The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-09-23
JUDGE WILKINSON MAKES HOT REPLY ID COMMITTEEMAN
States Marion Rushton Had No Real Foundation for Statements In Regard
 to Hamilton Trial

to Hamilton lrlal
 Declaring the Wilkinson investiga- ton committee of the American Le- zion had no official information that he had made statements attributed to him at the Hamilton trial when they prepared their report Judge Horace c. Wilkinson. lately deposed mem Der of the national executive com mittee of the American Legion for Alabama, issued statement yestec- day in reply to statements made in Montgomery Wednesday by Marion Rushton a member of the committed
 Judge Wilkinson declares that MT Rushtons attention was called to this false" statement before it's publica- ton. He attaches statement from Ralph Quinn, assistant United Sta.ea district attorney, and J. M. Penning- ton, circuit solicitor, declaring that Wilkinson did not deny connection with the articles published in the Marion county newspaper. They both declare they were in court dur ing the proceedings.
 wIkinson's Statement
 Judge Wilkinson's statement fol lows:
 MT. Marion Rushton admits, in the dls.s5ch from Montgomery, that he and his committee did not have any official stenographic repotl of the proceedings at Hamilton. He. there fore, admits for himself and his com mittees that their statement was false when they stated that they did have such report, and that such re- port showed that I made certain re- marks that were made by someone else'
 He now attempts to save his face and the face of his committee by saying, in substance, that he had something just as good which was some kind of an account of the pro- ceedings prepared by an outside stenographer, who had no official standingyA but was employed by out side interests as part of their con tribution to the defense of the guardsmen.
 Court Reporters
 ITO avoid just such disputes as this the legislature has provided for official court reporters, sworn in AS other state officers are sworn in, and paid by the public. Their reports are official, and are required by law to be preserved. If Mir. Rushton can't tell the difference between an off cial stenographic report and some memoranda prepared by an outside stenographer, he had better watch his step in the attorney generals off, flee, or someone will play him for a sucker, to the detriment of the in- terests of the state. If he and his committee can tell the difference. and then Knowingly or carelessly report ed and published something they knew, or could have known, was not true. leave it to the fair public to say what his fate should be.
 Basis for Action
 The committee headed by Rushton charged in their report as a basis for their action, That the official stenographic report of the proceed ings at Hamilton showed that I had denied to the court that I had even seen the articles published in the paper at Hamilton, or that I had anything to do with their prepara ton. This statement by MT. Rush ton and his committee over their sig natures was false, and without any Foundation upon which to rest
 notwithstanding Mr. Rushton's attention was called to this false statement before it's publication. he went to Montgomery paper and in- sisted on it's publishing the libel.
 The committee cannot bolster a false report by misleading affida vit- I publish herewith a statement by MT. Ralph Quinn, assistant U. & >Qstrict attorney. and Mir J. M Pennington, circuit solicitor, who were in the court room every minute of the time, neither of whom hslons to the Legion. which shows how ut teriy false the report of MT. Rush. tons committee was. I challenge the committee to show, that the state ment of Messrs. Quinn and Pennine- ton is not true.
 Not Official
 The committee did not have any official information that I made the statement attributed to me, when they prepared and published their false and libelous report. They ha1 information to the contrary. The press of the entire state reported the proceedings at Hamilton, and all the accounts stated that I admitted my connection with the newspaper arti- cles. instead of attempting to deny it as the committee charged: the com mlttee was not ignorant of that fact
 As to Affidavit
 With reference to the affidavit of John w. Lambert. it is sufficient to say that this stenographer was employed by outside interests and had no official standing I saw him making some notes during the trial, but what kind of report of the pro- ceedings he furnished, if any, I dc not know. One of three things how ever, is true. If the committee cor rectly quoted Lambert's report. he either inaccurately reported the case, and quoted me as making a state ment that was made by someone else, or he incorrectly transcribed his notes. or after his transcrip was pre- pared it was tempered with"
 HORACE c. WILKINSON" Statement by Quinn and Pennington
 We were present during the en- tire proceedings al Hamilton on July 25 and 26, when Horace c. Wilkin- sons connection with the articles published in the Marion county paper was before the court. At no time l. l l