Burke Rushes Into Print

The Republican Candidate for Sheriff as An Author

Questions to Answer

In Order that He May Set Himself Right the Argus Offers Its Columns for Answers to a Few Questions

James E. Burke, the head of the republican county ticket rushes into print. That his utterances may not be lost in the obscurity of the columns in which he placed them, we give our readers his letter entire, that they may judge the good temper with which Mr. Burke is conducting his campaign. We also wish to give his side in fairness to him and in justice to our readers. His letter was as follows:

To the Editor of the Washtenaw Times:

My attention has just been called to an article in the Ann Arbor Argus of last evening, headed, "An Assault by Candidate Burke. The libelous, scandalous and criminal untruths contained in the article will be set right by a court of justice. But, as a candidate for a public office it is only fitting that I should place myself right before the people of this community.

It is well known to most of the voters of Ann Arbor that on Oct. 10 the Ann Arbor Record published in its local column a paragraph reflecting on my personal character. As is also well known, the Ann Arbor Record is a democratic sheet thoroughly devoted to the interests of the democratic county candidates. For my part, I have tried to conduct a campaign free from personal abuse and mudslinging. Therefore, when this Record article appeared I made haste to discover its authorship. It was soon apparent that Jake Schuh, if not the actual writer, had at least publicly peddled every statement contained in that article. I have evidence in my possession to the effect that Jake Schuh and the editor of the Record, just previous to the issue of that paper, had a conference on the subject matter of the offensive article.

For these and other reasons, unimportant at this time, I have been fully satisfied for a week or more that John Schuh was guilty of instigating the Record article.

On Saturday evening I met Schuh, and as soon as he saw me he said: "We will have an article in the paper next week that will finish you." After a few passing remarks I accused him of the authorship of the Record article. He immediately jumped to his feet, called me a ---- ---- liar, and rushed toward me shaking his fist. Then it was that he received the clip which blackened his left eye.

I was not intoxicated, was not in Asa Nash's place of business and was not guilty of the conduct so scandalously pictured by the Argus of last evening.

I am a candidate for the office of sheriff, fully aware of the responsibility and dignity of the position. I desire at this time to make a sweeping denial of all the charges of the Argus and will prove in the courts the wickedness, the distortion, the willful prevarication of that article. I believe the sense of justice of the voters of Washtenaw, where I was born, and have always lived, will lead them to resent and rebuke the maliciousness of this vile attack. I will give any man $1,000 who can prove that I was in Asa Nash's place of business Saturday of Sunday, day or night.

JAS. E. BURKE.

The Argus after having given the news, would have dropped this whole matter but for the fact that Mr. Burke seems bound to pursue it. It will be noticed that Mr. Burke, after admitting the main charge of the Argus, viz., that he hit Capt. Schuh in the eye, declares that he makes "a sweeping denial" of the Argus charges. His specific denials are as to minor parts. He offers $1,000 to any many who can prove that he was in Nash's saloon Saturday or Sunday, specifying the days. The Argus has never stated it as a fact that he was, and last evening, after a thorough investigation, stated that the report was incorrect. But Mr. Burke hardly dares offer $1,000 to any man to prove that he was in a saloon in the city of Ann Arbor after closing hours Saturday night and in the early hours of Sunday. The question of what saloon he was in cuts very little figure.

Mr. Burke's account of his assault upon Capt. Schuh does not agree in essential details with the statements made by those who sat at the table with Mr. Burke. The application of vulgar epithets was by Mr. Burke himself, as told by these eyewitnesses. Mr. Burke jauntily calls his blow "a clip which blackened his left eye." Now Mr. Burke's magnificent physique and strength are well known. Has he stopped to think of how it looks for a man of his physique and youth, a candidate for the highest peace officer in the county, to be blackening the eye of a man so many years older than himself and a man who has never struck anybody a blow in his life?

While Mr. Burke is in the mood for letter writing will he answer these questions, and our columns are open to him for his answers:

Did you not, Mr. Burke, on last Saturday evening in a saloon in Ann Arbor assault Capt. Schuh by striking him, and was not your blow the first and only blow struck?

Was it not a fact that Capt. Schuh, at the time you hit him, was just rising from the table to leave the room?

Was it not a fact that on the same night or rather at about the hour of two o'clock Sunday morning, that you knocked Joe Clinton down near the post office corner?

Did you not spend nearly all the time between your assault upon Capt. Schuh and your assault upon Clinton in a saloon in Ann Arbor? Will you give $1,000 to any man to prove that you did?

Is it not a fact that since you have been a candidate for office you have abused various persons, who differed from you politically, swore at them and called them vulgar names?

If elected sheriff would it not be your duty to arrest persons who conducted themselves as you conducted yourself last Saturday evening?

Did or did you not violate the state laws, which you seek to be given the privilege of enforcing, (1) by assaulting two different persons, (2) by being in a saloon after closing hours and (3) by using profane and indecent language?

If you desire to place yourself right before the people whose suffrages you ask, you may have the columns of the Argus in which to answer these questions. This is not mudslinging. Whatever controversy you have with this paper, you have started yourself. Whatever friends of your you involve in this controversy you involve yourself. Whatever of newspaper controversy there is in this matter you yourself have called out. This paper has no personal feeling against you. It has not been hunting scandal, but when in a public place and in the presence of eyewitnesses you assault a political opponent so publicly that even your party papers cannot help printing the fact of the assault you cannot expect the Argus to smother the news which, as you are a candidate for sheriff the public, whose suffrages you ask, have a right to know. And when you charge this paper with uttering libelous, scandalous and criminal untruths, with writing vilifying lies, with wickedness, distortion and willful prevarication (these are your own words and hence not mudslinging) you cannot expect us not to reply.