New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-01-29
FROM WARRINGTON.
A PIsin statement Of ur. Brighps Case

COrrespondsnes Of The n Y. Thbuns
WuHisGToE. jan. q, 1872.
fn the month Of July last, certain Thomas Is.
Lincoln wa, arrested on chnrge II treason ngninsf
the United States. On h, person WAS found, among
other peper, letter Of introduction and recommen-
daton from Jesse u. Bright, Senator from Indiana,
dated March J. 1851 addressed 10 " III, Ercellcncy,
JeiIorson Dayis, President Of Ito Confederate
States introducing Mr. Thomas u. Lincoln, " who
wishes 10 dispose of u new and valuable improve
ment in firearms. lie ia thoroughly reliable and
,rusty orthy," and concluding with, "yours, very
truly, Jesse y. Bright
When thi, letter was made public, doubts were
naturally eugendered in many minds az to the loyal
ty Of the person who had written It. These doubt,
have found expression in the Senate Chamber, and
Mr. Bright has been compelled TO defend himself,
although, in his opinion the matter is Of but little
Importance. On the 2lst January last be made bic
defense, and based it chiefly upon these grounds: J..
lie gave the letter TO an old and tried friend TO whom
lie was under many obligations. 9. " lie gave II at a
time and under circumstances whenhe did not dream
Of war" IL is not necessary to examine the first part
of lie excupation: il The second point the upon
which be relies fals, Of course they both shase n
common fate. For when person If indicted for a
ri sisI oense he cannot plead in justification that he
did II 10 oblige an old friend lea when he
stands accused of having committed the gravcs
crime recognized by law.
And fIst word as TO the evidence against the
second point made by Mr. Bright. Let it be granted
that the evidence addueed would not be sufficient to
convict him, before court Of law Of the " overt
act, in which treason, ms defined by the Consi,u-
,;c al al
Of his guilt wodld not be what the civilians term
prdsumpflonss juris de jure, but only prGsump.
t.one' juris, or prasumPtioAes hominn. There il
one rule for the admission Of evidence applicable,
when tho only question il, shall the party accused
where we have moral certainty Of hs guilt DO per.
mted to hold position in which be may bring dis
credit upon those associated with him, and mischief
upon the whole country, and All entirely different
rule when the party is put upon trial for his Iifo
For instsnce--a man TO whom important pecunary
,russ have been conided, is accused Of peculation
and there is evidence TO show that he has been faulty
and corrupt in bis management Of the truss-yet not
sufficiently strong precise to render him liable TO
the penalty imposed by law in such cases. Is there
any reason why his acquttal ut law should work TO
continue him in BID trust, there being ut the samo
time reasonable ground for suspicion that his deal.
ings have not been fair and above board This ar.
gument il forctly presented by AIR. Adams, ia Lis
report III the care Of Senator Smith Of Ohio, made
December 81, 1907.
The question upon the trial Of a criminal canse
before the courts Of common law, ia not between
guilt aud innocence, but between guilt and tie poes-
bility Of innocence. Ii doubt can potsbly be
raised, either by the ingenuity of the party or Of his
counsel, or by the operation Of general rules in their
uniorseen application 10 particular cares, that doubt
must be decisive for aequita and the verdict of not
guilty. perhaps, in nine out Of ten, means no
more than that the guilt Of the party has not been
demonstrated in the precise, specific, and nauow
forms prescribed by law. The jn,eres, Of
The public that particular crime should be punished.
ID but as one to ten, compared with the interest Of
the party, that innocence shoald be spared. Ae.
qui'tal only restores the party to the common rghts
Of every other citizen it restores him To no public
rnst; il invests him with no pubic confidence; il
|scbsitutes The sentence Of mercy for the doom Of