The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1922-05-02
BEN JOHNSON
DISPUTED BY
PHI. MARSHALL
Attorney Takes Issue With
Kentucky Congressman on
Pawnbroker Bill.

corporation counsel today replied to
Congressman Ben johnson OF Ken
lucky, who declared he would resign
II the charges made by him in re-
cent speech on the pawnbrokers
bill are shown to be untrue.
In letter 20 The Times today,
Mr.. Marshall says:
On the 2Sth ult., sent you a
statement concerning charges madc
against me by Congressman John
son OF Kentucky. Doubtless for
lack of space, you did not print my
statement in full, emitting entirely
that part of It in which / set forth
the facts as to what took place be-
tween Police Judge Mullowney, Horn
ing's attorneys and myself. and the
decisions OF the Court of Appeals
authorizing and approving such &C.
ton.
In your issue OF the 30th ult.. Mr..
Johnson requests you TO send re-
liable man to examine my testimony
before the District Committee, TO de-
termine whether l did talk with
Judge Mullowney about the Horning
case, before the information was
Quashed, a fact which / have never
denied, but, on the contrary, stated
before that committee, giving them
the same explanation concerning this
action as contained in the unpub-
lished part OF my statement OF the
2Sth ult.
Propounds Questions.
In view of Mr.. Johnsons desire to
make an issue OF a matter not in
dispute, perhaps he will confess
error as TO the points really in con-
troversy. With this in mind,f re-
quest his reply to the following
questions:
Does he still claim that was
an assistant corporation counsel
when Mr.. Stephens gave his opinion
that Exnicios was violating the
loan shark" law, and that I OBJ
structed the prosecution OF Exnicios?
WAS This done after l had
talked with Judge Mullowny about
Horning?
3-Does ne now claim that I ever
refused a warrant for Exnicios, or
was ever requested to issue one for
him?
docs he claim that I was a
party to a scheme to drive out Horn.
ing and give Exnicios a monopoly OF
the local money.lending business:
6-Has he read the case of Dis
trict of Columbia VS.. Burns, 80 App.
D. c., 203, referred to by me In my
testimony before the District com.
mittee, and also in my statement TO
The Times? II so, does he deny that
therein the Court OF Appeals ex-
pressly suggested the propriety OF
the very thing done by Judge Null.
/ lowry in the Horning case, that Is,
the quashing by him of the informa-
ton?
6-Has he read the decision Of the
Court OF Appeals in District of Co
lumbia VS.. Horning, ~ App. ID. c.,
Alb, in which that court expressly
said that It was the duty OF Judge
Mullowny to quash the information
in Mornings case?
If II was Judge Mullowny's
duty to quash the Horning informal
ton, why does Mr.. johnson charge
me with "collusion." for pointing
out this duty to Judge Mullowny7
S-If Mr.. johnson has not read
these cases, why did he not do so
before charging me with COLLISION.
when I called them to his attention
in 1920?
s-Does Mr.. johnson claim that
helped to convict an innocent man,
although both our Court OF Appeals
and the United States Supreme
guilty according to his own testi-
mony? (See as App. d. c., $50; 204
U. s., 1850.
10-Why did Mr. johnson delay his
charges until April "a. 1922. when
he obtained all OF his alleged infor-
nation in 1920? What was the real
motive for his speech, made two
years later?
lis Mr.. Johnson's offer to re.
sign his seat conditioned only upon
the verification of a fact which las
never been disputed, or will be re-
sign IL the charges contained in his
speech of April "a are shown to he
untrue? II the latter, I confidently
assert that his ongressional activi-
ties are nearly ended.
Asks Investigation.
IT must be remembered that Mr..
Johnson's speech charges, in sub
stance, that Police Lieutenant Evans
applied for a warrant against Ex.
nicios; that Nr. Stephens, then an
assistant corporation counsel. vas Of
opinion that Exnicios violated the
law; that l was then an assistant
corporation counsel, and prevented
the prosecution of Exnicios, although
had Heretofore arranged with
Judge Mullowney to convict Horning.
and that all this resulted In putting
Horning out of business and Great.
ing a monopoly for Exnicios.
Is Mr.. johnson now willing to cor
rect or withdraw any of his state.
ments to the House upon this sub.
ject7
II your paper decides to investi.
gate, as suggested by Mr.. johnson.
let your representative compare the
statements contained in my test.
mony with those OF my letter to YOU
OF the 18th ult.. and judge whether
I am guilty as charged by Mr.. John.
son in his speech. And II we are &c
have an investigation, which ] will
welcome, let IL be complete.