The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-01

who. confsssing their own guilt had or should give
evidence against their associates in Il was wts
this view that the Attorney General requested 70
inform the House by what authority and for what par
pose he recently instructions 10 his subordinatss
alleged 10 be contravenon Of the long established
rule relating the testimony OF accomplccs Grim
inal actions To this request the Attorney General
among other things, replied NO instructions have
boon given by the Attorney General TO his subordi-
nstos In contravention OF any rule relating
to the testimony of accomplces In Grim,
nal actions, and no instructions that had
any such purpose intent nor instructions 10 which
any such purpose could DO fairly attributed In or.
that the position OF the Attorney General might be
has consented that tho person to whom it was ad-
dressed mght lay before the committee parts Of let
ter written by the Attorney General relating to his let
ter to his subordinates as follows:
"The letter occasIoned through numerous
representations pressed upon the President and
the Attorney General BY private letters, BY
newspaper slips, by personal assertions and by
the statements of OF the oldest supervisors OF the
Internal Revenue, that bargains going to be made
with criminals, not from any need Of their testimony
but in manner likely to bring great scandal upon thu
administration OF Justice AS precaution against any
such possible wrong the letter written, and had
any other Interpretation. Before the Navy trials
pending are over apprehend that will appear that
the caution was none TOO too earnestly
pressed In the administration OF criminal justice
when the great power Of the United States brought
10 bear, and when human liberty and good
repute more dear TO honorable than lifeI
are al stake 1t requires caution, crcumspcction and
steady judgment to that wrongs not done
which cannot be repaired and that criminals shall not
successfully combine to shield themselves by charging
their own crimes upon innocent men. These state
also contained in the letter OF the Attorney
General To the subcommittee, which Is also herewith
submitted
In the light Of these statements there can be
dispute about the tact The Attorney General,
10 prc:ent bargains with criminals likely he says,
To bring great scandal on tho ADMINISTRATION OF justice,
aud prccaution against any such possible wrong,
wrote the letters and that cautious crcumspec
ton and judgment were required 10 see that criminals
should not successfully combine to shield themselves
by charging their own crimes upon innocent men.
Therefore, u became ncccssaryto notify his suoord-
mates OF his determination that the prosecutions
should be conducted that when they were over Il
should appear that mo guilty who had been proved
guilty or confessed himself guilty had boon suffered to
escape punishment"
The Attorney General sends to this committee copy
OF the letter OF October IL IRON the Secretary OF tho
Treasury TO Buord wilson, Solicitor OF the Treasury,
then at ST. Louis In which, after stating that 1t was
not easy ut thus distance To say what. II anything,
should be conceded BY the government in particular
in order reap greater penets In others, and
that the District Attorney and his associates tho
ground better qualified decide u such qucs-
lions tho Secretary makes certain suggestions
10 entire harmony with the principles of law herein
alter stated and in which letter 1t appears the Al
torney General concurrcd II is not explained why the
Attorney General wrote the letter OF the 10Th oil Janu
AIRY without the concurrence OF the Secretary Of tho
Treasury who mas by law the supervision OF prosecu
tons revenue The question: therefore, arises
whether the Attorney General in SO instructng his
acted in contravention Of tho long cstab
lished rule relating TO the testimony Of accomplcca
criminal actions. Tho testimony OF accomplices
has been used against their associates from the early
ages OF our Jurisprudence. The evidence Of accom-.
pieces has al all tin3s been admitted, either
from principle OF public policy or from ju.
dicia necessity, or from both The general
rule Is that a person who confesses him.
self guilty competent witness against his partners
in guilt tBarbours Criminal Law, 424) Archibald in
hts Criminal Peadings and Evidence. page l54,
those jointly guilty with HIM but although in point
OF law they may be found guilty on his testimony
Alone yet in practice Il is usual to convict tho
testimony OF an accomplish, unless confirmed In
material part by the testimony OF other credible wit
ncsses inc necessity Of sucn . rule Is apparen.
But Tor conspraces to commit crime very lew OF the
gigantic crimes which starie extensive communities
could be committed and comparatively but little crime
In tho cases TO which letter OF the Attorney Gen.
cra relates, conspracles are essential TO their exist
ence. When each consprator knows that any one Of
the necessary accomphces may gain immunity by
vcaliug the conspiracy 1t leads him 10 hesitate and
alter the consprators have committed the crime for
ble until one or more Of their number seeks the I'M
muniy given witness for the State TO bring the con-
testiiyng in regard 10 the conspiraces in
question may deprive tho treasury OF millions
which has recently startled the nation "Ap extensive
agreement among atroci9us criminals prevented 6y
the rule" II makes them perpctuay
suspicious OF each other and prevents the hopeless
OF mercy from rendering them desperate Archi-
bald, page 154) But the Attorney General an
swcrs that he Intended only TO prevent
criminals from combining ITO shield themselves
by charging their crimes upon innocent men"
How does he know particularly at this distant point who
nrQ m an - nj ront
responsibility high official positony OF the classes
OF apparently respectable citizens and high officials
many have confessed their guilt and others have been
proven guilty Did not the high officials and appar
emily respectable citizens at first vigorously protest
their innoccncey Why did not tho Attorney General,
as did the Secretary Of the Treasury, allow some
discretion to his subordnatcsY Why did ne say
that no guilty man who confesses himself guilty
shalt DO allowed TO escape punishment
when by the necessary force OF the language
completes are includcdy IL Will not DO claimed that
person can testify as IN accompce without conicssiny
his guilt. But the Law furnishes perfect answer
to the position OF the Attorney General An
plicc IL entitled 10 immunity, because he charges
others as co-consplrators All promises Of favor o.
pardon are conditional upon his telling the truth.
false accusation would only aggravate his punishment
The Attorney General not willing that the truth Of
the accusation shalt DO settled by jury to the salts
faction OF the Court and then the ancient rule OF Law
the truth bot he nstructs his subordlnates that
guilty man, so coniessing his guilt must escape pun.
i5s:.Accompl,ccs are admitted 10 r,ye evidence IN
der implied promise OF pardon condition OF their
making iull and lar confession OF the whole truth
that Is, OF nil the offences about which they might be
questioned, and OF all their associates In guilt.
This implied promise arises from the con-
Gideration that the witness, who Ia not
bound TO crimnate himself does 10 discover
greater offenders, and upon the performance Of the
condition TO the satisfaction Of the Court he acquires
an equitable title TO pardon" See also Poop W..
whippc-.Upon motion being made by the public
prosecutor for tho admission OF accomplish to tes
y the Court, under the circumstances Of the case
will admit disaow tho evidence. will most effect
ualy answer the purpose Of justice" (Barbours Trim
Law, 424
In Archbold, 1S2. 8, II Ia siated-"It may be safe
and advisable for the Judge TO inform him that II he
conlucts himself fairly in every respect aud dscIoses
who'd truth concerning the guilt Of himself and his
associates his punishment may DO misgated and that
perhaps may obtain pardon. That hia
confession. testimony and disclosure must only bs
perfectly voluntary, but that II must be found strictly
true. The prerogatvc Of pardon Is in general matter
OF pure discretion, but there certain which
with strong claim tor indulgence that they
seldom II resisted OF this Is the implied
engagement OF immunity TO accompiiccs who bring
their associates 70 justice" But under the rule laid