National Republican., 1877-04-13

make a full Investigation. What business
had they to depend upon testimony taken
elsewhere? 1t was their plain duty TO all
before them the witnesses whose names
were given; to have them confronted with
the accused, and to permit Gross c KAN
ination. They did nothing Of the kind.
There is not a man Of them who could
swear even that the testimony accessible
in printed reports" was the testimony
taken by the old board or by the commit
tee of Congress.
Here, too, is an instance OF stultification.
This sapient board conclude from this tes-
tmony, which is accessible In printed re.
ports." that there is nothing that these
witnesses could say further that would
sustain the charges against 'he deie ,tives.
They are willing to accept what purports
10 be the full evidence when il tends, In
their opinion. to exonerate the men whom
they wish to shield, but when there is a
prospect that they mSy fiad something
against their friends the board determines
that IL "will confine its inquiry to matters
and things occurring within the period of
It's own tenure of Office"
We published number Of afildavits yes.
terday charging Major RICHARDS and some
of the detectives with grave offeuses.
These affidsvits were before the b)srd.
How did they dispose Of themH They cast
them out as unworthy OF credence because
these witnesses voluntarily went to RrcH.
ARDS with the representation that they had
been hired to testify against him. They
then made counter afiidavits, swearing that
they had committed perjury when they
swore against RICHARDS. The board takes
no pains to inquire as to the truth OF the first
sfiidayits by seeking for corroborAtive evil
dence, but they accept the counter affidavits
as an absolute disposal Of those they are IN
tended to countersct. This board reaches
the conclusion at once that II these affi ants
swear against RICHARDS they lie. Ifthey
swear in his favor they tell the truth.
Citizens who hsd no motive other than
the coed Of the community and the repres.
sion of crime have imputed to them the
basest of motives. It Is intimsted that
they have entered into q conspiracy to
blacken the character Of Q public officer,
and that to that end they have suborned
witnesses. Now, who would have the
greatest incentive to suborn witnesses, the
citizens who are lsboring for the good of
the community, or the police officers
whose alleged evil doings were being in.
quired intof Who would have the
greatest facility for accomplishing this sub.
ornation BY threats Of docking up" which
all know is q favorite way Of the police of
getting information out OF suspicious char.
actersy
Aelegram from Bellows Falls, Vermont,
published in Wednesdays papers, informed
the country that the case of q convicted
murderer there named LEWIS had been
appealed to the Supreme Court. Aud
wbyG Because man named ARLING, the
chief witness against LEWIS, confessed that
his testimony was false. and that he was
threatened by detectives with prosecution
as the principal In the crime il he did not
testify as he did. The detectives had a
motive for convicting LEWIS, and the ex-
perience Of recent years hiss proven that
when detectives lave q motive" they
will scruple at nothing to accomplish a
given thing Washington detectives are
no better than those OF Vermont or else.
where.