The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-29
THE CASE OF WARDEN HARRIS,
Who Received Pay From the State
and the LGssees of the Penf-
IenIiary Zoo.

Nashville Banner: The Union, in eX-
planning its failure to publish the facts
in the Warden Harris affair simulta-
neously with the american, states that
it had full possession of all the facts,
but withheld their publication at Mr..
Harris's request upon the understand
ing that the american would withhold
publication, and with the hope "that
the matter might be bridged over and
a scandal avoided, and perhaps
mans reputat on saved" Without
discussing the issue between the
american and Union, or questioning
the EniOn's motives, we may venture
to ask: In what possible way could
the matterhave been properly bridged
over and a scandal avoided? All of
the facts were known, as the Uni1n
admits, and the only fact not accom-
plished was the formal acceptance by
the Governor of a resignation he had
directed to be sent in. How could
scandal have been avoided unless it
were contemplated to suppress the
publication of the facts altogether?
Even had the Governor concluded at
the eleventh hour to retain Warden
Harris in office something he could
not have lawfully done the withhold
ing of the facts in the case from the
public would have been wrong.
But aside from this question we
must refer to another phrase of the
UniOn'S explanation. Not content
with giving as the reason for its delay
in publishing the facts a charitable
consideration for man in distress a
reason which, if the true one, is COM
mendable-the Union goes on and de-
tends the retiring warden and en-
deavors in a manne- to Justify his
conduct. Ths effort is certainly in
discreet and improper, viewed from
the standpoint either of a judicious
friendship or of public policy. In the
first place, it must necessa lily provoke
a discussion and invite more Sc
verely critical examination of official
derelction which nay not be to adj
vantage to the party defended. In
the second place, no journal, with a
proper regard for the public interests,
csn afford to lower the standard of
official propriety and responsibility by
excusing the misconduct of an officer
and condoniOg palpable violation of
the law We need rather the eleva.
ton of the standard, and a more
scrupulous view Of official propriety.
We not only have not sought to
magnify Warden Harris's offense, but
we oh erfully accord to him whatever
of palliation may Justly come from
the TACT that he was following a pre-
cedent-a custom, however, which
would have been infini civ more hon
ored in the breach than the obser-
vance. We do not seek to underrate
any mitigating circumstance, and we
even urge the public to take the most
charitable view of his case. Yet, as a
public journal, we must protest
against the attempt made to Justify
his acceptance as a State officer of a
salary from the private concern which
has a mercenary interest in the prison
labor, or the effort made to hold him
up as a martyr, slaughtered, as the
Union puts it, 'for the sins of his
predecessors more than himself"
That he suffers for doing what others
did with impunity is true. Yet this
comparative injustice, while it may
give ground for sympathy, does not
make the surrender of his office too
severe a peralty in his case. When
it comes to arguing that he did no
wrong, and that he has been sinned
against rather than having sinned, it
is only necessary to stop all argument
by quoting from the oath Of Office,
solemnly subscribed to, which dis
tinctly and positively obligates the
warden to accept no bride or COM
pensation other than that allowed by
law"