New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-03
SHALL JCDGE MAYNARD BE ANSUEREDf

nm JTDGE MAYNARD BE ANSUEREDI
Again we call the attention Of the Court OF
Appeals to the peculiar position in which
il has been placed by the letter of Judge May
nard to the Judges of that court in yindication
of his conduct in the matter OF the stolen cleo
ton returns That letter has so far gone I'M
answered. In a newspaper interview one OF
the Judges has expressed the opinion that May
nardS explanation was entirely satiSiact0l! ana
fully justified his action. 1t was broadly
intimatcd If not clearly asserted, by the law
ycrs whom the State pays for conducting May
nards defence in the investigation now Ill
progrcSs that the appointment OF Ma! hafd
was asked for by the Judges OF the Court Oh
Appcals. Nothing of an official character mas
vet appcarcd in contradiction of this statement.
The nearest approach to anything like denial
was Mr.. Peckham'S assertion on the witness
stand that TO his positive knowledge his brother,
Judge Rufus w. Pccllham, did not approve the
appointment but vigorously denounced II. buC
even Judge Peckham, to whom Maynard let-
ter was addressed as one OF the Judges Oh the
Court of Appcas. has said nothing publicly or
officially on the subject. nor does II appear mat
he has answered Maynard'S letter
Are the Judges Of the Court Of Appeals
aware that so long as Maynard'S letter goes
unanswered. and the assertion OF his lawyers
that they advised his appointment goes ul,
CHALLENGED and uncontradcted, they are hcld
responsible in the public mind Ton something
worry like completely in this Scandalous tr;lnSac-
,ionp DO they know that their silence under
.ucb m imputaton is construed by Maynard
:. al. 4, n,.i1. AT
svmrathy with him. and by the public as al
admission Of the truth Of the damaging aHcGa-
lion, of the Maynard gang? Even If they mad
NOT been appealed to by Maynard personally :;
ovcn if he had not put out his explanation ana
iu>tifca,ion the scandal of the whole proceed
inc WAS 50 notorious, and the stencil OF 1t SO
ovcrpowcrng that proper respect Ior inc
dignity of the bench, and reasonable degree
Of regard for their own regulations, would
soom 10 call for some action on their part III
an official capacity We are not unaware that
some Of the Judges have openly expressed their
INDIGNATION a, the appointment. and others have
less publicly but no less cmphatIcally gwen
uttcrance TO their dSapproval of the whole
Transaction But that does not cover the case
or remove the responsibility.
The fact remains that Maynard addressed 10
them a letter in vindication OF his conduct
which letter has been pronounced by leading
LAWYERS of his own party to have been IN it'
brazcn and defiant attempts 10 justify his crime
more damning if possible, than the crime II
.clf-and that that letter remains unanswered
What is the natural inference? What else
can people think but that the Judges Of the
Court of Appeals accept his explanation and
yindicatc his action? What other construction
can be put upon their silence? Arc the Judges
of the Court Of Appeals willing that this should
90 so? Maynard Ia, submitted his case 10
them as the only proper tribunal. lie Is one
Of their number. Ostcnsibly he wants an an
swer. Whether he wants il or not. the people
of the State Of Ncw-York who believe they
have been outraged H. his appointment want
il. Why should they not have ii?