeking with
the venom of malice, whose at
tacks are born of personal animos-
ity and vain ambition for political
aggrandizement. In his address OF
last Friday evening he showed
such an absolute disregard of the
facts-especially in regard to the
King case-that any reply would
be futile except a fuller statement
of the real facts and circumstances
of that case than is possible at the
present time.
CASE WAS CIVIL ONE
The case was 6 civil case, not a
criminal one. These facts | Will
give at the proper time. My asso-
ciates in that case were Gage and ,
Foley, and my opponent was Jo-
seph Scott, president of the cham
ber of commerce. All the transact
tions were in the open, recorded in
the courts, discussed in the news
papers, and if they would bear the
construction attempted to be given
now they certainly would have
borne 1t then. And at that very
time l was q candidate in a cam
paign for reelection. 1t was just
four years ago. Every feature OF
Ilo case was QtSCuSSeu openly III
the courts, passed before the eyes
of the judge and was absolutely
proper and honorable in every de-
tail. 1t was a plain, ordinary civil
case for the breaking of will. 1t
affected the validity rather than
the authenticity of any document.
It was absolutely impossible to
make a criminal case. This would
be apparent to any lawyer familiar
with criminal law, and the differ
ence between the proof necessary
in a criminal case and that suffi-
cient in a civil case. The integrity
of the counsel associated with me
and opposed to me, the publicity of
the whole matter at the time, the
thorough insight into it by the
courts as it passed through are GER
tainly a guarantee of proper con-
duct.
will not at this time go into the
facts further, but in that regard
will say that when this man has
entirely finished his TRADE I will
fully state to the public the exact
facts in each case, but 1 do not in
tend to indulge in a continuous
vaudeville performance or take two
bites to a cherry.
Woolwine has said he has other
charges to make. Very well, when
he has filed them all will answer
fully, and 1 know that the public
will be satisfied.