The Evening critic., 1883-01-08
MARSHAL HENRY INDIGNANT.
Ekis Version OF uis Troubles with
Ilaa. Allnrnn.,. 4, n nrnl

the Attorney. Gcnerai.
Last Saturdays New York Times contains
the following very interesting interview with
ex.Marshal Henry;
CLEvEIASn, Jan. 5.--Marshal Henry to-day,
in response TO the query, " Have you any
thing to say In answer to tho letter of the
Auorney.Gcneral in reply to your letter TO the
President asking for an Investigation IN regard
to the complaints OF George Bliss ana tue
Attorney.Generul 2" answered;
al have to say that the complaints were
false, captious, malicious and furnish not one
word OF proof to sustain them. Judging from
the bad grammar and the contradictions Whion
the letter contains, one would DO lod % luuBu
II was written whom the author was IN lhs con-
dtlon he Is said 10 have been In when ne re-
turned from horse-rnce last Sprlngi or W~nen ~
he met some of the defendants IN tne star-
Route case In n Washington reet1drant. He
charges in his letter that aided tue Star
Route defendants by sympathy. There IS not
a shadow Of truth I'm the statement, as all who
have personal knowledge OF what was going
on know. He says | was an Injury to the
prosecution. His employees meddled with the
jury during the trial: the men under mo did
not He complains that selected two tales
men irregularly because / did not summon
them In person. No Marshal in the District
ever did summon talesmen In person. Tho
new Marshal did not do go for the new trial,
and did not take half tho caro- in selecting
them that did, and yet this old political Jack
ketch and coarse burlesque on Chesterfield
had not thought of reprimanding the new
Marshall simply for the reason that his door
had not been chalked for execution. Every
D0uy KNOWS VINO nad any kllOWleuBc oil inc ttlhl
that had no interest III tho acqulttnl or the
defendants In the StarRoute cases. The result
yindicated me, as tho two talesmen of whom
he complained both voted for conviction"
"Attorney- General Brewster asserts In hts
letter that you must have been aware that
there was stenographer In the room taking
down the questions and answers In your
famous interview with him. Is that SOP
ut Is not 80. l had no knowledge of any per-
son being In the room except the Attorney.
General when the conversation was going on.
however, has never been made public. It's
this: He said to me: One of your men said to
what you want" Ireplied, Il don't believe
one of my men said So He said, Il do, and l
Will investigate 1t to the bottom He did In
vestigate 1t that day to the bottom and found
that there was nothing In IL except that Inger
soil and Dorsey wanted n match with which
TO light cigars Dorsey said he would take
three or four four matches, and the deputy
That was all that was said, and they imme-
diately walked out again. Several persons were
in the room and saw and heard all that took
place. The Attorney ey-General afterward
expressed himself satisfied that there was
nothing In IT,. Yet, three days after this there
appeared In the New York Herald au article
detailing tho fact that Dorsey was in my ofllce
talking earnestly with me and that was over
heard to say that he could hnvo what he
wanted. On or about November 13 the WASH
lneton correspondent OF the Herdld stated in
his dispatches that the Attorney. y.Generai him
self gave that information concerning the Sc.
son who was reprimanded by Judge Wylle
concerning irresponsible writer's for the press.
] am indebted to the stupidity OF the Attorney.
General for his numerous interviews and let
ters concerning my official conduct, as in
these he contredicts himself quite frequently
and shows that his intention was simply to
make me a scapegoat in case the jury should
disagree.
"In an interview at Long Branch he re-
ferred to his sending for the Marshal and hav-
| ing an interview with him concerning the
selection of talesmen. He said that tho Mar
shall expressed much contrition about It, and
that stenographlc notes were made that would
| be published at the end OF the trial. In an
| other interview, n few days after, In referring
| 10 1t, he said he had q friendly Interview with
| published a stenographic interview, and by
| this proves that both his statements were un-
| true; that he was not friendly at the time, and
| that 1 was not contrite. He evi
| IDENTIFY undertakes the intelligence o.
| the public, as this interview show!
| that II was nothing but low, cunning Phila
| delphia trap, set to make me a scapegoat II
: the event of the disagreement of the jury. M
| one thought at the time that In the event of
| disagreement OF the jury any one would eve
| know how each juror stood, and he would bt
in a position at the end of the trial to say 9
| told the Marshal that responsibility would res
on his shoulders in the event OF disagree
| ment.' But, contrary to expectation, tho vot
and position of each 1uryman was made pub
| lie, and the whole fell to the ground"
| Henry is also very bitter In his criticisms oi
| Corkhill and Bliss, declaring that the former
farmed his oflloe out and that Bliss had a
ready made $4,000 out OF the Star.Rout,
| business.