The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1891-11-10
Tn Re McPhilIips.

In Re McPhillips.
THE NEWS continues to be in re-
ceipt of warm concentrations for its
disclosures regarding the loose meth
DDS which obtain in the office of John
J.. McPhillips, Sheriff of Hudson
county, and the vexatious delays in
the administration of justice which
have resulted as a consequence OF
those methods,
Members of the Hudson County bar,
better than anyone else, with the ex-
ception Of the Judges and the Prose
cutor, know the injury which has been
caused by the Sheriff's neglect. THE
NEWS was yesterday informed by two
prominent lawyers that, extensive as
has been the exposure of the Sher-
iff's delinquencies, it has not begun to
cover the ground, has not given the
public a 1.-THE of the disgraceful facts
that lie beneath the surface. Yet these
same lawyers were averse to making
specific charges or enumerating facts
in their possession, lest it might add
to the embarrassment they have al
ready suffered in the transaction OF
legal business.
And herein lies one of the serious
obstacles THE News has to contend
with in this matter. While members
of the bar are willing to talk inform
ally Of the matter, they r not will
ing that their remarks shall be used
in evidence. They do not care to talk
for publication, and. of course. no
matter how important or conclusive
their remarks may be, THE NEWS
cannot violate their confidence.
Now, if these gentlemen will author
ize THE NEWS to make public what
they have said, or if others will come
forward and tell what they know OF
the matters involved, speaking only
from the storehouses of their own
knowledge and their personal and
professional experience, it will greatly
aid THE NEWS in bringing about the
reform that is SO imperatively needed
If justice is to be properly and i'm
partially administered in Hudson
county.
An attempt has been made by
Sheriff McPhillips, or his friends, to
obtain from Judge Lippincott and
Prosecutor Winfield a denial of the
remarks attributed to them by The
NEWS. 1t was extremely abortive.
The best they could get from Judge
Lippincott was an intimation that
THE News had not used his exact
p~hraseology. But he reiterated to
them what he said to the Sheriff-his
instructions to serve all capiases in
his possession at once and bring the
defendants into Court.
The effort to secure a denial from
Prosecutor Winfield was even more
d~isastrous-so disastrous, in fact, that
the Sheritf's organ dare not give the
conversation, and contents itself with
the following
''What do you think of that story in the jersey
City papers''
DON'T think it will do any harm. :" replied the
prosecutor, and his eyes twinkled.
Knowing Mr.. Winfield as we do, we
can fancy that twinkle. 1t was the
comic side of the twinkle with which
he usually arraigns a known criminal
at the bar of justice. THE News can
only wonder that anyone but an idiot
should have published a statement so
damaging to his own cause.
The exposure made by THE NEWS
was moi intended to do harm. 1t was
made in view of ~effecting a reform in
that most important of all public
matters, the administration of JUS
tice. That it will do good is our firm
belief, and no one who knows Prose
cutor Winfield a doubt that he
shares our opinion, or that he is
heartily with The NEWS in the mat
ter of reform in the Sheriff's office.
The same authority makes Sheriff
McPhillips responsible for this utter
ance:
Il was not reprimanded, nor was I ever before
reprimanded, as the article lin The NEws)
staIes.''
Sheriff McPhillips knows very we'll
the previous occasion to which THE
NEWS alluded. The words that were
said to hun at that time were words
that were never said before to a Sher-
in in any county in this State. They
are not likely to have been effaced
from the tablets of his memory. 1t is
more likely that they We're burned in
as with an incandescent graver.
Would the Sheriff like us to quote