The Delta independent., 1922-03-10

fort to have the law decided, bu
found that your department was at
tempting to block my efforts in every
channel. Mr.. Chase and Mr.. Mangul
attended the Delta meeting in Sep
tember, and both parties announced
themselves as being willing to assis
in any way in having this law decid
ed. Mangus loaded a car without
having it inspected and put the rail
road seal on the car door, refused tc
pay the inspection fee,- and in view oi
the fact that Herbert Chase was go
ing to ultimately handle these pota
toes for him. l suggested that he and
Chase be held 4leponsible for the
violation of the law
u phoned Lee Burgess and asked
him II he wouldn't file a complaint
against Mangus and Chase, so that
this case could be decided, telling
Lee OF my efforts to try to get this
case settled for potato growers, and
stating to him that IL the law was un-
constitutional, there was no reason
why our farmers should be forced to
pay out several thousand. dollars un-
lawfully. He said with his usual
courtesy that he would be very glad
to cooperate and would permit his
office to be used for this purpose
An information was drawn up. Char
les Blaine. the deputy district attor-
ney of Delta county. appeared for the
People and our firm represented the
farmers. The question was argued
out solely on the constitutionality of
this question, and Judge Black decid-
ed for the defendant. l don't care to
argue with you the contents of Judge
Blacks decision. That is q matter
for the courts to determine.
Now. Mr.. Allewelt, appears the mig
ger in the woodpile. You say that
Mr.. Clark, d. & R. G. w. Railroad
attorney told you was representing
the prosecuting attorneys ofiice. You
know this was not true because you
went to Mr.. Clark's ONCE and sought
to get him to influence me to with
draw from the defendants side of
this case, and you did 1t because you
knew l was local attorney for the
railroad company, and when you did
this. you did a contemplate. under
anu ulo6IdO dSt uo a Pdpiit
official You had Mr.. Clark write me
a letter on October, 1921. expressing
his disappointment that / was con-
nected with this case, and requesting
a reconsideration OF my attitude. Mr..
Clark appears to be very high class
ed attorney and gentleman, as I have
found out from my experience with
him, and consequently when l an
swered him as follows, was not
bothered any more from this source:
II am very sorry to have disap-
pointed you in the position have
taken. I tried to look up the legal
part of this case without prejudice or
Of any kind. Under the
decisions alone, believe
that the position have taken can be
upheld. / am naturally very sorry
that my position disappoints you. be-
cause I not only have a high regard
for you, but also very keen appre-
citation of your appraisement OF me.
thot your good opinion Of me would
be lessened by any act Of mine which
did not meet with your favor. How
ever, there are duties one owes to his
client in positions taken by him.
which are prompted by his own best
which will not permit Of
an exhibition Of weakness In their
A prompt determination
must carry them out"
VIII you please explain. Mr.. Allie
welt, why, as public ofiicial, the tax
-
all public officials with an attorney
general and a score of assistants to
attend to the duties Of public ON
Ger, you sought out a railroad attor-
ney as a counsellor on this very i'm
portant question?
After the Mangus-Chase case was
decided by Judge Black, you attempt
ed to have the whole case set aside
there was no violation OF the law.
Mangus. the potato grower. and the
man who loaded this car OF potatoes
and sealed 1t, will face you before
any assemblage and tell you that not
only were these potatoes not inspect
ed, but that the inspection fee was
not paid for. You now claim that
Chase, a commission man, paid the
fee, and that consequently Mangus
could not be a violator OF the law.
You are simply using one subterfuge
after the other, such as your unwar-
ranted charge agaist me. in order to
blind the afrmers as to the real issue
in this case-is the law constitutional
or Is 1t not constitutional?
1t is always unfortunate to have
personalities enter into these contro-
versies. Any personal controversy
between you and me has absolutely
nothing to do with the constitutional
ity OF this law. However, as gener-
al rule, criticism OF lawyers find here