The Julesburg grit-advocate., 1921-10-13
List Of Eighty Jurors
And List of Cases in
Oct. Term Refused
Clerk of District Court of Sedgwick County In
forms Grit-AdvOcate That No Further
Courteses Will Be Extended By
the Court to this Paper.

News ana puDllShlnS the same is our
chief stock in trade, and we are not
going to allow any public official or
officials to put the damper on, just to
satisfy personal grievances, if we can
help ourselves.
| The criticism of the Court by the
Grt-Advocate, referred to by the
Clerk of the District Court of Sedg-
wick county, no doubt was contained
in the article which appeared in a re-
cent issue of this paper, when we pub
lished the facts" relative to the now
famous Walton case. Raymond Wal
ton, confessed automobile thief, was
| sentenced in the district court of
Sedgwck county, along with an ac-
compllce, to term of from one to
three years in the state penitentiary
by Judge II. f. Munson of Sterling.
The auto bandits were taken to the
penitentiary at Canon City few
days later by Sheriff Thunderstorm.
Only short time elapsed until the
sheriff of Sedgwick county received
orders from the Court to 90 to Can
on City and bring Walton back to the
county Jail here.
Soon after Walton was brought
back from the penitentiary, a spec
ial session of district court was held
here, Judge Munson coming here from
Sterling and presiding. At this spe-
cial term of district court, Walton
was re-sentenced to the state reform
atory at Buena Vista, the Court ad-
mitting that an error had been made
in sentencing Walton to the peniten-
tiary on account of his age of twen-
ty years. Following the new SEN
tence to the reformatory, in almost
the same breath, Judge Munson
suspended" the sentence and Walton
was turned loose.
The news of Walton, the confessed
automobile thief, being set free, soon
spread over Julesburg and commun-
lty, and on account of what seemed
like very peculiar circumstances pre-
vailing in the case, there was a feel
ing of indignation among great
many citizens, number of whom
came to the editor of this paper per-
sonally, and requested that we pub
llsh the facts of the case. And that
is Just what we endeavored to do
when we published the article. Up
until this time we have not had sin
gle person tell US that we made any
statement in the Walton article that
did not constitute facts. And furth-
ermore, there have been no explana-
tlons offered, as far as we know, for
the procedure in the Raymond Wal
ton case, on account of Walton having
confessed to being the chief instigat-
or in stealing the Waterman automo-
bile from off the streets of Jules
burg, while Mr. Waterman was at
tending the Hippodrome theatre. And
why Walton was turned loose when d
dozen or more others are now serv-
ing sentences in state institutions for
committing similar very unpopular
crime in this community.
Is there any reason that we per
haps 'criticised' in publishing a plain
statement of facts of the Walton case.
and if the 'shoe fits" all we have to
say is that the officials who may or
may not be ''peeved," will have to
wear it..
Now comes the ultimatum that the
Grlt-Advocate is to be extended no
further courtesies from the Court;
that we are to be denied the news
from the office of the Clerk of the
District Court of Sedgwick county.
all because we Criticised" the court
when we published the facts of a Ger
tam case, or at least admitted to be
such, If silence is factor
We have conducted newspaper for
several years and expect to continue
to do so along lines we see fit for sew
eral more years to come, and We are
not worrying about individuals and
their patronage, when it comes to
giving our readers Legitimate news,
which we believe is due them. As to
the matter of the news of the office
of the Clerk of the District Court of
Sedgwick county being suppressed
from the columns of the Grit-Ad-
VocaEe, we are sure that this condi-
ton Of affairs is only temporary. as
there are laws which govern public
offices, and we will necessarily, as a
newspaper. demand our rights in the
matter