The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-04-28

DRxocRAr and Tmss. but the Times edition
was struck of in this Office. 1t was not DE-
cessary that there should be two copies Of
the list made ont, to comply with the order
of the Board and there was no proof elicit
ed 90 the trial, showing that HEEsAs bad
charged for making out two lists, Is stated
in the indictment. On the contrary it was
shown that he bad received payment for
one list, and had acknowledged it Is full
compensation for all the service performed.
The Jury disagreed, and q nolie pros. was
entered in the case, BY the District At
torney.
The second indictment charged HERMAN
with not making full aud accurate return
20 the County Treasurer, Of all lands sold
for taxes, Immediately after the tax sale Of
1858. 1t was proved that he neglected to
make such return, and under the ruling OF
the Court, that il was unnecessary to show
o corrupt or criminal motive for such neg.
lect, the jury returned verdict Of guilty.
The indictment was based upon q legal
technicality which had not been complied
with for years; and from an examination OF
the case, we do not believe HERMAN delayed
making the return from any other cause than
obstinacy or negligence. Assuming that
be failed TO make his return in order to use
the taxes collected for private purposes, be
would have derived but trifing pecuniary
benefit--too triilng in fact. to admit of the
supposition Of intentional dishonesty. Upon
q motion in arrest Of judgment, all proceed
ings in the case from its commencement,
were set aside by the Court, upon the ground
that the law constituting the offence had
been repealed by the Legislature.
On the third indictment for embezzlement
Of taxes, collected by HEESAS in 1858, the
jury returned verdict Of not guilty. There
was no proof to sustain the charge.
The fourth indictment for perjury, came
nder the Judges ruling in the second case,
and did not go to trial. This case, like the
others, was based upon technicality.
The charges made before the Governor
by the Board Of Supervisors, were founded
upon the indictments, and it is highly prob
able would have been dismissed, had the
Executive decided the case upon its merits.
Upon the evidence elected in the several
trials, We do not believe HEkSAx could
have been justly convicted Of q criminal Of
fence. The extent OF bis culpabilty was in
bis continued obstinacy, originating in fire.
queut disputes with the Board Of Super
visOrs.
That a prejudice existed in this commu.
nifty against Mr.. HEsSAS, and that it Is
probably not dissipated yet, is his own
fault. lie could have demonstrated in
August last, through the press, his limo.
cence of the charges preferred by the report
Of Mr.. RoHRxR to the County Board, had
he chosen to do 30. He was advised
to make a public explanation, and de-
cined, seeming to think that but little
credence would be given to the charges.
Ia this conclusion be was mistaken and that
it was grievous error he now. doubtless, ap-
preciatts. A public officer should keep his
character spotless-untainted even by the
breath of suspicion and he should defend
bis official acts, and the integrity Of his con.
duct, whenever, and by whomsoever attack.
ed. Had Mr.. HEEsAs pursued this policy,
his friends, to-day, would have been more nu-
merous, aud bis official career q subject Of
more agreeable personal reflection than we
presume it now is.