Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-27
CURIOUS 1gD1cATIoNs.

After tremendous broadside upon the
alleged star mail contract frauds, it is to be
noted that the journals which began the
commandment manifest signs of doubt and !
dependency. This is what is meant by |
their gloomy prediction that it will not be
possible to convict the guilty parties. One
journal indeed goes so far as to intimate
that "the prosecution could be brought |
"oniy upon suspicion, and enough CIR
cumstantial evidence could not be
g adduced to secure conviction in Grimm !
''al trial. although the mere recital of
'sfacts would be morally convincing to
sany one who chose to read it" Let us
pause awhile upon these words, for they
appear to us to contain matter deserving of
serious examination. What is implied
when il is said that there is not evidence
enough to secure conviction, but that ''s
mere recital of the facts is morally con-
" vincing?" What does the phrase 'smoral.
ely convincing" signify? Are there several
codes of ethics? Can that be wrong
outside of the law which the law declares
not to be wrong? Is it probable that
case in which it is impossible to
adduce proof such as would satisfy
a jury, is so plain that the public can
settle it offhand without examining any
evidence? Or does the statement we
have quoted really mean that if the
public are content to accept any reckless
and irresponsible statements as gospel, it
will be possible to make out case against
the accused whereas if the kind of evil
dence demanded in Court is insisted
upon, it is not to be had? And what is
the kind Of evidence required in Court
Strictly speaking. it is the kind of evil
dence which makes it absolutely certain
that the accused are guilty, or which leaves
no reasonable doubt of their guilt on the
minds of the jury. In the present case it
seems to be assumed that no such evil
dence can be brought forward and If this
assumption has any meaning it means
that the accusations have been made
without justification. The pretense that
newspapers havea peculiar system of ethics;
that they are somehow entitled to bring
charges against people which no Court
would entertain and that the public
ought to convict the accused upon this sort
of charge; must be thrust aside as alike
impudent and preposterous. Either Gen
eIal Brady and all the other persons hith-
erto named in connection with the star
mail contracts are guilty of fraud, or they
are not guilty. If they are guilty it must
be possible to prove their guilt. Ii they
are not guilty, no one has the right to
assume their guilt. The present indica
tions are that the Washington correspond
euts have overshot the mark, and have
made statements which they cannot verify.
Ii this was not the case they would not at
so early stage be trying to hedge on the
case, by pretending that conviction is
hopeless. and by confusing the public mind
with sophistical nonsense about "moral con-
Eviction" and actual conviction. The
situation as it exists is so far plain
enough. Certain writers have made grave
charges, and specific charges, against pub
lie officers and others. They have de-
nounced these persons violently in ad-
vance, assuming their guilt before they have
been allowed to speak. And after doing
this these writers now come forward and
say in effect that if they are permitted to
make whatever representations they please,
and are not asked to substantiate anything,
they can no doubt manufacture story
which will convince anyone who is silly
enough to accept it for truth; but that if
they are expected to confne themselves to
sober facts and demonstrations, they will
have to abandon the prosecution. That
is the present aspect of the case. 1t is in
fact so far simply the latest and most
fragrant example Of Trial by Newspaper.