New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-25
an ASTOUNDING PROCEEDIYG.

The paper which District Attorney Britton
caused to be drawn up for Judge Gilberts
signature, and on which Mr.. Shanks was COM
mittcd to the Brooklyn jail, ordered that the
prisoner should be confined until be consented
to answer the question put to him by the
Grand Jury. A commitment so worded is
void on its face, for the statute only author
ICES imprisonment for thirty days at tho most !;
and if it had been produced in Court yester-
day. tho discharge of Mr.. Shanks must have
followed IA a matter of course. The prosecu-
ton had discovered this blunder. and when
they were called upon, in making their return
TO the writ of habeas corpus, to show upon
what authority their prisoner was held, they
submitted to the Court totally differ
ent paper, in which the term of i'm
prisonment, instead of being left Indefinite
was fixed at thirty days. This paper MIR. Brit
ton declared to be the original commitment.
1t WAS nothing of the kind. 1t was docu-
ment drawn up after the original blunder was
discovered. Mr.. Shanks was never held on
that second commitment. II has no more
value than Il blank sheet of foolscap. To pre-
sent it in court as the warrant upon which
sick man was dragged from his bed and
locked up in Jail, to crafty the malice of
defeated and disgraced Ring, was an insult to
the Court, and Mr.. Britton will probably be
made sensible of that fact before the matter
is ended.
The Brooklyn District Attorney insisted yes
terday, with indecent luminosity, that Mr..
Shanks should be sent back to prison pending
the consideration of the writ; but Judge
Fancher declared that the prisoner was
gentleman of standing, and should remain at
large on his parole. When Mr.. BrittOn began
a speech respecting the sense OF duty which
impelled him to take action in regard to the
serious charges brought by THE TRIBUNE
against the Brooklyn Ring. Judge Fancher
called him to order. If Mr.. Britton had been
more sensitive to the impulse of duty in
other instances, he would not now have
40 many grudges scored against THE
TRIBUNE. There il one prominent official in
Brooklyn, concerning whom we have pub
Tsbed charges much more severe than those
of which Judge McCue complains; and yet Mr..
Britton has not thought it advisable TO look
into them. Anybody who will turn to The
TRIBUNE of Feb. %, 1873, will find therein
cory of the accusations of fraud and maifeas-
ance in office which the Committee of Fifty
framed against District-AttOrney Winchester
Britton, and presented to Gov. Dix. Those
accusations have never been met. They were
referred to the Attorney General, and
referee was appointed to take testimony; but
for some reason the case has been postponed,
and now, after eight months delay, 1t ia still
pending. The Committee, after long invest-
cation conducted under the advice OF their
counsel. Col A. G. Davis and ex-Dstrict-At-
torney Morris, charge Mr.. Britton with shield
ing official criminals, bailot-box suffers,
and delinquent inspectors Of election, pro-
tecting an abOrtionist, making private
arrangements with accused persons, bribery
in getting an increase of his salary. corruption
and conspiracy in combining with man
under Indictment for perjHry to swindle The
Gardener estate out of S2s,OoO, abusng the
mower of his office to prevent investigation of
his own conduct. aud finally using the Grand
Jury "A a cover TO obtain the secrets of
Brooklyn paper called The Chronicle in order
that he might begin a suit against its proprie
tors-a practice in which Mr.. Britton would
seem to be an adept. This is the sort of man
who processes to be impelled by sense Of
duty to prosecute an attach6 of The tribune
for denouncing the Ring of which he il one
of the most conspicuous memborA and to