Year: 1871

The editor of The Times defends its DIinri-
pll proprietor for his refusal to inInlHh rNI-
d,nce To convict Mayor Hall when iattiy
arraigncd; and further intimates that II the
editor had been summoned he would have
given the same sort of negative answcrS
Naturally en- oueb, after such an admission Of
its total disregard of every moral oD'isat'"h
1be Times declines TO say anything about
principles" y,


The work which it has been given The 1'meS
to do, under Providence, during the last sum
mer has been overruled for great good. But
the behavior of the Proprietor aud the Editor
at this juncture proves how destitute OF any
moral purpose or principle we're the motives
under which they wrought. They seem inca
pabe of compreliendipg the moral obligations
under which they placed themselves by the
charges they made every day agan.. TIE T!sy
Government. They had called Oakley
Hall day after day thief. After while
he was arraigncd and the charges were sub
milted to a Gyand Jury. Every moral obliga-
ton, first to tho people who wished justice
done, and second to the accused himself, who
colrted or pretended to court investigation
demanded that tho Editor and Proprietor of
The Times should place before that Grand
Jury every fact which could further the ends
of Justice. It was their duty to strain every
poiat to establish before that jury what they had
openly charged and printed in their newspaper
They should have subpenaed every reporter
employed in collecting information; their spies
from the Controllers Office SnOnld have been
compelled TO tell the little they know and
every citizen who had Igven information IN
confidence should have been urged to go be-
fore tho Grand Jury. In tins way
only could lavs been discharged the
moral obligations Of the men who said
they knrw Mayor Hall to be a criminal.
But they refused to answer. When urged to
tell what they knew, they were dumb. When
asked the sources of their information, they
are mute as fish When the jury begged that
they would at least indicate from what persons
they might get some light on the case, they
sk uked behind a clumsy silence to cOncea.
their utter ignorance. On piece OF mon
,1ous luck, on the stolen figures of the rogue
and black mailer OBrien, they had assumed
tho airs of refOrmcrs; they had used bad Ian
guaeo in a loud voice for several months ;
but when the time camo for reaping the har-
vest which the long discussion had ripened
tucy COHlptetc luCdpiCitJ III ~ sunny
silence There Is al old proverb which says,
81 you wear stolen clothes, you may be stripped
"in the street." and this is what has happened
to the men of The Times. Never was cata-
ract of abuse more suddenly frozen into dumb
ness by the prospect OF responsibility.


1t is a resource of the management Of that
paper to answer every criticism with dull
black guardism. But it is useless to 20 on
shouting that The TRIBUNE is the organ of
1ammany. We have freely asserted our belief
of the culpabls negligence of Mayor Hall; of
his action in tho ad interim Board of Audit,
in framing the resolution which made Twced's
robberies possible, az something intoer-
able aud indefensibe; we have spoken
Of him as the conrade of thieves,
marked to fall with them. But because
we had no evidence upon which to call him
q thief, this paper has assailcd us with impcr-
tinont drvel When asked to assist in proving
him thief Its Proprietor and Editor take
refuge in silence which would be treason
able if it were not 80 evidently imbeciIc.
They have proved to everybody, what many
already knew, that word printed in The
Times means nothing; that truth and false
hood have for them no absolute distinction.
but only different business vallc, varying
with circumstances.