Evening Republican, Volume 20, Number 294, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 December 1916 — PIERSON’S OFFENSE NOT AS BAD AS REPORTED [ARTICLE]

PIERSON’S OFFENSE NOT AS BAD AS REPORTED

Former Foresman Postmaster, Sentenced to Penitentiary, Short But Smail Amount.

Marion J. Pierson, former postmaster Foresman, who was sentenced to the federal prison at Atlanta, Ga», by Anderson, last week, was not as guilty as painted by the newspapers, according to the following from the Brook Reporter: “So many wild stories have been circulated concerning this matter that we believe that It is only justice to him’ and his friends to give the facts as they appear in court.* “During-the two years he was postmaster no inspector ever visited him until September 6th, 1916. “No charges were filed against him for any irregularities except during the months of May, June and July, of 1916.

“On May 31st the postmaster had $438 of government funds, during this month and subsequent months of June and July, some ! money was sent to the Chicago office, but on June 3(hh there was still $494 due the government, and at the end of July this amount had grown to $683. In August the government statement was taken up and all of this money sent to the Chicago office. This settlement was made voluntarily, and on Sept. 6th the government inspector came and brought a statement calling for $66 and some cents that the postmaster did not have on hand. According to the affidavit of Mr. Pierson’s Philip Miller, the inspector’s statement from the government auditor contained $50.90 more than that - of the one sent to Pierson. They secured the funds and settled according to the inspector’s statement. He took the other with him with the idea of checking it up and returning in a few days. “Mr. Pierson explained all the details of the offense to the inspector when he" came, also made him a written statement of it when asked later. He west direct to the district attorney when in Indianapolis and explained thqt he wished to plead to the charges of failure to remit but not to the embezzlement di the $66, and bhis request was granted and that charge was thrown out. He gaVe Judge Anderson a similar statement of the affair, and received his sentence, as the judge stated afterward, he sentenced all postmasters who came before him and were found guilty of misconduct of government funds.

“The stories that he was short $1,666, and $566 at the time of the visit of the inspector do not square with the records in the federal court. It was within the discretion of the judge to fine, or, imprison, or both. The young man made no attempt to defraud the government and as he was under bond the* government could lose no money. He comes from an excellent family and has held responsible positions of trust with the International Harvester Co., and his past record was clear as a bell. Every man must obey the law. We do not question the decision of the judge. But after listening to similar cases, some of them more pathetic than this, we wonder if the taking of a few years of a man’s life and all that follows in all cases makes men better or gives to us more protection.”