The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1875-12-14
TIenderson's Dismissal.

-'~~------@f@~
The recall of Gen. Henderson's retain
er as assistant counsel for the Govern
ment In the st. Louis whisky ring cases
is causing no small amount of public
comment; perhaps more than the matter
really deserves. 1t is an everyday's oc-
currence that men are dischSrsed from
employment, in both public and private
capacities, for improper or unsatisfacto-
ry performance Of duty. Gen. Hender-
sons mode of performing what he calls
his duty was considered both improper
and unsatisfactory by those who en-
ployed him. Either OF these causes is
certainly sufficient to justify mis- retire.
ment by order of those who had en-
ployed him. II unsatisfactory to them,
there is no grounds for discussion; be-
cause that is matter wholly appertain-
ing to personal views of discretion. Ii
improper, then there may be warrant
the TACT OF lmpropriety shown in the
mode OF discharging professional duty.
On this latter proposition tiere does
not seem much difference of opinion
among those who regard the matter out
side of party politics. Gen. Henderson
himself virtually comedies that his re-
marks, as duplicating other persons not
on trial, were unnecessary and indis-
Greet; but claims excuse for them as
being ''extemporaneous;" by which we
are to understand that they were uncon-
sidered beforehand. But, II they were
uncalled for and improper, that circum-
stance does not change their character.
We are taught, it's true, that "unheedful
vows may heediully be broken;" but
Gen. Henderson reafirmed his speech
alter he had fully considered the same.
Consequently his excuse Of extempo-
raneousness is nullifed by himself
That his remarks, charging, by inuu-
endo, upon the President Of the United
States, criminal conspiracy and con-
fede alton with the accused person
on trial, as to which there was
not even film OF evidence, could
in any degree contribute to the convic-
tion of the guilty, or promote the ends
OF justice in the case at Bar, no one will
pretend. Then, ifuttered needlessly for
all purposes OF the case, they were ut
tered improperly for all purposes what
soeyer. The position of counsel before
q jury is very far from clothing him with
a free license to utter ISLANDERS of people
outside of his case; nor dare he, indeed,
utter scandalous things against the &C
cused himself, unless they be warranted
by the evidence before the jury. In this
particular, General Henderson's re-
marks most clearly transcribed profess
sional propriety. Under such circum-
stances there was no alternative for the
Attorney General, as representing the
Government, but to demand explanation
or dismiss from employment. General
Henderson declared that he ''stood by
his speech" His dismissal was, there
fore, a necessity.
That his speech was in bad taste no
one will deny. But his dismissal from
the employment of the Government was
not placed on that ground. If it had
have been SO predicated, it would have
been weak; because, mere matters OF
taste can not be the subjects OF contro-
yersies: ode gustibus non disputan-
dum." The ground assumed was, that
his remarks were needless to the case
and scandalous in their tenor and effect.
And we think this is all manifestly true.
And, being SO, it was due to the dignity
of the Government that he should be
retired from its employment as its pre-
fessional advocate and spokesman.