Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1898-11-04
A FAITHFUL OFFICIAL.

The malicious slandsrer OF the Morning
Democrat seems TO take particular de-
light In aiming his darts at District At
tOrney Flnlcal. While they do not hurt
Flnical, and while no one Is better able
TO stand them and take care OF himself
we would call attention 10 the following
facts:
The indictment against Melquiades
Martinez, mentioned In the Democrat,
was drawn while Mr.. Finical was serv-
ing as a mem Der OF the council, his
duties as q member Of that body prevent
ing him from returning 10 Albuquerque
and assuming personal charge OF the
district attorneys Office for some time,
after his appointment. His partner, @.
W. johnson. admittedly one Of the most
careful and painstaking attorneys nj the
Albuquerque bar, drew the indictment
and tried this case. As the case was
about TO 90 TO the jury, without even q
suggestion from the attorneys for the de-
Tense, Judge Collier. whose eyes are a
little crooked, got II In his head that one
OF Mr.. JOhnson's "thens' looked too much
like a there" and threw the case out Of
court. The indictment had been proper
ly drawn, the case had been well tried,
and everything. except Judge Golfers
eyesight was all right. II q prosecuting
officer Is TO be held accountable for the
mistakes Of q judge, then in this case
Mr.. johnson may have been at fault. but
Mr.. Finlcal certainly could not have
been as he never had anything TO do
with tho case.
In the Archibeque case mentioned. the
two defendants are now serving q term
Of five years each 10 the pe~nitentiary, 30
we think the district attorney did fairly
we'll there. s
As 10 the failure to Arraign the Navajo
Indians before going TO trial, We are not
prepared to state what the consequences
will be. After the case had gone 10 the
Jury II was discovered that the defend
ants had not been arraigned. After the
conviction OF defendants, their attorney
filed a motion In arrest OF Judgment.
That motion has not yet been argued.
What disposition Judge Crumpacker will
make OF II. we have no means OF know
ing. Like most legal propositions. we
presume decisions al be found on both
sides OF the question. Bat should 1t be
decided against the district attorney
would II DO \ serious charge against him
In the famous Borrego case. tried al
Santa Re. the best legal talent Of this
territory appeared, and after the trial II
was discovered that the prisoners had moi
been arraigned. True, the attorney
prosecuting the case, not being as homes
~ Mr.. Finieal, fixed up afidaVits TO alteI
the record In this respect but that doe
not affect the fact that the men had no
been Arraigned, and that they were tried
found guilty and banged without eve
having been arraigned.
lie the district attorney supposed TO viii
all his cases. and TO never make a mis-
take? A lawyer who wins half the tim
is ordinarily considered q pretty good al
bOIueyi huu Ohe WIN "Ahs al MS Oaao
has never been heard OF and prObabl
never will be. During Mr.. Finieal's teri
Of office there has been q great deal Q
criminal business transacted. aud he ha
Won a territorial name for himsel
through his vigorous prosecution Of al
kinds OF criminals. Never before has an
district attorney OF this district secure
80 large a percentage OF convictions. hi
name has become such n terror 10 eyI
doors that when men get In jail VIII
have heard OF him, they are just as vii
ing 10 plead guilty and take their sci
tence as 10 stand trial. for they knO'
that trial means conviction In all case
where they are the guilty parties. NJ
only has Mr.. Finieai faithfully locke