Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-05-09
THE EXPOSURE OF PRIVATE CORRE-
SP0EDEECE.

In an auolher column viii he found an
interview with the Hon. W ". Stow, of
San Francisco. one of the chief attorney, of
the Central Pacific Railroad Company. \
perrsal Of the interview will show that
Mr. Stow believes w S Leake to have
been the party who betrayed a confidential
correspondence, and makes that distinct
charge We give Mr. I.eakc, however, the
benefit of his personal denial in advance of
any other response that may he made by
him. But lir Leakc, We take IT, viii find
il more than difficult Ia explain his treat
ment of Nh LaRue's letter, transaction
referred to in the interview to
which we call attention Whether
the charge concerning the Stov-cor-
respondence exposure may Justly he
laid ut the door Of MIR. Leakc or any other
party, it still remains evident that the gen
tleman who would betray confidence of
this ciaracter, or the publisher who would
publish it. are neither entitled to that con
idencc nor that respect which j. due from
one gentleman TO another
OF all the men whose BETRAYAL Of the
confidence repo,ed in them are most en-
titled TO I've summed and dc-pi,cd, the
despicabie Suave who hetrays to exposure
q confidential. correspondence j, entitled to
pre-emincrgc al correspondence !, neccs-
sarily responsive and when one side Of
serie, only l. divulged there is not only
the preswupjiye evidence that the other
side WAS perfectly reciprocal in all it, mo-
tive, and attributes, hut II is entirely Ger
tain that thi, must have been 20. If there
Is anything in = confidential correspond
encc one side of which being diyulged
will hold the writer up to contempt or
scorn, it is entirely certain that an equal
odium would attach to the other side
upon like exposure The confidence
which induces private and confidential re-
lations between correspondents is pro-
duccd only through mutual condolences
committed 10 paper. Whatever Of vice
or Of virtue its publication NAV ex-
pose, both parties to it are necessarily
equal sharcrs in lis merit or demeri,. The
thief who turns States evidence to escape
the penalties Of the crimes in which he
himself was 4 >harer still remains the
meancst thief Of the gang, as his exposure
Is not prompted by motive, OF virtue. 10y
sentiments of penitence or by an awakened
sense of justice. On the contrary, he is
prompted only by the low motive of cow
ardly self-preservation.
In the interest of the exposure Of crime,
the statutes Of civil society declare that
this meane,t Of thieves shall escape pun
ishment Society sets this value upon
treason among thieves, but it doe, not and
Cannot make honorable the treachery. We
do not mean to be understood as declaring
that the correspondence between two gen
tlcmen who choose to exercise the UNI
doubted right belonging to every citizen of
taking part in the political affair, Of the
country, Is on the same plane with crimes
committed against the property or the per-
sons of citizens. But if one party TO such
j correspondence exposes the letters writ
ten to himself or promotes that exposure,
he manifests the same attributes and the
same despicable traits of the criminal,
who, sharing the full moral accountable
ity of the crime, accepts the bride Of the
law and betrays his fellow-criminals. 1t
would require but slight readjustment of |
the circumstances to have the betrayer Of
such confidence share the plumber of the !
crime, and, by turning States evidence, |