, 1874-02-15
RAFFERTY,.
Letter from e. A. Suall, Esq.
His Client told Him the Whole Story
at the outset. ...
He Favors Closing Saloons and Pun
isbing officers Who Serve Void
Warrants. 49,. ..

| TO the Editor Of Tie Chicago Tribune:
| Sir: In your comments in TIE TRIBUNE OF
| last Sunday, upon 4he recout statement OF
| Christopher Rafferty,, it WAS assumed that his
counsel had no previous knowledge Of the facts
then first made known to the public ! did not
see that statenentbefore:i appeared in print,
and not syllable lit WIS advised or suggested
| by me nevertheless now declare that IN al
essential particulars it contains the Same gen
eral history of the case which wns communicated
to me and to others before the first trial.
Furthermure the case was tried from first to
Lost upon the theory ~ TINT Ratfnrty WIS in-
toxicated when the homicide WAS committed !:
(2) that the warrant Was void and (D that
O'Mcara met his death Mhile actually engaged
in making the arrest.
It NAV be- said that this is not otsatrictly true Of
the first trial. and as tothat n:hrief explanation
is proper. Rafferty, wus sarrosted on the 9th OF
August. but. for Iea6ons unnecessary to .be
stated here. no counsel was engaged until the
morning Of the 30th OF September. the day on
which tho Indictment was returned by the Grand
Jury. Within an hour thereafter he YVES ar
raigued, and tho cause wns set for trial On the
ensuing Monday. It will he observed that I had
just four days in rchtch. laying aside all other
life; in the came court. 'too, where months
time has recently been given counsel in an en-
.bezzlement oase.to prepare nn assault upon the
indictment. / frat.aaw the accused that NORM
ing in court, and shortly afterwards obtained
from him a history of.the. case.
With, reference to the warrant, he said 1t MAS
only printed paper and did not contain his
name. He made the same statment to Mr, Nc
Dermott, 3 surveyor, and the latter addressed
me a note at the time Calling attention to the
fact. But I had no means uf proving that the
warrant was void. Ilad no time for {nveatiEn-
'tion and eonld'uot 'iearn where or by whom the
warrant was issued. It .was safely assumed that
.scanlan, the officer whnm 0Meera was assisting
in the arrest, would assert that his writ MAS
valid land his, as-examHation On tue first trial
shows THAT he did eyade. this proof. His taati
mony was as follows:
cannot positively awear that that e warrant is
warrant but do not know the tlate. This IL signed by
Justica Banyon the 5th Of August I>got it from
the Police Sergeant. Ilcat the sNarTant tat night,
Fesn ainee twas brought bacl. Icannotaweer his
is: the warrant
twill bo noted ithat. the warrant was not seen
by .1ao until produced by the prosecution, and
that it Rer appeared regular on its face, except
that It was post dated. 1t must be manifest,
also. that could not. .thop safely call upon tho
magistrate whose name was affixed 1T, 20 tes-
stify that'his .warraut:was nn1awful]y lssued- It
WAS consequently Impossible son the:irst tria1to
prove a,fact (which on tie second and third trinl
was admitted. Is il not. therefore, due to this
unfortunate young man, that tho press and the
public should give him credit for absolute truth
fu!ness in respect to q most-matcrial fact which
but for him would never have been inves-
tigated nor revealed? tfs ft'quite fair to bestow
rewards upon officers who Issue md execute
void warrants, iand ahoWar 1naledictiona upon
their victim?
i ba1ievethe remainder ofsthe statement to
:bes substantially true but shall not sdscussit.
:Iy object is attained tYrthe single declaration
that the.facte.first made known to NC by my
client ve1o repeated substantially ITO your re-
porter last:week, cad given to tho public In Ills
own words It should not 'be forgotten that he
could not testify. witness, and if his.counsel
Inns .r;ven linn a f-no1 dpfenao II certan in