« 이전계속 »
gentleman of whom I know but little.” Did he not remember how I beat him in the case of the Dolsons ? If he has forgotten that, let him keep in remembrance how I beat him in the case of “poor Carlin.” Stoughton said of Carlin, that he was “irreproachable in his character, irreproachable not only in his character as an officer, but in his character as a man.” When I discuss the "weeping Sheriff," if Mr. Stoughton really believed what he uttered, I think he will regret that he did not say of Carlin," he is a gentleman of whom I know but little." Stoughton is smart, and technical, as I said before, and it will not be from any exertions on my part that he will ever know me any better than he does now.
James R. Whiting, Esq., (now a Justice of the Supreme Court) is well known in this community. I shall, however, speak of him in connection with these proceedings, as I have done with the others, according to my opinion of his® acts in the premises. I have an idea that if he had made use of his best “personal and professional exertions" in these matters, that he might have prevented some of the outrageous delays that have been put upon me. But perhaps it was not reasonable for me to expect him to enter into my case as though it had been his own.
He did very wrong, in my opinion, when he permitted Judge Beebe to put off the trial of Carlin from day to day in the Court of Sessions; and he should have had the “documentary” evidence in his possession, and not, after eight months' delay, have been obliged to submit to another postponement of the trial, upon a pretence that was not founded upon truth. At times, when I pressed him rather hard, we had some sharp little encounters (as will be seen by some of our interviews, and correspondence); but, as far as I am concerned, all feelings upon those points have passed away. In the remembrance of the splendid manner in which he argued the “motion to quash the indictment;" conducted the trial of Carlin; summed up the case to the jury; argued the “ motion in arrest of judgment;" and acted promptly in my behalf in quitting Baltimore, at a moment's notice, (neglecting his own business to do so, to come to my rescue, when
I had been entirely driven out of court by the District Attorney,) I can only see, and appreciate, those splendid efforts, and his kindness to me; and award to him that praise to which he is entitled from his great legal acquirements, his indefatigable exertions, and the splendid talents that he has exhibited upon all occasions, when I had got him into the fight.
In my opinion, Hon. Judge Whiting will prove to be one of the greatest ornaments that has ever graced the judicial bench, in the city of New-York; and that his decisions will prove him to be a man possessing wonderful clearness of perception, great legal knowledge, and soundness of mind. The honorable gentleman, after a long toil, by which he acquired his great eminence in his profession, has accumulated a goodly pile of this “world's goods,” which has enabled him to cast aside a lucrative practice, and accept the position that he now occapies, for the honor of the thing—and I say, “Long may he wave !"
Richard Busteed, Esq., who has acted as my “private counsel” since April, 1855, has never flinched, from the first to the last. Whether in the midst of an avalancbe of professional business attending to his duties in the courts, or in the public streets, “Glorious Dick” has always been ready to jump on the old gray horse with the bob-tail,” and ride him with me, at the top of his speed. Richard Busteed has great legal knowledge, which he acquired by hard work, both day and night, in the office of Thomas Addis Emmett. He is gifted with perceptions that are as quick as lightning, wonderful natural abilities, an eye like a hawk, a voice of thunder, a physical organization to match, and an indomitable courage that is not possessed by one in a thousand. Woe be to the judges and lawyers, or anybody else, who presume to encroach upon his rights and privileges. I hope the time is not far distant when I shall see him in the position of Recorder of the city of New-York. If that should be his fate, and I should ever act for the “People” in another case, I apprehend it is about the only chance I should ever have again of opening my case to the jury. I esteem it an agreeable privilege, and an honor, to rank Richard Busteed as my personal friend.
His honor the Recorder, James M. Smith, Jr., conducted the proceedings in the Court of Sessions, from the time they found their way into that court, on the 7th November, 1855, to the 24th November—the day on which Carlin was tried—with great dignity and firmness. He is entitled to my thanks for his courtesy in permitting me to open the case to the jury, which was an evidence of his consideration for the “People,” by permitting them to be heard at a time when they had not been properly represented by those whose duty it was to protect their rights. I am sorry that he ever signed that “probable cause,” and allowed the case to be carried to the Supreme Court, after the decisions he had made, and after having heard the arguments upon the points, over and over again. I cannot judge otherwise than that he should have sentenced Carlin, I believe in his perfect ability to fill the official station that he occupies, as Recorder. It is not improbable that if Mayor Wood is elected Governor of the State, Recorder Smith may be elected the Mayor of the city of New-York. (1) It is a pity that politics should create so many
" wheels within wheels.” James C. Willet, now High Sheriff of this county, has appointed Thomas Carlin one of his deputies, well knowing that he was under a conviction for “willful neglect of duty as a public officer," of which knowledge there is not a shadow of doubt. And further, I assert that Mr. Willet made that appointment, with the full knowledge that Thomas Carlin was not a proper person to be intrusted with the office of Deputy Sheriff, independently of the fact that he was under conviction for a misdemeanor. In support of that assertion, I shall allude to two cases only, among many others that have been narrated to me; which cases are sufficient for my purpose. I allude to that of Alexander Sacha Heilbronn, and F. H. Meackins, (as near as I can make out his signature.) Heilbronn was a highly educated young man, of about twenty years
was claimed by the British Government as a fugitive from justice, on a charge of forgery. In November, 1854, he was arrested, while in New York bay, on board a packet-ship, by Thomas Carlin (or by a deputy of Carlin's) upon civil process, at the suit of Charles McIntosh & Co., of London, (who had been the employers of Heilbronn,) upon whom the alleged forgery had been committed. When Heilbronn was brought up to the city, by some strange manoeuvre, the civil process was abandoned, and it is believed was burned up in the presence of the man who had arrested him, and little Heilbronn was led to believe that he was safe from any further arrest. When, lo! a few minutes afterward, he was arrested by a United States Marshall, being claimed by the British Government, under the “ Ashburton treaty," as a fugitive from justice! Heilbronn stated, that he had given Carlin all his money, and Carlin's “ assistant” a valuable, doublebarreled, English made gun, under a promise that he was to be released. Upon being complained of to Mr. Willet (who was then Undersheriff), Carlin disgorged, and paid back one hundred dollars! Carlin's “ assistant,” upon being threatened with arrest, gave back the gun! This Heilbronn case is reported in 1 Parker's Crim. Rep., page 429.
of age, who
In the case of “ Meackins," which happened in the spring of 1855, (somewhere in April or May, as I believe,) his property was taken by Thomas Carlin, Deputy Sheriff, on an execution ; who had the property sold—the sales amounting to between five and six hundred dollars; and although Carlin had had the process only six or seven days, he made out his charges to cover the exact balance, between the amount of the judgment and the amount of the sales, to a cent. Upon application to Mr. Willet, this "weeping Deputy Sheriff,” this innocent (1) man, “poor Carlin,” was compelled to disgorge more than a hundred dollars !
I therefore say, that Willet having appointed Thomas Carlin a Deputy Sheriff, under such circumstances, it is a public insult to me, and to this community. This Carlin is the man whom Stoughton said “was irreproachable in his character, irreproachable not only in his character as an officer, but in his charac
ter as a man!” It seems that Stoughton admitted that Carlin was a "public officer," although Beebe and Stoughton have been trying to make it out that he is not. If Deputy Sheriffs are not “public officers,” they had better be careful how they attempt to take property, after this, on writs of replevin. If it was not well known to the advisers, and aiders and abettors of Carlin, and by Carlin himself, that he was guilty of the acts charged against him, why have these immense exertions been made to keep him from being tried ? and why have all these extraordinary exertions been made, since his conviction, to screen him from the penalty which the law awards to him for this offence? Would an innocent man have rested a moment from pressing his case before a jury of his countrymen, to rid himself of the foul stigma that was resting upon
him? Even at the time that the trial was being put off from day to day, in the Court of Sessions, by Judge Beebe, Carlin was going about stating, “ I will never be tried; we will have it got out of court.” Does this sound like the language of an innocent man? To all effects, there must be a cause. What was Willet's motive, or inducement, to appoint this “innocent” (!) man a Deputy Sheriff, under the circumstances that have been related ? Was it for the purpose of casting ridicule upon the proceedings of a criminal court, and a jury of respectable citizens? Was it from any pecuniary interest, in connection with the “Sheriff's office ?" Was it from political motives, to enable a certain clique to grease their “wheels within wheels?” Was it for one, any, or all of these motives? The public have a right to their own inferences, and I, as their representative in these matters, ask these questions on their behalf.
Previous to the recent election, I advised the public, through the columns of the “ Courier and Enquirer,” that it was “safe not to cast their ballots for any candidate (for Sheriff) who may have become tainted with an education in the corruptions of this (Sheriff's) office.” Was that good advice?
John Collins, Jr., “mariner,” (as he called himself at the trial