The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-01 00:00:00

LONDON, TEIURSDAV, NOVEMBER 1, 1855.

It is said that the laws of the United Kingdom
and of the United States are derived from the same
fountain. The works of eminent Egglish jurists
are received in the American Courts with atten-
tion and respect ; and we certainly listen to the
opinions of KENT, STORY, and other trans-atlantic
legal writers with the deference to which they
are justly entitled. The precedents which guide
the arguments of the bar and influence the deci-
sions of the bench in either Country aro virtually
the same, or at least of an analogous character.
We are therefore warranted in dealing with mat-
ters relating to the administration of criminal
justice in America as if they had taken place in
our own country, and under our own inspection.
Now we fearlessly assert that never at any time
or under any circumstances have the private in-
structions of an Attorney-General to the acting
prosecutors in reference to any pending trial, been
given to the world before that trial had taken
place. It may be impossible to prevent the Press
from alluding and commenting on a matter still
sub judiee, and, to a certain extent, pre-
judicing the judgment of jurymen who can-
not quite divest themselves of previonslY con-
ceived. opinions. But a high official has never
ventured on such a course or attempted to
obtain a verdict by such improper and wholly
unjustifiable means. To do so would be at once
to show his total unfitness for the office which he
occupied. It would be an effort to pollute the
stream of justice, deserving the highest possible
censure—an effort which would recoil with ter-
rific force against himself, so that it might hap-
pen that the engineer might

" Hoist with his own petard."

We know that there are high-minded and impar-
tial judges and independent and fearless advocates
in America—and we shall feel greatly surprised if
the unfair and criminal attempt of Mr. Attorney-
General CUSHING, to import a political element
into the issue about to be tried in We law courts,
be not stringently reprehended from the Bench
and at the Bar—so that he will have cause deeply
to regret the infatuation that induced him so far
to overstep the strict line of duty.
It is impossible to suppose that Mr. VAN
Dyxn, the district prosecutor, could have so far
violated all the proprieties of his position as
to have sanctioned, or even connived at such a
publication as that which has attracted so much
attention, without the authority, express or im-
plied, of his official superior. Such a gross out-
rage would be promptly and most correctly
visited, not merely with censure, but dismissal.
But if it were possible to entertain a scintilla of
doubt on the subject, it would be removed by a
consideration of the subject discussed in these so-
called instructions, which contain intrinsic
evidence of the object for which they were framed,
and the spirit in which they were conceived.

What has the conduct of the British Govern-
ment to do with the question ? How, or in what
manner, -is it pertinent to the issue? The fact
that the Cabinet at Washington " has addressed
to that of Great Britain demands of public redress
and satisfaction " cannot be admissible in evidence,
and, therefore, cannot form a topic for discus-
sion by the Prosecuting Counsel. Nor is the
opinion of Judge KANE, as to how far it may
4g by ingenious contrivances have succeeded in
(11 el tering
its agents from conviction as malefac-
torq,"
or the significant threats of ulterior mea-
sures in the event of an acquittal, have any bear-
ing on the. proceedings in Court. The intention
must have been, if at all relating to the trial, to
prejudice the judgc,,, and to inflame the passions
of the jurors, so as, if p'= ;tibia, to prevent ti
impartial decision which it is the boast of the
citizens of 'America will be given to every person
charged with a grave offence, for which, in the
event of an adversoverdiet, he will be liable to strin-
gent punishment. For this gross violation of the
corn men law and the ordinary rules of administrative
justice, Mr. CALEB Cusurxe would be liable to a
criminal information, and to stand himself in the
dock as an offender Against: the laws of his coun-
try. Nor would itu any degree justify or even
g!lcria.te his guilt that he was actuated by a dif-
ferent although scarcely more warrantable motive.
We believe that his chief *sot Iran to make
_ .