New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-04
FOR PTBLIC ATTENTION.

Tho nows that District Attorney Gardiner has
In his hands an Indictment for bribery against
Nicholas Hickman necessarily brings under
public consideration once more his proceedings
i'm the Adams case. This man was his star Wit
ness against Mr.. Moneux. Standing alone
and without Heckmans Identification the evil
dence of expert opinion on one piece OF WrltlhS
purposely prepared to initiate That on the
poison package was hardly worth serious con-
sideration in a capital case. II was only as the
personal Identification and the handwriting
opinions pointed in the same direction that the
charge assumed plausibillty. Indeed. it is SAID
that the experts who were put on the stand
themselves were induced TO give their test-
mony on the prior assurance of this identihca-
ton. and were led to understand that they were
rather cOrroborating credible evidence Of iden-
tity than picking out one man from million
as a murderer on the strength of hurried eX-
animation of a mere scrap OF writing i'll the
fabrication Of which the hand of the accused
held the pen while an expert directed its move
ment
Now it appears that the identiher stood &C
cused by a Grand Jury of the very crime which
several men were ready to swear he offered TO
commit in this case. Mr.. Gardiner knew wit
nesses were ready to testify that Hickman had
offered for pay 10 identify other persons than
Moneux before he put him on the stand to OBJ
tain verdict against his predetermined prlS-
oner Did Mr.. Gardiner also know that Heck
man was under this indictment? If so, what
excuse has he to offer for asking jurors to ac-
| ccpt as credible testimony that he knew was
| open 10 the gravest suspicion? The record shows
that Heckman's Indictment papers were taken
TO the Discretionary private office on Feb
ruarv 20, Just one week before Hickman was
put on the stand. We do not suppose they were
| taken there TO he used club 10 Brighten
| Hickman into .testifyng to substantate pre-
| conceived official opinion. 1t is fair to pre-
| sumo they We're there TO throw light on Heck
| mans character. If Mr. Gardiner did not see
| them. who In that office did see them without
| protesting against asking jury TO charge a
| man with murder on IIeckmans evidence, while
| refusing to let the jurors know his previous
| character and his actions in the present case?
! 1t is no defence for Mr.. Gardiner to say that
he has other reasons for believing Mr.. Moli-
neuX guilty. Innocent or guilty an accused
man has rights. and a Dstrict-AttOrney has oh
| legations. 1t Is the District-Attorney duty at
| a COr0ner's Inquest to advise the Coroner as to
| his legal duties. The foremost of these is es-
| tablished by law as follows: "He must sum-
mon and examine as witnesses every person
"who In his opinion or that Of any Of the jury
'has any knowledge Of the facts" II there Is
no sufficient answer to what appears to have
been the deliberate suppression on the part OF
Mr. Gardiner of what the CorOner's Jury was
properly entitled TO know concerning the credl-
bility OF Hickman, II is time for the people TO
be aroused to the necessity Of protecting them
selves from the menace of INSCRIPTIONS exer-
else OF power over their lives and liberties II
is In order for Mr. Gardiner 10 explain this
matter. And II does not do for him to say ii
! will all come out at the Molineux trial The
question Is not now as to Mollneuxs guilt or
| innocence but az TO the conduct OF public
! officer which may endanger the reputation or
| liberty Of any citizen. If extraordinary and
| improper procedure can be tolerated in one case
| IL can be In another, and no man is safe. Mr.
! Gardiner, for aught we know, may have vol
umes Of evidence against Mr. Mollneux In his
! possession. But that fact Will not excuse him
n he has wrongf,uly obtained his Indictment
not with the good evidence he may have, but
| with bad evidence, which he knew was bad