Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-04-09

! willing that the other charges shout
/ be stricken from the resolve. SO fan
! so good. 1t was the equivalent of a
admission that those charges coul
not be sustained, and they shoul
have been promptly stricken from tn
record. in accordance with his sug
gestion. President Clifford ruled tina
this could not be done, but assures
! counsel for Mr.. Richardson that !
no evidence was introduced in sup
port of them that the two branches
in separate session would take n
| cognizance of them
Those four disproved charges shouIc
either have been stricken from thu
record. or Mr.. Richardson should hav:
been allowed to present evidence tc
exonerate himself therefrom. This
right was, however, denied to him
against the protest of his counsel. He
was permitted to introduce evidence
only upon the charge of substituted
indictment. Whether the openine
statement of counsel for the defence
that he might have to raise the shut
tiers and turn on the light, so that PEG
pie might learn what the matter was
in York county" was in any way re-
sponsible for this restriction of the
issues. is at least matter for con
lecture.
The charge of substituted indict-
ment was completely and thoroughly
disproved by the testimony of the
clerk of courts, in whose possession
the original and only Indictment had
remained, with his docket entries
thereon. from the time it left the
hands of the grand jury until it was
subsequently produced in court. There
never had been any substitution, but
merely an inadvertent omission, on the
part of the foreman of the grand jury,
and of Mr. Richardson, to Sign what
was a perfectly legal Indictment. This
was. of course obvious to anyone who
might examine the indictment during
the months that interviewed between
its drafting and its production III
court. Probably there has never been
a county attorney in the history of
the State. serving more than a single
term. who has not made inadvertent
tf16 fnf. II
times Occasionally, as in the present
instance. such inadvertent errors witt
ate them as a matter of law.
This fiimsy charge having thus been
disproved. so that even a
trial justice would not have been jus
tilted in finding probable cause to hold
a man for the grand jury on the whole
evidence. did the Democratic Legisla
ture promptly acquit Mr. Richardson?
Not that we have heard of. What fol-
lowed? In the closing argument be-
hold the calmly judicial prosecutor in
the Emery case merged in Pattangall,
the Jealous advocate. welding his
biudgeon Of sarcasm and ridicule! And
ON this evidence % the Democratic
of the State of Maine vot-
ed ali address to the Governor for the
Of Asa a Richardson! And
he was removed,
If "vindication" from such odious
be deemed necessary. Mr..
Richardson is already vindicated in
the minds of every citizen of this State
who has read the evidence and is not
blinded by partisan prejudice, We
have faith to believe that there are
enough of such citizens in the county
Of York to give him a further vindi-
cation at the polls.
Was any Democrat influenced in his
vote against mir. Richardson by the
secret reflection that thereby he was
throwing a trig in the trial of the En-
cry case, which is yet to occur? That
a removed Official, smirched by leg
islative investigation, would not be a
witness? That another and
a friendlier county attorney might
possibly be appointed to succeed him?
We hope not. We can make liberal
allowance for foolish and unjust ae-
ton taken in the heat of partisan feel
ing, but none at all for action ami
mated by such motive. If there be
such a man, we predict that he will
be doomed to disappointment, for Gov
ernor Plaisted would never be a party
~ sual1 action