The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-12-14
Judge Hughes's Letter.

Suprcmc Court OF the United states IN inc
case Of ex partc Sicbold. 1t Is not our de-
sirato mislead anybody, nor to misreprc-
~cnt In the slightest degree any fact, or any
decision or opinion OF a court, nor even TO
suppress tho worst that can he known con-
corning any matter In which our readers
are concerned. As to Judge HrGHEs him
~elf, he ought to know, and does know and
ccrccdc, We doubt not, that we would
Iealously guard our pen from saying
word concerning him which would be
Wk~Iy TO disturb the friendly relations Which
have existed between Us for so many years.
And. yet Judge HrGurs writes as II the
Dispatch had recently been discussing
election questions "more angrily than
cSnslidly"; declares that II Is his duty,
personal and official. 10 say what he does
say: tells us that in the case named above,
the supreme Court OF the United states
~exl,austively discussed the whole sub
ledn; and in,imates that that decision has
bocu ignored by the best Of disputants on
the subject.
Not one OF these remarks can by any
possibility he applied to the Dispatch. to
which Judge IiUouEs addresses letter
whose tone would lead a stranger to the
facts 10 suppose that he meant TO complain
of US. This. we are confident. il not so;
for the opinion Of the Supreme Court in
fAc ease OF cx parte Siebotd contravencs
nothing that we have said. and conflicts
with no theory Of our own on the subject.
We declined TO deny the plenary power OF
Congress over congressional elections, ana
In private conversation with friends gave
ss reason the existence OF that provision
az the Federal Constitution which the
Supreme Court of the United states relies
mon 10 sustain it, decision in the case re-
ferred to. We cannot recollect when we
did so. but we are confident that we read
the opinion in cr pdrte Siebold some time
ago. At any rate. ii does not contain one
single proposition which we have combat
ted in the Dispatch, nor so much as a soil
tarv sentence which goes TO prove that the
conrt over which Judge HUGHES prcsides
copld find In the Constitution Of the United
Sy.If< any NdlIstil iva sum
those which the District Attorney Of the
United States has lately prepared in that
court.
We are glad that Judge HUGHES goes no
further than he does in his letter. We
should have regretted it deeply had he in
any manner or to any degree expressed an
opinion In that letter a. to the sufiiciency
Of the indictments to which we have re-
ferrcd. This il question which so far rs
he is concerned belongs 10 the bench, and
upon which he has no right TO commit
himself until it becomes necessary for him
to do so In his Judicial capacity. We
fully -onccee the truth OF his declara-
ton that il would he a gross breach
OF proprety in him to engage in contro-
versy with any one respecting these cleo
ton questions. We also concede that he
has nothing to do with grand-iury pro-
ceedings at all, nor with prosecutions and
indictments until they come into court.
Therefore we considered il wrong, though
We have never before said so, for Judge
HUGHES TO allow his District Attorney to
rross.question witnesses before the grand
Jury, or TO have stenographcr in their
prjyate room. which ought TO be sacred as
against all the world, TO take down what
those witnesses said, or, In other words.
Ia nut into the possession 81 a stenogra-
pber and OF the District Attorney testi-
pnony which even the grand jurors dare
not disclose to the world, under the pen
atty Of contempt of court.
We know that Judge lIrcHEs did not
mean to say that the suppression OF the
true law or the many-tongued iteration Of
false lawn was an offence which we had
committed, seeing that he combats not one
single opinion that we have expressed.
Nor did he mean that outside clamor would
Justify him in "playing politician with
pcnitentiary Offences" OF in dealing Sc
ycrely with first offenders. On the con-
trary. II the public have been misled on
the subject, and made to believe that thai
is law which is not law. and thus unwit
tipelv some men have become guilty o
crimes against the United States, this fac
OF itself ought to cause Judge HrGHEs
and would cause himne doubt, TO deal no
severely bat most lenfenily with such I'm
whiting Offenders against the majesty o
the law.
We repeat that there is not one word il
the opinion before III which conflicts wit
even one word that We have said upon til
subject OF 1t. What We have contende,
for. and what we still maintain, is that n
law OF the United States was violated b
ANY one OF the persons who have been ~
rested In Richmond upon that charge. w
do not deny, and have not denied, tn
power Of Congress TO pass the laws whic
arc found in the United States Statutes q
Lorqe on this subject. The question Of I'll
power Of Congress in the premises has NJ
arisen at all. II has not been nccessar.
therefore. to discuss II. We have, how
ever. maintained, and still do maintain
and a member Of the bar informs
that Judge BoND so ruled in the east
hforc his court i'm South Carolina
that when the law denounces Offence
committed sat an election il means @
fences committed on election-day, and NJ
acts done year, or month, or week,
aJay before the election. Judge liUGnI
quotes not one line from any authority
show that we arc wrong in this contention
This fact convinces u That not line ca
b. found In any law book TO contradi,
what We have said in regard TO the cas-,
before Judge HCGnEs'S court. II he coul
have laid his hand upon any decision &
onininn OF any court Sinfe on Ecdorn