The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-03-17
THE CASE OF MIR. DAUGHERTYa

ner thrOugh0ut the state. -sl
 THE CASE OF MIR. DAUGHERTY
 Although Mir. Harry Daugherty stoutly de- nies the implications and denounces the tes- timony of the past few days relating to cer- tain alleged activities of his in connection with liquor transactions, oil-stock deals, nov ing-picture schemes and the like, yet there is such ready recital of voluminous and ap- parently unconflieting detail on the part of two witnesses separately examined, that Mir. Daughtery's repudiation will not be regarded as sufficient rebuttal. Not can the attorney generals heralded forthcoming statement, in which he promises to go into the history and motives of his accusers, be regarded as any thing more than an ex parte representation. The facts alleged are of such grave import, and the witnesses responded with such Teadi- ness to all questions, without contradictihg their previous utterances, that only trial before the constitutionally established tribu- nals can deterlnine the truth as to Mir. Daugh- erty's record. ,... t...s. -f
 It cannot escape general notice that, in all this controversy, Mir. Daugherty has mot sought vindication by the means legally laid down for such cases, but has resorted to per sonal denial, and has even tried to publish the insinuation that the senate cannot safely be entrusted with his case. If such a view came from one tnnlearned in the law, it might he excused on the ground of ignorance or inexperience; Hut when it comes from the one who is officially at the head of all our law, it is most amazing. Were the senate to accept Harry Daugherty's denial at its face value, the public would not accept It, nor would history be able to clear him. There is only one recourse, and that IS to have formal trial, with the consequent con- firmation or disproving- of the allegations.
 If Miss Stinson and Gaston B. Means have made up their stories out of the whole cloth, they. must. be accredited with the most fertile and tigAgnost diabolical imaginations of modern tiHss. The public is somewhat prepossessed bSE the fact that Mir. Means waived all immunity for any possible ln- volvements into which his testimony might lead him, and then plunged vigorously and apparently without reserve into his astound- ing narrative. His frankness in saying that William J. Burns was not implicated and that if he we're, he, Meahs, would lie to Ls. ko lop1 In story. Means various employments in en- terprises of the most secret and important moment indicate.a capacity in his field that is unusual, Therefore, to refute his testi- mony requires something stronger than mere denial. It requires an elaborate process of disproof. If Mir. Daugherty possesses the elements of suehdisproof, it is hard to under stand why he should not be willing to rely upon them. Fl '
 Aside from any consideration of the pro priety of Mir. sDaugherty's official conduct it is the general opinion that he has been the most unsatisfactory attorney general of recent memory. He has never inspired pHb- | llc confluence III elIOSr HIS hOIAly UT HIS 4n- tention to bring outstanding malefactors to justice, or to enforce the federal statutes in a complete and determined manner. Whether guilty or not guilty of the allegations brought out against him in the senate inquiry, MT. Daugherty is properly blamable for official ineptitude in his high trust. Even if it turn out that he has in no way betrayed his trust, there is general belief that he has not fulfilled it The position of attorney general requires man not only of the high est legal attainments and the most illus trious professional record, but it requires q man with the public viewpoint, with vision, with the energetic determination to perform his duty without fear or favor, and with re- lentless purpose. Whenever it is discovered that the incumbent of this office falls meas urably below such standard, then it is time to ask for his portfolio.