Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 96, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 April 1910 — SUITS ARE ALL DISMISSED ON MOTION OF PLAINTIFF. [ARTICLE]

SUITS ARE ALL DISMISSED ON MOTION OF PLAINTIFF.

Republican Publishers, Who Were Sued for 120,000 on Libel Charge By F. E. Babcock Are Now Free. During the fall of 1909 through the efforts of Frank E. Babcock a mutual telephone company was organized and locally known as the Home Telephone Co. Its inspiration according to articles published in the Jasper County Democrat was for the purpose of erecting a telephone system that would cheapen telephone rates or at least keep them as low as those now in force by the Jasper County Telephone Co. The Home Telephone Co. was chartered under the laws of the state and came to the city council asking that a franchise be granted. The Republican opposed the franchise from the start on the ground that it would mean that two companies would engage in a telephone warfare with the business men and subscribers paying the freight. Shortly after the franchise was introduced the provisions were changed to some extent by the council and before they were brought up for passage a clause was inserted that made it possible for the company to charge for residence and $2.00 for business phones. Impressed by the inconsistent position the company apd its secretary had assumed in asking that the rates be the same that the Jasper County Co. had wanted and which Babcock had so remorselessly assailed through his paper, and by,the fact that the Company had been formed with the expressed intention of keeping down or even of lowering them, the Republican took an active interest in creating a sentiment against the granting of the franchise. Further than this there, were certain things that impressed the Republican writer that the granting of the franchise might result in the purchase of the Jasper County Telephone Co. by the new company, thereby making the application of the increased rates at once possible and defeating the very purpose for which the Home Company had been organized. In expressing our views and reporting the defeat of the franchise we used some severe language that possibly was not justified and that calm deliberation would doubtless have caused us to amend but so confident were we that Babcock was in the saddle and controlling the affairs of the Home Telephone Co. that the language seemed proper at the time. The Republican did not aim to say anything that might indicate deception of the stockholders or of the public by the directors of the new company except to point out the im consistencies of their organization, and to question the action of the secretary who had changed-base so decidedly. The directors of the company aside from Babcock were Robert J. Yeoman, Harvey Davisson, George Stembel, John O'Connor, Marion I. Adams, Frank Welsh, Grant Davisson and Chas. Lefler. These are all well known men and we believe are also entirely above participation in any scheme to defraud or deceive any person, but they were represented by Babcock, some of whose methods indicated a decided change of Base from that exhibited at the start when his sole claim was for a reduction of the rates established by the operating company. That these men were deceived by Babcock seems certain, for several of them stated that they had no knowledge of the request for the raise of rates and that Babcock was not authorized to make such a change. The Republican used severe language and Babcock brought suits for damage under the libel laws. Ab a retaliatory measure Babcock was made the defendant in suits based on libels he had published about the active Republican publishers, George H. Healey and Leslie Clark. The suits were set for trial for Wednesday, April 20th and after the answers had been filed by the defendants, Babcock’s attorneys moved to withdraw one of the paragraphs and the court adjourned until this Friday morning when Babcock’s -attorneys sought peace and proposed a dismissal of all the civil suits oh both sides. This was agreed to, but the publishers of the Republican refused to agree to the publication of any statement suggested by Babcock. Babcock agreed

to pay the costs of the suit together with the witness costs incurred by both himself and the defendants and the Republican publishers, Healey & Clark, agreed to pay the costs of the retaliatory suits they had brought. The spectacle of one newspaper suing another is very unusual, and the Republican reluctantly engaged in such puerile methods of settling differences that should have been set-, tied in some good, old fashioned way of ragging it out. But the suits were really productive of a great amount of good and the record of the court in the case, showing the answers filed by the defendants Healey & Clark to substantiate the statement that Babcock was a Jekyl and Hyde might open the eyes of some of those trusting people who have listened to Babcock’s balderdash about) the manner in which he has befriended the taxpayers. It takes a law suit sometimes to expose the duplicity of a man who feeds his confiding patrons on self praise and stuffs them with charges against or with inferences about others’ dishonesty while there exists proof that he has - himself been deceiving the very people he claimed to befriend. These records are public and can be seen at any time at the court house by any taxpayer who is interested. The striking lesson gained is that it pays to look with some doubt at the person who is constantly proclaiming the purity of his .life before the public. Babcock gets no money, the Republican publishers pay no money, the Republican admits the use of some severe language, and the records at the court house show that Babcock was a real grafter, premeditately and covering a period of a number of years.