The New York herald., 1874-11-20
DAVENPORT ACQUITTED.

Yesterday Judge woodruff, or the United States
circuit Court, died an elaborate decision In the
matter OF the charges made by Oswald ottendorier
and others against John l. Davenport, United
States Commissioner and Chief supervisor OF
Elections 1t win be recollected that the accusa-
nations against Davenport were to the effect that
he had in his Judicial action, behaved as part.
San; that he had Illegally arrested citizens and un
Justly refused TO take bail, and that by his con.
duct he had degraded the administration OF JUS
Sice. The Judge, IN accession extending to nearly
thirty pages OF closely written foolscap, fully ex
onerates Davenport from all these charges. SUD-
yoined We give the material portions of
THE DECISION.
The impression upon my mind at the close Of
she Investigation herein was that the charges
were very largely founded in misapprehenslon OF
the duties OF United States commissioner, and
that there was failure show either dereliction
OF duty, misconduct in ofrce, want OF integrity
or the influence OF improper motive in the exer-
else OF the powers by law conferred upon the
Commissioner. !, nevertheless, deemed IL prudent
70 examine more deliberately the evidence upon
my minutes with the aid OF copy OF the testi-
mony furnished me by counsel for the complain
ants and In connection with the documents pro-
uuced on the investigation. That examination
have now made. l cannot attempt to reproduce
the testimony Of the various witnesses or to state
oil the trapsactions in literal detail. l must con-
tent myself with stating conclusions and SO lar
% facts are recited give their substance,
according to what deem proved and especially
noticing conflicts OF testimony relating to manner
rather than substance IN the conduct OF respon-
dent. Some Of the charges assume that 1t Is the
duty OF the Commissioner to prosecute the CON-
plants made to him OF violations OF law. And
therefore that his omission 10 do either
Itself failure IN duty or else IL warranted the IN
ference that the warrants OF arrest IN the cases
mentioned were Issued Tor an improper purpose,
or at least without any belief IA the truth Of the
complaints on winch sucn warrants were issued.
A Commissioner in oealing with alleged oGe nders,
Is q judicial or1cer and not prosecutor. His
powers are for the arrest, examination, discharge
or commitment OF persons charged with offences
against the laws OF the United States with
power TO admit 10 bail Tor appearance at court
to answer. When, on due complaint made he
issues his warrant OF arrest, and on being brought
up before the Commissioner the person arres ted
gives bail to answer, 1t is part OF the oflice
duty Of the Commissioner 10 prosecute the charge.
The matter then passes INTO the hands OF the legal
Attorney. The inferences OF improper conduct or
improper motive sought 70 be drawn from the
allegation. often repeated In the specifications
herein, that the respondent did not prosecute the
charges mentioned therein, are, therefore, wholly
unwarr anted. It was no part OF MS duty prose
were made the Commissioner dld not proceed
with suitable prompiness IL the examination OF
an examination the person arrested may
properly require not only 70 ascer-
tam whether the the iacts @ iurnisn PROB
to determine from the facts disclosed what
amount OF pail ought to be required. The instances
as 10 which some proof on the subject was given
were each wnere persons arrested had given bail,
the circumstances OF wnlcn VIII be adverted TO IN
what follows. 1t is an error 10 suppose that II Is
the duty ol a commissioner, after bail to answer
has been given, TO proceed with a further inquiry
IN the nature OF preliminary trial, to etermine
whether such bail shall be required. Alter bail Is
taken the matter passes into the hands OF the Dis
trlct Attorney, 10 be brought before the Grand
Jury or the Court, subject 70 whatever discretion
the District Attorney may lawfully exercise IN the
matter l am aware tnat Tor the purpose OF aid
informing him OF all the facts and Of the
proofs, ana, as an induiaence 10 the
accused, an examination with his con-
currence is often had, but by giving bail the
person accused submits himself TO answer at the
neAt term ~ bhe ooui Y, anu ne cahhot therealter
claim an examination before the Commissioner.
On the contrary the Commissioner has there
aiter no legal authority to order discharge or
the bail gwen, however satisfied he might be on
such subsequent examination that the accusation
was uniounded. Ync matter has passed from his
hands so lar, therefore, as either misconduct or
bad motive IN the issuing OF any warrant OF arrest
was deemed inieraole from the iauure to con-
tinue such exam nation, it eutrey fails 10 sustain
sucn imputatlon. 1t is important question
whether the law ought mt TO provide or the CIV
ing OF pond security TO appear rom day to day,
when the person arrested Gesires the preliminary
examination into tie question of probable
cause to Eod hm, or as to the amount Of
and so relieve him from actual custody during
SUCH examination IL has been adJudged that
here commissioners have no such powers ~. S. VS..
Case, Blatchiord, 250, and cases cited). In some
states such power Is gwen by express statute.
lHe eAlsteHCt Ol sucH power WpuQ nave re-
moved principal cause oil embarrassment in
some Of the cases mentioned In TINS proceeding.
The compliments very freely cnarse that the re-
spondent has used his Official powers corrupty
tor partisan purposes. THIS IS serious matter,
and IT Is often repeated IN the specifications. It's
establishment would necessarily invoiYe want OF
personal integrity and, therefore, unfltness Tor
any ONCE oil trust, and, ii any discrimination on
such subject were permisstDle 1t would impart
especial unhtness for the discharge Oh any ju iiea
duty. IL might reasonable have Deen expected thai
charge involving such consequences, ana the 70.
EultIQQ disgrace VI The accused, WONG not nave
been placed on HE without sume evidence to sus-
tain IL, The complainauts 81 lar as may lie IN
Terred from the examination OF two oi them, had
no knowledge OF any TACT sustaining suca charge.
Dnly Just that / should say that when the oppor.
tunity was given TO saow by any legal evidence
that the charge was true they have eatircy tailed.
There 10 no evidence tnat. IN the execution oi the
law imposing duties upon the respondent ~ MS
once either o1 Cnlef Supervisor OF commissioner,
lie did not act with equal promptness anc with
equal fairness, without distinction oI persons, and
without regard 10 the politlc4l ahnty 0 persons
charged before him with offences. By the acfs oi
Congress providing for the appointment of super
vlsors OF election and Chief supervisor, and
prescribing tneil duties, they are brought INTO I'M
mediate contact with ana parucipauon in the
conduct OF elections. By personal presence ana
supervision they are TO guard against fraud, false
TO take prompt and, IN some instances. summary
measures 10 thas en0, and 70 Ornr offenders 70
Justice. The Cnlef Supervisor ~ by the act
charged with numerous ana laborious duties for
these purposes with general supervision oi the
otner supeSvisors. such duties arc not partisan
IN IacL and yet tney are IN such relation TO the
cU1uuct OF elections tnat they are regarded az
political. IL IS matter OF history tuat me acts OF
Congress under winch these olNces are held have
been looked upon Win dis1avor ~ very many as
an uncaed lor interference " tie general
As consequence tie discharge OF DUTY
by these Officers has been iOoged upon
with jealousy and Suspicion, anu especially aus
piclon that they VIII exercise the once so az TO
promote the interests OF tnat party which is sun.
noseu 10 have enacted the law, OF TO when the
oeicers themselves belong. Political parties are
unlortu tunately ready 70 lmpnte 10 their aayersa
res partisan motives even IN their legislation
ami he nee il il lot 70 be accounted strange faa-
tne statutes 1noer whcn the Chlei supervisor aet'