Smyrna times., 1873-11-19

needs no vindication from me against your wanton
slaDder.
Name any one Of them who has any interest or
feeling fer the United Stutes against the defend
cuts, your clients. Name any one of them whom
any body could have apprOa ched, improperly, 10 az
feet their verdict. Name any one Of them whO had
any knowledge. before he attended the Court that
your case was pending. Name any one who was
not an absolutely impartial juror. Why, then, do
you dare say "packed them 10 the United
States a veIdict?" Mr.. Harrington, If this jury
"corrnPtly packed" why did you not make your
objection TO it, TO the Court at the time when it's
truth or falsy could be tried, and what new motive
has since arisen that leads you 10 make il now,
when il IL were true. I could not avail your clients?
Why do you attempt to backen the character otthe
jury and myself, by a charge which you dare nut
bring before the Court2 Why do you now asperse
the character of panel twelve of whom you uccep-
ted without challenge, and were sworn IN your casei
More especially am surprised al your OF Mr..
Massey's name joining you in the complaint OF
your letter (Which he has not signed) because at
the Court, both Mr.. Massey aud Mr. Day. the prin-
cipal defendant in your suit, expressed to me- IN
words, their entire satisfaction with the Jury.
Your second charge that | as Marshal, or some
one delegated by me, had purPosely neglected and
p refused to summon any jurors from the county OF
t Kent, wherein all the defendants reside, and are
well known leading citizens" is, as will herein.
after show, partly false. and partly true but whether
false true, it strikes with amazement that you
i should complain Of it. Ii you object to impartial
citizens from other portions Of the State Jurors in
e yOnr case, and complain Of me because l did not
n summons the Beghbors and friends of your clients,
i it is because y Ou think you would have received
some especial advantage at the hands of the latter,
!, or in other words, your complaint is that did not
70 "Pack" the jury for your clients! Such charge
- calls for no defence IRON me, and it is difficult to
presume that you made II with your clients knOw
i" edge approval. II is always my Iule and
" endeavOr TO draw, not partial, but impartial jurors
of both political parties, who have interest any
T. cause of the Court.
t. Again, am not aware of any improperly in
suwmOning the jury exclusively from two counties.
even from one. it you please, from single
b. Hundred The law and rule of the Court does
specify that they shall be taken from any particular
a. part Of my baiIwIck, and in the larger Districts
or informed is the practice of the u s. Marshas
to summon the jurors from the vicinity of the Court
4 House, As rule take Jurors from all parts 0i
" the District; and in this instance supposed | had
nc done SO. Ii is not true that purposly neglected
h TO summon any jurors from Kent county; a
We portion Of Ihe l0ry were summoned from Milford,
no fOurhfhs Of which Town lies in Kent county, and
YES | supposed the jurors thus sHmmoned from
lg Kent, and SO returned them TO the clerk. When
10 found my mistake, directed him to amend the re.
to turn in that respect
u But 1t is true, you charge that "refnsed" To
summon certain jurors from the county of Kent
wherein all the defendants resided, but until tn,
av complaint of my refusal contained in yonr letter
re had not supposed that the request which refused
,a either emsnated from, in any way con.
- nected with you. This request 10 summon ceTtln
~ jurors from Dover, r lbs vicinity in Kent Cnunty
a. (being the only refusal of which j o. yU,
hu have any knOwledgel | made mention Of to Mr.
Atn Massey just aer the time Of its receipt expressing
'ed my dsapprObatiOn thai any should aPPTOac mi
md in such a way, on such a subject, an6 ] als
he spoke of il you, in your ofce since the Cour
ay and before the date of yauI letter The reFDest
contained in a letter to me from Mr. Thomas d. G
Smith. Of Dover, Of which the following is q tru
nm. copy:
he'd Er;.na viii vo, do me- bs 60, w. 20 49, nm
nOning the following gents sOr the neS. Court, DC
M NJ term:
sy Joshua B. Wharton, George w Baker, Andre
O' Smithers, Samuel Me(;onigle. They are GOO
mas Republicans Grant this favor and will uy an
return the sans. Hoping to hear from you 500
VIZ l remain, Yours etc.,
g. THOMAS D. G. SAITH
The above had every appearance TO me of an e.
deavoT 10 the improper summOning Of frie
,m. of yOus clients the Jury, and wrote al once
and MI' Sf"t" refusing 20 grant n's request. Z CT
,ion only add 10 this statement Of the iaets that yo
D.v complaint Of my so doing seems to call for expan
h.;. ton not much from me. from yourself.
- AS to your charge that made return the cou
" u that had summoned certain jurors from Kent III
ges in truth Ihey fOm Sussex have above stat
both the iRet and its explanation. II s. true
erson stated in your fourth charge that amended the
the turn TO conform 10 The TACT without leave OF q
Court, butn is utterly false that I amended the
erson turn OT The purpose Of destroying the evidence
ls'se ietsrh me e1rot I'D tne oIigna' return
" of s' 'sieu " ny Ie" y M OSs. tno PIAc,
wen OF course known 10 the Clerk of the Court
Court the evIdepce of H. aDd failed To ask leave Of
N. F. Court 10 make the amendment really because &C
wes. sidered II then as do now such Irilng matter.
their As 10 IRE remaining charges thai portion OF
said jury this and former instances selected by
deputies summoned by them upon wrIs filled up
80 - them, have 10 say to a Limited extent Sueh s
fact.a hay Dnl he DF
ana Of nay three predecessors Messrs Morrow All
ID the and Seal and as far as can learn The immenor
o the practice of the office. If yon think il unlawful
UNITY only surprised that you did take Your Obeci'
false 10 the panel To the CO1rl. and get from il legal
judICaIIOn of Ihe matter.
L Surely u is snaDRe that in and the same brel
- you accuse me Of ''packlng" the jury, and Of
eioS' drawing Is myself! SHch charges
ctOn "a and an en- other do noa vs IA ia aav
rPOse in my appreciation Of the delicate snd imporh
yOu power intTnsted % in The selection Of jITIsts
IN VindIcaIiOn OF my claim TO have ever exercises
selec IN conscientious and eaTeial manner j. with eni
made cohhoehee sppeai W every Pahei hiLheho relu"
by me and tO the Iaet thai they far superior
oil qualifications, which go to make HneIcep pI,ona
mons, STATE Conr,s
ty to In conclusion. permit re 10 state shall eOmmu
their copies Of this correspondence 10 the AtorT
General Of the United States, and the HOA- L.
,urt 10 Bradford the U. s. District Jadge.
these Very respectfully yours,
\ !. john M DCHN
~ IN U. S. Marshal. DIST Of Della ware
So P.S-After preparing the above letter. relraiI
"a 'he from sending il, because expected yOa wOud
bused vour eharoes before The AtoYnev GenersI fss
unse, only proper IrlbunaI since the adjournment of
CouTi. fOf Trying their iruih.l and thought wo
NIhhold il until your charges were made
row. confess had not expected that instead OF max
your charges before my superior officer where d
could be met. you would seek mscIOusly 10 nj
me by making your attack rough the Dewspap
without having my reputation GO along with il.
3, still less did expect that YOU wond try escape
373 responsibility Of The publication your ISLANDERS
creeping under the coat.IaIl OF a newspap per repoT
pt Of H. however, You are conIeniio assume that Pos
e Ger. ,n; h, ,S, 80 h. n ,V 70
aSsey' your legal liability. J. Nj.
8, late
street. Readers you are Most Respectfully invi
al the to call and see the firis Watches ri ceiped