Cresco plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1913-1945, 1914-07-24
Shielding the Game WdrdenS.

| ~Ss'S'
The Decorah Journal and Ricevi.le
Recorder are doing their best to con.
vince their readers that the recent case
against game warden Lake was with
out foundation, doing it to shield the
Game Wardens residing in their towns
who were associated with Lake in doing
the seinlng. ...
In the first place, the action was not,
as might be supposed from the articles.
brought for the sale of the fish, but
for illegal seining. The game laws
provide for such seining as the Wardens
we're doing, but provides that all fish
must be placed in a stream again,
making no provision whatever for any
fish that might be injured. The
''ishy" part of the defense of the
game wardens in this matter was the
date of the receipt from the fish com.
mission for 35c-the price of the fish
nearly month after tie seining.
However, the law supposes no fish will
be injured and does not provide for the
disposal of any such
Concerning the stand of DR.. Robert.
son, it is true that he endeavored to
have the case dismissed one day
previous to the day first set for the
trial. Mr.. St. John, of Riceville, and
Mr.. Lake came to Cresco and DR.. Rob.
ertson was called to the court house
where in the Office of the Clerk of the
Court he met Mr. St. John. Follow.
ing this meeting, DR.. Robertson wanted
to withdraw the charge and so notified
all concerned except the County Attor.
ney, who. although in town, was not
called into consultation or notified of
the matter in any way. The state.
ment in the Riceville Recorder that
''Dc. Robertson telephoned the County
Attorney recall Of the information"
is very far from the truth.
Mr.. Lake was notified to appear at
later date and came without witnesses,
and the County Attorney gave him
more time to provide witnesses and set
the date for July 7th, when he appeared
with the deputies sent to assist him by
Mr.. St. John, who was also present.
The testimony of Dr. Robertson and
his supporting witnesses was directly
contradicted by the game wardens
who were "all in the same boat as
far as guilt was concerned, although a.
letter placed in evidence by the defense
clearly established that the work was
in charge of MIR. Lake. AS to whether
or not the fish was injured, we would
take the evidence of the witnesses for
the pros ecution that it was uninjured
in preference to that of the game
wardens whose only loop.hole~ was to
establish that the fish was injured. If
DR.. Robertson at one time favored
withdrawal of the case, he changed his
mind at the time of the trial and
believed that the testimony drawn out
by the County Attorney established the
guilt of the game wardens, if his
interest in the success of the prosecu-
tion is any irdex. That Mr.. Lake was
the only defendant was due solely to
the fact that Dr.. Robertson did not
know that Mr.. Lakes assistants were
also game wardens, 80 his complaint to
the County Attorney was filed against
Lake alone.
No matter what the court entry in
the case may read, those who heard
the case believe that had the case been
tried to jury, under instructions from a
judge, that verdict of guilty would
have been returned. The evidence
brought out was much stronger than
anyone connected with the case antici.
pated. '#