Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-11-25
Z. n. z. bOAfsD-I.A->
Northup Writes One Too.


columns Of your paper "Wednesday
evening in commenting upon the case
OF the. United States VS.. Ingledue ,et al.
you made 1t appear that 1t was upon
nv advice as city solicitor that u. II.
InEledue, mayor, acted with reference
to the refusing Of bonds and the com
mittment to Jail Of Mr.. Won Vert ct
al, Such was not the case and Your
Mr.. NIoscrip was present In court ana
heard every word of testimony ana
knows that I took no part in advising
the mayor. and the only question 1
asked was q question put to Mr.. HUI
ber who was acting as attorney for Mt
Van Vert, ct al, "if he claimed that
federal officers were immune from ar
rest under any and all circumstances.
and he answered, ''they were not.
Judge Mcpherson In stating his opln-
ion commented upon the presence OF
Mr. Huber, county attorney OF rama
county; ]. II. Egermayer. county attor-
ney of Marshall county: Mr.. Board
man. the personal advisor OF the
mayor, and myself, and that We SEEM
cd to be in harmony in the opinion that
federal officers were liable to prosecu-
ton. and he further stated that no
criticism should attach to the attorneys
| for such view inasmuch as the supreme
court of the state Of Iowa was OF the
same opinion and had SO decided. he
stated that such opinion in his judg-
ment was not good law If the federal
officer was engaged in the performance
of his duty as such. In fairness to my
self you should have stated the facts
and you should have further made ut
clear that at the time I had no means
OF knowing what had taken place. You
had a reporter present at the confer
ence in the mayors office as we'll as
during the entire trial OF this case and
knew that was in no way responsible
for the advice given the mayor or
which he followed in OBTAINING the
prisoners. ask you to make this cor
rection in accordance with the facts,
giving the article the same prominence
as the article of Wednesday evening.
f. f. NORTHUP.
| A Labyrinth Of Advice.
! Upon this subject of who did anC
who did not give advice the advice OF
the editor of the T.-R. to Mr.. Board
man is to keep his money for the cor
rection which he asks is technically il
accordance with the facts. Mayor In
gledue testified under Mr.. Boardman':
direct examination and did "endeavol
to establish that he had been advised
ny Egernayer. Huber and Nor.hup.'
II was so reported to the T.-R. in note:
at Il very late hour in the day. Th,
!managing editor Of the T.-R.. whom
! MIR. Eoardman suspects, was not in thu
! office when the article was published
but the local editor who prepared thu
copy in the confusion of other evidence
| got Boardman's name in as 1ngledue':
| advisor because 1t seemed entirel!
| consistent with the facts in the case
He did not see that 1ngledue was zen.
,deayorine to establish that he had beer
| advised by Egermayer, Northup ant
Huber" And from MIR. Northup's let.
ter it would seem that there is room
for confusion as to whether Ingledu'
got his advice from his persona
counsel" or from others. :,
! Mr.. Moscrip, who was present at thu
mayors court scene and consequent,
subpoenaed as q witness In the fedora
court. explains that while Mr.. Board
mans correction as to lnSledues testi
mony is justified and in accordance
with Moscrip's report, yet Boardmar
misstates the evidence himself when h,
saws that Egernayer wanted" to pros
ecute the men or that either county at
torney "admitted" that the officer'
| had no right to commit the ofTense'
charged in the information" AS to Mr.
Northup, Moscrip says that the article
was published as sent and was writer
substantially as spoken by the Judge
altho Moscrip Thought at the time
/ Judge Mcpherson criticised Northul
! by name for wrongly advising Ingledu,
that Northup had been made the victim
! OF Ingledue's testimony under Board
mans examination. He adds, however
81 have never attempted to try TIL
case in anything have written. blu
the assumption that Messrs E0ormaye
'tand Northup are responsible FOL. th