Turner Vs. Mcelory

From tho Detroit Kvening Xews, OcttT. Whcn tbe News discusseci the chances that wero made by Mr. J. F. McKIroy in the Detroit Freo l'resa last l'riday acainst Candidate James M. Turger, it did so without auy knowledire of tbe form which Mr. Tumors answer to these charges mitrht takc. Considering tho intrinsic credibility of Mr. McEIroy's charges agtainst Mr. Turner, it found in the evidence presonted by Mr. McÉlroy cootraUictione, weakneeses and urtdoubted marke of malice that went to discreditthe whole body of evidence that vat presented aealhst tbo liepublicrau candidate for governor. The pcoplo of tbe stat of Michigan havo now been prstty woll iufonneU by Mr. Turner through tho New what ho has to say in i eiruni to tho charges against him. The cbaiifn and the answer are now beforo them io their entlrety, and it is a pretty easy job for anyboüy who eau compare statements of men of equal credibility to form a judguient on tho nicrlLs of the case. Mi1. McElroy's charges were reducible to three propositions. Thoso pioposiüons were a follows: 1. That Mr. Turner, as a member of the board of control of the State inst.it mioti for the Blind, abused his posltion by securiuEC tbc sale of products of his own industrial establistimeuts, to his own greatgain and prollt. ■. That as tresnrer ot tbe institution he u;ed the funds of the ctate school in his private business, iu plain coutradictlou of the law. . 3. That Mr. Turner, as a citizen, was immoral, by reaion of having etgned the bonds of saleoukeepers, and havinï reuted proporly oL his own to persons of ill ropute. In rolation to the firat charjo Mr. McElroy produced the ailidavits of Bullder Vincent, Slater Doucherty aod an unswora statement of a convereatiou had by ono Jay P. Lee, a younij Lausing lawyer witli the Messrs. Eberts, roofers of üiis city. These were to the effect that Mr. Turner had enforeed tbe use of the products of his brick yards and slate quarries in the coustruction of the state institution. Builder Vincent makes an atSdavit for Mr. Turner diiectly ia oppositiou to the aftidavit which h swears was brought to him ready-written ior si;naturo by this Jay P. Lee, and whlch ho eigned without a f uil knowledee of .the contmits. Slater Douíílierty inakes an affidavit for Mr. Turner that is practically the eame as the one he made for Mr. MeElroy, that aflldavit containing nothing dlsparaginic tho character of Mr. Turner. The Messrs. Eberts, whose simplest stateineut would be taken without question in this town, where they have been in business foryears and years, make a sworn statement that completely oontradicts tho srblca report of the Interview had with thein by this Jay P. Leo. Tho tenor of all the evidence on this section of the coutroveray is that every buildar who bad anythinjr to do with the eonstruction of the state school for the blind and whose name has been brouftht into tbo controverey was and always coueidsred himself a free agent in tbe purcliasa of the material he had occasion to uae. Tho 6um of the statements is that Turner never sokl a brlck to Contractor Vincent, but that Brickmaker John Jordán 3id; and tuut Slater Dougherty had a cholee betwoen the use of Michigan slate and Malue slate, and choso tho formor product ireely and without sugirostlon. The evidence on tbe second charge, to wit, that Mr. Turuer had useil tho state instilution's funds in hia own business and bad mixed them with his own fnmls, iu coutradictton of tbe law, Mr. Turner shows that be bas deposlted with him the fundn of nearly 200 Individual:;, which depogits are subject to drutt; that bo i, in fact, a private bankor; tbat be depoBitcd the state funds with himeelf, in default of aoy dlreetion in tho statu tn that ho should itepoöit them at all or in any specifie class of bank; that ai all timos hls bond to tho state was vasüy in excess of any amonnt ever in hls b&nds; that tbe funds of the institution were kept êcparate from ail other funds; aud thnt no check or draft that was ever made on that account wus delayed In payment a single hour. Indeed, for these charces Mr. MeElroy gave no evidonce that would pass in any court. As to the cuartfo that he is personally inmoral, u shown by tbe sigrnlng of saloon bonds and the loasinir of premisea vo persons of ill repute, Mr. Turner shows most conclusivcly that he doos nat own the premiees iu question. On the saloon bond question he explains the cireumtauces of tils belng the liquor bonddrnan of tbe keoper of the oldest hotel in LansiDg, the personal írieud of bis youth and the oonfidant of s llfetime. He might bare gone iurther stil] and shown that so lonir as tbo law roquires a liquor dealer to file a band at all there is neitherimmorality or illegnlitv la becoming a bondsman. Tbere is no questlon of morals in the thing at all, ánd the law gives It the hiehest marks of legality. In additlen to tbis direct evldonce in answer to the charges made against him, Mr. Tarner gives come interestirie information against his accuer. lie was a public official wbo pereonally audited eyery bül which be now declares to have been wrongful. If there wero a bit of truth or force in McElroy'a charges, ho would stand self-convicted before the pcople of thls state as ouo of the most unworthy public officials they hare ever had ia tbeir employ. He was discovered to be cxtr&vagaut wilh the state's fnnds, it is declared, and henee his oltlcial wines were clipped. He was flying too high. Fie was discharged frorn tbe public service because the mornbers of the board considered that tbe people might be more acceptably seryed by another man. llis whoio official course in Lansing was inarked by continued friction with the residont member of the board, Mr. Turner, who had many and varled occasions to check his extravagances. It teems to tbe News that Mr. Turner thorougbly and honostly meots all the charges that were brought afrainst him by Mr. McElroy. JQe meets them in thevery stroDgest manner, wlth the testimony of McElroy's own witnesses. He meets them with entlre fullness and circumstance. And it would look as it ho answers all tbe charges to hls own credit. The attack bore on the face of it all tbo evidenco of polltical soreheadism. The reply shows the reasons for tho soroness, and tbe reaions are entircly creditable to the man wbo caused tbem. As a member of the board of control of tbe instituüon for the blind, Mr. Turner's official course does Dot seem to have been dlctated by any other inotive tliau a desire that tho people of tho state of Michigan should be honestly served and jet their money's worth. Mr. Turuer's defense is ampie to satisfy all those who would have voted for him if the cbarges had never been published; bat, on the otberhand, tbere are elemente in the assault whiuh wlll bring him thouRands of votes from the Democratie sido in every city in tbe state. The attack will probably contlrm on his slde a thousand Democratie votes in Wayne county alone, which were already wavering wben the announrement of hls nominatlon was made. Tbo result will prcbably be, and tlie sbtowdest Detaocrats in tbis towa concede it, that the attack will eaiu more votes for him tban it will loso him, and that must help the whole Kepublicnu ticket.