New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-03
MAYNARD A LAW-BREAKER.
THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE NAY BE
BROUGHT BEFORE UNITED STATES
COURT.
THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY THE FEDERAL
STATUTES FOR HIS ACT IN ABsTRACTING The

CONTROLLER WEMPLE'S MAIL.
tpY TELEGRAPH 70 TRIBUNE!
Albany Feb lit would be paintul expert
ence for the people Of this State TO witness the
spectacle of a Judge of their highest court taken
off the bench and brought before United States
Judge on the charge of taking into his possession
O letter belonging to another man; but the tirhes
have been revolutionary in this State ever since
the leader OF the Democratic party resolved, on
the day after election last fall TO steal the Legs
lature and therefore one, perhaps, would be
amazed at this new occurrence In the history or
the State.
Did Judge Isaac H. Maynard of the Court OF
Appeals, have any authority to seize letter adj
dressed TO Controller Wemple, containing the cor
rected election returns of Dutchess County, which
had been sent by County Clerk Emans, Of Duchess
County, TO the Controller as member OF the
State Board of Canvassers? Upon the receipt OF
these election returns by Controller Wempe de-
pended the question whether or not the state
Board of CanvasSers would issue certificate to
Edward b. Osborne, Democrat or to Gilbert A.
Deane, Republican, as the Senatorelect
from the XVIII District. The control Of
the Legislature rested in these returns
They showed that Deanc was elected. False re-
turns, then in the possession OF the State BOARD
of Canvasscrs, declared that Osborne elected.
Maynard nau Deen bJTlNllS Wi'H lid Oh'isS w
a LAWYER TO prevent the corrected returns, show
ing the election of Deanc, from reaching any men,
Der of the State Board OF Canvassers. II was.
therefore, to his interest as a lawyer to prevent
that letter. containing the corrected returns, from
coming into Controller WempleS hands Mr.
MAYNARD thereupon had the boldness to step into
the Controllers office, first revealed iii The
Tribune and other newspapers this morning, ana
10 intercept this highly important letter, which
would give tie Legislature to the Republican
party.
The United States Statutes regarding the Postal
Department contain something upon this matter
Of intercepting letter addressed to another per-
son. Judge Maynard should have read Section
3so2 OF those statutes before he took that letter
addressed to Controller Wempe, which he found
upon that gentemans desk on the morning of
December %, 1891, anG which he took away
without the Controllers knowledge. Mr.. Wemplc
swore in Brooklyn that he never received that let
Ter! and that he had no knowledge OF it; yet,
sworn TO before ex-Judge Learned here yesterday
by Joseph Allen, one of Controller Wemple's en-
ployes, the letter was duly delivered by the
United States postal authorities at the Controllers
department and upon Controller Wemples
desk when it was seized by Maynard and taken
from the office. Maynard did not have Controller
Wemple's permission 70 take that letter; that is
proved by MIR. NempleS testimony UnaJ ne was
not aware of it's having been received at his office.
Section 1892 of the United States Statutes, con-
corning the Postal Department, thus imposes
penalty upon a person who intercepts letter:
Any person who shall take any letter, postal card, or
packet although contain any article Of value.
or thereof Of posonce branch potohcc'
OF from letter carrier. which has been in any
posoce or branch potoce, the custody Of letter
or carrier has been delivered To the person TO
directed with q design TO obstluct the CORE
spondncc pry the secrets of another
shall secrete, embezze destroy the same, shall Tor
every such offence be punishable by fine Of not less than
$780, by Imprisonment hard labor for not more than
one year. or by both.
Judge Curtis, Of the United States Supreme
Court. at its May term in 1855, in rendering "a
decision in regard to the intercepting of let
ter, said The words Of the act do not require
that the letter. when opened, should be in the
lawful custody Of any one, but only that 1t had
been in the postofce or in the custody Of mail
carrier, and was opened before delivery to the
person to whom it was directed" This decision
fits the Maynard case precisely. The letter con-
tanning the election returns Of Duchess County
never was deliyered to the person TO whom it
Nas directed, but was intercepted. Judge May
nard it is evident, has not yet heard the last
word from the courts upon this subject of the
election returns of Duchess