New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-20
THE BRIBERY INDICTMENTS.


exercise of his discretion as prosecuting officer.
saw fit to enter noll. pro"qui on ten indictments
pending in the Court Of Sessions, and in which the
high offense of accepting bribes was charged
against nine persons connected with the govern
ment Of this city. The statement made to the
court by the District Attorney, BY way of explain
alton of this proceeding did not at the time appear
to us altogether satisfactory, and the more we have
reflected upon it since, the less satisfactory has
that statement seemed The District-Attorney in-
formed the court that OF these indictments only
two were supported by documentary evidence in
addition to oral testimony, and that in these two
cases there had been disagreements of the jury,
and in third case of the character an acquit
tai That in the remaining nine cases, he had
nothing but oral testmonyto offer. which, of course,
would carry lees weight than similar testimony
supported by documents That into all State trials
the element Of political feeling would creep,
whence an additional reason, in these cases. for an
tcipating, no matter how strong a case Of guilt
might be shown, "a probability Of disagreement
and possibility OF acquittal."
Now in every case whatever there is ga posi-
bility of acqutta," and we have yet to learn that
the mere probability of disagreement" is suff-
cient justification to prosecuting officer for
declining to bring q case to trial. Indeed if We
are to accept the rule of action laid down on this
occasion, there ought not ever to be any more
State trials, because in all such trials the defend
ants right Of peremptory challenge, on which the
District Attorney dwells and his other advantages
over the Government IN impanneling the jury,
must, together with the element of political feeling,
make disagreements just as probable in these nine
cases which the District-AttOrney declines on that
ground to prosecute. The only further reason which
the District Attorney offers is the suggestion thatthe
single acquittal and the two or three disagreements
which had already occurred embraced not only
those particular cases, but amounted to an init
nation if not indeed PeremptOry decision by
"tbe jury"--an authority, as he stated, superior
to himself, and more the organ of the people than
he-that there is reasonable and rational doubt Of
guilt in these other nine cases, the evidence in which
no petit jury had ever yet heard, and all Of which
depended upon peculiar circumstances and tes-
timOny special to each. But is not this q very
strange and extraordinary idea, not to say gross
delusion In the first place the Distrct-Attorney
speaks incorrectly of 80 the jury" as though there
was but one Jury in the city; as though the three
cases in which he failed to convict had all been
before that one Jury; and as though that same
Jury would have to try al the other cases. In the
second place we have yet to learn that the Petit
Jury represents the people for any purpose what
ever, except to pronounce verdict on the special
hafn In fyro in nh; d;s
agreements had occurred the District Attorney
might, perhaps, have been justified in entering
nOlle ProseqE to the other cases, he had, as it
seems to us, nothing TO 60 upon except the finding
of indictments against the defendants BY the Grand
jury the special representatives Of the people for
that particular purpose, and which, as District
Attorney, be was bound to proceed to try, unless
he had some better reasons for not doing so than
we have yet been made aware Of
If. indeed, the District.Attorney had made I'D
bis mind that the Grand Jury, through the infu.
ence of political sentiment or otherwise had found
indictments upon trivial and wholly unsubstantal
grounds, he might then have been justified 10 dis
missing the cases--thOugh, under such circum-
stances, justice to the defendants would seem to
demsnd that they should have the benefit of an ac-
quttal. But this does not appear to be the case.
The District-Attorney disclaims, indeed, any ap.
plication to the case of the defendants of his rs-
marks about the probability in State trials of &C.
quittals upon the strength Of political feeling even
against evidence. He is willing to give the de.
PENDANTS the benefit of presuming them to be inno-
cent till they are proved to be guilty; but he does
not at all intimate that the evidence in his posses
sion did net, in his opinion afford the Grand Jury
ample ground for finding the bills.
So far from coiI ciding with the rict-Attorney
the very reasons which he urged appear to US
strong reasons why the cases ought to have been
tried, hepublie had right to know what the