New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-30
NOT I'LL CONSIDERED INDICTMENTS.

NOT I'LL CONSIDERED INDICTMENTS.
No doubt the dismissal of the almost five
year old indictments against John ]. Scannell
was. under existing circumstances, entirely justi-
fable The long delay in bringing the case to
trial had given opportunity for necessary wit
nesses TO disappear. Perhaps some dealers in
fire apparatus feel that it would not promote
their business interests to testify to facts which
they ready TO swear to in 1901 At any
rate there was no longer prospect of cOnvic-
ton, and there nothing to do but dismiss
the indictments. That necessity. however did
not justify Judge Fosters characterization of
the indictments and his attack upon the grand
jury which found them. Scannell is entitled to
the immunity which his clever counsel long ago
saw was best TO be secured by Fabian tactics,
Notwithstanding Scannell's own professions Of
a desire for speedy trial; but he is not en-
titled in spite of his high standing in Tammany,
TO judicial compliments such as Judge Foster
went out of his way to bestow when he said
I have become almost crusader in my efforts
to have the grand jury more careful in the con-
these groundless and i'll founded indictments
should not be brought, and this is very forci-
BILE illustration, to my mind, Of the soundness Of
the position l take.
Judge Foster ought to know that these were
not groundless and i'll founded indictments and
that it is an utter perversiOn of history TO call
them so. The accusations were made by reputa-
BILE dealers who swOre TO transactions of such q
nature that their testimony, if given in trial
court and not disposed of by rebutting evidence
would have been ample to convict. Their testi-
mony was put before a grand jury IN June, 1901
by District Attorney Philbin, and indictments
were found These indictments were dismissed
by Justice Gildersleeve solely on the technical
ground that outside counsel employed by the
District Attorney had presented the case to the
grand Jury The District Attorney was allowed
TO present the case to another grand jury, which
in November 1901, again indicted Scannell
Scannell sought first to have these indictments
dismissed by a plea in abatement which was
overruled in December 1901, by Recorder Golf
Then, after various dilatory steps, he demurred,
but Justice Scott, in 1903, overruled the de-
murrer and held the indictments good.
At no time did Scannell seek to have the
merits of the accusation tested. Able counsel re
sorted TO every device known to them to get
these indictments out of the way. Inasmuch as
they were unable to break them down and
Recorder Golf and Justice Scott upheld them
1t does not seem fitting for Judge Foster whose
only reason for dismissal is that with the lapse
of time necessary evidence has ceased to be OBJ
tainable, TO rebuke a grand jury which had
good prlma facie before it for finding in
dictments which resisted all attacks of Scan
nell's own counsel. No doubt grand juries should
be warned from time TO time against Ill consid-
cred action, but attacks of this kind, in disre-
gard Of we'll known facts tend TO discourage
grand jurors from doing their duty whenever
politicians involved who are able to CON-
mand the good word of judges