The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-08
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS EXPLANA-
TON

The comments Of the press on the pub
LEFTY given to the letter of the attorney
general instrucling district attorneys, in
effect, that men guilty of whisky frauds,
or of completely with the whisky ring,
must not receive immunity because their
testimony had unearthed the frauds and
sent bigger scoundrels to the penitentary,
has moved Attorney General Pierrepont to
relieve lis mind and tel "what be knows"
abo At the BAbcock Till.
SO far a. the public are yet informed,
his explanation is confined to one point.
The letter Of instructions, he says, was not
made public by or through him the preai-
dent WA furnished With copy, but be did
not furnish 90 the press. aud, moreover,
vas cxccai,peY euxious TO ascertain who
dld. Cplr suga',ou, ( WAS discovered
tbatOr. b. 8aboock, private secretary,
lc..e3I t.elguo ,ae executive mansion
and access .1 lis papers tAst, Without the
NuoNl l.s of the president, Btbcock made
a COPY of lne letter. sent DC 10 Storrs, who
published Is aud Thai Baboock admitted
20 the president aud attorney general that
De had SO done.
SO far as the cXpa alton goes, ii, per
haps, leaves tho attorney central in little
better light. 1t leaves him free from the
charge that he published the letter so that
Witnesses might be deferred from testify
/ .N,n,,ai~ ilnt II l1al ppt "
| lieye him from the suspicion OF having in
tended 10 cripple the prosecution in their
endeavoTs to bring Babcock 10 justice
The effect OF the letter would have been
The same, whether il was known and read
of all men, or whether it simply met the
ewes of district-atiorneys alone. In the
one case, the witness would be deferred
from testfying. Ia the other, the dlstric,
attorney would be prevented from taking
advantage OF the less guilty conspirator'
| and using them as witnesses against the
ringleaders. In the one case, the attorney
generals tracks could have been followed
in the other, his tracks would have beer
covered up. In either case, q fatal blow
was struck at the use of conspirators as
But giving him the credit of an earnest
desire to aid, not to hinder, the prosecu
tons against the whisky ring, and to Bring
the thieves to justice, not to shield them
where does it leave the president ? Tia,
the effect of the publication was to deter
witnesses, the attorney general admits
That Babcock and his counsel made IL
public with that intent is unquestonablc.
That Babcoci; fraudulently, surreptiously
and dishonorably obtained copy, he CON
fesses. The president well knew these
facts, fox Babcock admitted them. Yet.
after an acquittal so obtained. the presi.
dent foists Orvlle e. Babcock on the coun.
try as his private secretary, and outrages
the moral sense of the nation, and insults
the senate OF the United States, by trans
hitting messages to that body Though him.
What respect has president so acting for
himself or the country? Even the much
'vindicated' Dabcock has Il better sense of
the requirements of decency than had the
president. The president welcomed him
with open arms, and retained him in his
confidence and affection. But Babcock
resigns. 1t may be that Belknap's baseness
induced him to resign-but resign he did
and the country is well rid of him.
Inths light of this explanation, what is
the acquittal of the much "vindicated'
| Babcock worth ? Is his conduct that Of
an innocent man If he had been inno-
cent, would he have cared whether the
whisky thieves of the country were deferred
from testfyng or not? Would ne have
slrrepti,iously and dishonorably over
hauled and copied the presidents private
| papers Would he have made haste to
copy these papers and send them TO his
counsel, 30 that they might be made pub
lac 20 the end that testimony against him
might be suppressed How much of a
''yincicaiion' is verdict 50 obtained {?
How rejoiced the president aud the attoI-
ney general must have been over such Il
yndicatIOu 'Let no guilty man escape!'