Jasper County Democrat, Volume 9, Number 33, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 November 1906 — “EXONERATED.” [ARTICLE]

“EXONERATED.”

Remington People a Set Of Prevaricators. PROSECUTOR NOT REMISS IN DUTY But Was Always “Johnny On The Spot,” According To Report Of Grand Jury.

The grand jury called for the present term of court finished the work for which it was called Wednesday afternoon and adjourned. Six indictments were returned. One was against O. B. Steward, of Rensselaer, charging him with having sold a quart of whiskey to Lute Hemphill, the blacksmith. Charlie plead not guilty when arraigned in court and showed to the satisfaction of said court that Mr. Hemphill had given him a dollar to bring him a quart of liquor from Roselawn, one day recently when he was going up there, and that he had merely purchased it for Hemphill as an accomodation: that he bad not sold it to Hemphill at all, but was simply doing an errand for the latter. He was discharged. Three indictments were returned against Charles Dressier, of Kersey, a bar-tender for Stanton, a saloon keeper of that place; one charging the selling of two quarts of beer to one Charley Stevenson on Oct. 28, without having a license to sell; one with having sold two quarts of beer to the same party on the same date, selling on Sunday; and the third for selling to minor, being the same party and the same date. It is only the one sale, apparently, that was made, but three offenses are charged.

Two indictments were returned against Jasper Cooper, another bar-tender in the same saloon, charging selling on Oct. 16, three pints of beer to the same Charley Stevenson, one charge being for selling without license and the other selling to minor. Both parties gave bond in the sum of SIOO on each charge and were released. Cooper’s trial is set for the third Tuesday and Dressier’s for the fourth Tuesday. The grand jury visited the poor farm and jaihand filed the following report: “We, the undersigned, grand jurors in and for the county of Jasper and State of Indiana, do hereby make the following report concerning the management of the county farm and county jail: "We visited the county farm and found the buildings in good condition, with the exception of the cellar, which needs better drainage, and we recommend that your honorable board order the improvement of the sanitary conditions in and about the basement of the bouse, and a new windmill erected. We talked with the inmates of the house and they reported, with but two exceptions, they were well satisfied, well treated and had plenty to eat, good clean beds to sleep in and good warm rooms; two of the inmates entered complaints which, we considered unwarranted. “We examined the county jail and found it in the best of condition, all cells kept clean and in a sanitary condition, and all other apartments we found to be in as equally as good condition and we can not suggest any improvement in the management or in the way said jail is being kept. “We beg leave to report that we have made a thorough investigation concernthe accusation made against Robert O. Graves, the prosecuting attorney for this district which accusation appeared in the Jasper County Democrat of November 3,1906. In our investigation we subpoenaed John M. Ott, President of the Anti-Saloon League of Remington, and other parties, and cound (could, no doubt was meant) not obtain sufficient evidence to warrant the returning of an indictment against any parties for the supposed violation of. any criminal laws as mentioned in said article, and that Mr. Graves has not been direlict m his duty.” This report is signed by all the members of said grand jury.

In the report of the grand jury the hand of the slick politician is seen, in that part seeking to discredit this paper. There were some members of said jury that are usually credited with an average amount of intelligence, yet they were worked into signing a report that in effect said The Jasper County Democrat had lied, when as the prosecutor and his deputy and every member of the jury knew that the articles referred to as appearing in this paper were brought to The Democrat by Mr. Ott himself with the request that they be published (except that of

the “Morocco Citizen,” which was brought in by another party) were all signed, and were not The Democrat’s statements, but those of other parties altogether, One was in the form of an affidavit by Mr. Guy of Remington, and if he swore falsely, or if the president of the anti-saloon league there and its members —for he was unanimously authorized to sign the statement, we are told—made false accusations, why did not the grand jury indict them? . One member of this grand jury is generally credited with being a gambler, and the fact has been published both in this paper and in two Indianapolis papers, and we understand evidence to this effect came out before State Supt. Cotton in his hearing of the Fendig matter recently. Also, Dan Way mire, the republican drainage commissioner, who was fined for frequenting the Rosenbaum place, was very anxious to tell what he knew after his arrest, and did name to the deputy prosecutor three parties who were also at said place and said he would file affidavits against them. He later, however, “changed his mind” and did not do so. These facts were known to both Mr. Graves and his deputy, yet, we understand, neither Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Fendig or Dan was called before the grand jury to tell what they knew. Neither the anti-saloon league or Mr. Guy stated that they personally could give evidence to convict in the Remington matter, but that witnesses had been examined, and others were to be examined, when Graves so unceremoniously left them, sufficient to secure conviction. If Mr. Graves wanted to do right and be square, why did he not have these witnesses before the grand jury instead of only Mr. Ott and Mr. Guy? Does he dare to furnish this paper with the names of the “others” mentioned in this exoneration, or the names of those examined concerning the Rensselaer gamblers? We have it, on good authority, that he was furnished with the names of several Remington people whose evidence might have been sufficient to convict, and also several Rensselaer witnesses who knew about the gambling here, but they were not called. As a body we are not criticising the grand jury—about all depends on the prosecuting officers —but it is no surprise to the public that no indictments were returned in this matter. Perhaps this was what was meant in the grand jury report that the prosecutor had not been derelict in his duty.