Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1920-02-03

Tho dlsirs Of Alf1oat every hAws.
paper IL to extend the couftesy gf its
columns to those Of its readers who
Wish 70 express their opinions on
matters Of current interest, and do 50
within reasonable space limits and in
conformity with the ruies Of good
taste. Usually communications which,
Tor any reason, are found not accep'-
table, are quietly rejected, and the
public knows nothing about them.
The Herald received q seod many
letters which it publishes, and some
which it does not publish. One Of the
latter class merits = passing reference.
The intent OF the writer is undoubted-
~ excellent but his method is not
well chosen.
The first part of the letter deals
with the subject OF splitting in public.
i subject concering which there is
room Tor but N opinion. and the
correspondent denounced the prac-
tice in vigorous language such as
would meet the approval Of nearly
every reader. But Inc correspon-
dent goes a step farther, and men
lions specific instances of violation
which he has Witnessed or of which
he has been credibly Informed.
offences he cay have been
committed by "a certain person.. OF
in certain" business places. The
effect of the publication Of such
charges would be to place under sus-
picion every member OF the group
10 which this particular person be-
longs, N every business place Of
the class described. A grave injus-
tice would thus be lone to \ large
number Of quite innocent and worthy
people. Obviously, when an indirid-
ual has personal knowledge of the
flasrant and offensive violation OF
n of the ordinary rules OF health
and decency. his business is with the
policy authorities, and not with the
newspaper <3s sa|
The second feature Of the letter
not at all related to the first, deals
with the recent murder case in which
the negro, Smith, was sentenced or
his own confession to life imprison'
ment, the greatest penalty permitted
under the laws of Minnesota. The
correspondent objects to the liberia.
ton of Thomas, who vas arrested or
suspicion of being implicated in the
crime. and whom the writer holds
equally guilty with Smith. In this
the correspondent labors under ar
impression which seems, also, tt
exist elsewhere, namely, that Thomas
was the companion Of Smith on the
night Of the murder ana was present
when it occurred. Nothing. OF the
sort is true. The only statement
yer made which tended to connect
Thomas in any way with the crime
was that, made by Smith after his
arrest when he sought to devert sus-
picion from himself by accusing
another man. That statement was
subsequently Withdrawn by Smith,
who confessed that he alone commit
ted the crime, and declared that no
other person a present with him
or had knowledge Of it. Further, the
account given by Thomas Of his move
ments on that night. which was
carefully checked and verified by
disinterested parties, showed that
Thomas could not possibly have
been present at the scene Of the
crime, and the man was fully and
completely ~e1onerated. @
1t is unfortunate that the false
statement Of q. frightened murderer
seeking to save his own life should
cast any cloud on the reputation OF
an innocent man who was not oven
remotely connected with the crime.