The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1913-09-23
ANO Her CHAPTER
IN BIDDINGER FUSS

Biddinger's attendance at future
trials. may il inquire why you did
not require him, as you had the le-
gal right to do. to give bond for his
personal appearance as witness; and
may I furthet ask. If your desires for
Mr.. Blddinger as witness In the
misdemeanor cases OF Smith and
vanMeter are genuine, why you do
not require Mr.. Biddinger, who was
in consultation with you yesterday
and today, to give bond for his per-
sonal appearance as a witness in
these cases. as you have the right to
DO under sections 1924 and 1925 OF
the code?
beg to further suggest that / am
reliably informed you told the Rev.
erend Smith that you never expected
to try him, and also agreed in the
VanMeter case, as well as in the
Smith case, that they would be con-
tinued from time to time and finally
nollied.
May I further inquire why it was
that when Mr.. vanMeter, and Rev
erend Smith were in the custody OF
the circuit court of Webster county
you did not try their cases then. AS
am informed counsel representing
insisted. when you had Mr.. Bid
dinger, Mr.. vanMeter and Reverend
Smith in court, why did you not try
the cases?
j have never objected 'and do not
object to the state paying Mr.. Bid
dinger a proper compensation"
and although 4 think the amount in
the first instance is too much. and
the precedent ought not to be estab-
lished to allow such, fees to non-res-
ident witnesses, 4 have had no OBJ
lection and do not now have obiec-
lions to Mr.. Biddinger being paid the
same price he charged Colonel Ed
wards, to-wit: $25 per day, or the
same price he offered to testify for
before the legislative bribery com
mittee, to7wit: s25 per day. But
annot, regardless Of what you think,
believe that If his services were OBJ
tanned and were offered at $25 per
day in regard to this. matter, that
you should insist that he be,paid an
additional 1853 per day, or SIS per
day. ii
i am sorry the Burns Detective
Agency, through you, insist on this
exor6itant amount, and am in no
way responsible that they now insist
upon It; and Mr.. Biddinger this
morning stated to reliable people in
the lobby of the Kanawha hotel that
he would not come back unless he
was paid a thousand dollars in ad-
vance, and a thousand dollars each
day for his appearance. Are you in
favor of this? I
To resume, cannot believe Your
favor of the seventeenth instant is in
good faith, for the following rea-
sons:
First: The defendants. were in
custody; your witnesses were pres
ent; you did not insist upon trial.
Second: You have agreed, as Il
am informed, that these two cases
would not be prosecuted.
Third: When Mr.. Biddinger was
in the jurisdiction Of the court, you
did not require him to give bond for
his appearance as witness.
Fourth: Now that Mr.. Biddinger is
in the jurisdiction of the court, ana
in conference with you daily, you do
not assert your legal right to require
him to give bond for his appearance.
Fifth: Although there is legal
difference between US in regard toI
these matters, you do not avail your
self of it, but attempt to harrass and
annoy me by personal destinations
and newspaper notoriety.
Sixth: You insist upon allowing
Mr.. Biddinger. as shown by the cir
cult clerk of Webster county, re-
gardless of the outside claims of you
and the detective agency, SIS day
for actual attendance as a witness,
or $50 a day more than his usual
compensation"
seevnth: You insist on allowing
Mr.. Biddinger $500 in round num-
bers for each time he testified.
Eighth: You. are attempting now
to bolster up your contention for this
tortious allowance when you are
thwarted by this Office. In seeking to,
claim that you are further prevented
from the prosecutions by my acts;
whereas your witness is now in your
control. You had not and do not
now expect to prosecute these misde-
rnaonnr coeae hut ora Frv;no IN