The New York herald., 1876-02-21
WIN Mr.. pierrepOnt Explain ;

The HERALD has maintained an impartial
neutrality between Attorney General Pierre
pont and its special correspondent at Wash
and making no other comments than seemed
necessary for keeping the matter in dispute
clearly before our readers If we have
pointed out, on the one hand, that Mr..
Pierrepont's ostensible denial was no real
contradiction, we have dissented, on the other
hand, from some of Mr.. Nordhof's s opinions
on the moral aspects of the case. With equal
consideration for both we have shown that
there is nothing in the statements of either
which raises a question Of veracity. The
controversy between them having apparently
ended by the prudent reticence of the At
torney General since Mr.. Nordhoff's last de-
spatch we respectfully invite that officer to
remove our own doubts as to the propriety
of his conduct. We ask him to ''explain his
explanation" and satisfy legitimate public
curiosity as to the motives which prompted
that astonishing circular to the Western
district attorneys.
Our special correspondent was only con-
the HERALD and the public care more for the
real grounds of the extraordinary transac-
tion which his despatch touched merely in
one of its incidental features. We had no
sympathy with the attempt to extenuate the
responsibility of the Attorney General by
dividing it with the President Even if
Mr.. Pierrepont had not disdained to take
shelter behind so lame an excuse we
could not have admitted it, because
the circular was a matter in which the
President had no legal right to direct or
control him. The Attorney General is the
servant of the laws, not of the President,
and the sole responsibility for that strange
act would equally rest upon him, whether
he assumed or tried to shirk it. AS matter
of fact we are justified in believing that the
President did prompt it, and that it was
done in pursuance of his wishes ; for Mr..
Pierrepont, having every motive to frame a
denial covering that point, failed to do so.
But no completely of the President can
shield the Attorney General in matter
wherein no law gives the President author
ity to interfere.
The Attorney General virtually asserted,
in his quasi-contradiction of our correspond
ent, that the circular was issued by reason of
facts not yet known to the public, and that
those facts are complete justification. He
then owes it to his own reputation and to
the decencies of judicial administration to
remove the veil of secrecy. That we may do
Mr.. Pierrepont no injustice we insert his
language :-"I stand by what 1 wrote, and
when the facts are exposed, as they will be,
which required the letter, the community
will understand it, 1t was purely official
letter. confdential-as all official letters
are-exposed by gross impropriety. only
wish that those who criticise it would first
read it, even without the light of the facts
which induced it, and be assured that take
the responsibility and ask no cover from
the Presidents name" There are strange
rumors, which have found expression in
some of our contemporaries, that Secretary
Bristow is to be put out of the Cabinet after
the conclusion of the Babcock trial, and
that his character is to be blackened to
reconcile the public to his dismissal. Do
the Attorney General have reference to that
officer? Does the coming event cast its
shadow before" in these mysterious givings
out of state of facts which will vindicate
proceeding which has filed the country
with indignant wonder? We have re-ex-
full attention, and stand ready to
prove that its unexplained language
bears out the Interpretation put upon it by
the country. If excusable at all it can only
be excused by the concealed facts so darkly
shadowed forth by the Attorney General If
his dusky assertions and threats are. not
levelled at the Secretary of the Treasury it is
difficult to see how they can have any per-
thence as a justification of that amazing
circular, which is plain intrusion into
the province of the Secretary of the Treas
ury as defined by law. Section S38 of
the Revised Statu tes makes it the duty
of everX district attorney to prosecute
in any case of fine, penalty or forfeiture
within his district, 'unless he shall de-
eide that such proceedings cannot be sus-
tanned or that the ends of public justice do
not require that such proceedings should
be instituted in which case he shall
report the facts to the Treasury Department.
1t is the clear intention of this statute that
the Treasury Department shall decide in
revenue cases where a district attorney
thinks that the ends of justice. do not re-
quire o prosecution-which, of course, in
cludes the acceptance of confessions by an
accomplice. Unless the Secretary ofthe Treas
ury or the Commissioner of Internal Reve-
nue. are abusing the power with which the law
clothes them in this respect there wasno rea-
son for the Attorney Generals interference,
and his concealed facts if they are at all rele-