Los Angeles herald., 1910-10-22
INVITES 'DTsCLosUKy'

INVITES "DISCLOSURB
"Mr. Fredericks, In the foregoing
quotation from your address, there is
an insinuation that you know some
thing about me which would keep me
from running for office. I therefore
hereby demand Of you, and give you
permission, to make known to the pub
lie any true discreditable thing you
know about me. / also wish to inform
you that 1 am going to give this let
ter to the press for publication, that
the public may know of this demand
on my part, and form it's opinion of you
if you fail to answer after your base
insinuation.
Furthermore, Mr.. Fredericks you
stated that my affidavit relating to
your connection with the Murietta-
Pearl Morton affair,is a 'damnable lie.
1 want to tell you that when you say
that you are either Intentionally ut
tering fa.lsehood or you are suffering
from very bad lapse Of memory. Per-
NIT me to recall to your memory a
visit of mine, together with others, to
your office Just prior to the time filed
those cases In question. DO you not
remember that visit? Do you not re-
member your declaring to us, at that
time, that If a prosecution were
brought against Mr. Murietta Of the
sheriff's office, for renting his premises
to Pearl Morton for purposes of pros
titution, it would get your office and
the sheriff's Office at loggerheads? And
do YOU not remember, at that meet
ing, at getting quite wrathy at Wiley
J. Phillips, and telling him that If he
(Phillips) would attend to his own busi-
ness you would attend to yours, and
that he replied to you, We'll, we want
to know when you will attend to
yours? And do you not remember,
also, saying. just before that meeting
broke up, We'll. it is up to Eddie, he
can prosecute If he wants tor
LAPSE OF MEMORY
Possibly you now, If you were,
when you declared my affidavit to be
a 'damnable lie,' suffering from a lapse
of memory, realize that you were mis-
taken, and that my affidavit is not a
'damnable lie.'
Permit me also to call your atten-
ton, Mr.. Fredericks, that you stated
In the address in question the follow
ing: But this I do know about Mr..
Eddie: After the first Harper grand
jury had adjourned and I was endeav-
oring to keep these houses closed, Mr..
Eddie came to me and asked me to
appoint him as city prosecutor, and l
asked him, What do you think ought
to be done about the redlight district?'
Well he said, I think the district at
torney ought not to meddle with that;
I think it ought to be left to the po-
lice force Well, knew what that
meant at that time, and I knew that
meant that Mr.. Eddie was not the
man I was looking for In the above
statement you have laid yourself badly
open. You know, and everybody else
who was in this city at the time knows,
that long before the first Harper grand
Jury ever assembled or was ever
dreamed of, your power to appoint a
city prosecutor was taken away from
you by the supreme court of this state
in the case of Fleming vs.. Hance, 1913
Cal. 1862. You know that at the time
you mention was assistant city prose-
cutor under appointment from Leslie
r. Hewitt, city attorney Of Los An
geles. You know that Mr.. Leslie R.
Hewitt is the man who would have
made the appointment of city prose-
cutor at that time, and that you would
have had nothing whatever to do with
it. You, therefore, when you said the
above, were Intentionally and ma
liciously fabricating an unqualified
falsehood to injure me-
Respectfully yours,
"GUY EDDIE"