The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-01-22
GREEN AND HIS CHAMPION.


IN I'.,s vitness who was brought before the
1s,,se for contempt Of one Of its COM
n...oea and the eagerness with which that
-.ner has rushed to his defense, are sug-
tive. to say the least. Such exhibitions
voal ON the part OF our extremely eau
s,ous contemporary are very rare indeed,
"a whenever INDUCED are invariably
..trib,table to the strictly business princi-
,,ies upon which 1t Is conducted. Is it posi-
IA that the Picayune would have been in
volyed by Green's compliance with the
.omand Of the committee that he should dis
close the name Of the persons who inatigated
Nm to the preparation Of the wicke and
.hameful transactions he has been engaged
IN or Of his coadiutors in an infamous con-
spiracy to ruin the character and business Of
honest men2 Or Is this enthusiasm due to a
marc " sentimental and altogether unselfish
ebution OF that fellow feeling which makes US
vondrous kind2 We shall not say one word
n pre;udice the public In its specuations as
70 which of these motives has inspired the
pcawme In Its championship Of Green and
The assault it has made on the gentlemen Of
the committee to examine the affairs OF the
state Printer.
Il is not our purpose to impugn that paper
hut TO secure justice for the members OF the
committee We believe that 1t Is only neces-
sary to make a plain statement OF the case In
order to justify the course taken by
them. Before the question was asked
Green as to who instigated his course or
aided and abetted him In 1t, which he
\ refused to answer, an immense amount
of yllainy had been disclosed by his tes-
timonye He had shown concuSively that
there had beena conspiracy to operate on the
grand jury and procure the indictment Of the
State Printer He had sworn in a court Of
Justice that he had been instigated thereto,
and that since the person who had put him up
TO this Infamous job was so unmanly as to
leave him to bear the whole responsible
lily, he would not expose him. He had
shown that the indictment had been
found by his own guilty connivance, by
his exaggeration, equivocation, and specially
By his suppression Of facts within his per-
sonal knowledge both as an expert and as an
Individual He had assumed throughout his
whole examination hypoctitical can't, and
had been full OF professions OF personal affec
ton for and freedom from malice against the
State Printer From beginning to end his
testimony inculcates the idea that he was in
stigated In all that he did by persons who
had purpose, born of interest and malice. to
destroy the reputation and business
standing of that official. Every dam
aging fact to himself had been shown
by his own testimony. and SO conscious
was he of this fact that he actually refused
to answer question propounded him until he
was assured that 1t would not be used to pro-
cure his conviction for perjury. But, among
all his self-confessed infamies, nothing stood
out more prominent than that he had been
PROCURED. There is principle of law which
says that no man shall be forced to criminate
himself but we have never heard Of the doc
trine being stretched to such an extent as to
be used as mantle Of charity for the protec-
ton Of instigators and co-conspirators, es-
pecially after the witness has involved himself
as far as IL was possible for him to do So
But, says the Picayune, Mr.. Green is not on
trial. The inquiry has been instituted into
the affairs Of the State Printer, and to this
investigation the committee is confined What
brought about this inquiry and provoked the
appointment of this committee? Charges of
fraud and swindling preferred by Green,
worked up by Green and sworn to by Green.
Throughout Green has appeared as prose-
cutor and as witness. He has given testimony,
and persisted in it, which would be of an ex-
tremely damaging character TO the party
arraigned but for his own self-confessed vii
lainy. Does the Picdynne propose to
lay down as a principle Of law that
facts going to the credibility Of witness can
not be ELECTED, even In court Of justice aid
under the strictest constructions of the law
of evidence? Does the Picayune, or Warmoth,
the legal luminary whose views it adopts,
propose to say that the disclosure of corrupt
motive, the procurement of a witness for hire,
or from malice, will not discredit hfs testi-
m0ny, or that witness is to be protected
In refusing to disclose such motive, or that
who may have instigated him is q
question OF no relevancy? III they do say
80, they but disclose monumental ignorance
OF all the principles Of the law Of evidence,
and perverted moral sense besides. Such
doctrine is Infamous, and its enforcement
would hedge around with sancity the free ma
sonry OF thieves and periurers. No such doc
Urine has ever been upheld in any court OF JUS
tlce, and before such a tribunal, where the law
would be Interpreted by jurist, Green would
not only have been forced to disclose his in
stlgator, but the circumstances and
the consideration which induced him to be-
come such swift and potent witness
His contumacy would certainly have been
punished to the extent Of the law, and in case
he persisted In 1t. the judicial inference, even
In mere civil case of accounts, involving no
possibility OF criminal prosecution. would be
that he had committed deliberate perjury.
This, we Affirm, would be the construction
In court at law. But who has ever proposed
the enforcement OF the strict rules of evidence
In legislative committees of inyestipation2
No one who has not had a motive or an inter-
est in the suppression OF testimony.
A CORRESPONDENTS MISTAKES.
T..