Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-11-01
(Communicated.)
CHARGES REFUTED.
Judge Porter Shows Where the Leader
Misstated the Court Records.
~ %Nn nj

Judge Porter Shows Where the Leader
Misstated the Court Records.
To the Editor of The Dispatch:
| The Pittsburg Leader having persistently
! published false charges of serious charac-
| ter relating to my conduct as District At
| torney, while exceedingly reluctant to enter
into any controversy, the fact that but a
small proportion of the people can know
the reputation of any man or appreciate the
bold defiance of truth and honesty of which
certain character of journalism is capable,
have addressed and caused to be delivered
to that atjournal the following communication:
To the Editor of the Pittsburg Leader:
do not own a newspaper, and for that
| reason it is impossible for me to publish in
detail the reason why each case undisposed
of during my six years as District Attorney
remained untried. In some cases the par
ties or witnesses were dead; in others it was
impossible to procure the attendance of
witnesses; in many cases the defendants
forfeited their bail, and in many cases the
defendants were never arrested. Many in
dicrments were merely duplicates of or an
other form of charging offenses, on which
new indictments the defendants were tried,
and many were indictments which were de-
fective, and new ones were found to cure
the defects. In every case q reason salts
factory to the Judge holding the session of
the court was furnished why it should not
be tried. Judges Stowe, Collier, Bailey,
Slagle, Ewing, White and Magee are not
the men to neglect to see to and enforce the
proper administration of justice
The number of cases not tried is not above
the average of such cases for the terms of
other incumbents of the office prior to nv
two terms. An examination of the records
will show that the administration of the
late r. II. Johnston, ESQ.,, was no exception
to this rule, and no man has any doubt of
his honesty and devotion to duty. In this
connection 1 may add that almost all of the
115 larceny cases said to have been held
over from the June sessions, 1887, were
larceny cases against employees of the Pan
handle Railroad Company. In these cases
R. II. Johnston, ESQ.,, and the late Hon.
John 81. Hampton were private counsel for
the prosecution. A few of the cases were tried
and the ring-leaders in the robberies were
convicted. Messrs. Johnston and Hampton
then informed the court that they believed
the ends of justice had been attained; that
the remaining defendants were young men
who had been misled, and that to convict
and sentence them could do no good. The
witnesses in these cases had to be brought
from all parts of the United States, at enor-
nous expense to the county, and their at
tendance could not be compelled by process.
The Court, Judge Collier on the bench,
agreed with the private counsel; and the
cases went over. None of the defendants
ever asked for a trial, nor have ever heard
of one of them being charged with crime
since that time.
AS to the one hundred cases, more or less,
in which it has been charged that the de-
PENDANTS were convicted or pleaded guilty,
or fiolle contendere and were never called
for sentence, the number and terms of the
indictments being given, any person who
knows anything about the records in the
Office of the Clerk of Courts can examine
them and in half an hour convince himself
that the statement published in the Leader
is not reliable and is untrue. The defen-
dants were called for sentence, many of
them were actually sentenced on the very
indictment specified, many of them forfeited
their bail, and process was issued for them
to the Sheriff Some of them had
sentence suspended by the
Judge who heard the case, and
some of them were actually acquitted by
the jury instead of being convicted. The
man who published that statement in the
Evening Leader could not have examined
the record or had it examined by competent
persons. I need instance only one case,
that against the notorious Daisy Moore, at
No. 271, March sessions, 1884. She was
actually sentenced by Judge Ewing to pay
a fine Of S10O and to be committed nine
months to the workhouse, and this is plainly |
shown by the record. Many other mis-
statements as glaring as this are shown by
the records, but it is unnecessary to particu-
larize.
Not one indictment was held by me as
District Attorney for political or personal
purposes. As the Leader invites an answer
to its statements, it ought in justice to pub
lish this w. D. PORTER.
OCTOBER 81, 1891.