The Glenwood post., 1912-01-27
A. J. DICKSON, Editor .aa praprietsr
Saturday, January 81, 1912.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
The Post was quite amused at a re-
cent article in the Rifle Telegram
praising ex-Sheriff Divclbiss for hav
ing turned over to the county treasurer
at the close of his term of office the
sum of 1857. 1.90-about 5000 in excess
of the amount turned over by Sher fl
Jessup for the year 1911. After com
plimenting Mr. Divelbiss on this tinan
cial showing the Telegram says.
And again, during the cam
paign of 1910 some of those who
opposed the election of Mr.. Divel-
bliss to the Office of sheriff,
charged without warrant or reason
that he was responsible for the
calling of grand jury, and fur
thermore, that the attendant cost
was an added and unnecessary
burden to the Taxpayers
As to the above statement the Post
does not care to enter a denial as W.
do not know to what extent Mr.
Divelbiss was charged with the re
sponsibility for the calling of grand
jury, but We are quite willing to state
that if such charge were made against
Mr. Divelbiss it wax certainly with
out warrant or reason.'
The real fact is that If we had .ha |
sheriff or district attorney at that
have been no necessity for calling q
grand jury to investigate the violation
of the Sunday and midnight closing
laws.
I'm this connection it may be
stated that there are lots Of peo-
pie who clamor for law enforce
ment, but if the properly consti-
tuted authorities comply with
such demand and thereby create
an Indebtedness that must be paid
out of the public funds, the afore-
said citizens are first to voice
their criticism
And again we are more than half
willing to agree with the Telegram,
but must first absolve Mr.. Gvebiss
from any disposition or intent to 'com-
ply with such demand until ordered
to do so by papers issued upon orders
of the district Judge
We will not accuse Brother CarIln
of intimating that Divelbiss drew that
grand jury out of sympathy he had for
the enforcement of the law, although
some will no doubt so interpret his ar
ticle. But all who are familiar with
the facts know that the grand jury
was called on petition of some of
the best citizens of this county who
became tired of seeing the laws of the
state ruthlessly violated and this viola.
tion winked at by officers sworn to en-
force the laws, and they know further
that if Divelbss had considered his
obligation to the people and to his
oath no grand jury would have been
necessary. But We quote again from
the Telegram article:
''It too frequently happens dur
ing the excitement of political
campaign that charges are pre-
ferred against some candidate and
then repeated as fact without
further investigation, that are en-
tirely with justification, and thus
it was so far as the calling of the
last grand jury in Garfield county,
but the real facts are that not
only was the cost of the same nil,
as far as the taxpayers as a whole
were concerned, but on December
7, 1910, Sheriff Divelbiss turned
over to the clerk of the district
court @2,5s9.90 in fines collected
as the result of the findings of
that body"
And once more we wish to agree
with the Telegram, to the extent that
as to the calling of grand jury
Sheriff Divelbiss is "not guilty. and
to remind our neighbor that the fact
that after their indictment by the
grand jury on evidence that could not
possibly be combatted the booze selling
lawbreakers walked up without a trial,
plead guilty and handed over $2,5s9.90,
assuming that the figures are correct,
thus showing how easy it would have
been for the sheriff to have forced
these fellows to obey the law or to
have had them fined for disobedience
had he been 50 inclined. And We may
state in closing that his disincination