Daily Republican., 1883-09-06

We can appreciate the up hill work
the Every Evening" has had to con-
tend with in defending the actions of the
Municipal Court. Its arguments are
rather of an apologetic order, as if
would rather it had no apology to make
II is true that no arrest was immedi
ately made of the first offending
Democratic official alluded to by us,
but We can hardly accept the argument
as sound that undertakes to prove that
because arrest was not Immediately
made without warrant, none after
wards should be made with warrant
We do not think that Judge Cummins
had any right to ascertain the motives
OF anybody in asking for q warrant of
arrest for an alleged violator of the law.
[ was enough for him to know that Il
mau was willing to be qualified that
the law had been violated
The proper time and place TO investi
gate the motives Of man in having
warrant sworn out is at the hearing OF
the case, but even then magistrate
would hardly dismiss case involving
violation Of the law, toi the reason
that a man had some other motive in
view in having warrant issued. A
W WI f1 Il -, h., l.,.,
violator because he was not arrested On
the commission of the act. We have
never yet heard that a participation in
crime falling ont with his partner and
through spite asking for a warrant for
bis arrest, beng refused a warrant. The
main thing for inquiry was, whether
the law was violated
If violated, then the only next thing
left was to punish the violator. No
matter how the evidence is obtained if
it be true. In the case alluded to it
was a well known fact of which even
the Judge must have hal oral knowl-
edge hat the law had been grossly vio-
lated and even hearing of such viola
ton, would Judge Cummins not have
appeared AS a better conServator of the
peace if he had advised some person to
lodge information and have warran,
issued for the arrest of the transgressor
instead of refusing to issue one hen
applied for upon the iiimsy excuse thai
he doubted the sincere motives of the
man who applied for warrant?
The practical effect of refusal to is
sue such warrant to comply is this: A
Democratic city official was drunk, he
haved i'll very disordeIly manner, dis
tnrbed the peace and quiet of the neigh
borhood contrary to law. A policeman
Il day or two afterwards, no matter what
his motives were, applied fora warrant
Of arrest for the unruly official that he
might be pLnished rs other vioaters
were punished The Judge refused to
eidhI tht warrant because Otner pOllCe'
men who saw the violation did not arres
him Summarily at the time. In conse
quence Of such refusal III" official went
and the law VIC ated. WIFI
this tilmsy excuse hold water? Va
loubt it,
The other case referred to is worse in
some aspects than the first 1t also in
volved the arrest of "A Democratic Off
cial for IA similar offence.
The only difference in the two cases
was that Judge uumminS did decide to
issue a warrant after inGubating upon
the subject for long time, but by a
very nice arran cement, before the Off
Ger to whom the warrant was issued
had time to servr it upon the offender,
his attorney appeared and plead guilty
payinga nominal fine for the accused,
who sat in u snug arm chair in the
lawyers ot'ic" while this process was
going on. We are not surprised thai
the Every Evening labored hard in it,
attempt 10 justify such proceedings
and "" are not at all surprised at it.
failure to convince the people that the
NJ nllrlpHI Court was Slngularly free
from and entirely miltlucnced by
partisan considerations.