St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1874-11-06
The Crane-LeWett Case.

literature, which. if 1t serves no other
purpose. clearly proves the propriety of
the explanation which it WAS the pun
pose of that article to secure. Besides
the open letter of Senator Edmrnd>. We
have ii long letter from the District At
turncy. another from the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue. and another from
. Collector. late Supervisor simmons. OF
the Boston Custom House. the TWO last
written lis early as Decembcr. 1873.
fore oul readers. each one of whom can
form his own conclusions in respect to
them.
BY the publication of his letter. Sen
ator ElmImd> admits that the facts re
quirrd an explanation. We have made
no attack upon him. and 50 far I> we
are concerned. Il matter which affects
the rights of citizens and the admins
tlntinn of Justice will not he allowed To
degenerate into IL personal controversy.
The complaint of Mr.. ,jrwelt and his
dciaulter WAS rc-appnimted to office
when his dcfillcation WAS well known
to the Government. that when il could
no longer he concealed, the friends of
Mr.. Crane. with the active cooperation
of the agents of the government. under
took to shield him and east suspicion
Al1 hat ',..,i,
had kept the facts secret for almost twu
Years, and after the dctIlcalion WAS
we'll known to his friends. including
Senator Edmund>. .Icwctt WAS ALLOW ed
to leave Burlington openly and public
~. without any information that he WAS
in any way suspected. and that after
wards he was brought back from Il dis
tant state; the Whole power al the GOV
eminent brought To bear to crush him,
while the same power. protected Mr.
Crane against any prosecution: That
Cranes indictment WAS the >puntan,-
or> act of the Grand jury that II" earn
:. c>Imr>> has been shown III the pi">cru-
probably not hc brought to trial
Now. in view of the fact THAI crane
WAS Il protrgr al senator Edmund> and
his devoted adhrrrnt: first appointed
on the Senators recommendation.
whose personal interest WAS great
enough Ia induce him t" irr"mn,. nn, "i
d H., l,.,n
laN and against what j. understood tu
hr The uniform practice of the govern
mcnr. Crane Whit. ii dctaulucr WIS r,.-
apuointcd /" office thai no prosecution
wis commenced against him when hi
dcillcati"m hccIn,. public: i it ~imgu-
, lal that he friends ct Nh. .I,.wcit should
attribute tIanr> appointment II
RI we'll H. h,, apparent inmnniil from
puni>hnrii III some degree Iu the sen
af"i'S iniiurnrr! hat question the
Schlt"I .m>urI~ hln>rlf surely " hen
the drftlrati"m hcr.rrrr, ltihlir hr would
not have taken th, u"ui,ir tn >,.,.ur,. he
certificate Of Cnmmi>>i"ncr Douglas.
disappointment. If La: had not supposed
it, responsibility WOULD hc attributed T..
him
Well. it MAY h. Just IL MI Edmuud-
I inti,natr> that he had nothing t" d"
with Cranes rr-Hpp"illmrnt. and that
his friendship Ion MI. Crane has had
nothing l." Il" with the events which
have followed. II 50. it j. surely Il most
mI>icIi"ue appointment II must come
under the general head nt ''.Iccidrnt>"
for which noh"d\ j. /" blame. 1t i 50
IcnaIkHhlr an event that We have been
lmdHrcIl ~ rN.Imiuc with some cane the
letters which have been NIlttrm tn see.
Just how ttl they ii" solve ll,r my >trIN.
We have hut little I" SAY 10 the let
ter "t District Attorney Filirld. liz,
SAYS he did moi prosecute Crane hrcarl>,.
no complaint WAS made against him
We lah"Ird under tie impression that
ii WAS the duty at the. ATTORNEY W hen he
knew a puniic officer had hcrnmc Il de
investigation and prosecution. 1t seems
We are mistaken. 50 long ~ mobodl
! make> Il complaint Ia the ATTORNEY tn.
letaultel l. ali nYht. tor the ATTORNEY
cannot move. Again. he could mol nv
Cranes ca>' hccarIsr he did mot re-
ccIN" Il transcript of the record from the
"a,
w leave 1t to olr readers Ia decide
whether. it the attorney had been dis
posed /" push the lrial, rhc copy of
. such IL document could not have been
procured without fHite So m"ch dcIny.
The other letters substantially con
trovrrt but Il single fact in ON state
mcnt. and that is the rc-app"intmcnt
Of Mr.. Crane 10y the Senator'S procure
mcIt. lie! u> briefly examine this de
NAL and see how taI it extends:
Supervisor Simmons. under the date
of Dec u. l-73. writes this to Mr..
/ Crane: Il took occasion some DAYS
since To address IL letter To senator Ed
mundS, regarding the dctaication in
your district, Thicb has been so broadIy
pubIished 10 the co"htry. mying him 10
"sr his influence I" ptrr'nt any rbangc in
the ohce goH NOR hoiT. Mr. Simmons
appeared to know that the Senator was
the friend of Mr.. Crane. OF he would not
have thus invoked his influence This
letter." SAYS the Free Press. did not