Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1913-03-28

and witnesses, etc, and to the best OF
our ability we worked on them. You
cited laws applicable. as you thought,
70 the cases on which you had gathe-
red testimony, but the testimony you
had and the evidence We obtained from
Witnesses sworn TO tell the truth was
OF a very different character, but If
respective OF our knowledge acquired
from witnesses under oath, in order
TO justify yourselves, you eriticise the
grand jury.
SHOW LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
You also belittle the indictments
found against the sheriff as being mere
misdemeanors. II you make this state
ment on your own knowledge I suggest
that you consult your attorney, and
If this statement is made on his ad.
vice. then venture the assertion that
he Is not a safe advisor, and 70 bear
me out l refer you TO section 80, chap
ter 80, Illinois statutes. You say YOU
do not desire TO prejudice the outcome
on these indictments, but I hold that
is juH what Sou are doing, or else
you are not aware Of the significance
OF the charges found In these indict-
ments.
According TO the statutes, IL this
man is convicted on only IS OF these
indictments he would be subject TO
imprisonment for $50 years in the pen
Tertiary. This ought to satisfy the
most exacting citizen IN the county.
You say. "If these indictments were
justified, and the facts therein charg-
ed be true. then. in our Judgment
other and more serious charges could
and should have been made"
Replying TO this will say that you
safeguard yourselves by saying "in
our judgment" as you had no access 10
the evidence taken by the grand jury
you were therefore in no position to
judge as to what kind Of indictments
should or could be found
HITS BOARD HEAD.
You say, 1T Is inconceivable to Is
that such Wholesale official miscon-
duct, as charged in the indictments,
could have been praodced in the sher-
in's Office without involving others"
You do not state whom you expected
It TO involve Can you say there is
anything in the testimony your com
miutee took that would even indict the
sheriff? l would say that If you are
surprised that the grand jury did not
indict other county officers. there are
others, outside Of your committee and
outside Of the board of supervisors,
who are also surprised. Many are
the EXPLANATIONS OF surprise that have
come to members Of the grand jury as
70 why We did not indict George II.
Richmond for selling supplies to the
county; why we did not indict Mr..
Wright and Mr. Sleight. as the county
clerks books show they were ali paid
money for services or for goods furn-
ished the county while they were men,
bers Of the county board, which is
contrary to law. Perhaps these and
other mem bers OF the board are the
ones you thought would be indicted?
MORE INCONSISTENCIES.
Again you say, We are clearly Of
the opinion that this investigation
should be continued and vigorous pros
ecutions be made and yet when the
states attorney goes before your body
and asks for an appropriation TO pay
for an assistant to help in the prose
cution you practically turn II down,
or at least defer the matter. He made
a request strictly in keeping with the
law and you turned It down, and on
the other hand you appropriated 81, 900
TO hire special states attorneys of
your own selection. which is contrary
to law, and then YOU say you gave all
the assistance in your power to the
states attorney. Unfortunately your
actions speak louder than words. AS
to your assistance to the states at
torney, I make this statement without
fear OF contradiction that uaver sau