Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 63, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 March 1910 — MR. INFIELD DENIES IT; SAYS STORY IS NOT TRUE. [ARTICLE]

MR. INFIELD DENIES IT; SAYS STORY IS NOT TRUE.

Denies Having Had Any Connection Whatever with Deal to Dispose of Rushville Utility Company Bonds. George W. Infield, who is in Rensselaer, was very much put out by the story published in the Monday Evening Republican from a Decatur newspaper. At the time the story came into the possession of the Republican it was not known by the writer that Mr. Infield was in town and we did not know of his presence in Rensselaer until after the Republican was printed, which goes to show that even a man of duch prominence as he possesses can be lost for a day or two even in a little town like Rensselaer. But Mr. Infield was here; we accidently stumbled into him in the law library adjoining the judge’s room in the court house, and we talked to him about the article republished from the Decatur newspaper, had not seen, but which we related to him. He at once instituted a general denial, claiming that he had nothing to do with the deal that landed Brooks high and dry, stating that he only met Mr. Brooks on the Sunday in question tc consult with him about some land Brooks had for sale near Lamar, Mo. From Mr. Infield’s story, which was long, hard to follow, and of doubtful connection in parts with the matter at issue, we ascertained that he wanted us to understand that he was altogether innocent of any part in the Decatur-Chicago-Rushville deal, so innocent, in fact, that if he really had nothing more to do with it than he claims, he will have no trouble in clearing his skirts in the federal courts, and the man who made him a defendant in the action must be crazy. Mr. Infield says he is innocent. He may be. We hope he is and we published the Decatur story simply for what it is worth and it may all be a lot of rot, except the part that says that Infield is one of the defendants in the action in the United States court. Mr.'lnfield called at the Republican office this afternoon with an article assailing our prudence in publishing an article without consulting him. In the article he made his denial and undertook to prove his innocence. That feature will come out in his tria’ z in the federal court, but the Republican would gladly have published his statement had it not been largely devoted to assailing the writer personally for having published the article without having first seen him. Mr. Infield’s attitude was such that it became necessary for us to tell birr that he might know something about building railroads, something about the real estate business, something about preaching and he might think he knew how to run a newspaper, but he couldn’t come into this office ano tell us how to run our own newspaper. Mr. Infield left the office greatly disappointed at his inability to have us devote the columns of our paper to denouncing ourselves. Even Mr. Infield with all his varied talents and experiences probably meets some unexpected things sometimes. We have devoted much space in an effort to aid him in building a railroad and in getting subsidies voted, and for that we are good fellows, but when Mr. Infield is made a defendant in a case in the United States court and this paper relates a story that is supposed to tell why he was made defendant, we are a bad set and should be denounced by Mr. Infield in our-own paper. We were kind enough when Infield enlisted the general support of all the people of Rensselaer in his railroad scheme and then found that he had instituted a star chamber corporation to keep still and go ahead with the boosting business. This was all very well, but those acts are all forgotten when Mr. Infield’s ire is stirred because an article is published about him where he is well known, that had already been published widespread in Decatur, 111., and Rushville Mr Infield may not be “in bad’’ in his federal law suit, but he is “in bad* when he tries to put any bluffs ovfer on the Republican force. j