Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeNorfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger
Norfolk, Virginia
What is this article about?
Reports on the removal of U.S. Marshal Samuel Swartwout after his testimony in a New York trial related to the Miranda affair, which was favorable to the government. Questions arise about possible political retaliation, while a response defends against accusations of jury tampering in trials of Smith and Ogden.
OCR Quality
Full Text
In the name of morality and decency, is it possible that there should be any connexion between these two facts! Will the administration leave room for even a suspicion that an officer under oath before a court of justice must accommodate his testimony to their wishes at the peril of his office. We greatly fear that there is something rotten in this affair.
(U. S. Gaz.)
MARSHAL SWARTWOUT.—It is reported, but we know nothing of the truth of the report, that the President of the United States has removed Mr. Swartwout from the office of Marshal of this district.
It is sneeringly intimated in the Evening Post of Saturday last, that the removal ought to have been made, if made at all, previous to the late trials of Smith and Ogden, in which case Mr. Coleman seems to intimate that the marshal would not have had use in his power to select a jury to answer certain purposes. As Mr. Coleman, and the heads of the federal party, and the friends of our excellent and incorrupt governor, and the marshal, etc. have acted all together on this occasion, he may be presumed to know something about it. There never was on any occasion, or at any time a more profligate, a more audacious, or a more unprincipled combination to calumniate the National Executive, and embarrass the operations of Government.
What sub-type of article is it?
What themes does it cover?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Story Details
Key Persons
Location
New York
Story Details
Testimony of Marshal Swartwout in New York trial on Miranda affair favorably portrayed government agency, followed by his removal by the president, prompting suspicions of connection and political pressure on testimony. Report defends against Evening Post insinuations of delayed removal to influence jury selection in Smith and Ogden trials, accusing critics of calumniating the executive.