Year: 1879




its investigation in this city on Saturday
mony taken by this subcommittee supplies
oil the confrmatory, or explanatory, or ex-
cusatory information of any consequence
which we are likely to possess respecting
the history and the contents of the stolen
cipher dispatches. The question now
recurs whether there was any justification
for the theft


We suppose nobody will undertake to
justify theft, simply as theft, whether the
booty consists of property having intrinsic
pecuniary value, or Of private papers locked
up in the desk of the owner, or OF letters
in their passage through the mail, or OF
kilograms which are entitled to the same
protection as lettess There is no moral
difference, and there ought to be no legal
difference, between breaking open mans
safe and abstracting its contents and steal
ing his private letters or kilograms.


We do not dispute at all that the interests
of justice sometimes require the seizure OF
private papers to be used as evidence. But
there is a regular legal process for getting





suredly the stealing of it by unauthorized
and irresponsible individuals is not to be
recognized as among the legal methods Of
procedure in such cases. Even when
public officers descend to play the part
of spies and eavesdroppers they sub
ject themselves to great odium unless
the necessity is SO overpowering as to fur
nish its own justification. When Sir James
Graham; then Home Secretary, caused the
letters of Mazzini to be opened in the Eng
lish Post Office he raised the most violent
storm of popular indignation with which
any British Minister has been assailed
within the last forty years and yet he had
the authority of law in issuing the variants
for that purpose There is nothing against
which the spirit of freemen more promptly
rebels and takes fire than this kind Of in
trusion into private correspondence. In
the last century the papers of the noted
John Wilkes were seized by the English
government on o general warrant Wilkes
sued the officers and recovered two thou.
sand pounds damages, seizure on o general
warrant having been adjudged illegal. It
was with the Wilkes controversy iqamind
that our fathers adopted the fourth amend
ment of the federal constitution, which
reads as follows:-"The right Of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses,
searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue
but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation. and particularly de-
scribing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized" This was
supposed to shut the door and bolt it
against seizures by general warrant-that
is to cay, without specific description of
the things to be seized and previous oath
making it probable that the seizure is justi-
fable It is needless to say that the cipher
dispatches were not procured in pursuance
OF this method. They were stolen from the
committee room Of the Senate Committee
on Elections, of which the late Senator
Morton was chairman. It was o theft Of
precisely the same grade as the stealing of
private papers from. the desk or table of o
citizen in his own house or the stealing of
letters from the mail.


Even if the method Of obtaining the
cipher dispatches had been legal and regu-
lar, the investigation shows that they were
not of sufficient Importance to justify the
violation of private correspondence. They
furnish no evidence which can serve as
foundation for criminal proceedings. except,
perhaps, against the persons who stole the
dispatches. They prove. indeed, that there
was an attempt at bribery by two
individuals William T. Pei
ton and Smith M. Weed. If the at
tempt Of these two persons had not
been abortive both Of them would
have been subject to Indictment under
the laws of South Carolina, and Pelton
under tho laws of Florida and requisition
might have been made on the Governor Of
New York to surrender them for trial. But
as the crime of Pelton and Weed was
merely inchoate they will never be indicted
nor their surrender demanded. Even il the
cipher kilograms had not been obtained by
the crime of theft they could not have sub
served the ends Of justice in any criminal
prosecution, which is the only legal excuse
Ior WINNING PAANaso coHIooPouueuce Wueu
1t is done under the authority of law
and by methods which the Law sane
tions. No indictment could hold or
will be attempted on this evidence
which was procured by theft in violation
of private rights That there was no ac-
tual bribery is proved by the fact that the
electoral votes in question were given
against Mr.. Tildcn. That the inchoate
bribery was not abetted is proved by Mr..
Tilden's recalling Pelton from Baltimore in
impatience and anger as soon as he learned
what he had gone there for, and by Mr..
Marbles destroying Pelton's despatch to
Tallahassee as soon as he had read it and
never mentioning its contents These facts
wore sworn to. and there is no evidence to