Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-04-02
CHIEF COUNSEL IN RATh6UN
PARDON INQUIRY THREAT
EMS TO QUIT CASE.
REsENTs BEING cURsEo
IN HIS QUESTIONING
Kinda, Former Assistant 10 Asvner,
Defends Proceedings Under Which
indictments Against Rathbun's Rel
atlves ard Attorney Were ouashsd
Senior Rathbun On Stand.

Des Noines. April Examination or
James W. Kindig, former assistant at
torney general. ny Chief Counsel BY
ers before the Rathbun pardon inVes-
tigation committee last evening devel-
oped in a hot joint debate in which the
opinion seemed 10 he that Byers came
off second best.
Byers went after Kindig hammer
and tongs In a series Of questions haN-
ing in view the 80 ming OF an admis-
sion from Kindig that a violation OF
the law had been committed by the
attorney general and himself in con-
rectiCn with the revocation Of the
pardon a; Ida Grove
Kindis emphaticaly i, denied that
there had been any violation Of the
law, and disputed legal points with
Byers for more than an hour.
Kindig maintained that tn" indict-
ments voted at Ida Grove were Q. no
value al least until they were returned
in open court ard further stated that
in mis- opinion tl,ere was not enough
evidence available to convict upon
them
Not Enough to Convict.
His examination on this point was
conducted by Chairman Harrington as
follows.
Q-Do yoa believe there vas suf-
ricient evidence 10 convict on the in
dictments voted by the grand jury?
Al DO not believe there was SAT-
ticient evidence TO convict Clark. There
il a doubt about the vsnirc. II any
bribery was committed il was prob
ably IN Des Moincs rather than Ida
Grove As to pc@jcTv. there was no
competent evidence TO show that
Clark had drawn the affidavit signed
b. Ernest Rathbun. Then again the
only evidence obtainaSIe against Clark
was that Of CO. couspiration- which
must he corroborated 10 gain a con-
viction. l thought diHDaru.enJ was the
way 10 reach nsn. AS 10 the evidence
against the Rathbuns Il is barely pos
sible We might have gotten by a court
without a directed verdict.
Q-As a prosecuting attorney. what
do you know OF the practice of grant
ing immunity 10 sorns person that may
be prosecuted IN order TO insure con-
victiun of another?
Alt Is done regularly and be-
heve is a. recognized practice OF long
standing, and iusthlahle in many in
sta noes.
Many Similar Cases
Mr.. Kindig cited A large number OF
cases TO prove that the granting Of
immunity for testimony OF agreements
TO aid IN convictions Of others was
general. He cited cases in Sioux City
and referred to Judge Lands action
last week in requiring stock statesmen
TO disgorge under threat of indict-
menf.
Q-What was the status Of the in
cictments drawn up at Ida Grove at
the time they were abandoned?
A--They had no standing at all un-
I'll they were returned to court.
Clark of Linn county. then asked
Kndig whether or not he did not be-
heye a wrong had been done when
Ernest Rarhbun was permitted TO go
70 the penitentiary for life while his
attorney was allowed to go free.
Got Only His Dues.
Kindig declared emphaticaIly in re-
Spouse that SO far as gRathbun was
concerned he got just what was COM
ing to him.
Z knew that he had raped this girl
IN most outrageous manner "a id
kinjig II knew that he raped several
other young girls who were ashamed
TO appear in court and tell their story
against him knew that he was guilty
Of larceny and that he belonged in
the penitentiary, and that's where we
put him"
Then came a pitched battle between
Kndig and Byers which followed a
question by Byers asking whether 1t
wasn't true that the indictments had
been deliberately traded and dismissed
as part of an Illegal bargain.
"ThEt's absolutely untrue" Kindig
responded. You had no indictments to
dismiss. for the indictments were not
in existence until they were turned
over to the court"
When Byers placed a Hypothetical
question to Kindig purporting to pre-
sent 2, situation analogous to that of
the pardon revocation. Chairman Tim
Harrington precipitated g. heated dec
laration 10 the committee by Byers.
8yers to Quit.
Ct think that question is unfair be-
cause you are assuring facts which
have no substantial foundation in The
testimony" Harrington interjected.
Byers Immediately rose and made
,ts dec!e raticn 70 the oon.Inittae:
'If I am going to continue this ex-
animation l must examine witnesses
in my own way. It has been adver-
tised thru the newspapers that
am not to he permitted to go to the
bottom of this case in the manner
desire. am going to the bottom. and
+ am going to decline to have anything
further to do with it unless I am al
lowed to follow my own methods In
the examination Of witnesses. There
seems to be a disposition here to favor
this witness for some reason or other.
Byefs declaration did not serve to
entirely quell the troubled waters
however. as he and Kindig continued
sparrfng for another hour.
Kindig fatty denied every question
BY Byers tending to show that there
had been any illegal act in connection
with the pardon's revocation.
Byers examined Kindig a. to fis
declaration that the pardon could not
have been set aside on ground Of fraud
unless the governor admitted that he
had been deceived.