Los Angeles herald., 1892-03-20

Some days ago the HERALD published
letter criticizing the public policy of
District Attorney McLachlan, signed
Republican" Mr.. McLachlan found
fault with the above letter, mainly for
the reason that it did not disclose the
identity OF the writer. The following
letter, which is signed by the author OF
the previous letter, explains itself:
To Mr.. James McLachlan, District Attorney of
Los Angeles County, State of California:
SIR: The Los Angeles Times of this
morning, March Is, 1892, contains the
following:
District Attorney was seen by a
Times reporter yesterday and asked
what he had to say in reply to the COM
mudication in yesterdays HERALD,
signed Republican"
He said: II am too busy with my
official duties to notice the etfuson OF
any craven coward who has not the
manhood or courage to sign his name to
an attack OF that kind; but if the indi-
vidual who shields himself behind the
honorable nom de plume Republican
will arise and make his identity known
l will agree to prove him to be con-
summate liar. 1 call upon him to
stand up"
l take it for granted that the Times
has reported you correctly, and that
you knew your statement to the reporter
would be published. Now, Mr.. Nc
Lachlan, craven, coward and liar are
hard words to apply to any one in cold
blood, but from you they are to be over
looked, for you only pass them along.
You know, sir, that l have heard and
seen you denounced to your teeth, on
the public streets Temple and Spring. Of
Los Angeles city, as q liar aud coward,
to say nothing Of other opprobrious epi-
thets then and there literally bestowed
upon you, and yet you did not offer to
resent the affront. You ought, there.
fore, to use the words craven, coward
and liar very gingerly. Although a
very inefficient one, you are a public
officer, and as such your acts may be
justly criticized by any person IN the
county. That they deserve criticism
and condemnation is partly your fault
and partly your misfortune-your fault
in being ignorant of the primary and
elementary principles OF law that any
intelligent school boy might easily ac-
Quire; your misfortune in being foolish
enough to become a member of q corpo.
ration of 'spoils hunters" who have
placed you in an Office that you disgrace.
Due allowance ought to be made for the
spleen you display, when one considers
the chagrin you must feel when you
realize, after having it pointed out to
you, how you have placed Yourself upon
record in your report to Judge Smith.
Where did you get the idea that you
as district attorney, had the right to
call the members Of the late "grand
Jury" before you and examine them as to
the manner in which they discharged
their duties while impaneled? Sections
903 and 904 of the Penal Code contain
the oath administered to the foreman of
the grand jury and the other jurors. l
will quote a portion OF the oath for your
benefit, viz: "You will keep your own
counsel and that of your fellows and of
the government, and will not, except
when required in the due course OF judi
cial proceedings, disclose the testimony
of any witness examined before you,
nor anything which you or any other
grand Juror may have said, nor the
manner in which you or any other grand
juror may have voted on any matter be-
fore you"
NOW, BIZ. IL yOu kucW duvbulUS CUil~
cerning your duties as district attorney,
you would know that while it was your
privilege and duty to be present during
the examination OF witnesses, you had
no right to be present or know anything
about the discussions of the grand Jury
nor how they voted on any case, except
as to whether or not they desired an in
dictment to be drawn in the case, and
the nature of the crime they desired to
charge. '.,'.--
When the grand jury was discharged
the relation between you and them, ds
district attorney and grand Jurors,
ceased forever, and thereafter they had
the same right, and no greater, to dis
close to you their proceedings while
Jurors that they would have to disclose
them to newspaper reporter. And yet
YOU, pretended lawyer, and actually
district attorney of Los Angeles county,
examined all the late grand jurors as to
the matters brought before them while
acting in their official capacity. You
say, U quote from your report to Judge
Smith, "All the other grand jurors
promptly consented to be examined
fully, General Bouton alone refusing"
Sir, neither you nor the court nor any
other power on earth has right to the
secrets of the grand jury room. 1t is
not strange that grand iuries refuse TO
indict when such practice prevails. If
the other grand jurors were fully ex.
amined, as you say they were, it is now
in your power to betray to your friends
the Lindleys, ct al, all that General
Bouton, Mr.. Blackman or anybody
else may have done or said in favor OF
an indictment against the accused.
The partisan rancor and spite SO plain
ly cropping out in your report to Judge
Smith, indicates too surely what you
will do with the information thus
flched from the innocent late grand
jurors.
Your report, sir, is "stunner;" after
telling all about how the late grand
jurors "were examined" you go on in
the next paragraph and say: Public
'spolicy and the law Of this state de-
t'mand that no grand juror shall dis
ssclose the testimony Of any witness
ssexamined before him. except when re-