St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1879-02-07
That Bail Bond.

to the Stokes cases. Inc CdteooH""
has no disposition to enter Tito dis
cussion upon so personal a matter with
a clergyman but it must he remem-
bered that Mr.. Austin, through his hrst
letter to the CaledoniaR, undertook to
give public instruction upon the duties
of the press in general, and this paper
in particular, with reference to this
same Stokes case. He assumed the
character and tone of teacher and cen
sor upon that subject, and thereby led
people fairly to expect that his own
conduct in relation to the same matter
would he especially worthy OF imitation
and commentator, as becomes public
Teacher and censor. To this was added
the fact that his position as pastor of
one of our churches rendered any lndis-
erection on his part liable to give especial
hope and encouragement to criminals
and law-breakers. There is nothing
that suits the wicked better than ID
some way to get their names mixed ana
connected with those of religious men
to get some kind of Il sanction or quasi
endorsement from a minister of the
gospel; and nothing that infiicts more
injury upon public justice. For these
reasons. il few comments upon MIR. Aus
tins letter are appropriate.
The letter commences by some qui6-
bling about Il ''cOmpleted bail bond"
and says, Il certainly have never sign
ed or seen such completed bail bond"
The public complaint is not answered
by any such hair-spltting in words. A
bail bond is an agreement to he pc
cuniarily responsible for the appearance
of the respondent for trial, and whether
it was completed" or not is imma-
terial. The complaint was that a pub
lie religious teacher had given his name
and influence to aid in the escape OF Il
notorious criminal. 1t is 10 answer to
say that the formalities had not all been
gone through with. The name and
position were lent for this unwise pur-
pose; the form of the loan is il matter
of no moment.
But if the form was, us Mr.. Austin
himself says in his letter, putting my
name to an informal paper approving
other parties gin ng ball. the objections
are still more apparent. If pure SYM
pathy, however undeserTed, had led
Mr.. Austin to risk his money to aid one
that he deemed unfortunate, it might
be excused, as almost everything can
be to generous impulses. But this he
saws he did not do. He only advised
others to do so. Why should he give
SINGH -aduica2 Why shnnlh he sion Snch
securing his name in writing, except to
give the sanction of his position as
Christian preacher to the effort to re-
lease Stokes, and thus, under the garb
of religion, to induce others TO aid i'll
the escape? Mr.. Austin's money is his
own, and that he probably would have
a right to lend the use of to DR.. Stokes.
But his name, position, and influence
as a religious teacher, are not his own,
and he has no right to lend them to DR..
Stokes. He says that he did lend the
name, position, and influence, that we've
not his, but did not loan the money that
was his.
The letter says, "Let him that is
without sin cast the first stone :" and
from that text infers that none but per-
feet saints are to discuss common and
notorious offences. The line of argu-
ment seems to be that it was utterly
wrong and wicked for Hdrper's Weekly
to charge the Tweed Ring with corrup-
ton, and to urge good men to stand to-
gether for its destruction and for just
punishment upon its members, because
the editor himself might not be perfect,
and because a conviction of the crimi-
nails had not already been had. Is it
the duty of public spirited citizens to
take no interest in the discovery and
punishment of crime? Is it the proper
course for ministers and editors to keep
their eyes and eaTs shut to open and
long continued crime of the gravest
character i? Was it the duty of the
Christian preachers of New York to
rush to become bail for Tweed, because
she that is without sin should cast the
first stOne," or because Tweed had not
already been convicted
Mr.. Austin has been in this section
but very short time. He knows little
of the career of Stokes, and is in nc
condition to give advice to those who
for years have witnessed his desperate
and boastful career of vile and wicked
offence. The ''verdict of jury" upor
one particular offence is small matter
A. Oakley Hall was acquitted by jury
of all criminality with the Tweed Ring
yet his guilt was never doubted by an,
one, and has since been conclusivel,
proven. In our own county, two sue
cesslve juries have passed upon tn
same alleged forgery, upon the sam
evidence, one prOnouuciDg it genuine
the other pIOnouncing it a forgery
Which of those two exactly opposit
verdicts must Mr.. Austin 'accept as
verify n Does he mean to say that
verdict either way prohibits public dis
cussion, and that such discussion i
calling jury ''fools or frauds ~ Th
verdict in DR.. Stokes case simply pre-
vented his punishment for the one OF
fence on trial But if that verdic
rendered as it WAS against the bes
judgment of many of the jurors, wit