The Shasta courier., 1869-05-08
SHASTA COURIER.
A Nice Kettle of Fish.

The explanation of the causes which led to
the failure of Pixley for the United States
District Attorneyship in this State, as de-
tailed in yesterdays Union by our Wash
ington correspondent, reveals great deal
of corruption in ihe Federal Assessors
Department for that district. A worse
spoiled kettle of fish has hardly ever been
exposed. The report of Purdy in the
very outset shows that the witnesses for the
United States had been so tampered with
that the United States Grand jury found
great difficulty in getting any accusing wit
nesses to appear, "and suspicion seemed
to attach itself to certain officials even out
side of the internal revenue office" so
far as that Office was concerned he says
"suspicion was general against nearly all
connected with it." In the case of Lang
and Tauthaus, cited by Purdy, it is i'm
possible to come to any other conclusion
than that the rights of the Government
were compromised and outraged by some
of the Governments own agents, and neg
lected by others The discovery of the
illicit distillation was made early in 1867.
The evidence was full, and sufficient to
have convicted both parties, and conviction
might have been had in three weeks had
the revenue agent demanded prompt jus
tice. But that does not appear to have
been his course he delayed from month
to month, though, as the witness Hopkins
testifes, " "when the testimony was given
before the Grand Jury Tat the time of the
seizure he THE revenue AGENT appeared
very jealous to prosecute it, and declared
it was the best case he ever had as an Off
GER" But in the same breath with this
jealous declaration he revealed the fact
that {" to make a good deal of money" out
of defendant Lang, "who was worth
good deal of property" was one of the
motives of his zeal. He said it was clear
case, and encouraged Hopkins, witness
and police officer (who was entitled to half
the fne), " to think he would be hand
somely paid for his trouble" But by and
by Hinchman, the revenue agent of the
Assessors office, goes away. When he re-
turns, Hopkins, still anxious about his
share OF the anticipated fine to be imposed
on Lang, asks the revenue man why he
don't prosecute the case The reply is dis
couraging: I" He had found that Lang
really had no property, and he didn't like
to send him to the State Prison" Wit
ness, however, says: Il know he had
property at the time-two houses and lots
and his wife stated, other property. -
At all events, the case died out, till Hop
kins went before another Grand Jury and
had Lang reindicted Finally he pleaded
guilty and was fined S100i Hinchman
attempts to excuse his own conduct by the
statement that " during his Hinchman's
absence the United States Judge, on petit
tion of counsel for the prisoner that was
Pixley], and by consent of the United
States District Attorney Lake,, had
granted noHe prosequi" Hinchman
further states that he then procured Lang's
reindictment, resulting in fine of 800.
He further affirms that two principal wit
nesses in the case agreed and signed
paper, now in the hands of Pixley, Langs
counsel, pledging themselves to swear Lang
clear. If that was really the state of the
case, of course there was no use in further
prosecuting Lang; and the whole blame
their suborner, whoever that very moral
and conscientious person may have been.
Pixley excuses himself by stating to the
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, that,
though g he took the agreement in question
[that of the two prosecuting witnesses,
Stanley and Hopkins, to swear Lang clear],
it was voluntary offer of Stanley, ,oho
L L. al
case :" and Pixley adds he " showed it to
Assistant District Attorney Morrison and
Hinchman before the adjudication of the
case" Nothing need be said as to the
morality of an attorney in taking such an
agreement in writing from opposing wit
nesses. We let that pass. But if the
paper was really shown to the Deputy
District Attorney and to a revenue agent Of
the United States, it is fair question to
ask why the witnesses SO offering to swear
for consideration were not indicted and
prosecuted for perjury? This is question
to be settled between Pixley and the Dis
trict Attorney. As to the Assessors De-
partment, that, from all the evidence, was
clearly corrupt and Z" in" with the fraudu-
lent distillers. The question is, how could
these Deputy Assessors 60 on with their
rascally work from month to month and
keep the Assessor himself ignorant of what
they are doing? We hope Dr. Gum will
be able to give satisfactory answer. An
other question arises If Lang and Taut-
haus were guilty of State Prison offense in
carrying on illicit distillation, what is the
offense of the officer who aids the frauds,
and why is it that, where so many wrongs
in department stand so clearly exposed,
no official is prosecuted -Sacran,ento
Union.