The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-04-13
sEABURY HITS JEROME
Judge Replies to Criticism Of the Dis
tricf Aftorney-More Trouble for the
Tasrer


Latter.
That portion of District Attorney
Jerome's reply to his critics in which
he animadverted on Judge Samuel
Seabury's conduct Of the trial OF Nc
Cabe, the Metropolitan Street Railway
Iompany's lawyer. on a bribery
charge, a been promptly answered
by the man criticised.
The district attorney withdrew from
the McCabe case because Judge Sea-
bury refused to accept the word Of
James L Q~uackenbush. general counsel
for h New York City Street Railway
Company. that vouchers for payments
Of money We're destroyed after one
year.
Then it appeared to the district at
torney." Mr.. Jerome is quoted as say
ing that Justice Seabury's court was
no longer a forum in which any self
respecting lawyer would consent TO
remain unless he was compelled to-"
Here Is Judge Seabury's reply:
Il have heretofore refrained from
making any criticism of the district at
torney in reference to the Metropoli-
tan cases. His attack upon me in
The Times of today in which he re-
fers TO the court over which I preside
as no longer a forum in which any
se~lf-respecting lawyer could remain
unless he was compelled to- seems to
me to make it proper for me 10 state
the true facts in reference to the ex-
t~raordinary conduct of the district at
torney.
I know of no principle in our juris-
prudence which substitutes the word
OF a gentleman for legal proof. If
that principle were recognized no gen
tlenan could be convicted except upon
his own confession. In these Metro
r0ftfQr rocnc T onrfafp1v -n,,fl Not ~ L.
the word either of Quackenbush or the
district attorney in lieu of legal proof.
Shortly before the hearing in the
McCabe case the District attorney call
ed upon me in my private chambers
n told me that he had ecure the
! attendance Of Bagg. who had a state
. ment to make. At no time did he sug-
tended to repudiate the confession
which he had previously made.
During the whole time hat the
district attorney participated in the
hearing he conducted himself as if he
were the leading counsel for the de-
fence. He commenced by attempting
to discredit the testimony OF the COM
plainant, and. when it became evident
to him that he would not be permitted
to further obstruct the hearing, he
withdrew from the case. I regret very
much that he ev-- came into it. l
i never saw Or heard of a district attor-
ney who himself in a case
as the district attorney did in the Nc
Cabe case. In my judgment nc self
respecting lawyer would act as he did
in that case.
The district attorney seems to think
that it is his function to assail any pub
lie official who ventures to disagree
with him. It is time that he began to
realize that it is not his duty to insult
other officials. and that he should
appreciate his OWn true relation to the
courts in which he is called upon to
practise"
i District Attorney Jerome said he
didn't wish to reply at the present
time.
The apparent friendliness of the dis
trict attorneys office toward the rail-
way company's general counsel, limited
at by Judge Seabury and shown in Mr..
Jerome's recent statement, is also ex-
hlbited in correspondence with A. Ed
ward Woodruff. of No. Ill Broadway,
. who first brought the alleged jury fix
ing to the attention Of the State Bar
, Association. Mr.. Woodruff wrote the
district attorney in January asking him
about the Tillinghast case. In reply
acting District Attorney Charles Mott
wrote a letter in which was highly
%laudatory mention of h conduct OF
the legal department of the railway
company by Mr.. Quackenbush.
"The criticism that I think is prop
erly charged against the district attor-
ney's office is that the office is paid to
search out and prosecute crime, and
that it is no part of the duty of the
said office to erect defences for those
who are charged in any way with its
commission" said Mr.. Woodruff yes
terday/
Louis E. Julian. the former Metro
politant Railway investigator, was a
good deal stirred up by Mr.. Jerome's
statement that he had refused to give
information to the district attorneys
office.
Not only nave I always been ready
to give the district attorney every fact
he wanted" he said las night. but
I have given him a whole lot of infor.
nation with reference to many jury
fixing cases that lies buried in his Of
flee.
Mr.. Jerome has had information
about some alleged crimes for over
two years. What hes become of the
papers in the case of Willie Greer
against the Metropolitan, sent to the
district attorney by Black, Olcott &
Gruber? What has become of the
Wimfpheimer case. which has been al
lowed to sleep since June. 1904? AND
there are many others.
THE fight against the Metropolitan
has only just begun. A large number
Of cases are. being looked into but yoU
may be sure that they won't be carried
to the district attorney."-New York
Tribune.
Did He Get 1t?