Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1915-current, 1918-07-10
A CHARLIE CHAPLIN LAWSUIT

A CHARLIE CHAPLIN LAWSUIT
Thus far the Independent has refrained from COM
mentg edoray upon the of the State of Nevada
rel John H. Cazier Henry j. Jones and James G.
Gregory although nearly every other paper in the state
has had something say about the either edtoriay
through the news columns Our silence has not arisen
from Partially to either side hestancy in makngI
known how feel about things they progress In these
two matters before the local district court but has rather
had its inception in feeling of neutrality and desire to
ascertain the facts before attempting of the sit
uaton We atter ourselves that have been able to
maintain that neurta equilibrium despite divers and SUM-
dry abs at editorial skin calculated to make howl
prematurely
Matters have to pass in these cases, however,
where we feel that the views which hold the
views of the majority of the taxpayers of this county, and
such entitled to publicity Those sentiments
can be most succnc stated in the little phrase "a Char
lie Chaplin lawsuit"
The cases under discussion have been in court six
months less, and yesterdays decision by JUDGE
Walsh put them right back where they in the begin
ming. In six months of ddlng around the prosecuton
has been Wayaid its laborouS toward results
and waloped in the neck with legal stemwinder that
means another long period of delay before it gets back
into court once more The immediate cause of this set
back not only in opinion but in the opinion of good
of the taxpayers of this county, the grandma
method of attack adopted in the proper If the twol
defendants in the guilty of wrongdoing why n
the of all that holy didn't the attorneys for the
prosecution have them indicted by the grand jury or
bring them to the bar of justice by placing an information
against them and trying them all other accused men
are tried before jury in the criminal COURT The method
presently adopted dubbed in the language of the attor
neys representing the various parties summary pro-
ceeding" Yes is is summary About summary as the
war from the viewpoint of people footing the bills and
awaiting the final outcome The stated
that he adopted the summary proceeding in preference
to grand jury Indictment because there could then be
question as to the validity of the grand jury through the
presence of upon it. The attorney general law
yer enough to know that the supreme would
have sustained that point anyway and probably knew
the time he made the announcement that purely legal
proposition the point would eventually be turned down
was The logical way to try the commissioners was by
criminal action before a jury. From the viewpoint of
both Sides it would to u.s. this was preferable Not
OF would be q
court trying the alone but the jury system would
satisfy the customary method of trying accused
Under the present style Of process against the com
msslonerS the extreme penalty is dismissal from office
they are entitled to consideration than any other
OF mishandng the affairs and the funds of the people
they are being now Viewing it from the stand
law breaker There other statutes that permit of more
adequate punishment than does the statute under which
they are bng prosecuted now Viewing it from the stand
point OF the defendants they entitled to their day ir
court with the presumption of innocence protecting then
until the final verdict to be declared guilty or not guilty
by jury of their peers the former to pay the penalty
in the of the latter to be forever exonerated and
stored to the confidence of their fellow men, This paper
and majority OF the public is not in sympathy with the
constant paradng of this through the mazes of
semciv proceeding that thus far has failed to show the
people of this county whether they properly
we'd by their duly elected officials or otherwise
In conclusion let say that there is plenty of fooc
for thought in this question: Assuming that the defend
ants were maefactors in office and deserving of disms
SAL even of Imprisonment doesn't it that their nests
might be fairly well feathered during the interim il
which counsel are sparrng back and forth on matters
technique? And yet under the method which the attor
neys for the reaor have elected pursue these same
alleged malefactors go merry knocking out the com
plants of the prosecution taking trip down to the SUI
preme court every in awhile and steadily and con
sisenty delaying the trial proper of the charges agans
them all the while continuing in their administration Of
the affairs of the county that is party the proceeding
to GUST them The court is not responsible nor are tho
people, for such situation 1t has its inception solely anC
entirely in the manner of attack selected by the attorneys
for the reator Here is another nice little legal tangle tha
will have to be unraveed progress in these cases is as
slow in the future as in the past: Suppose the commits
soner whose term expires this year again and is re-
that the decision is filed declaring him malefactor ir
office and dsmssing him from that office What would
be the result? He would be dismissed from one Job and