Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1912-02-29

which the farmer must pay for the
drainage of his lands.
Now, it is not fair even to compare
the cost per yard of Number IL Ditch
with the cost per yard of other
bitches in the state, for the reason
in the case of Judicial Ditch Number
IL, the average distance from rail-
road which the contractor must haul
every. gallon of oil, every ton Of coal,
every pound of the immense dredges
and every article Of utensils and sup
plies in the matter of the ditch, is
thirty-five miles, while in case of
those bitches with which comparison
is made, the average haul does not.
exceed three or four miles.
You claim that in a ditch contract
involving about $650,OOO.OO there is a
sum exceeding $42O,OO0oo Of graft.
You offer no proof of this or any 9th
er charge you make, although claim
ing to be in possession Of the proof.
You hide behind a, communication
from an alleged taxpayer, but mas
much as the name of this taxpayer
is not given, we must assume that the
allegations are your own. After your
allegation of possession of proof was
made, the Warren Sheaf demanded
your proof of the statement and in re-
ply you simply say: Eve would like
to ask the sheaf to prove If it cam.
where we have falsifed. 2
This attitude is extremely dishonor-.
able and unfair One Of the earliest
principles of equity and justice, right
dealing and common honesty that our
form of government teaches, is that
when charge of wrong doing is
made, the burden of proving the
charge is upon the person making the
same, and that until that proof is fur
nished, the accused is presumed inno-
cent. In other words, when one per-
son accuses another of wrong, the
simple accusation does not make the
person guilty so that he must defend
himself, but the person making the
accusations must prove the charges.
The Banner seeks to change this rule
and instead of proving it's accu-
5sations by proof, you insist that the
other side must prove the falsity Of
the bare accusations of the Banner
If the plans Of the Banner were fol-
lowed, any person could, by bare
accusation, convict the editor of the
Banner or any of his townsmen of
any crime and thus compel him to
stand convicted Of the crime until he
proves himself innocent.
For instance, if one Of the Warren
papers should charge that the editor
of the Banner before coming to Ar
gyle abused the confidence of friend
and ran away with his friends wife,
the editor of the Banner would under
his own rule, stand convicted and he
must thereupon prove the negative
fact that he is not guilty. A mere
statement of the result of the Ban
ner's course Of dealing is the best ar
gument against it.
The Banner makes charges Of
wrong-doing which necessarily and
impliedly affect the integrity Of the
Judge of the District Court, the Coun-
ty Auditor, the County Attorney, the
members Of the County Board, the
Engineer in charge of the ditch, the
Contractor and the purchaser Of the
bonds, and states that it has the proof
to back the charges as to their crook
|edness, mis-management or dishones-
ty.
The editor of the Banner has nu-
|merous opportunities to present its
proof and secure appropriate action,
while those against whom the charges
are directed, have no opportunity to
ldisprove the charges until the Banner
1offers the proof it claims to possess.
The Banner can present the mat
ter to the Attorney General and un-
der his direction lay it's proof before
the Grand Jury Of the County, and se-
cure punishment of the guilty, if
there are any such.
The Banner can lodge the charges
before the Governor and secure the
appointment Of 4 Commissioner q