Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1922-11-05
THE MULLER LETTER.

Elsewhere in this issue we PRINT COLI
munication from Mr.. Frank W. Clancy,
charging the Morning Journal with "un-
fairness in it's treatment OF Frederick
Muller, as the result of our investigation
of what he terms "the recent outrageous
attack upon him.
When the letter, which is the basis OF
the charges which have been made
against Capt. Muller, was first presented
to the Journal, it was withheld from pub
lication for two days pending an investl-
CATION. We realized Capt. Mullers repu-
tation was at stake and for that reason
gave him every opportunity of explaining
the transaction referred to in the letter
or throwing any available light upon it.
Muller at first admitted that he had
written the major part of the letter which
had reference to a certain lease, but when
that part of the letter was read to him,
which expressed the writer's wish that
Neis 'could have waited until after cleo
ton, then can do as | want to, but | will
try and get this for you anyway, put it
in some one else's name, so the old fool
will not know who it is for, | will work it
out some way" Muller at once denied its
authorship. He said that there was no
occasion for writing such letter for the
reason that Neis was in Santa Fe on the
day when the letter in question purports
to have been written. Three days later,
in a telephone communication with the
Journal, Neis repeated in substance what
Capt. Muller had said to the effect that
on the day, and for some days prior and
subsequent to the day of the letter in
question, he was in Santa Fe.
day or two later Muller issued a
joint statement in his own behalf and for
Commissioner Field. When Commissioner
Field was asked to confirm this statement,
he said that it had been issued without
his authorization.
Can Mr.. Clancy or any one else doubt
that Muller "is capable of writing such
letter in which his superior officer is
brutally characterized as an "old fool
after he has shown himself capable OF
issuing a statement in the name Of his
superior officer, without authority and
wholly for the purpose of his own vindi-
cation?" In the face Of Commissioner
Fields reputation of this statement
made for him by Mr.. Muller without his
authorization, will Muller now deny that
he used the name of his superior officer
falsely? Will he explain why, three
days after the publication of letter in
volving his honor as public official, he
issued statement in which he said:
"Any correspondence would have
been unnecessary because Mr.. Neis
came to Santa Fe Immediately after
the Republican state convention and
remained a week or longer working
on some of his business in the land
office, giving Captain Muller any
needed opportunity for verbal ar
rangements."
If there We're any doubt as to Muller
ability to fix Neis' "exact whereabouts
on given date" we should dismiss tn,
matter. But who can read Muller
statement that Neis "came to Santa F,
Immediately after the Republican stat
convention and remained week O.
longer .. ;" and who can read the aft
davits of five prominent citizens Of Ros
well, who say, under oath, that they say
and talked with Neis in that city on tn
day following the convention and ever,
day for six days thereafter, without hav
ing serious doubt as to Muller's honesty
This was to be Muller's aiibi and now W
! are told that he made it without verify
ing the fact" If Muller's memory faile,
him in so serious matter, is it not CO
incidence which challenges the magma
ton that Neis' memory should also hav
failed him in recalling where he spen
that now historic week?
Mr. Clancy says that mo man who re
ally knows him (Muller) would hesitat