Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1914-10-02

IdoOs ALI CAOO W4o
wears ago.; that was in favor of a Mr..
Harper; in that case he claimed he
wanted a Judgment so as to use. it
as a basis for an action to unearth the
crookedness of the BARRIERS in pre-
ferring creditors. He secured the
Judgment, and nothing has been heard
from it since. In another Harper
case he secured an attachment, and
obtained a lien on. sufficient property
to SATISFY his clients claim for about
So, OOO. 90. 1t developed that his pro-
ceedings were so defective that his
attachment was discharged. the case
was dismissed, and the 100000 claim
was forever lost. He was the at
torney for creditors in the United
States Court in an effort to have Bar
Der adjudged an involuntary BANKRUPT
In that matter he wholly failed. He
was appointed by the court as as
sistant prosecuting attorney in the
attempted criminal prosecution of Ed
Barber; some, four indictments we're
returned by the grand jury, AND on
one of these Barber was brought to
trial. Judge Scott directed a ver-
dict of acquittal, to which the state
excepted. Judge Scott asked Ham
and the prosecuting attorney to take
the case up on error, and have his
ruling passed upon. and If he was
wrong, give the higher courts a
chance to reverse him; this the prose
cutor and Ham failed and refused to
do, but nollied the other indictments
against Barber, and he went free.
Now, in this campaign the prosecutor
publishes a letter in which he excuses
himself for doing this because, as he
says, if Judge Scott had been revers-
ed, it. would have done no good. be-
cause the verdict by direction of the
court was a final acquittal of Barber.
This is true as TO THAT PARTICU-i
LAR CASE, but there were at least
two other indictments pending against
Barber on which he might have been
tried and convicted, if Judge Scott
was wrong, and in which the verdict
in the one case was no bar. Instead
of doing this, MI. Ham seeks to set
himself right with the Barber credi-
tors by insinuating that SOME
BODY has been influenced by the
corrupt use of money. He has never
hesitated to denounce Barber for his
rascality, but declines to name the
person or persons who corruptly took
money, as he claims. The man or
men who did this, if they did, are
worse than Barber ever was, the act
of Barber was honorable beside that
of the man who would sell the inter-
ests of the poor people who lost their
money in that bank. If you, Mr.. Ham
have a decent basis for that insinua-
ton or charge, you will tell the peo-
pie who the ~scoundrels are. If you
do, whether it be a judge or a law
yer, l personally will see that they
get off of the bench as Judge, or out
of the practice as lawyers. You say
in substance, that you hope for the
day when you can HONORABLY tell
us who the person or persons are.
Tell US, will you, how you can
HONORABLY refuse to. tell US
NOW?
Surely you have not been paid to
keep such a secret? Surely you are
not AFRAID to tell us, because, in
the communication published in the
Swanton paper, it is stated that YOU
WILL BE A FEARLESS JUDGE. If
you will make a fearless Judge, it is
because you are a FEARLESS man.
NOW, unless you have no facts war
r~anting you charge, or have been paid
to keep it secret, or are afraid to dis
close the alleged rascality, you GER
tainly will tell the people who the
rascals are, if you do not, it can only
be for one of those reasons, you can
be under no legal or moral obliga-
ton to protect such a scoundrel. Tell
us, did you fail to get your proceed
ings right in the 100000 Harper
case, and lose him that claim because
you did not understand the law? Or
was it because the court was corrupt,
or did you do it to favor the Barber's?
Did you fail to take the necessary
steps to have Judge Scott reversed
in the criminal cases for the reasons
Tmepleton gave in his letter to, the
people, or did you take that course to
protect the Barber's? Did you fail
in the cases in the United States
Court because your proceedings were
not properly prepared, because the
court was corrupt, or was 1t to pro-
tect the Barber's? You know, of
course, you can tell US if you will.
You say in the Republican letter
that you SAW THE COLOR OF
BARRIERS MONEY MORE THAN
ONCE BUT NEVER TOOK ANY OF
1T. Tell us the scoundrel who offered
to corrupt you, if anybody did. Had
any person accused you of selling
out? If not, why do you deny the
charge before it is made against you?
If Barber did this, certainly you
would not hesitate to say so, and if
he did, why have you not long since
LET the nennle know it, Please tell