Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-12-02
field wa. shot he Thought Il his dutv I,

keep everything in stdtu quo, and that as
he had resolved to resign from the Cabinet
upon the death of the President, he did
not consider it proper for him to take any
further action in the premises. This is a
strange theory, however. The question
involved was one of the administration of
Justice. 1t is difficult to understand how
Mr.. McVeagh could have supposed it pos.
sible that President Arthur might not
wish to press the Star route prosecutions,
and yet that is really implied in his state.
ment. In cases of this kind, where the
guilt or innocence of accused persons was
to be determined by evidence, it is impossi-
ible ts see how change of Administration
could have affected the matter one way or
the other 1t is also hard to comprehend
the line of reasoning by which Mr.. Nc.
Veagh seeks to justify his abandonment of
the prosecution. As the principal law
officer of the Government, it was plainly
his duty to supervise and to urge forward
these trials. We cannot see that it was
optional with him to neglect the whole
matter, or that he was justified in doing SO
upon the grounds he takes.
Apart from this consideration his letter
contains much that is suggestive. Speak
ing of the unparalleled audacity with which
the Washington organs of the star route
defendants proceeded to Willy every one
connected with the prosecution-excepting
President Arthur, - he intimates that
though the country had made up its mind
as to the guilt of Brady and Dorsey and
their accomplices, it was nevertheless pos
sible for these newspaper attacks to make
the securing of an unprecedented panel in
the District of Columbia difficult mat.
ter. And we suppose there can be no
doubt that this was one of the principal
objects of the defense, if not the main
object. Their organs could not hope to
change the convictions of the country, but
they did think it practicable, by cunning
pretense that the President was on their
side, so to influence public opinion in the
District that fair trial could not be had.
And this naturally leads up to the refec.
ton that Washington must always be the
worst possible place in which to try cases
of such character. For its population is
altogether peculiar, abnormal and untrust-
worthy. Ofiicialdom has its headquarters
there. Three.fourths of the people are in
office, in Congress, seeking Office, or in
some way connected with politics. There
is an artificial and corrupt atmosphere
National public opinion is excluded. And
the organs of the thieving star route ring
no doubt understood all this, and were
prepared to take advantage of it.
They therefore dexterously employed
President Arthur's name in their interest
While they were abusing McVeagh and all
the rest of the Cabinet, and all the Gov
eminent agents concerned in the prose-
oution, they never had an unkind or dis.
respectful word for the head of the Ad.
ministration. 1t isquite credible that all this
time they were imposing upon their read
ers, and in fact Mr.. McVeagh shows that
President Arthur had from the first de-
sired that the prosecutions should 90 on
without let or hindrance. But the or.
gans of the thieves hoped to create the i'm
L. IL
President was on their side, and through
this impression to prevent any conviction.
Plainly the thieves did not care anything
for the opinion of the country as to their
guilt go long as they could escape conyic-
ton. The President was of course placed
in very embarrassing position by these
tactics of the thieves He could not
publish card declaring that ne had no
sympathy with them. And it now ap.
pears by Mr.. McVeagh's frank admission
that he himself was responsible for the
virtual abandonment of the prosecutions,
from the time President Garfield was shot
till the time when Mr.. Brewster became
Attorney General. In this we cannot but
hold that McVeagh did wrong. We think
it was his duty to conduct the prosecutions
as vigorously as possible, and not to trou.
BILE himself about the future. 1t was
always open to him to resign, but there
was no reason why, in the meantime, he
should not have pushed the cases forward
We do not think that he had any right
to affect to put upon President Arthur the
responsibility of deciding whether the cases
should go on or not.
" firmly believed that my remaining in
"office after President Garfield died, or
" assuming any special responsibility for
" these cases in any shape, would be con-
' strued in the District itself as notice
" that you were not in sympathy with the
" prosecution, and that you intended Presi-
"dent Garfield's administration, and not
"yours, should be responsible for the
" further conduct of them" We cannot
admit the force of this reasoning. Mr..
McVeagh might certainly have continued
in the Cabinet, and might have prosecuted
these cases, without any such construction
being put upon the facts, unless by persons
whose opinions could have been of no con.
sequence whatever. Moreover, had he
remained in the Cabinet the new Admins
tration must have been responsible for
what he did, No separate member of an
Administration can be held responsible for
any part of its policy. President Arthur
would in such case have been held &C.
countable for the action of the Attorney
General. Ia fact he was held accountable
and as the record proves, unjustly-for the
sluggishness of Attorney. General McVeagh.
The actual history of the case consequently
gives fat contradiction to that gentle
mans theory. and proyes that his refusal To