South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1919-03-18

that it is the county prosecutor in
stead Of the police department that
is responsible for the escape of law
viOlators OF their just punishment
.Conccals Real Facts.
He refers TO the case of Edward
Coffey in which the Coffey place was
completely torn out by Kline's men
in defense OF himself and the city
administration, referring to an al
| legged conference with the prose-
cutor in which he says he had TO beg
the prosecutor TO issue a warrant for
the arrest of Coffey. forgetting TO tell
that the prosecutor was first ap-
preached by a policeman who said
that the chief wanted an affidavit
against Coffey.
What evidence have you got
against Coffey?" the prosecutor ask
ed the policeman.
Il don't know answered the Of
ficer.
The prosecutor then called the
chiefs office, but the chief was not
there. Mr. Schwartz then learned
that the chief was in the mayors
office, and he went there, finding the
chief in conversation with Mayor
Carson.
I'VE want an affidavit against
Coffey?" the chief told Mr.. Schwartz.
What evidence have you got?'
inquired the prosecutor.
Don't you want to give US the
affidavit" asked the chief.
Yes. but I would like to know
what the evidence is so that / will
know what 1 am doing" replied Mr..
Schwartz.
Thomas W. Slick, the Carson
Administrations city attorney, was
then called on the telephone. Mr..
Schwartz talked TO him.
why don't you give us a warrant
for the arrest of Coffey?" Slick ask
ed Mr. Schwartz.
What evidence have you got p"
asked Mr.. Schwartz.
We've got something on. 7 saw
some drunken men come out of his
place this morning" answered Slick.
Insisted Upon Evidence.
We'll, sure you can have the
warrant If that is the case replied
Mr.. Schwartz. II suppose you will
be willing to be a witness in the
CASE"
"Tll either be a witness or help
prosecute the case" replied Mr..
Slick over the telephone.
This was last fall, and the warrant
was issued The police conducted a
spectacular raid on the Coffey place.
However. Chief Kline's statement
neglects to tell the details OF this
conversation. His statement also
attempts to defend the chief by tell
ing how many convictions the police
Judge A. r. Anderson in the federal
court in indianapolis, neglecting 10
make plain that all of the defend
ants were without political pull
enough to warrant transformation
of the evidence in their cases.
The chief, in his statement, says
that he could go on for an indefinite
time in relating incidents tended to
show that he is doing his duty but
he ends with the assertion that he
resents implications against himself.
He attempts to defend the police
in the case OF Louis Delfosse,
charged with the unlawful posses
sion of liquor, in which Delfosse
was found not guilty in the city
court. He says that prima facie
evidence had been INTRODUCED by the
police against DelfOss1. hut he fails
10 tell that It was utterly impossible
for the prosecutor 10 bring this be-
fore the court on account of the ap-
parent inability Of the police wit
nesses to testify in either an intel
ligent or convincing manner.
Then the chief forgot 10 include
in his statement relative 10 the Del
fosse incident that =. u. Nemeth, in
stead Of Pros. Schwartz. who at that
time was deputy to Chester r. Mont
gomery. conducted the prosecution
Of Delfosse. The prima facie evil
dence the chief tells about was in
regard TO government retail
liquor license the police testified
they had found in Delfosse's place.
They failed 10 introduce the alleged
government license in evidence. M
Kenneth endeavored 10 induce the
police TO produce the license. which
ut that time was supposed TO be in
Kline's Office. but they did not.