Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 260, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 November 1914 — AROUSED BY ARTICLE ABOUT H. C. ROGERS [ARTICLE]

AROUSED BY ARTICLE ABOUT H. C. ROGERS

Republican Charged With Eleventh Hour Exposure of Candidate For Circuit Judge. The article published Monday evening about Herman C. Rogers, progressive candidate for judge, has served to create the most intense feeling that has existed in this city in many campaigns. While many who had expected to vote for Rogers were glad to learn the truth (about him, even on the very eve of the election, some of his supporters expressed themselves bitterly against The Republican for not having published the article in an earlier issue so that Rogers could have replied to it; The Republican did not learn until Monday morning that there was any record of Rogers’ case in the published reports of the appellate court or the full nature of the case quoted. There had been a rumor for some time to the effect that Rogers had “deserted a wife and child in Ohio,” but The Republican paid no particular attention to the reports and took no paiit in furthering their circulation. Last week, however, we learned that the case of Rogers’ wife against him had. been heard in the Newton circuit court, but the result we did not learn' and did not know that the case had been appealed to the appellate court. Monday, after reading the last of a number of articles which Rogers had published concerning Judge Hanley, the writer made’some inquiry about the Rogers case .and went to the law office of W. H, Parkinson to learn something more about it. Attorney Parkinson .was familiar with the case and accompanied tjje writer to the court house and there found the appellate court record, which wias quoted in, the previous article. The Republican considered it a duty to make the facts clear before the voters, believing that not many people would willingly support a man tot office against whom a wife had. secured judgment for alimony and who had left the state where the order was' i'ssued, defaulted on the payment and then 'after being located has made such a bitter fight to avoid the fulfillment of the order of the court of his former home. The Republican was fair in saying ith&t the allegations of Mrs. Rogers fn her suit for divorce were not known, but that evidently the court of his home had sustained tiiem, for divorce with alimony at $4 pei; week had been granted. Today The Republican called Kentland, where a certified copy of the complaint of Mrs. Rogers“was on file. We were informed that Mrs. Roger’s alleged that her husband was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, that he struck and abused her and had employed a vile epithet to her. Qn the strength of this complaint divorce and aliiqony Was granted to her, notwithstanding Rogers’ reply, which charged that she would not get his meals and a general charge of lack of chastity which was not substantiated by any specific charge. The Republican has arranged 'to have a copy of this complaint sent to us for publication, so that ail may know, even after the election, just what Mrs, Rogers alleged in securing a divorce from her husbanfl. There was only one error in The Republican report. The case in the appellate court was not for final adtion but involved a decision on the pleadings. The decision was averse to Rogers and. the case then came back to Newton county for trial. Rogers, however, effected a compromise, paying for the keeping of hrs wife and child the sum of $1,20(1. Although the case was settled in this manner some four years ago, Rogers has so far foiled to pay the costs of the trial, which are assessed against him and which we understand amount to about |54. The case Rogers vs. Rogers is now the oldest case on the Newton county bar docket and heads the Hat *at each term of court, awaiting a settlemen&by him of the costs in the case. t Some two years ago Rogers wanted to go to his old home in Ohio to see his father. He feared arrest and went to the Kentland attorney for his wife, and asked that arrangements be made granting him immunity from arrest. The Kentland lawyer wrote to Jiidge Filius, of Humbolt county, Ohio, and asked that Rogers be not molested and consent was secured for him. The attorney who secured this consent was none other than William Darroch, the democratic candidate for judge. Whom Rogers has charged along With Judge Hanley of forming a bi-partisan- ring for the control of the business of the courts of the two counties. The Republican owes no apology

to any person for the exposure of Rogers. We are only sorry that iwe were not in possession of the facts some time ago in order that all voters might have learned the truth and then in their calm judgment ,voted against Rogers instead of becoming wrought up in an effort to defend him, which few persons would do in their calmer periods. A local progressive who discussed the article about Rogers with the' writer Monday evening and who announced his intention of calling Rogers by long distance to askj him about the matter, informs us today that he did so. Asked what reply Rogers made, he said: “Oh, I will not repeat it.” The writer then asked, “You do not care to Inform us what defense Mr. Rogers made, and he replie’d, “No.” The active- members of the progressive party can not claim that they did not have knowledge of Rogers’ former life, for we are reliably informed that attorneys of the local bar informed th eh) that Rogers was not a fit man and that they would irot support him under any circumstancftC The Republican has never 1 followed mud slinging tactics in politics, and this discussion about Rogers has none of the earmarks of mudslanging, but is simply an exposure of him based upon the judgment of an Ohio court and the effort which he made to avoid the . legal responsibility placed upon him at his old home.