National Republican., 1884-04-15
AS OTHERS SEE 1T.
How "Queer" Detectives are Enabled 10
Shield Themselves from Punishment.

ohteiu thembeiVes IfOm Ptihtshment.
philadelphia Press.
The trial Of the detectives now in progress in
Washington city has n special interest for Phila.
dephia the defendants being closely associated.
both in respect TO men and methods. with our
own corrupt detective service, which the Press
exposed and overthrow. The testimony, with
change Of time, place, and names, Is but little
more than a repetition Of the accounts given
in this paper concerning the former detectives
OF this city, the truth of which was fully estab-
lished as soon as those in authority saw fit to
make an investigation. The detectives in this
Washington case planned the crime, assisted in
its execution, and then divided with the profes-
sional thieves the liberal reward which was
offered for the return OF the stolen property.
The United States treasury building, with its
rich store of wealth, was the first object Of the
cupidity of this combination of thieves and de-
tectiyes. Finding the treasury too well guarded,
they turned their attention TO the Metropolitan
bank of Washington, and obtained possession of
aquanti,y OF bonds, Finder, private detective,
and Mcpeyitt, then police force detective, en-.
cred into negotiation wlththe bank for the return
OF the bonds. Finder received 5000, which he
represented to the bank officers was necessary for
the recovery OF the securities OF this he dis
| tFibuted $4,000 among the thieves, and delivered
the bonds 10 the bank with his own hands, and
charged the modest sum Of 500 for his services
SOuCehliHB ihSl tlul S-Iuuu No
his share of the fruits of the robbery.
Judge Wylic, OF star route trial fame, who pre-.
sided at this trial, informed the prosecution on
Thursday in effect that, in proving the above
facts, they had not made out against Finder
case OF receiving stolen goods knowing them to
DO stolen, as charged In the indictment. II was
not enough to prove that Finder was bad man,
aud had cheated the bank II was proven that he
had manual possession OF the stolen property, us
he returned II, but III This the court was of the
opinion that he was acting as the agent of the
bank. Ifhis agency in returning goods which he
had induced Others TO steal will protect him when
charged with receiving stolen goods knowing
them TO be stolen II Is hard TO how that class
of detectives are TO DO punished at all. They do
not themselves commit robberies. but they prompt
others TO their commission, obtain possession of
their goods, charge their own price for their re-
turn, and deal out to the thieves only enough to
purchase their silence and afford inducement to
other crimes on terms equally advantageous to
the detectives.
Experience shows that conspiracy is difficult
thing to prove, while its punishment Is altogether
inadequate for such grave oifense as this. The
detectives keep clear Of the actual crime. They
plan its execution and hover near TO gather its
fruits Their object IL not the property stolen, hut
the reward for returning 1t; and IL their fraudu-
lent assumption OF agency for the victims Of their
| crime will shelter their possession Of the properly
which the thieves have obtained for them, their
business will receive an unneeded stlmulous from
this judicial determination OF its immuplty from
serious risk