Return
Home
Monday, Feb. 15, 1999 Bob-n-Along 100 years ago this week, it hit 33 below zero at Greenwood I heard from Mr. Hobart H. Ellifritt of 427 Stealey
Ave. in Clarksburg this past week. In a letter that he hand-delivered,
he made mention of an article in the Wednesday, Feb. 10, newspapers about
the extreme cold that devastated the country 100 years ago.
My friend Jim Eakle, the principal at Adamston Elementary
School, has sent me a list of "Ordinances of the Town of Adamston." There
appear to have been 63 of them in all - I believe they were dated 1911
- so obviously I can use only some of the ones I consider more humorous.
Telling the truth under oath has been on trial as well Both perjury and obstruction of justice charges against President Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial failed miserably to bring about a conviction. Perhaps that was expected. Although senators were split 50-50 Friday on the obstruction charge (one short of even a simple majority) they were 55 to 45 against the perjury charge. In our view, that was most unfortunate. Sen. Robert Byrd has confused his constituents on his stand on the issue, seeming to do not only a 180 but a 360 from his original position. He, like many others, may have argued that convicting the president would be bad for the country. But we argue that there has been more on trial than just a political figure (the top office holder in the nation and perhaps the most powerful individual on earth) in the courts of law and of public opinion these past 13 months. To be sure, it has been a political issue all the way. There is also the moral issue. By failing to vote by even a simple majority to convict the president, it sends the clear message that it is all right for the nation's leader to be immorally involved with a White House intern half his age, so it must be OK for other officials (or every citizen of this land ) to become similarly involved. And there is the issue of simply telling the truth. It is difficult indeed to convince all who condone Clinton's alleged actions or saw nothing wrong with them that telling the truth about it even comes into play here. A serious precedent has been set, and it is not at all clear that future prosecutions on perjury charges will be brought about more forcefully as a result. In fact, it is not clear whether the public will now feel greater license to skirt the truth in testimony in any trial. Granted, placing the right hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth means more to some than others. But outright lying under oath in a court of law is a crime perjury, which is a felony. It is true, perjury, which means intentionally lying about something important in a judicial proceeding, is a fairly difficult crime to prove. Clinton's being cleared is not going to change that. And it will not discourage prosecutors from trying to make a perjury case when the facts warrant. In our view, there has been a dramatic liberalization of the court system in general. Still, the bottom line is: There are laws we are all meant to follow requiring that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth be told. Otherwise, trials are nothing more than a waste of time, as we feel the impeachment trial has turned out to be. Robert F. Stealey Telegram Editorial Board chairman Return Home |
Clarksburg Publishing Company, P.O. Box 2000, Clarksburg, WV 26302
USA |