The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-20

In another part of the paper will be found
a portion of the voluminous evidence taken
by the Congressional Investigating Committee
in the case of Judge Durell, of Louisiana 1t
is damaging enough as regards the arbitrary
conduct and dictatorial manner of the Judge
in his official capacity, and, while the
evidence is somewhat conflicting as
to the charge of drunkenness against
him, some Of the witnesses testify
that they saw him in that state. The testi-
mony is unsatisfactory with regard to details
about the most important matter-the famous,
or infamous, order upsetting the McEnery
government Of the State. Nor is Judge
DurelPs implied connection with or profits In
the numerous bankrupt cases which Norton,
Durell's appointed assignee in bankruptcy,
manipulated 80 proftably, more satisfactorily
explained. The impression is, after looking
over this mass of testimony, that the investi-
eating committee has made bungling job OF
the business it had in hand, and that most of
the witnesses were either not properly interro-
gated or were more prejudiced than honest.
The prominent fact in Durell's case which
interests the public most is the order to re-
strain the McEnery Legislature from meeting,
and directing the Marshal to take possession
of the Mechanics Institute and prevent the
assembling Of the Legislature in that build
ing OF. to use the presumptuous and despotic
words of the Judge, to prevent any unlaw-
full assemblage there. But there is far
too much reticence on this subject.
Every one is familiar with the outra-
geous act itself; but what led to it, what
was the motive, what were the preliminary
steps taken and how far the administration
or its different officers were concerned in the
usurpation the committee has failed to find
out and inform the country. We know that
party politics was at the bottom of the crime
of overturning the legitimate government of
Louisiana, and that both the republicans of
the State and the dominant republican party
of the country were to profit by the
.infamy. ~. Had pgrell ~ prompters? Had
he no accomplices in Washington or
elsewhere out of louisiana Threats
have been made by him, we believe, or at
least by his friends, that damaging revela-
tons would be made if he was crowded to
the wall. Why. then, did not the committee
probe thoroughly all the ramifcatons of the
criminal comp d<tat? AS the republican
leaders, and even the administration, shielded
Durell till thepress and pupisic opinion showed
the "monstrosiy's" hideousn5ss, ~snd COM
PEELED them to abandon him, there Is g,cund
for suspicion, at least, that he had allies in tho,
infamous act, though they might be in the
background. True, it is possible such an i'm
perious and INSCRIPTIONS man might have
concocted the act alone and have been ready
to assume all the responsibility. Still, this
was On important feature in the case which
ought to have been thoroughly investigated.
The GOODNESS of Dureu on the occasion of
making and issuing the order to overthrow
the McEnery government shows his capacity
for usurpation or conspiracy. The men he
used, too were fitting instruments in the
work. Billings, Beckwith and Hunt, men
toned as counsel for Kellogg, were the men
who figured in the coup d. ktat But when
by the committee-far too tenderly,
we think-they did not appear to know much.
Billings was asked about the proceedings of that
eventful night when Durell made his order. He
was invited to be present at Durell' rooms, in
Custom House street. and there were present
Beckwith, Mr.. Packard, the Marshal; MIR.
De Kline, Mr.. Edward Fulton, and Norton,
Durell's factotum. He said he was there an
hour, just time enough to draw the order and
have it copied. Durell dictated the order and
directed Billings TO write it; but Billings says
Duren gave no reasons for making the order.
In fact, this witness, like some others, found it
convenient to know as little as possible. The
result is, as was said, most unsatisfactory
report from the committee.
AS to the charge of drunkenness against
Durell, some were kind enough to testify
that they had not seen him drunk, but others
avowed that they had. One lawyer describes
the conduct of Durell in browbeating him.
and in alternately refusing q jury trial in q
case and then declaring there should be jury
trial, which led this lawyer to conclude that
if Durell was not drunk he was laboring under
some mental alteration. Another witness
testified that DureH was excited on the
bench, that his face was red, and
that he had drunk little too much. Judge
John A. Campbell referring to scene in
court when he was engaged in q case, said
of Durell, 81 saw at once that he was drunk
and I made no reply" meaning that he did
not reply to the loud and insulting language
of Durell. The whole mass of evidence,
while not well brought out and not properly
digested, goes to show the utter unfitness Of
this federal Judge and former pet of the
republican party for the Office he misused. It
shows, too, that he had no regard for justice
or the rights and liberties of the people. He