The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1880-01-15
99Gtsce11amentGs.
OLD TIME POLITICS.


ernor.elect Charles Foster has given the
promise to Gen. William H. Gibson of
Tiffin, that as soon as he is inaugurated,
he will commission Gibson as Adjutant-
General of the State Of 0hio-an Office
with $4,000 per annum, and controls
large amount Of the public money of the
State.
This General Gibson was once Treas
urer of State, and was dismissed from
Office for embezzlement of the public
funds. He was twice indicted by the
Grand Jury of Franklin county-6rst on
the charge of embezzling bonds placed
by law in his custody as Treasurer of
State, and then on the charge of embez
zling some $780, 900 of the peoples mon.
ey paid as taxes into the State Treasury.
On one of these charges, that Of embez-
zling bonds, Gibson, in December, 1859,
was tried for penitentiary offense. The
jury was a carefully selected one, from
thirty.six names presented, was equally
divided in politics. and to this day it is
spoken Of in character, in talent, and in
honesty as the best jury ever selected in
the county. Gibson was defended by
able counsel, at the head Of which was
Col. Noah II. swayne, now one of the
Justices of the United States Supreme
Court. After long trial the verdict Of
the jury was that VIM. H. Gibson, in
manner and in form as charged in the
Indictment, was guilty Of embezzlement.
Before the sentence of the Court, send
ing Gibson as a convict to the Ohio Pen
itentiary was pronounced, motion was
made for new trial, not for the want of
evidence, for this was full, nor on the
ground Of evidence recently discovered,
but merely on the ground that one of
the jurors had read newspaper (the or.
gan of Mr., Gibson's party, the Ohio
State JournaD, which contained an alb.
stract of the evidence given the previous
day. Judge s. F. Norris of Clermont,
who presided at the trial in place of
Judge James L, Bates, whose convictions
of Glbson's guilt were 80 strong that he
declined to serve as Judge at the trial,
who, although fine lawyer, held rank
gs the most technical Judge in the State.
Politically he was opposed to Gibson.
1t was thought at the time that Judge
Norris was 80 afraid that some lurking
political prejudice might, unknown 10
himself, sway his judgment, that he lean
ed on the safe side, and granted that
which another Judge would have refus.
ed. Even Gibson's own lawyers were
surprised at the success Of the motion for
q new trial. Gibson's council got the
new trial put of, as they also did that
on the Indictment for the embezzlement
of the $SO0O00 in money. He gave SO.
curity for his appearance at the next
term of Court to stand trial. Before the
time elapsed Gibson got to be an officer
in the volunteer army, and he forfeited
his bond, and to this day he has not paid
one cent on his forfeited bond, on the
money be took from the Treasury or for
the bonds he embezzled. His official
bondsmen still stand indebted to the
State for the full amount of his delin.
quenCy as Treasurer of State.
Judge VIM. H. West of Logan county,
subsequently elected Attorney. General
of Ohio, had both indictments nollied-
not because he thought Gibson was not
guilty, for no man in Ohio ever thought
that. but because, as he said in his letter
to Judge Bates, ordering the nollies to
be entered, that Gibson's crime was the
"result of generous though fatal friend
ship" therefore, says Attorney. General
West, | have concluded to discontinue
the two prosecutions for which Col. Glib.
son stands indicted in your Court. You
will, therefore, be kind enough to direct
the Clerk of your Court to enter nolle
prosegui in each Of the cases." Judge
Bates had no power but to obey, and,
therefore, the convicted criminal went
forth to the world, not only unwhipped
of justice, but beyond the power Of be.
ing again arrested, tried, convicted, or of
being sent to the State Prison for his
great theft.
All this is preliminary to the proper
solution Of the constitutional question
involved in Gibson!s appointment to the
important Office rendered him. The
Constitution contains these words:
"Sec g. No person hereafter convicted
Of an embezzlement of the public funds
shall hold any Office in this State; nor
shall any person holding public money
for disbursement or collection have
seat in the General Assembly until he
shall have accounted for and paid such
money into the Treasury"
Gibson was convicted of an embezzle-
ment-the heaviest embezzlement for
which any man in Ohio was ever con.
victed and the Consultation says, in
terms which no man can mistake, that
such man shall not hold any Office in
Ohio" How, then, can Gibson be ap
pointed and hold officer The words Of
the Constitution are clear, concise and
unmistakable; he was "COnviCted of an
embezzlement of the public funds" the
records Of the Court show this. Will it
be pretended that after full, free trial,
before an intelligent and honest jury
that convicted him, the granting him
new trial, not, as before stated, because
the evidence of his guilt was not clear
and unquestionable, but because jury
man, having read newspaper, would
condone the offenseP II 30, the quibble
is as bad, if not worse, than that which
gave him a new trial. Before that trial
was reached the prisoner, convicted Of
the great crime, forfeited the bonds for
his appearance at Court, and then
Thorough partisan Attorney General mol
lied the indictment, because, as he could
find no other excuse, he said, without
evidence, the great steal has been the
result Of aiHigeneFous though fatal
friendship" What an absurd mockery
OK justicel But did this condone the Of
fense? The Constitution aava 1no ner!