Wilmington daily commercial., 1876-07-25
7ne I,ost OrEice Uases.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY HIGGIN5's ooNNT CI1oN
WITH THEM-THE NoLLE FRos. IN THE
DoUGHERTY IEDICTMENT.
The Republican OF Monday indulges in
the charge against Mr.. Higgins that as Dis
trict Attorney he covered up the prosecu-
ton of the late Postmaster Lewis for his
alleged defaults. 1t will be well in this
connection to remind the public Of the
course this prosecution took. The special
agent of the Post Office Department, un-
acquainted with person in the Office when
he was detailed to investigate the detlcien-
cy, after thorough examination of the
Office made complaint before the U. s. Com
missioner against Z. j. Dougherty, the
Caief Clerk, as the person guilty of embez-
element.
Mr.. Higgins submitted the case to the
next Grand Jury, as was his duty to do and
in so doing put before them every fact and
witness having any knowledge of the case,
and instructed them, in case the evidence
in their view implicated either the Post
master or any of mis- other subordipates to
present them for indictment. Upon this,
the Grand Jury,which included some of the
most honorable and intelligent gentlemen
in this county, George q. Tybout, Esq.
being foreman,
FOUND A TRUE BILL
against Dougherty only, and made no pre-
sentiment against Lewis or any other en-
ployee of the office.
But our readers will recall from the
evidence taken at the preliminary hearing,
and then published, that the office WAS so
loosely and negligently managed that
while Dougherty, as the Chief Clerk and
the custodian Of the funds, was
chargeabe with their safe keeping,
yet that it was possible that the money
might have been taken by any one Of half
dozen other persons. Under such Cir
cumstances no conviction could probably
have been had and the District Attorney,
after full consultation with and authority
from Attorney General Williams, Postmas-
ter General Creswell and Judge Bradford,
entered nolle prOsequi in the case. This
disposition of it met with the expressed
approval of Dougherty's Counsel, and no
complaint before any U. s. Commissioner
or to the District Attorney was ever made
by either Dougherty or his counsel, or
any other person, against Lewis, nor was
any evidence ever given or suggested to
Mr.. Higgins by any of them, going to inn
plicate Lewis, as guilty of the embezzle-
ment, upon which prosecution could be
initiated against him. AS the District At
torney had already put before the Grand
Jury all the evidence in his possession,
showing Lewis connection with the matter,
is it not plain case of mere malicious sug-
covered up the prosecution?
AS TO THE CIVIL SUITS
they were duly brought and service obtained
upon the sureties-Lewis having moved ou
of the State before service could be OBJ
tanned upon him.
The suits properly should have been trieC
at the last June Term of the Circuit Court
but az it met at the same time with thu
State Court of Appeals where the counse
for some of the sureties were engaged ant
because of the convenience of the others
an understanding was had that the case
should be tried at the next October Tern
of the Court, unless they should befor
then otherwise be settled to the satisfac
ton OF the Secretary and Solicitor Of tn
Treasury, who under the statute hav
charge of such settlements.
Should Mr.. Spruance be confirmed a
District Attorney, he would, of course hav
special counsel employed TO take charge o
these cases, and the public may be assured
that not MIR. Higgins but some lawye
hitherto disconnected with the cases woult
be engaged to try them.