Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-08-02
ELTON MAKES
AN ANSWER TO
new CHARGES
Replies to Communication
by Watkins in This
Mornings Herald.

States Attorney T. B. Elton. when
interviewed concerning the statement
OFF. L. Watkins published Tuesday,
said:
Sn.My attention has been called to
SUPERINTENDENT Of the North Dakota
enforcement league, in reply to my
charge that he had done me a great
injustice in his previous statement
made in the public press, in which he
said he had written me concerning
the local situation with reference to
the East Grand Forks Brewery, telling
me what / could do, and that he had
received no favorable reply. Mr.. Wat
kins' latest statement is noticeable for
Its failure to answer my denial that
he had written me at all concerning
the matter, and therefore, by his ST.
! lence he admits that he had no corre-
spondence with me on the subject.
"Mr. Watkins makes a further mis-
statement when he says that I nave
admitted that I knew Mr.. Mc1nerney
wa delivering beer in Grand Forks
q collecting money for 1t here. l
have never known and do not now
Know that such has been the fact. /
knew that beer mad been delivered,
and notified the brewery officials that
. deliveries by them must stop or prose-
BUTTONS would follow. I had Deputy
Sheriff Sorbo go out upon the streets
e ascertain If deliveries were still be-
ing made, and, If so, to report the
street number together with the name
of persons receiving anne If Known,
with the intention Of bringing such
persons in on States Attorneys sub
poenaes to ascertain the exact facts
with reference to the situation; where,
how and to whom orders were given;
~ 49, 80 "a
ever, after several days OF search the
deputy sheriff informed me that the
wagons were not on the streets. In
short, delivery Of beer by the brewery
was stopped by me o the middle
Of March quietly and without the ex-
pense Of involved legal proceedings to
Grand Forks county. Nc reply Is
therefore necessary to the false and
unjust ~insinuation In Mr.. Watkins last
statement that I had knowledge that
beer was either sold OF delivered by
the brewery in this city up to the time
efSthe so-called raid.
NJ Two bone dry laws went into eff
feet July l.; M a state statute, the
4 other a federal law. The state law
does not make the bringing into the
state of liquor Except as the agent Of
another) a crime unless same is to
be used in violation of law or for sale
II ~ ~ \ Jazz eoos W oNoS
Anidon. the federal law makes the
bringing into the state Of liquor for
any purpose a crime. It is not my
duty, and / lave no jurisdiction to en-
force the federal law, but I a sub
Knitted evidence of such violations to
the Office Of the United States District
Attorney. Neither is 1t my duty, nor
have I any jurisdiction to prosecute
violations OF law in the state of Min
rosetta. where the brewery is located,
and where the beer was delivered to
purchasers.
"Mr. Watkins In his recent state
ments suggests that the authorities Of
this city and county could have OBJ
tanned the evidence in twenty-four
hours andmade their action unneces-
Gary. Contrast this with the very fair
statement made by Attorney General
Hanger, as attributed to him by Mr..
Watkins assistant, Mr.. Finwall, In q
signed statement published In the Nor
manden, that he was glad that the au-
thorfties of two states and the federal
! government could cooperate to sup
press a system and methods of viola
1 Hon OF law altogether too complicated
Tor a single official to control. The
fact that concerted action by all three
authorities. in addition to the En-
forcement league, was deemed neces-
sary indicates who is right-Mr.
LANCER or Mr.. Watkins.
2"It is hoped that further discussion
will be unnecessary. I do not COM
with the brewery raid, but I do most
strenuously object to misstatements OF
fact regarding my official acts and at
titnde. All I ask from Mr.. Watkins is
+. B. ELTON.