National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-02-21
THAT CIRCULAR.

The I>hmaclite Of the New York Sun
goes entirely back upon his old friend, the
Attorney General, because the latter felt
impellcd to Issue circular to United States
Attorneys, cautioning them with regard
TO the weight Of credibility that should be
given 10 the testimony OF confessed crimi-
mails, anC the promises to be made to such
in consideration OF their having volun-
teefcd TO testify in behalf of the State
Although it has ''time out of mind been
the theory and practice Of criminal law to
reject such testimony as unworthy of Gre
dcnce, unless fortified and corroborated by
evidence free from like suspicion, the
modern trials of revenue cases in this
country have shown that our .jurieS and
prosecuting officers are rapidly losing sight
Of this ancient and time -honored principle.
Indeed, there have been several instances
revenue officers have been convicted by
the false testimony Of thieves and confessed
frions, through the desire Of sclf-prcserva-
ton, and the Vaccinations and malevOlencc
of COnspiratOrs, to dciTaud the revenue.
When the question is reduced to the sim
pc one Of which Of two parties shall be
convicted, the detectives or oflic erS not yet
accused on the one hand, or the conspira-
tors WHOM they have detected on the other,
the temptation MISREPRESENTATION naturally
becomes too strong TO be resiS ed b. those
who have already become Injured TO perjury
in their nclariOus practices Of defrauding
the revenue. What matters it to such men
whether they add a few more to their
already lnnumcrable list of false oaths, if,
by such addition, they are enabled to save
themselves from lclon doom:
The press has no doubt contributed
largely TO the prejudice against I'll those
who are in a position to be suspected, by
its fierce denunciatiOns of revenue frauls.
And 50 strong and dccp-Seatcd is this prcju-
dice, that TO be charged with completely
in fraud amounts very nearly 10 pre- -judg-
meDt Of guilt in the public mind. This is
a reversal Of the old commOn-l law principle
that the accused must be held innocent
until his guilt is proven. The press now
works up the case upon er pGrts testimony,
and, in some instances, unduly eXcites the
public mind until it is too apt to record a
verdict of guilty in advance of trial by
jury regulated by the laws of evidence.
Under such circumstances perhaps the
Attorney General wisely concluded that
gentle reminder of some well-established
principles of common law should be inter-
posed in the interest of justice and that
impartial fairness which is due from all
prosecuting officers TO the accused, and
more especially to such as have hitherto
borne good regulations. There was never
before in the history Of criminal jurispru-
dence such a phalanX Of volunteer wit
ncsses, composed of confessed perjurers,
as was developed by the whisky frauds in
St. Louis. These men foresaw in the tenn
per ofthe people but one fate for themselves,
unless they could furnish more attractive
victims in the persons of high officials of the
Government. The penitentiary stared
them in the face. They must go there
themselves or aid in sending some other
convict more acceptable. They must
divert public atten ion from their cases to
others. They fastened to change their
pleas of mot guilty to those of guilty"
coupled with accusations of officers of the
Government.
The Secretary Of the Treasury, whose
chief clerk was implicated by such tesLi-
mony, 1t was expected would 'call halt"
to save his office from scandal and his chief
clerk from disgrace. But it was found
that this game would not win. 1t was
soor discovered lbal the President had is
sued instructions that official position, how
ever high, should fail to screen the gully
parties. But the President and the Secre-
tary of the Treasury at the same time
avowed that by such instructions they by
no means intended to convey the idea that
any person should be indicted or convicted
solely upon the evidence of confessed
criminals. The Secretary Of the Treasury
was especially emphatic upon this point,
speaking both IS lawyer and in his Off
cial capacity. And he at the same time
averred that the business was entirely in
the hands of the Department of Justice,
and had been conducted by that Depart
ment since its introduction into the courts
Now what becomes of the charge so
strongly asseyerated by the Ishmaelite that
the Attorney General had interviewed to
prevent Secretary BriStow from furnishing
the guilty. 1t simply appears that so great
is the hate Of the Ishmaelite for President
Grant and all in any wise connected with