The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-02-18
democratic side of the House, which is
afflicted with such a dearth Of ability that 1t
can i'll afford to spare its best man.
Attorney General PierrepOnt's Circular
10 the District Attorneys.


Attorney General PierrepOnt's Circular
to the District Attorneys.
Mr.. Nordhof our special correspondent
at Washington, reaffirms with increased en-
phasis and new particulars the statements
contained in his despatch, which Mr.. Pierre
pont undertook to impugn and discredit
without really contradicting it, in the COM
munication which he telegraphed to US from
Washington and which we printed yesterday.
There is no such conflict between the asser-
TONS of Mr.. Pierrepont and Mr.. Nordhof as
to raise question of veracity, and neither
of them is capable of making consciously
false statement. But we must not withhold
our opinion that, while Mr.. Nordhoff is frank
and direct, the entangling personal and
official relations of Mr.. Pierrepont have
made him disingenuous and evasive. But
with all his zeal to protect the reputation OF
President Grant he has not said, because he
could not truthfully say, that the President
did not prompt and request the preparation
of that indefensible circular, nor that he did
not inspect the draft before it was copied
and sent to the district attorneys. If the
Attorney General could have averred that
the circular was his own sole act, inspired
by his unprompted sense of official duty, he
would of course, have made that averment
and have thus completely protected the
character of the President from all COM
plicity with so reprehensible an act. But
instead of denying that the President in
spired it, Mr.. Pierrepont merely assumes the
sole responsibility for it, which is very diff
ferent thing, 1t was an act of COM
plaisance, of which the responsibility
must, of course, rest with the Attorney Gen
eral, because it was an act outside the legal
authority of the President. The President
had no more right to dictate such an act than
General Babcock himself, and had it been
done at General Babcock's request instead Of
the Presidents it is obvious that the sole re-
sponsibility would rest on the Attorney Gen
eral, who can shield himself behind no ad-
wiser whom the law does not require him to
follow. Legally, officially and morally the
sole responsibility for that act belongs un-
shared to the Attorney General, who is no
more bound to follow the advice of the Presi-
dent against his own judgment in matter
of that kind than he would be to accept the
dictation of the Presidents private secretary
Entertaining this view of Mr.. Pierrepont's
official duty, as defined by law, we entirely
dissent from Mr.. Nordhof's opinion that the
blameworthiness of the Attorney General
would have been extenuated by surrender
of his judgment to the wishes of the Presi-
dent. In our view such plea in mitigation
would be an aggravation of the fault. If the
President had asked him to do thing
within the scope of his duties, as defined by
law, which his own judgment condemned,
be should have made q firm refusal
and have promptly resigned his Office.
No other honorable course would have
been open to him, and we think better
of Mr.. Pierrepont in finding that his judg-
ment was misled than we should have done
if he had surrendered his sense Of official
duty in servile compliance with an illegal
demand of the President. We can make
some allowance for the bias caused by the
Attorney Generals personal friendship, but
none would be due if he had consciously
prostituted his Office to the will Of another.
We therefore approve of his manliness in re-
fusing to shelter himself behind the Presi-
dent, but nevertheless deplore the too pre-
cipitate complaisance which blinded him to
the real nature of what he was doing
The chronological condolences to which
Mr. Nordhoff calls attention are certainly
very awkward That strange circular to the
district attorneys was sent soon after the
witness Everest had returned to this country
from Europe, and its natural effect on his
mind would have been to frighten him from
testifying against Babcock lest his confes-
sions should lodge him in State prison.
Another coincidence is still more remark
able. Sherman was sent West with instruc-
tons to prevent the sentence of Bingham on
the pretence that he was wanted to testify in
awhiskey trial in New York, and he succeeded
in his errand. But. 10 and behold this
same Bingham suddenly turned up day be-
fore yesterday as an important witness for the
defence in the trial of Babcockl 1t requires
q great deal of credulity to believe that this
was not the real purpose for which his sen.
tence was postponed
RAPID TRANsrr.-A correspondent calls
attention to the fact that the Ele-
waited Railway Company does not IA