The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-04 00:00:00

THE CASE OF M. MIRES.

A letter from Paris says is now nearly
three months since M. Mires was arrested and shut
up in the prison of Mazes, on the charge of abuse of
confidence. The penalty imposed on conviction for
this offence varies from two months' to two years'
andafine which
ofthe cannotexceed one-
fourthimprisonment,
restitution andthedamages for
the benefit of the parties who have suffered by the
abuse of confidence. M. Mires has not yet been
brought to trial, and must be regarded as innocent
until the contrary be proved ; yet he is punished
as if his guilt had already been declared by the
andhis isitw would
what
tribunal and sentence passed.
called " preventive detention," T
appear there is no fixed term. M. Mires
may be kept in prisonf be at the ender years, and, for
aught anybody knows, may
pronounced innocent of the charges against
him, and liberated, but not before his health and
energies have been wasted, and he himself reduced
to beggary. The charge against M. Mires has re-
ference to the society known as the Caisse des
Chemins do Fer, of which he was the head; and the
appointment of a person to administer the affairs of
that establishment during M. Mires legal incapacity
was perfectly justifiable. But there is another en-
terprise in which M. Mires has been also concerned
—the united journals the Constitutionnel and the
l'ays. In 1855 he purchased from M. Veron, of the
first-named journal, his property in it for the sum of
£44,000, and became its gerant, or manager. This,
being an entirely distinct affair from the Caisse des
Chemins de Fer, appears to have been conducted
to the satisfaction of the shareholders, inasmuch
as they have received from 10 to 11 per cent.,
and in the present year 9 per cent., dividend on
their shares. At all events, no complaint was made
against his management. It seems, however, to
have been determined to deprive M. Mires, who
by the statutes of the company had a right to ap-
point his successor in case of absence or incapacity,
of all control over his property. After repeated
efforts two persons presented themselves, one a
shareholder only since the day previous, the other
from the beginning, " but who," as M. Mathieu,
counsel for M. Mires, declared in his motion in
court on Saturday last, " are simply the instru-
ments of an intrigue, the object of which is to de-
prive M. Mires of the right which the statutes of
the company confer on him as manager to ap-
point his successor:" The appeal on behalf of M.
Mires against an act which is equivalent to spolia-
tion was unsuccessful. The most odious feature in
the case, however, is the manner in which M.
Mires has been treated since his arrest. " I come,"
said his counsel, in his address to the Cour
Imperiale, to claim for M. Mires the benefit of
the rights which are common to all, and to ask of
the Court whether a fellow-citizen, accused but
not convicted of a misdemeanour, or even of a
crime, is to be visited with a sort of civil death,
and in some measure to be placed beyond the pro-
tection of the law." It seems that his legal
advisers have, with much difficulty, obtained access
to him. M. Mathieu declares that he could only
see him on the 18th of April. It is true, the
Advocate-General stated that this absolutely close
confinement only lasted eight days; and why it
should have lasted even eight days is not explained.
But the Advocate-General is mistaken ; I hear, on
the best authority, that M. Mires has, on three
separate occasions since his incarceration, been kept
in the closest confinement. On the second occasion
the seclusion was so severe that the most insignifi-
cant letters from his family had to undergo the in
spection of the gaol authorities before delivery, and
even the news of the aecoucheinent of his daughter,
the Princess de Polignac, was communicated to him
by one of the goalers, whose compassion inspired him
with courage. I am assured that even now M. Mires
is subjected to strict privacy, for only two members
of his family have received permission to see him
three times a-week, and in presence of one of the
warders of the prison, and a person holding his
powers of attorney has been reused permission to
see him. M. Mires has applied in vain to be al-
lowed to see his co-director of the Caisse Generale
des Chemins de Fer ; and even his brother and his
sisters have been allowed to see him only once.

Such treatment of a man who is not convicted
of what has been laid to, his charge, who has net
even been tried, and who, whatever be the result
of the prosecution, must still be regarded in the
eye of the law as guiltless, is revolting to every
feeling of justice and humanity. It evinces the
utmost disregard of personal liberty. Perhaps the
most disgraceful fact is that the press has never
once raised its voice against this oppression from the
day of M. Mires' imprisonment to the present mo-
ment, and it is equally silent on the " domicilliary
visits" of the police to the house of his son-in-law,
the breaking open of private lc tors, kc. The Em-
peror, who in all probability knows nothing of
these things, has on more than one occasion de-
plored this indifference in France to the violation of
personal liberty. "In France," his Majesty ob•
serves,—

" The tranquillity of the citizen shall be disturbed, his
house shall be violated, he shall be forced to endure for
months a preventive imprisonment, all his personal gua-
rantees shall be disregarded, and though a few generous
persons may raise their voices, yet public opinion will re-
main calm and untouched, unless whep political passions
are to be roused."

This is exactly the case of M. Alires. If there be
evidence of his guilt let him be brought to trial ;
but it is most cruel to visit him beforehand with a
punishment quite as severe, if not severer than a
court of justice would inflict upon him were the
charge on which he was imprisoned proved against
him,