Evening star., 1899-01-30
DR.. SHUFELDTfS COMPLAINT
His Charge Against United States District
Attorney Davis Dismissed
Attorney General Gri3gs' Letter Sus-
tanning the Course of Mr..
Davis.

Attorney General Griggs, in dispoSing of
the complaint made by DR.. r. ". Shufeldt
of this city against United States District
Attorney Henry E. Davis, has addressed a
letter 70 the former. which is dated January
2S. and is as follows:
Sir: The complaint preferred by you
against Henry E. Davis, esq, United States
district attorney for the District of Colum-
bia, has been onsidered by me. after hav-
ing been submitted to Mr.. Davis and re-
ceiving his explanation of the matters con-
tained in your written complaint.
Nothing in your written specifications
seems To imply that you charge Mr.. Davis
with any willful violation of his known
duty, or of any professional or official mis-
conduct, other than that he failed to take
the same view of the matter in which You
ware interested that was taken by you and
your counsel. and because of the view of
the law which he held. he refused to sub
init your charge of perjury. which you
wished to prefer before the grand jury,
against certain pefson who had testified
in the District of Columbia to that body.
In conversation. with me upon this subject,
you expressly stated that you did not be-
ieve that Mr.. Davis was dishonest in the
view of the law which he took, and that
the purpose you had in view in pref srring
your complaint against him was To secure
a review of the legal attitude which he had
assumed upon the question involved.
TT appears from your complaint and
from Mr.. Davis statement that when YOU
first called upon him in April, 1897, You de-
sired him to commence criminal proceed
ings against witness who had testified
adversely TO you in which Tas then
pending and undetermined in the court of
appeals of the state of Maryland, thu tes-
timony having peen given in the District of
Columbia before commissioner under a
commission issued from the circuit court of
Montgomery county, Maryland, the witness
having voluntarily appeared on notice from
m vii hnr
precept from any court of the District Mr.
Davis asserts that he refused at that time
to take the case before the grand jury be-
cause of rule of practice, which he dem
ed In accordance with public policy that
complaints for perjury should not be taken
at the suggestion of private parties while
the suits in which the alleged perjury was
claimed to have been CO mmitted were still
pending and undetermined.
Il concur in the wisdom of this policy,
and think that Mr.. Davis action in this
regard was proper.
You further complain that after the de-
termination of the suit you again requested
him to lay the matter before the grand
jury, and that he refused, after further
consideration OF the facts in the case, al
leglng as reason that inaSmuch as the
witness had attended before the commits
sioner and testified voluntarily without any
summons or order from the District court,
no indictment for perjury would lie against
MIN. lou Insist that you endeavored, by
argument and the citation OF precedents,
to convince Mr.. Davis that he was in error
IN taking this position. but that Mr.. Davis.
after argument and calling in his assistant,
Mr. 1aggart, adhered to his opinion. and
refused to institute, or permit to be insti-
tuted. criminal proceedings
1t thus appears that there existed be-
tween Mr.. Davis on the one hand, and you
and your attorney, on the other hand.
disagreement as to the law in a particular
criminal case, Mr. Davis honestly atihering
to one view and you advocating another
N Ind fhof 10 10
the representative of the government and
not of private complainants; that 1t is his
judgment, and not the Judgment and opn-
ion of private complainants or their attor-
neys. that must regulate the proceedings
of the grand juries subject, of course, to
the overruling direction of the courts. In
this instance, 1T appears that you laid
the matter of difference before Chief Jus
tice Bingham of .he Supreme Court of the
District, who conferred in person with Mr..
Davis upon the subject; that Mr.. Davis ex-
planned to- the chief justice his view of the
law of the case, and subsequently wrote
to the chief justice A letter explaining the
facts and the law as Mr.. Davis understood
them. 1t does not appear that the chief
Justice has seen fit to overrule the position
taken by Mr. Davis, or to direct the grand
jury 10 consider the complaint or find an
Indictment; on the other hand, he seems to
concur in The view taken by Mr. Davis. L
do not what other course the district
attorney could properly follow. If he were
to advise the grand jury to find in
dictment in a case in which, In his opinion
and in the opinion of the court, an indct-
ment could not be sustained, he would not
only subject the government to needless
and protitfess expense. but would also bring
unjustifiable expense and annoyance upon
the defendant. Such conduct the part
of the law officer of the government would
SAVIOR of wanton persecution.
Il fail TO find anything in your charges
which in the slightest degree tends to JUS
tify your appeal 10 me. and In view of all
the circumstances L sustain the action
taken by Mr.. Davis
1T may be proper for to point out
that you, as private individual. have
no vested right in criminal prosecution.
The offense of perjury if such an oTense
was committed in your case, was not pun
ishable for your benefit, but rather to sus-
tain the dignity of the law and to prevent
the commission of other offenses of the
same kind by other persons. You have no
more interest in the prosecution of the al
legged offense than have other citizens. You
have no better right to urge the law officer
to prosecute than have the rest of the COM
munity. The district attorney is the repre-
sentative of the government-the attorney
of the people-not of any one of them, but
of all of them together. and in this instance
l believe he has done his full duty"