The Evening critic., 1883-03-12


The scene which took place in court between
Congressman Belford and Judge Wylie, al
though resulting In an apparent victory for
the Judge, was really triumph for the Con
gressman. The conduct OF the Judge was
quite In keeping with his general character.
He has shown himself to be hot.headed,
thin.sklnned judicial Martinez.
Every man who values his reputation ana
has the courage to defend 1t Will sympathlzs
with Belford's plucky determination to make
himself heard. The general newspaper press,
which seems to consider any antagonlsm to
the Judge as sympathy with the defendants
so closely has he identified himself with the
prosecution-has very unjustly and very un-
generously condemned Mr.. Belford.
II will be remembered that the witness Rer-
dell, who has already, upon his own evidence,
been. proved doubledyed perjurer, swore
that lie saw n check made ont by Dorsey In
favor of Congressman Belford for consider
able sum.
This, as Judge wylie pointed out to Mr.:
imply that Belford had received any check,
but no such subtle distinction was made when
the evidence was given, and It was tele,
sworn that Delford had received bribe from
Dorsey.
Burning with indignation, Beliord asked
the defense TO put him upon the witness
stand, so that he might declare upon his oath
in the most public manner that no was 1nno-
cent OF the generally accepted charge.
Was that not the most natural course OF ac-
tion for an honorable man
II he had observed the subtleties Of tho law
better lawyer, but would not mon for ever af-
ter, knowing nothing OF the technical oblec-
tions, have asked, why did ho not go on the
stand and deny 1t?
Admitted TO tho stand, he endeavored to
make the denial. The Judge refused to hear
him, saying: ~ have ruled that testimony
out"
eyes" replied counsel, s'off the court rec
ords, but not out OF the newspapers"
The Judge then said that Rerdell's testi-
mony that he saw a check made out for Bel.
1t.
True; but, on the other hand, Delford's do.
NAL that he received IL was not proof that
Rerdell had not seen the check made out.
II the counsel for the defense refused to
produce the books because they might injure
the defendants, was that any reason why an
innocent man should not have had extended to
him the favor Of tie COURT to speak on his own
| behalf?
Belford could not mako the defendants pro-
| duce the books; he was not on trial. Never
theless he was practically accused without
having any status from which to defend him.
| self.
In the strict Interpretation OF the rules oi
evidence Judge wylie was right In excluding
| Belford's denial as testimony; but In re-
| fusing the Congressman the courtesy of the
| court the Judge has not raised himself In the
| estimation OF men who recognize higher law
than that OF tape and wax. If the denial
would have prejudiced the case of the prose-
| cution, there might havo been some excuse fol-
| the arbitrary decision, but as the prosecution
is solely-p presumably the interest of jus
| tice and fears not the whole truth, that pal
| liation Is unavailable.
Congressman Belford has been in public life
| for some years without any taint. He was the
| Chief Justice Of Colorado at one time, and In
| this respect alone deserved tho fullest cour-
| tesy from the man who occupied the bench.
The dignity of the court was Modified, In so
| far rs 500 could effect that the prosecuting
counsel plumed themselves upona victory,
| and Colonel Ingersoll paid the fine; but there
| is not man of honor In the United states who,
| when he reads Of Belford's bold declaration
that he would not have his reputation stabbed
| for five times the cost Of the fine for contempt
| Of court, will not say;
"Bravo, Belfordl |"