New-York tribune., 1873-12-18
MR RRITTON'S C1SF.
sort Of mar


Tbev were the protection of the Ring of New
York Mr.. Britton standing. at the door OF
the Grand Jury room, holding the power vi
prosecution in his hands, mas pee"
the chief. and iatterly almost the sole
PROTECTOR of the Ring OF brooklyn
Elected by the fraudulent votes which tins
Ring had purchased, he was DOwerless TO re-
sist the demands Of those who had made hlm.
His removal from Office was demanded by
strong public sentiment; the men who charged
him with the Oflensos which have now been
tried are deserving of public gratitude, and if
Gov. Dix shall find that those charges are
sustained, AZ we believe them to be, he will
have no better opportunity for doing the State
a service than by the removal Of this man
and the prompt appointment of one who. un-
trammeled by any local affiliations party OBJ
LEGATIONS. or personal prejudices, shall pursue
crime wherever he discovers it.
An impartial summary of the various charges
which have been tried shows that Mr.. BrittOn
prevented the jury from inquiry into sworn
complaints of felony against Tax Collector
whose Offenses were 30 notorious that an active
Attorney could not have failed to bring them
of his own vOitlon before the Grand Jury.
He based his defense ut first on the plea that
the Grand Jury had asked his advice only by
q hypothetical question written by himself !;
but when it was shown that the name and
particular offense of the Collector had been
discussed between him and the foreman,
he changed his plea, and endeayored to
prove that another officer, whose Ofense
was not similar to that Of the Collector.
and to whom the hypothetical question did
not apply in any way, was the one whom the
Grand Jury proposed to indict. When proofs
against another officer were about to be
elected through the questions OF juror, he
stopped investigation and refused to allow a
number of witnesses to be named or to call
the single one whose name had already been
furnished. Charged with gross Of1enses by q
newspaper of Brooklyn, and compelled by the
charge of Judge to permit inquiry into his
own conduct, he furnished to simple
minded foreman written list Of questions to
be asked the witnesses. not one of which was
calculated to bring ont single fact dam
aging to himself. 1t was shown that he had
been elected by fraudulent votes that while
his predecessor in office had indicted thirty
and con yicted five of the ballot-box stutfers
Mr.. BrittOn has prosecuted none. though two
of those who had fled when Morris was in
Office returned the day Britton was installed,
and have since remained undiaurbed in the
public service. His failure to prosecute a
political follower for forgery was do
Tended on the plea that he had
seen card in paper from man
whose name was forged, saying he had author
lied its use; but it was shown that he had in
formation that the card was forged Also and
still no prosecution was begun. 1t was shown
that he had knowingly introduced a convict
into the Grand Jury room as a witness to in
dict political opponent, and had protected
this witness from an indictment on charge
of perjury by misleading the Judge into
erroneous instructions to the jury He de-
Tended a Justification of the Sheriffs re-
turn by claiming to act a. the Sherif's
attorney. but the Sheriff positively denied
having ever retained or otherwise authorized
him to make any such return and the Under
Sheriff swOre as positively that the District
Attorney had suggested perjury to him by
requesting him to forget when the paper was
left with the Sheriff. In one charge only can
the prosecution be said to have failed. They
attempted to show. that MIR. Brtton had
corruptly protected from indictment man
named Raisbeck, for whom be had once
been counsel but Mr.. BrittOn showed
very clearly that he had indicted Ralsbeck
and the witnesses against him for conspiracy
to defraud. The proof of this WAS conclusive,
but Judge Morris, one of the prosecuting
counsel, with that subtle skill which has made
him the first criminal lawyer Of Kings County.
committed the witness irrevOcably to the state
ment that BrittOn held Raisbeck to be as had
AZ the others, a wholly unscrupulous fellow
who ought to have been indicted, and then
very quietly showed by the bail bond book
from the District-Attorney's Office that Mr.
BrittOn had released this dangerous man, al
though he lived in another State, ON his own
recOgnizance.
The Reformers of Brooklyn are now in the
precise attitude of those OF New-YOrk imme-
diately after the Tammany defeat in 1870.
They have overthrown their Ring at the polls
they have indicted the man who made the
frauds on the Treasury possible; one of the
confessed thieves has turned States evidence.
and trials are approaching of such impor.
tance that thea Attorney with a
auick appreciation Of the situation, has signi-
fed his intention to make the State the public
prosecutor. The substitution Of District.
Attorney for the one against whom such grave
offenses have been proved, s almost abso.
lutely necessary 70 the success OF Reform
there. 1t would have been impossible
to succeed in New-York had not the Bench
been first reformed; we fear Reform
in Brooklyn may resolve itsslf into farce il
frat the fountain head Of justice bs not puri-
fled. There are considerations outxide the
record which Mr.. Speir is to submit to Gov.
Dix: vet we do not fear that tho Governor
can be blinded to their Importance or made
A. l.I;aua that fhAx ara inn nnlicahla In H.