New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-04
PART II.
APRIL q, 1892.
WILL THEY DO IT!
SOME DEMOCRATS WHO HESITATE ABOUT
WHITEWASHING MAYNARD.
THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THEIR REGULATIONS
IN VAIN EFFORT TO SAVE Hs-THE
CRAZY CONDUCT OF REILLY AND RIDG

MENIS VI HE u LIN Jt DNF.
During what is called, and ought to be, but as
yet in no respect has bean the investigation OF
Judge Maynards conduct in the DutcLess County
electoral contest Hugh Reilly, who appeared sup
poscdly as counsel for the Joint investigating com
mittcc, but really as counsel for Maynard Hill
and the thieves declared in open session that
mo single fact was in dispute, that there was
no denial of any one of the allegations made in
the Bar Associations memorial" Although the
desperate situation of the thieves was we'll under
stood by everybody familiar with the facts, il
was not expected that abject a confession woul(
be made at this stage of the case. In his letter
of defence to the Court of Appeals Maynard had
denied some few of the facts rected in the Ban
Association statement, and had alleged other facts
in conflict with that statement Neither his dcnials
nor allegations were in the slightest degree mate
RIAL but upon them he had built up for his
grand act of larceny, which were thought of suiil-
Gent consistency to hold together Hills cowed,
well-brbed and wel-whipred majority in the Leg
islature. But Reiys declaration, the impotent
and in:Olcrable tactics he and Ridgway pursued
in their treatment of the Bar Association lawyers,
and the awful indictments of Maynard, and the
terrible presentation OF the facts against him con-
tanned in their replies, taken in connection with
the party decentralization produced in both houses
OF the Legislature by the tyranny Ol NIttlldl anu
Bush, and the shameless and selfish corruption of
Murphy have given new face TO the situation.
1t is more than suspected now that the result of
these conditions may be the complete humiliation
Of Hills power, and the unloading of the thieves
by combination of Republicans and decent Demo
Gratis This, of course, is only possibility, for
party spirit in the Democracy is always intense,
and there are a host Of reasons why the Democrats
in this Legislature feel under the necessity of
standing together, whatever the infamy may be
that they are required to stand for. Their present
DISCRIMINATION it must be remembered, is due TO
no distinct assertion of principle by honest men.
The revolt is against Maynards kind
of corruption and not against corruption In the
abstract The boodling brewer from Troy appears
to want TO pocket all the proceeds of all the
schemes of plumber that have been introduced.
Primarily il is against this that objection is made
Still, it may lead to results that are thoroughly
good of themselves. There are decent Democrats
in both houses who have only wanted an oppor-
tunity TO organize an opposition TO the thieves,
and their moral courage will now be fully tested.
The selection of Reilly and Ridgway counsel for
the Joint investigating committee was triumph
for the thieves-nOt precisely the triumph they
wanted but still triumph. Their first choice for
counsel was Mr. Fiero; first, because he is man
of genuine ability; second, because he pretends
TO be Republican, and is what might be called
Hill Republican, and, third because he is the
law partner of Senator Parker, and Parker Is
man on whom the thieves are by no means sure
they can depend. When Parker refused TO per-
NIT Fieros selection, the thieves second choice
was McCurdy. That would have been the next
thing TO choosing Maynard himself. The thieves
cared nothing about that, but McCurdy had
sort of intellectual perception that his appearance
would he so rank exhibition Of impotence as
TO disgrace him forever in the estimation Of his
profession and Of decent people generally So he
was taken sick conveniently, although he had
been at Albany several days the week before last
considering with Hill the tactics to he pursued
in Maynard's defence Two three attempts
were made to employ Democratic lawyers of New
York City of high standing At the bar but these
failed utterly No such man would do the kind
of work the thieves required of him. Reilly and
Ridgway, then, were all that were left.
Morally these men suited the thieves TO a dot.
Neither had the slightest compunction about i'm
putting prejudice and insincerity to such men as
James c. Carter, Frederic II. COudert, Albert
Stickney, John +. Parsons and Elihu Root. 1t
seemed To them quite appropriate to charge Mr.
Carter, who is the embodiment of all that is fine
conservative and high minded in the
legal profession, with wanting to get even"
with Maynard because, they claim, Maynard
had in some way opposed the Sugar Trust. How
he opposed it they have not pretended TO say
He certainly made no appearance in the argu-
nent before Judge Barrett, which was the only
occasion when Mr.. Carter served the Trust And
yet Ridgway was not ashamed 10 ask Mr.. Carter,
in impudcntly significant tones, if he not
Of the counsel for the Sugar Trust and if he did
,I.. Ind. I.I,
greatly offended that organization. This fact, if
fact it is, was also regarded by Reilly and Rdg-
way as sufficient to explain why John f. Parsons
bad accused a Court of Appeals Judge Of an in
famous crime. Mr. Hands agreement in that
Charge was explained by his connection thirty
years ago with Matthew Hale, who had appeared
lawyers. Mr.. Hale thirty years ago married Mr..
Hands sister. She died twenty years ago, and Mr..
Hale married again. His second wife, il appeared
Mr. Hand did not even know but that circumstance
by means relieved Mr.. Hand in the minds of
Reilly and Rldgway from the imputatiOn that he
would Ire willing wron9fully TO accuse Judge May
nard Of grand larceny "A means Of gratifying
Mr.. Matthew Hale. AS for Mr.. COudcrt con
slsent Democrat though he has always been,
Ridgway and Reilly proved him, by his own adj
mission, guilty of being William r. Grace's attor-
ney, and they made him admit under oath that
he knew that Mr. Grace did not admire David b.
Hill They compelled him to say. too, that lac
had presided on the occasion Of the holding Of
the "anti-snap' public meeting, and this
showing they were quite content to leave it TO
Ihe judgment of a candid and impartial public
whether the testimony of Mr. Coudcrt, alleging
crime against Judge Maynard was worthy of the
smallest respect. As for the rest Of the com
fepf yyo of nd
way and Reilly assumed tlat this completely dis
posed Of them; anybody would know that a Re
publican would always be willing 10 accuse a Court
IF Appeals Judge of a crime provided the Judge
were Democrat. Mr.. Sticllncy and Mr.. Robin
,on were unworthy Of belief because they took
40 interest in party politics, Mr.. Stickncy. with
the slinh sLa,uc adIuitiin IN rc.nnune