New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-11
CLEVELAND AND STOKES.
THE PARD0NING OF THE MURDERER COMES
TO LIGHT
APPARENTLY 4 POGITIC BARGAIN-THE DOCr-
MENT WAS SIGNED DIRECTLY AFTER THE
ELECTION OF 1881. LONG AFTER TIE
END OF THE PEN Al TERM.


END OF THE PENAL TERM.
The astounding news that Edward S. Stokes,
who murdered James Fisk. ir.. restored to.
th" rights of citizenship by Grover Cleveland
when Governor in 1884, came to light In the
Court of General Sessions yesterday. This boon
was conferred on Stokes eight years after he had
served his term Of imprisonment. and. as was
pointed ont IN court, Just about the tim" that
Cleveland elected President the first time.
The actual date Of the pardon is December /, 1894
"a few weeks after the election.
For some reason the action of Mr.. Cleveland
has been kept secret these eight years and
half. Doubtless for political reasons the Pres
dent would not want to have the attention Of
the public drawn to his course in the case ol the
man whose influence in Tammany Hall is con-
sricuous Stokes was forced TO announce the
fact TO aid in pressing the charge of llhcl which
ln has brought against his cousin. W. f. d.
Stokes. and William Y. Martin. Thcsc two men
have been indicted on the ground that they wrote
Il letter charging him with misappynr tn, funds
Of tic Hoffman House corporation. of which all
three are directors. and with altering and causing
10 bc altered the acrounts of the business.
Tn" ca~,.s caiHc bcior" judge ,owing in Pert
Of General Sessions George II. Adams for w. T..
d. Stoke. had dcmuric to ono indirmrr and cN-
Mayor 4 Oakley IIall. for Martin. had moved that
the other be- quaNhrd. Assistant District NtoI-
ncy john d. Lindsay appeared ~ counsel Tor f.
>. Stokes. lie BEGAN the argument by reading the
affidavit Of Martin. winch declared that tic charg"
against him. the aliiant. could not be- cnt' 'rtainel
because T.. :. Stokes. having bc"n convicted Of
the crime of homicide and sentenced to Stotcs
prison, was civiIly dead and could not give evil
d.nc.. Mr.. Lindsay said that the constitutional
rights of the defendant had not been Affected bg
the proceeding. and the Indictment should not BE-
nollc pr-scqui,d on that gruuhd Besides, T.. ).
stokes was not tho only witness vino had gone
before the Grand Jury. Then Mr. Lin l-ay sprang
his bomh-hcl
"I In view Of the fact that Mr. Hall may bring
up the question Of the companant1 being IN c\-
convict; | wish - introduc" at this stage of the
proceeding, copy of The par Ion granted to him
~ Governor Grover Clcvc and on December l.
lssi- Mr. Lindsay handed TO Juig' Cowing n
big paper EN Mayor Hall wa, evidently aston
shcd beyond measure
Mr. Adams then argued at length on the de-
murTcr which h" had ntcrposrd to the W. F.. ID.
Stokes ind- -rmcn-. He 'clarrd that ia" indlct-
ment was Invalid because the letter alleged T. br
lb"ou' was ! privileged communication. w l..
D. Stokcs was director in III" company. anG it
stockholders 10 anything wrong in the accounts.
Tie Indictment used the words had mali"iou,ly
Iul,hcd. This WAS technical phrase, and no
existence Of nldlIc" was shown. Mr. Adams
wen: on
am not here 10 defend the grammar Of this
letter. but after clos, study of Il | am sure that
nv cilo15'a usc oC th" l,,onuuns he, his aud him
was such that they canIot he held TO refer to
t.. > Stokes. Again. the rulr Of common law X
tlnt the Indictment must -ct forth that "A breach
Of the peace has been committed This 1t does
not DO
E.-Mayor Hall th"n had his follows
Aft.r strninc 10 In" able argument on this de-
muricr ~ NY distinguished associate. IN re-
minded of 4 remark which Charles OConor made
in tlii, court q quarter of century ago. Speak
Ing Of certain Indictment h" said IT Was
Land ont in the Di>trci-AttorHcy oi'c" pi"""
Of AAIhiu>tor Irgs>"l- carpet. but when II Il
silicI ana anllyz.d II Is reduced 10 th" int"1u-
mem, Of rag carpot Just 80 with this IN
dictfucnt. lonr Honor there l. no Libel IN this
ca-,.. The IN licimcnt l. blScd OIL an anomaly.
The complainant comes hcr" in an Anomalous
o1arictcr. II" J., Obliged to stat" that h" is an
olccr If corporation, and as Sncll l. Obliged
10 eek the pr t'ciion Of the Court ii" does not
com" ~ m Indyduai.
e" Gc,ire to inform the Court II the character
OF ,h" man mentioned rs complainant. II" has
no standing in this court. rs he is an eX-conym'.
4 pardon does not rctify IL. H. TN" cod" made
him 4 Criminal This is not th" of a Rev.
Dr John Hall, or of son of Peter Cooper, the
p,anihiop.t, or of an editor who has endowed
a bed in one Of onr institutions for charitable
PURPOSES but H." cas" of a man convicted ana
sentenced to bc hanged: Of man saved from the
al tn..
hand 40 honest man would grasp for ten years.
Why, hc colldnt testify in action in court
until ,hpt disability was removed bv statut" in
1s.J: l." ceased 10 be- a citizen unit. IN" fnll oi
1884, when Grover Cleveland restored him To the
riehtS of one on the eve Of Presidential election
OcN-Nlayor Hall had misunderstood III" dat" of the
pardon. l. -uch IA man entitled to the SANE legal
rieh's ~ If IL" were some one else
"Th" plcadcr has inGrniouslv r"Irain"d from
inserting in TIA" indictment that the complainant
was libccd other than as an officer of a corpora
ton lon cannot libel an cy-convict. He Is like
the man IN a story which President Lincoln told.
The man was butcher and told customer who
complained of the quality of his ware. Malam",
my reputation hangs on the meat | sell Her re-
ply was. Well il il is as tough ~ I'll" beef |
buy from you, don't think much Of IT."
Mr. Lindsay arose 10 say that it did not matter
if T.. :. Stokes was an cN-convIct. II" went
on: d" | object 10 the motion of NIr. Hall because
the criminal code does not provide that the
defendant can move 10 qUa>h an inlictm"1t Ih"
dismissal can bc made only on the ground of
the rIceuarity of the proceedings b"ior" In"
Grand Jury The defendant cannot ask for
it, II must bc made only on the motion of the
District Attorney or by order of the Judge
The plea that the letter was privileged
communication falls through if 1t can be shown
that IN" statements were lal,s' anl malicious
The old rule of the common law is abrogntcd by
the code As for the Argument that f. stokes
il not referred to in the parts of the letter
alleged to be lihcllouS that is IA question of fact
which tie Jury alone can determine
Judge Cowing asked cN-Mayor Hall If he
could refer him to any decisions relating to an
cx-convict being "a complainant in Il criminal
charg. of libel
NO. Your Honor" answered Mr. Hall. warmly,