Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-06-07

Abandoned BY the district Attorney.

Abandoned by the U1D11ce Attorney
Michael Shaller appeared at Alderman
Donnelly's last evening to answer the
charge of incendiarism preferred against
him at the instance of District Attorney
Davis. The chief Of police testified that
he made the complaint at the direction OF
Mr.. Davis, and had no further knowledge
of the accusation. Officer Leanan testified
that he obtained a subpoena and went to
the district attorney to get the names OF
witnesses, and that he told him he had
quashed that case and ordered tho alder.
man to abandon it, that as he had insti-
tuted the suit, he had the power to stop
it. No other witnesses being present, the
alderman dismissed the case.
"From An Unknown Cause"
New Era.
The investigation now pending before
Alderman Barr as to the origin of the in
cendiary fire started by the fire bug, Alex
ander Lemon, is peculiar in many of its
phases. The act under which the district
attorney ordered the Investigation was
passed April II, 1869. 1t makes it lawful
for any mayor, alderman or justice
of the peace having jurisdiction,
whenever it shall be made to appear,
by the affidavit of a credjtable witness,
that any building or other property has
been set On fire maliciOusly, or burned
from an unknown cause" to summon
jury consisting Of not less than three, who
shall hear the testimony produced before
them, and find and certify the facts, as
far as ascertained, and the party or par
ties implicated shall be bound over to the
court of quarter sessions for trial.
The object of this act is manifestly to
aid in ascertaining the cause of the dc.
struction or injury of property burned
from an unknown cause" or. wncn caused
by an incendiary act, the incendiary is un'
known. Neither of these conditions exists
in the case now pending. Tho cause Of
the fire is known and the incendiary is in
custody on his own plea of guilty, having
been duly committed for trial in default
of bail. Having implicated the special
officer who arrested him as party to the
crime, the district attorney caused his ar
rest, but pending the hearing these pro-
ceedinss under the act Of 1869 were insti-
tuted before another alderman.
As we have before stated, all the facts
bearing upon tho administration of justice
in tie case could have been brought out in
tho trial of Lemon before = court aud jury.
Shaller. the special officer, would have been
a principal witness for the commonwealth,
and his cross examination would have de
veloped all the transactions to which he
and Lemon were parties, the jury being
competent to pass upon the facts. If the
district attorney is sincere in his new zeal
for giving the public the benefit Of the al
most forgotten act of 1869, there are other
cases where he might invoke its application
with promising effect. n quite recent ex-
ample is in point. The stock of GOtt-
schalk & Lederman's stOro was "burned
from an unknown cause" and great deal
of mystery hangs around it in the public
mind. Here is legitimate field for the
exercise of the most sagaciOus jury that
the Jealous district attorney could cause
to be empannelcd. In tho one case the
origin of the fire is known by the direct
testimony Of an eye witness, and empha-
sized by the admission of tho incendiary.
In the other, all is surmise and suspicion,
aud tho suspicious may reflect unjustly
upon innocent parties, who might be vim
dicatcd by an investigation under the act
Of 1869, and some light thrown upon what
is now dark mystery.
Why is the district attorney SO jealous
in the one case, AMI so impOtent in the
other? Are the business men of crowded
thoroughfare, packed with valuable prop
crty. less interested in ascertaining the
origin Of inccndiary fires in their midst,
than the owners of tobacco shed in the
Seventh ward