The New York herald., 1874-08-07
HERALD FRIDAY AUGUST SUPPLEMENT.

wne t tner n the the onencs Of which Messrs ohslicI
ana Gardner were convicted involved viola
Sn OF ass dSs Of Which, sny
purpose or action by me. Is not cast upon
ment thereon BY a competent tribunal, must de-
eide, so far as the purposes Of my Official action
my own responsibility, aided by such means OF
enlightenment as the law points out and furnishes
OF once taken by Messrs. Uharlick and Gardner
II was the oath similar TO that which every public
sss
| State OF New York and discharge the duties OF
Police commisssicper nI1s according TO TIE Pest
named convicted Of not having performed
their oficlal duties according ITO the best OF
nnair indirectiy % they might have been guilty oi the
o1ence for which they were convicted, and yet
throughout sS their oncial conduct, which Should
render them conspicuous examples to all public
sss sosass sssss5 s n mdess either ns n as s "a
In respect OF which they were convicted or in any
other part Of their olicial conduct were in any
offence Of which they were convictedf To deter
| ings upon the trial; but nrst allow me to briefly
notice the circumstances out OF which the trial
| arose.
Tte appointment Of inspectors OF election ana
and general autSorsy il given to that Board to re-
move any OF these officers tor want 0 the requisite
qualifications or other cause. AS the discharge OF
this duty requires the Board to make some 1900
more appointments. and they cannot we'll be per-
sonaly acquainted with but comparatively few
or the number. frequent occasions must ARISE Tor
making removals. 1t would be of course imprac-
ttcable to give hearings such occasions, anu the
.sucn removal, unless made while the inspector
Is actually on duty on the day OF registration or
election oiiiCer shall only p be made After notice
in writing to the officer sought to be removed,
which notice shall a set forth clearly and distinctly
useful purpose is supposed to be ACCOMPLISHED by
this provision am unable to perceive The notice
s one momeat ana the rsmSvai % be made @ the he next
Bat we are not to criticise 1t is enough shat
1873 the Gay before the election, affidavits were
presented to the Commissioners showing an In
unfit for the ONCE, and thereupon ne was promptly
dismissed, but no previous notice was given to
time. time Messrs c6arlck an and Gardner had excted the
hospitality or the politicians OF Tammany HAIL.
and after the election the latter went industri-
ously at work to institute legal proceedings against
them To thls end they pitched upon the case OF
John Sheridan and procured the Grand Jury to
were charged with having removed Sheridan sun
lawfully and Jei0g,i0aL&yn Upon the trial of the
taey appointed q man named John Sheridan
| as inspector, and that they removed him without
iaentsty 81 the man. not materai nere As to to the
commission OF the act therefore. no question was
made. Whether II was done leontoatssy, as charged
in the indictments, or with evil or corrupt intent,
was another question, and. as It seems to me,
the natn question when we are dealing with
the moral quality OF the act; but upon this
point the prosecutors offered no evidence tending
80 impeach the motives OF the defendants The
offered to prove. that complaint was made to them
that the character OF Sheridan was bad; that he
and that he designed to practice fraud at the then
impending election; that they declined to act on
b 10 u ba sne
presented Of the most direct and explicit charac-
Ter. in the shape OF aff1davits. Copies OF these
no one occupying the place OF these Commissioners
could properly have failed to act upon them forth-
thus offered the prosecutors objected to,
upon upon. the E grou1d that lit It would involve an
charged in the adavits thus declining the issue
as to whether the inspector really was person
who ought 10 have been removed. The defendants
offered further TO show that In making tie re-
moval without notice they acted unoer legal
advice and in manner, as they supposed, in ac-
objected to by the prosecutors. The Judge ruled
out all the evidence thus objected to, on the
ground that neither the fitness of the man Sheri-
dan for his office the good faith of the Commis
sioners were drawn IN question on the trial and
mitted BY the admitted failure 70 give the notice
Under these rulings verdict Of guilty seems to have
been necessary consequences. Indeed, there was
nothing practically left tor The jury TO pass upon.
Assuming as suppose | ought and nave no
opinion TO the contrary, that the rulings OF the
e pfosas and
only proves that they removed rom office an In
SpectOr OF Election, who, from aught that appears
OF was permitted to be proved richly deserved
removal, and whom they could not have retained
but that In doing this they omitted to give the
written notice prescribed Dy law, although they IN
! good faith supposed and were advised that their
mode OF action was in conformity with the law.
have the honor to say to Your Excellency that
ciai tribunal OF last resort that an offence OF this
| mere technical character, which the best man
might commit without shadow Of moral guilt,
1 NV OUnQ nf a
takes TO perform the duties OF his office 'ao te0 best
OF his aoilftv" There are few public officers, even
duties which are regulated by specific legal pro-
| visions, who have not at some time or other,
sionai neglect violated or failed to comply. with
some requirement OF the law. Such offences
and legal sna ana ws1
for and had, the penalty must. OF course,
be paid; but the characters and regulations OF the
| men who have untntentlOnally thus subjected
themselves do not and should not in the judg-
ment OF all right thinking persons be made to
suffer-. The learned Judge who presided at the
trial Of this Indictment seems to have Deen OF this
! opinion, for in prOnounclng the sentence, he
observed, ii ne IS correctly reported 1.-THE cir
cumstances disclosed In this case, in my Judg-
ment do not justify me IN INJECTING any more
that in n3l this on
there was any proof OF wicked or wiiful intent to
PRESIDENTIAL EXAMPLE.
The present Chiel Magistrate OF the United
States, near the beginning Of his hrst term Of
ONCE appointed dlstlnSuisned mercnant Oh new
York to the place Of Secretary Of the Treasury.
This In distinct violation OF an express sta
tute; but no sensible man allowed his estimate of
the character OF General Grant TO be diminished
IN consequence OF that oversight, or thought him
deserving OF impeachment. / cannot think that
1t would be just to say that he thereby uOtdted his
oath or Office and yet the oath taken by him corre
sp0nded, in all material respects with that tvken
under the laws OF this State by Messrs. Charlick
and Gardner. the statute IN which offences In vlo-
laton Of onlcial oath spoken OF is that which
specifies the cases In which offices shall become
vacant: ana the provision bearing upon the DreS-
ent discussion declares that every office shall be-
come vacant ''on the conviction OF an incumbent
OF an infamous crime, or Of an offence violating
his oath OF ONCE" What an infamous crime is
We are clearly taught by the Revised Statutes
They declare that 'the term infamous crime'
shah be construed as including every onence pun
lshaDle with death or imprisonment In State
prison and no other.n But there Is nowhere In
our written law any definition OF what constitutes
an offence Involving violation OF an of1cial oath