The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-09-15
Of money out Of n. treasury q y

A grand jury was assembled and
returned the indictments now pending.
The policy OF government Is that the
members of a grand jury shall be dis
interested honorable and above re-
proach: that the representatives. Of
the government before the grand jury
shall seek to exert no influence or
coercion.
But what do we find?
The grand jury, one postmaster,
In his qualifying statement he secret
ed that fact from the defendants. AL
though II was at the time well known
to the district attorney and by him
secreted
Another one. recent postmaster,
who had defaulted in his accounts;
his bondsmen had been held for the
money and the district attorney was
still contemplating criminal prosecu-
tion for the default. and as proven
by his statement to honorable wit
nesses. the district attorney called him
aside advised him that his own prose-
cution was still under consideration
and his support OF the government
would be his best policy.
one of the grand jurors with an ap-
plication pending for appointment to
a subordinate federal office reliable
witnesses testify that he was told BY
the government representatives at
tending the grand jury to stand by
secure that appointment or one equally
as good As told by the government
representatives. and within ten days,
he receiced an appointment In the
held that appointment for sew
eral weeks until our plea to abate
the indictments set forth this charge,
when he was temporarily suspended,
ment when the trouble blows over.
These are few OF the complaints
we have made against the practice OF
the government and the misconduct OF
vsxh many others equally heinous.
were presented to the court by our
plea in abatement to which plea the
government attorneys. without deny
ing the facts-in legal effect al
lowing them to stand-took pro.
lection behind their claim that
the sanctity of the grand jury
proceedings was such that they were
closed against investigation and with
this protection against uncoyering
today as a stickler for technical law
rather than official integrity The
fact that when demanded the courts
have no escape from applying ths
for the dignity of justice OF other
federal officials and agents, who
would so abuse the powers of gov
ernment and for their protection from
public censure demanding the strict
letter of the law left the court no 9TH
er alternative and therefore, our so
mission of these facts to the Uni(Sd
States senate by order of that hon
orable body an investigation was un-
dertaken and is now pending. Yet
Colonel Roosevelt says friend and foe
must be prosecuted alika Let us
see. Read the indictment under which
l stand today. 1t speaks for itself.
Among other things II says that
Charles N Haskell, II. NJ. Daugherty
,and others) entered into conspiracy
to secure certain lots in the town OF
o a N q
wherever 1t was necessary to charge
Haskell with conspiracy, Daugherty
was likewise charged with consplr-
acy, and the overt act of which the
charge that Daugherty had decided
lot to Haskell as trustee for another.
but the amazement comes when. nav
ing coupled Haskell and Daugherty
until the concluding paragraph; when
behold Daugherty is dropped flat
from the Indictment.
Justice to Daugherty here requires
me to say that so far as l know him
he is an honorable man; had no
transactions In any way to his dis.
credit, and yet who Is Daugherty and
why the difference between Haskell
and Daugherty? The indictment makes
no distinction in all its charges.
But Dausherty is prominent Re-
publican lawyer of Columbus, ohio.
He was a delegate of the Roosevelt
element IN tne
tNo years ago. He aided In the
drawing of their national platform,
1t was Mr. Daugherty who, when that
platform was before the convention
distinct amendments to the platform
offered by Senator La Toilette OF WIS
consin.
In short. the distinction was that
Daugherty aided in the drawing OF
the Chicago platform. while Haskell
aided in drafting the Denver platform
and therefore. the language OF the
indictment itself warrants no distinc-
ton between Haskell and Daugherty.
and we would like to inquire, as In
the case of Paul Morton. do friends
and foes of Colonel Roosevelt share
alike?
am not here speaking OF the mer-
its OF this controversy. The govern
ment has already reduced II to
claim of technical offense of those
who secured lots, and as analyzed by
the special Investigation made by
prominent representatives OF the gov
ernment, who say that Congress was
first to blame for too liberal and
indefinite law, capable OF any con-
struction. and thereafter the repre-.
sentatives of tho interior department
of the government who placed upon u
publicly the construction that all
Schedules followed.
So far a. l am personally concerned
Il is well-known fact in the Creek
Nation that l was developer and
builder of that country. and never
profited from any OF its property or
wealth; that the method OF scheduling
lots of which the government now
complains was openly and honestly
promulgated by the representatives
of the interior department. and was
adopted by thousands of people IN
all towns in the Creek Nation, and II
II was meet that one out OF the mui-
titude should be prosecuted. then y
was certainly meet that dignified ana
pure methods should be employed for
the purpose.
Colonel Roosevelt alone is respon-
sible for everything connected with
this controversy and the men ana
methods employed. 1t was inaugurated
under him ana by men Of his selection
and his men and policies have simply
continued what Roosevelt inaugurated
But aside from all OF this discus
sion we are viewing Colonel Roose-
Welt as he declares himself today. AM
ple facts show us that he has adopted
a new belief in government, In which
he copies all OF the modern principles
OF Oklahoma, and where he goes be-
yond them. as he does In some In
stances he must vouch for the merits
thereof Where he asserts his prin-
ciples to be clean impartial and of the
square deal' nature, other facts here