Dallas herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1849-1873, 1872-03-16
a sIgl,uee IIDIe,,o01

From all W. tan learn, ihnt Grand Jufy
lndieiel'ihe present Secretary NJ Sftte fuf
making q ifhliar statement 0f n vote and
futnuihdniltiling q certificate Of eltitiau,
Wien " wns'iemonsiiatel that The could
have dode Mother, n" the return nd not
fully ebrs In until AFTER he had gone 10
Waslls lion, aud The certificate ~ ils face
slioWS,ilat II was authenticated IS the nol.
lug Secretary Of state, who h. NV can On
~ te such In his absence. Ancr indicl.
ing the Secretary ~ State for nois which
II was, under the circumstances, impossi.
BILE for him 10 have performed, they pro.
cccdtd TO indici The Governor for being nc
ocssory 10 those ncls--for being nccess DRY
TO alleged offences Of which the principal
could hot have been aud wns not guilty.
Fidke's BGiieiin.
We must confess our asionishr dit when
We read The foregoing in Fmkcs Dul'etln'
That paper, ms We have understood Il, has
heretofore denounced Gov. oNvis and his
Secretary Ncwcomb for their conduct with
regard To The late clct 'i6n returns for Con.
grrss. | has declared 6ver and over that
Clark was rot elected In the 81 District,
and thai Ciddines was, aud, has been free
u I'd his tools for ,amperipg with the ballot
box and the sacred rights Of freemep.
Now when Gov. Davis and Secretary New
comb have been indicted by regular
Grand Jury OF U. s. Court for T. violation
Of The law, as heretofotc admitted and
charged by the Bulletin, il comes forward
and attacks the prosecutors and endeavors
| 10 show that neitler Davis nor NewcOmb is
| guilty, but ihni The whole guilt, fanny, rests
with the poor chief clerk Of the latter, act
ing as Secretary of State in the absence Of
his principal. Such piIiful special plead
ing is VI worthy respectable journal, like
the Bulletin and is calculated to give rise
to suspicious, which We should be very
10th to entertain. viii any sane man
believe that the acting Secretary did other
wise than ms ordered by his superiors2
I Will it be credited chat the false returns
and certificate were devised by him and
without the knot ledge and against The
wish Of Newcomb and Davis? The very
idea is absurd. lie simply carried out the
mature Plan and special orders of the Gov
ernor and Secretary, and the Bulletin
should know this. 1t does know il. Then
Why attempt this line of defence to shield
The real criminals in this matter, and ut.
tempt to throw blame upon the Grand Ju
ny for performing its duty? Did Davis
and Newccmb violate the law? The Bulle-
tin nor seems to think they did not. Why
Because Newcomb was away, wien the
clerk certified the rcturns, and because
Davis could not be guilty as an accessory
of Newccnb u Ncwconlb himself had moi
committed any crime, an could not have
committed any, being absent at the time
Out upon such defence 1t might do fol
criminal lawyer, who lad nothisg better
TO urge, but il is shameful for On lones
,ditor to resort to such device 10 shieN
the guilty volalors Of the law. The return
of Clark, whether elected or not, was q
thing deviscd anu determined upon by Ia
VS., Newcomb and others, and they made
and ordered all The arrangements for Gu r.
rying out this vllainy; for such it was
and it cannot he called by any other nam,
properly. After every arrangement hat
been made, Newcomb left for Washington
TO prepare Grant an the Congress for thu
Endorsement of their illegal doings, and
Mt the same I me to get rid of the respon
sibility, perhaps, Of personally certifying
the returns. Is he the less guilty or is
Davis2 1t is ridiculous to say so. The
crime was committed and the criminals
should be punished, or we shall have nc
security ia the next election,