Albuquerque morning journal., 1922-11-02
NOW-NOT AFTER ELECTION.

Several days ago a letter purportlng to
have been written by Frederick Muller,
Deputy Commissioner of Public Lands,
was published broadcast throughout the
state as a political advertisement. AS
the contents of the letter carried with
it the implication of official misconduct
and. if proven, would therefore disqualify
Capt. Muller for any public office, the
Morning Journal withheld the letter from
publication pending an investigation of
the facts.
Being questioned as to the validity of
the letter, Capt. Muller positively denied
that he had written it and in support of
his denial said that Mr.. Neis, to whom
the letter was addressed, was in Santa Fe
on the day the letter is alleged to have
been written. Mr.. Neis also denied hav-
ing seen the letter or having received it
and said that he was in Santa Fe on the
day the letter was written. Both Muller
and Neis subsequently issued statement
confirming their previous denials,
When the reputation of public Off
cial is at stake,-one who has long had
/, confidence of the public,-he is en-
titled to the benefit of any doubt. Capt.
Muller has had ample opportunity to dis
prove the charges which have been made
against him. At the time of the publica-
ton of the letter in question, we said that
it devolved equally on Capt. Muller to
prove that the letter was a fabrication
and upon those who were responsible for
its publication to substantiate its validity.
Both sides of the case have now been
heard and the public is in a fair position
to pass judgment. Capt. Muller renews
his charge that the letter is a forgery and
swears that he is not its author Mr.
Neis says under oath that he never re-
ceived the letter 1t is significant, how
ever, that neither of the two affiants re-
peats his former statement that the letter
was not written because Mr. Neis was in
Santa Fe on the day in question. Such a
statement under oath would carry with it
the weight of absolute proof. Capt. Muller
informed representative of the Morning
Journal that Mr.. Neis was in Santa Fe
on the day the letter was alleged to have
been written and stated positively that he
was there 'for a week or ten days" and
this statement was confirmed by Mr..
Neis. 1t is fair presumption that Capt.
Muller and Mr. Neis were cognizant Of
the facts, but with the publication of the
substance of the affidavits of several rep
resentative citizens of Roswell to the eff
feet that Mr.. Neis was in Roswell on the
day in question and on the days when
both he and Capt. Muller said that he
was in Santa Fe, the case against Capt
Muller seems to be conclusively establish
ed. What conceivable object could they
have had in making false statements in
self defense in so serious matter except
for the purpose of public eXoneration and
if their statements were untrue then, is
it not equally probable that their state
ments are untrue now?
We have already said that the public
is entitled to more than mere denial
but that is all that Capt. Muller has thus
far offered, Those who published the
letter were called upon for further proof
and have produced it in the form of con-
Trajectory evidence which cannot be
questioned. Capt. Muller is now con-
demned by his own words and not by
any secondary evidence The public in
terest now demands that he resign from
the office which he holds and that in
justice to the other candidates on the
Republican ticket he withdraw as can
date for the office of Public Land Com
missioner, for which he has proved him
self wholly untitled.