Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1910-07-28

pie that build cities, schools, colleges
and homes. Summing up he statet
that if these things went on and thu
mayor did not know of them, he wa!
unfit to be mayor.
Taking up the Smoky Row mattel
the attorney stated that the disposi
ton of the criminals from that region
was not by way Of the penitentiarJ
but through the hills and bottoms O
Ottumwa. The same as to the saloor
men on battle row." whom he sale
ply the same business in other parts
of the city. The boys in pool halls
was also treated and the mayor cen
sured with his police for not arrestine
the proprietors under the mino!
clause.
Scores Phillips.
Abiding to the Rem Lane matter he
stated that the mayor himself testi
fed to having had two or three talks
with Lane and that these were enough
to put him on his guard, but that he
did nothing. He stated that the mayor
a minute after he took the oath OF
Office, became partner with these
law breakers.
He alluded to the street flushing
saying:
II don't care what else this testi-
lnony furnished, but one thing that
was proven even by the defendants
own words on the stand, was that he
used vulgar, profane and indecent
language on the public streets and
was thus not a good example to the
young people, and that 1t violated a
city ordinance as we'll. And further is
it not strange that in all Of the
testimony against him in which drink
Ing Is charged, he admits taking
drink"
i Said Took Six Drinks.
In the treatment of the saloon trou-
bic April 30, he said that Gray proved
himself better man, for he had tried
ing to fight and there Is no doubt but
what the liquor was then having It's
effect on the mayor. Recounting the
drinks the mayor is alleged to have
taken according to the different wit
nesses, he stated that no less than
six drinks were taken by the mayor.
He then related the names of the wit
nesses and that much of their testi-
mony as to the trip home with Sheriff
Jackson, saying in conclusion that no
matter what else he was guilty of, he
was intoxicated.
The court then asked If one intoxi-
cation was sufficient, or If it was nee
sssary that habitual drunkenness be
proven.
Once Enough.
To which he was answered that one
was sufficient as in hab
tual drunkenness it would be neces-
;ary to determine how often a man
must get drunk to attain the appella- !
ion of habitual drunkard. He further
stated that the testimony Of the bust
less men who never frequent the sa-
oons and testified that they never saw
he mayor taking drink, was negative
and of little value, but that
he states evidence was positive and
4 weight. Numerous authorities were
tied in the argument for the guidance
t the court among them one in which
ppeal and enactment is treated in the |
ederal courts, case of the Great |
Northern Railway heard under the
.lkins law, wherein the railroad was
harged with taking rebates and
his after the Hepburn law became eff
ective.
Scores ottumwans.
Judge Mitchell began his argument
y going into description of the Cos
on law and making some compari-
ons between it and the code. He told |
T cases tried under it and questioned
as being discriminatory act in that |
permitted the BUSTING from office Of
heriff, county attorney, mayor and |
olice because Of intoxication while the |
ffices of county clerk, auditor, re-
order. ETC., were not thus treated He
aid that the code provided the latter
Ulcers with jury trial and that the
complainant had to give bond for the
osts In bringing such a case to court
he word ''shall'' be removed from Of
ce, he stated is permissible term
nd not mandatory.
The effect Of the act said he,
leaves open for political malisnity
nd spite work those holding the pre-
cribed offices above. They are prey
small and mean creatures who take
n the air OF better than thou milk
nd water reformers. Without any
1ing personal to the gentlemen from
ne attorney generals office, these
len are lending their aid to as des-
crate case as ever cut throat or
suttled ship. I do not speak dispar-
So VI NAcSSiS. ftdIlklIl, DdTneT, BID |
ell and PIERCE when say that as the
eedle points true to the pole, so do
ley point pro bono publico.'
Tolls Of Duties.
Fle then went into the official duties
the mayor at great length and told
the duties of a chief executive, nam
lg the governor and comparing the
titles Of he two. The mayors duty as
criminal laws was explained by
ldge Mitchell who said that the
ayor can act only upon information
led. and that there are class in OF
lmwa who relegate the powers Of fl
g such information to themselves.
it their dutv to keep the
ty free from all evils as they see it..
e said their actions and the case thus
r attempted by the state was to the
feet that the mayor should be des-
IT and enforce the laws himself He
i'd the mayor has no implied powers
1t only from the statutes and he
ad the duties of the mayor from the
ate laws. that the mayor shall be a
of the peace. But" he con-
nued, $50 are the judges of the SUI
'ene, district and superior courts and
ey have the power to suppress dis
der.
The mayor has the power to arrest
view. that is when crime is COM
tilted or aftemnfe6 in his preSence he