The Oakley herald. [volume] (Oakley, Idaho) 1908-1961, 1910-05-20

Idaho.
Dear Sir.-In view of the vigorous
censure being visited in some
quarters against the County At
torney's and Sheriif's offices by rea
son OF the discharge Friday last OF
David and John Kidd therptofore
held upon charge of horse stealing,
wish simply to state the following
facts.
These men were arrested upon "A
complaint sworn out by Cleveland
oates, charging them with having
stolen horses in Cdssia Comfy be.
longlng to Cleveland Bates. and
they Were lodged in the county iall
ny the Sheriff an Monday May 9th.
Upon the same day, and Immediately
after their arrival here. the County
Attorney telephoned Clevelant
Bates, the complaining witnes !,
notifying him OF the arrest OF the
prisoner, instructng him to get his
witnesses together. consu with the
lnstlce, aud inform the off .ers
when to bring the pris ner oyer
On "Wednesday, May llth, the com
planning witness tetephonel the
Sheriff's Off bh.t eve ything was
ready, and to bring the prisoners
over the following day, expressly
tating that he was ready "to de-
liver the goods, On Thursday.
May 18th, the prisoners were landed
~ Oakley at noon, accompanied by
Deputy Pratt and the County Az
Jorney.
Upon inquiry of the complaining
witness, it developed that his horses
supposedly stolen had reappeared;
and that, If they had been stolen,
the crime h II o.eo com nflted in
Utah and not in Idaho 1t was,
therefore, nppssible to hold the
prisoners legally upon the charge
at all. Yet nevertheless, with the
purpose of securing evidence OF
other possible steaing within the
county, the Officers held these men
without right or warrant until Fri
day, the following day, in the mean
time employing every method pos
slble to lay bod Of something upon
which to issue a complaint
Absolutely nothing could be dis
covered. Every prison whose name
was suggested by the complaining
witness WIS interviewed either in
person or by telephone. and with
the exception of one who refused t.
come to Oakley unless subpoenaed
each and every one d'sav WED
any knowledge whatever Of t b e
prisoners wrong doing And in
toe case of the person who refused
ID come, the complaining witness
himself informed the off :ers wha:
he would swear 20 namely, IN ltters
already ADM tied TO the off ,ers by
the prisoners. in IN ,slv s. al form
lng the basis Of their defense.
Prior to the Arrest of these mcn,
the officers bal been q lietly eu-
It savoring for tea days to get posses.
sion Of evidence to entangIe them,
but not IN IN, woman or child ia
tne county profered any The air
vas rife with b array aud intangible
aud unconnected differences Tuere
was no direct evidence forthcoming
10 any official, Notwithstanding per
sistent inquiry was being made
If there Is ANY blame, anywhere,
in this matter, it tests upon the
recreaut shoulders of the citizen
who in possession of the facts kept
hls mouth shut aud failed to disclose
them.
AS far as the off GERS are con-
cerned, the c )unty Attorney, alone,
is responsible 'or the dismissal Of
he indefensible complaint. JustIc.
Mitchell did his full duty in the mat
ter, and under the law he could
have done nothing else but order
the discharge of the prisoners,
which he did Friday mormng, and
not on Thursday evening as re
ported.
1t must not be forgotten that
these men were held for a crime
committed IA Utah, if committed at
ali; that no complaint has eyer been
ISSUED in Utah therefor, aud that,
even at this writing, no one has
come forward to swear out or uffei
10 swear out against them any
charge OF which our courts have