New-York tribune., 1874-11-20
THE COURTS.
JOHN I. DAVENPORT EXONERATED.
DECISION OF JUDGE WOODRUFF DIsMIssINd THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

JOHN l. DAVENPORT EXONERAIED.
DECISION OF JUDGE WOODBURY. DIsMIssINd THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
The trial of United States Commissioner
and Chief Supervisor OF Elections John Davenport on
charge OF mafeasanco In Office In acting In an arbi-
trary illegal, and partisan manner during the last
Presidential campaign, took place about three weeks
ago IN the United States Circuit Court before Judge
Woodruff The Judge reserved his decision ti yes'er
day. when he gave exoneratng Davenport on I'll VI
the charges and directing that they be dismissed on
account Of failure to sustain them In the decSion'
which is voluminous. the Judge says:
The impression upon my mind at tue close or the iu
vestigston herein was that the chsrges were were very y,
largely founded In % OF tne s,crn wss
failure to show either derection OF uuly, n,s his
in Of 0SS San' motive 81 @ S
Of the powers by law conferred conferred 8, upon nprnsr
examine most deliberately the evidence un"h INV MN,
utes with aid Of copy Of tho test .nony furnished
ton have made. I c".not attempt to reproduce
the testimony Of the witnesses or TO state all
self with stating conclusions, and far as facts are re-
cited, give their substance according to what deem
proved, and without especially noticing conflicts OF tes-
tmony relating to manner rather than substance In the
| conduct o. tne respondent.
s"" the charges assume that II Is the duty OF tne
Commssiouer tine complaints made 10 nlm
OF violation Of law and therefore that his omission 70
papted the Inference that tho warrants Of in the
cases mentioned were issued for an improper purpose
n
plants on which such warrants were issued;
Commissioner, In dealing with alleged offenders, s
judicial officer aud not prosecutor. HIS powers are
FOR the arrest, examination discharge or commtment
Of charged with oenses against the laws OF tho
apee at court to answer when on due complaint made
he issues bis warrant of arrest and on being brought
to answer part OF the Office duty Of the Com
passes into the hands OF the legal of the
Government, the DsfrictAttorney. The inference OF
draw
fcatons herein that the respondent dd mol prosecute
the charges mentioned therein Is therefore wholly UNI
warranted 1t was no part OF bis duty TO prosecute
some of the charges closely blended with the affair
are that after arrests made In the instances spece
the Commissioner did not proceed with suitable prompt
with the examination VI the witness or party touch
ing the truth charge. such examination the
person arrested may properly require, not ohdy 10
holding him to answer but to determine from the facts
disclosed what amount OF bail ought to be REQUIRED
The instances TO which some proof on the SUBJECT
given were each where persons arrested had gwen
bail Is an e6sT TO has m IS beeo as Gl to pro
ceed with further inquiry in the nature OF q pren,
required After ball taken the matter passes into the
hands OF the DstrcAt0rney to be brought before the
the District. Attorney may lawfully exercise iu
| the matter. L am aware that. TOT tho pur-
:"osa Of aiding the Distrct-AttOruey in a!sTV0sng
OF the case, an examination with his
currence is often had but by giving bail the person
arrested submits himself 20 answer az the nexs term OF
court, and he cannot thereafter claim an examination
before the Commissioner. Oa the contrary, the Com
dichSrse Of tue bail given however satisfied he might
lie on subsequent examination that the accusation
was unfOunded The matter has passed from his hands.
So far therefore, either misconduct or bad motive in
the Issuing OF any warrant OF arrest was to be inferred
from tho failure TO continue such examination, 1t en-
tirely fails 10 sustain such an imputation.
IL is an important question whether the law ought not
70 day when the person arrested desires the prelm
mary examination into the question OF probable cause
ednred In some states power been gwen by
statute 1t has been adjadsed here that Com
ayf
Case. 8 Batohford, 25o) The existence of such a
power would have removed principal embarrassment
in some OF the mentioned In this proceeding
The complanans very feeby charge that the respond
ent has used his Official powers corrupy for partisan
ppsaped in their specifications. II might reasonably
have been expected tnat such charge would not be
compainants far as may be Inferred from the exam
nation of two Of them had no knowedge OF any fac,
upon and A. is only Just that IA should M say snat
evidence, that the charge was true they entirely
failed There is evidence that in the execution
of the law imposing duties upon the respondent In his
office either OF Cniet Supervisor or OF Commisssioner
he did not act with equal S without 3
Of persons charged before him with olfepses
a5 IN % sa% tSa 70 by the acts Of coSges prcV for
tho appointment Of Supervisors OF Election and Chief
Supervisor, they brought into Immediate contact
with and participation in the conduct Of elections
and they TO guard against fraud false registration
and illegal voting The Chief Supervisor Is by the act
of Congress, charged with numerous and laborOus
duties Such duties are not partisan In iaci and yet
they are a such relation 70 ao
0uence the discharge OF dut By these officers has been
looked upon with Jealousy and SUSPICION ana especially
a suspicion that they will exercise the Office 30 as TO
promote the interests OF the party which supposed to
have enacte the law, TO which the officers them
selves belong. Political parties are, unfortunately
ready impute TO their adyersaries partisan motives
even In their legislation and here II b not to be accounted
strange that the statutes under which the Chef super
visor deemed partisan In thelr purpose.
whether It connect such Office with judi
caI power and duty, and subject the Judicial oicer
TO the same jealousy aud dlstrus matter for serious
but It is not left to this Court, nor was 1t
permltted the respondent to consider IT, The act or
Congress peremptory directed that the Chief super
visor Of Elections should be commissioner.
Judge Woodruff then reviews Davenports action in
the cases OF Heinrich Hussey, ONiel and others. and
entirely exoneraes him tho charge Of arbitrary
partisan conduct In them. Tho decision closes fol-
lows:
IL seems to me unnecessary to say more the sub
feet except perhaps, that the complaint against the
Commissioner would seem to have arisen from mistake
and msapprchension. In times OF political excitement.
strong prejudice begets suspicon whatever seems to
Operate adversely to the interests VI party Is received
in temper with violence. The peculiartes
OF the position OF Incumbent OF the Office OF CheI
who by law must also exercise the Judicial
power OF Commissioner, have been already adverted
To- and the faithful discharge OF his duties not at all
unlikely to create dissatisfaction and complaint. and
by it, Let order be entered declaring tho charges
herein sustained by the evidence AMI that they be
dismissed.
THE NEW REVENUE LAWS.
A VERDICT FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN THE GLOVE
FORFEITURE CAsE-THE ELEMENT OF INTENT TO