Worcester daily spy., 1872-07-12
WORCESTER.
FRIDAY. july Is, 1919.


Since the death OF Judge McCunu Of New
York two things have been said of him, in
newspaper dispatches and paragraphs, which
should be considered together by those who give
them much attention. One is that he left an
estate ''worth three million dollars" the other,
that he "died of broken heart, and this state
meni is accompanied by an effusion of maudlin
seutimeutalism about his "highly sensitive ma
ture, W hich indicates that somebody among
his intimate friends seeks TO persuade the public
that his character had brightness and noble
ness which did not appear in it while he was
living. Ii would be wiser to keep silence or to
say of him only what is manifestly true 1t is
well to say nothing but good of the dead, when
the omission TO say more does not tend to demor-
alize the public Judgment Of men and under
mine the delenses of virtue and honor; but
there are cases in which it becomes necessary TO
expose attempts to hide iniquity behind glowing
pictures of something exalted and even angelic.
Judge McCunn left a great estate How did
he acquire this estate "worth three mllions~
He began life poor, had inherited nothing, and
was at no time engaged in lucrative business of
any kind. II is notorious that he acquired this
dS sluIlidl tSldtCo nave uGCn dC1utltu ny
other New York judges, who have misused the
judicial office TO accumulate great sums of
money uniustly. These men have operated, not
only as judges, but also as buccaneers, plunder-
ers; and their greedy hunt for spoils has been
regulated by system and made effective by the
most INSCRIPTIONS and callous disregard of JUS
tce. According to their opportunities and means
of operation, they have behaved, as judges, very
much as Fisk and Gould have behaved as man
ayers of the Erie railway. Therefore, they are
all very wealthy, il is said. Judge McCunn's
misbehayor in Office was notorious long before
he was brought TO trial before the New York
senate. Before that body, it was shown in the
most conclusive way that his conduct as Judge
had been atrocious, Systematically so, and that
some of his most scandalous proceedings were
contrivances to secure plunder by means of
cunningly managed "receiverships," and by
other devices of the same character. In the
whole case, from beginning to end there was no
trace or sign to indicate that he had at any
time, even for a single momsnt been checked in
his career by anything like sensiiyeness to JUS
tice or honor He pursued this career without
scruple, and showed neither hesitation nor sensi-
tiyeness, when criticised in the public Journals
and denounced by the Judgment of honest men.
II he was so richly endowed with the graceS of
ga highly sensitive nature" as some of his in
considerate friends would have us believe, how
was il possible for him to adopt such a career,
and persist in it, in defiance of criticism and re-
proach, until he was brought TO trial for his
misdeeds and removed from office? It was dis
graceful to be removed from office; but his
whole career was disgraceful, and the removal
changed no mans estimate of his character.
His bad reputation was fully established, long
before be was brought to trial. Men thought of
him after the sentence of removal was declared,
precisely as they had thought of him for some
time previous to this trial. Up to that time,
his "highly sensitive nature" had never made
itself heard OF, in his official conduct; on the
contrary, he had seemed profoundly Indifferent
TO the considerations which regulate the conduct
of just and honorable men. If his nature had
really been "highly sensitive" TO such consider
ations, if he had really been endowed with sensi-
tiveness of this kind sufficiently powerful to
break his heart, it would have so restrained,
controlled and regulated his official conduct,
that he would not have earned a bad reputation
nor been brought to trial and removed from
office on account OF villanous conduct as a Judge.
Therefore, we distrust the representations used
10 set him before the public in this new light
and withdraw attention from the fact that the
sentence pronounced against him was richly
deserved. He chose TO deserve that sentence be-
cause it was profitable TO do So The record
that made him notorious was his own; it can
not be changed