Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-12-13

CLAIMS
COUNT CANNOT PASS
ON CHARGES MADE

Boston, Dec. 1.-THE assertion that
the supreme court is without jurisdic-
ton to consider the charges upon
which Attorney General Allen seeks
the removal of District Attorney JOS
eph c. Pe.ietier Of Suffolk, county is
made by Mr.. Pelletier in his answer to
the attorney generals information,
filed in the supreme court late today.
He denies that he has been guilty
OF malfeasance. misfeasance or non
fcasance in office and moves that the
informa ton be dismissed
The district attorney in his answer
maintains that the statute under
which the proceedings were brought,
which gives a majority of the JUS
tees of the supreme court power 20
remove a district attorney for cause,
is unconstitCtional. He says it con-
tlicts with provisions of the State con-
stitution and bill Of rights by tending
to interfere with the freedom of cleo
tons and by ,purporting to give the
judicial department the right to exer-
else powers specifically reserved 10
The legislature by the constitution. He
further asserts that the statute is
against the 14th amendment to the
federal constitution as giving the cour-
power to deprive persons OF their
property without due process of law
and denying the equal protection OF
the laws to persons within the juris-
diction of the state.
Denying the charges against him,
he says hc has conducted himself ii
Office lin rroper and crcditabe man
nor" and that his conduct has been
ratified by Inc people lin four success
s;Vc elections subsequent to the Cleo
ton of 1904" He declared thar at
the last OF these elections he was
chosen by the largest majority ever
given candidate for the Office ovGr
an opponent who had made his c2m-
.. raign on enthusiastically all the
, charges" now being brought by the at
. torncy general.
In ancw1ring the specific charges
the district attorney says that in ever
case mentioned he acted lin accC rdancI
with his best judgment upon the cNi-
dcnce then presented to him He
takes up the different paragraphs OF
the specifications and in each instanI c
asserts that all his conduct with "r.-
erence to the cases in question took
place bcfor, his last reelection in No
venbcr. 1919. and that therefore the
court has no jurisdiction because OF
lot &c l,n oil
legged transactions he has been elected
to said Office and his conduct therein.
ratified by the people of the Suffolk
district"
As to the cases mentioned he says
he is unable to answer because the al
torney general has not furnished him
: with sufficient particulars.
In concluding his answer, tho dis
! trict attorney charges that the accr-
sations brought against him ARE mad2
in pursuanc,: of a conspiracy by divers
persons to !njure, defame and ruin
him.
The charges answered today by Mr..
Pcllcticr arc those in which the attor-
ney general alleged extortion or at
tempted extortion of money or proper
ty by threats of prosecution, rrocur-
ing of indictments that ought not to
| have been procured. failure from i'm
proper motives to prosecute in certaln
cases and permitting persons to use
the distric. attorneys Office in coerc-
ing others to release or settle civil
claims. The answer made no reference
to the second set of charges based
upon alleged utterances of Mr.. Pcli"-
tier in a speech before his withdrawal
as a candidate for mayor.
The case has been set for trial on
December 70