The New Hampshire Gazette

PORTSMOUTH:

Tuesday, Dec. 8, 1840.

“The Glentworth Frauds.”

We have published in another column the charge of Mr. Recorder Morris to the Grand Jury, in the case of the Glentworth frauds, which is recommended to the perusal of our readers. We think the Recorder sustains his position, and justifies the course he had previously taken in relation to the Glentworth papers, and in taking the depositions; and shows that the laws required his action in the premises. This charge is made, as might be expected, the subject of a new attack on the Recorder in the federal papers; but what is much more remarkable is, that a majority of ten out of nineteen of the jury, instead of acting on the business before them, have taken it upon them to present one of the judges of the Court! Mr Recorder Morris,—calling his proceedings in question in relation to the possession of the Glentworth papers, and animadverting upon the nature of his charge.

This manoeuvre is clearly enough intended, like the cutting off the tail of the dog by Alcibiades, to afford new matter for the Gothamites to talk about, so as to turn the public attention from the true subject at issue, the election frauds perpetrated by Glentworth and his associates.

It cannot be for any useful purpose, for it is admitted that the presentment affords no subject matter for any judicial action of the court.—

There are strong intimations of foul play in returning the jurors. The Sheriff Aker who was so instrumental in backing Glentworth in the scuffle for the “papers” had the charge of selecting the Grand Jury; the number consisted of 19, seven only of whom were democrats and twelve federalists. The presentment was signed by ten out of the nineteen; a protest was sent in against the procedure, signed by the other nine, two of these were federalists; but it appears they regarded a sense of duty and propriety, beyond their political partialities, and have thereby done honor to themselves.

This act of a Grand Jury presents an anomaly probably never before heard of—for although a grand jury may present any matter they may think the public good requires, yet it is manifestly clear, that it should be such matter as should be cognizable in its own court. If a judge of the court had acted in defiance of the law or the constitution, it was a subject of impeachment before the legislature, which alone is the grand inquest of the State in such cases.

In the present case, the Recorder said, “situated as he was he should leave the matter entirely to his associates.” One of the judges enquired of the foreman, if the presentment was found by a majority of the jury or by twelve members, and how many were present. [The law requires that all presentments, as a foundation for indictment, shall be sustained by the votes of at least twelve jurors in the affirmative.] The foreman replied that there were 19 present and that it was found by a majority ;—(of course not enough to find a bill of indictment if the alleged offence were indictable,) he also added that it had been made under the advice of the gentleman who acted as District Attorney (J. T. Brady.)

Mr. Brady who was present, remarked that he had not been consulted in relation to the subject; he had been consulted, as he had understood from the jury, in relation to another matter, and advised that it was their province to present any matter whatever; but that “the presentment of the Recorder was never advised by him nor alluded to by the jury in consulting him.”—“He doubted the right of the jury to present ANY MEMBER OF THEIR OWN COURT as in such an event THERE WAS NO POWER AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE MATTER.”

The foreman admitted the attorney's statement to be correct; that he had not been consulted in allusion to this case; but thought the general tenor of his remarks was broad enough to warrant what had been done.

Judge Inglis gave his opinion in relation to the protest of the minority of nine, that it be received; but in regard to some members of the jury, who wished to make some verbal remarks, he declined receiving remarks from any members of the Jury on either side. He said “that no motion could be taken or trial had on such a presentment.” And as to the propriety or impropriety of some parts of this presentment he wished to be considered as expressing no opinion.”

The presentment and protest were received. The protest was as follows:

PROTEST.

“We, the undersigned, members of the Grand Jury, do protest against the presentment presented by the foreman of the Grand Jury, as said presentment is in their opinion against the law and evidence which has been presented to them.

John D. Hawley,
Charles J. Dodge,
John H. Guion,
Lewis Doty,
Samuel Dick,
Thomas J. Guildersleve,
Ebenezer Barklay,
S. N. Judah,
Joseph Goddard.

New York, November 28, 1840.”

Some of the federal papers pretend that the jury could find no bill against Glentworth: “It appears, if we may judge from the presentment of the Recorder, that they never went into any enquiry about Glentworth; but stuck at the very threshold, about the legality of the possession of the papers. The pretence is that Glentworth was “entitled to exemption from search”

As if in the examination of a felon,—(say for instance, one who had been accused of passing counterfeit bills, an offence much lighter than that of Glentworth's,) there would be any hesitancy or even ceremony in searching and taking from him the evidence of his villainy!—

There can be no question but this is all planned to screen Glentworth, and keep him in office at least till his time expires; lest disclosures should be made by him to disgrace some of his accomplices in high standing.

The following remarks on this matter we copy from the New York Eve. Post:

“The moral certainty that the whig leaders were privy to the whole conduct of Glentworth, is heightened at every step that is taken in this transaction. Not a day goes by that does not thicken and darken the proofs of their guilt. This continuance of Glentworth in office after what has happened, is a most pregnant commentary upon the letter written by him to one of them, threatening that if they removed him he would make a public disclosure of the villainy they employed him to execute. This attempt of the ten Grand Jurors to protect him from indictment, and at the same time, to criminate the Recorder, who conducted the preliminary investigation against him, is to be explained in the same manner. They DARE NOT REMOVE GLENTWORTH before the time for which he was appointed expires. They DARE NOT ALLOW HIM TO BE INDICTED.—They dread the disclosures he will make if abruptly removed; they dread the facts which will come to light if he is indicted.—They, therefore, keep him in office and screen him from justice.

Let it not be said that Glentworth has made no declaration that he was employed by the whig leaders to execute the project of carrying the election in this city by false voting. He made a minute confession to Stephenson, named the persons who gave him the infamous agency and described the means he took to carry it into effect. If he never made that confession his whig friends would most certainly have brought him forward to deny it. He is under the patronage and protection of the whig party, he takes the fees of a lucrative office which they gave him in 1838 and in which they retain him, in defiance of public opinion; they procure his escape from a threatening indictment; they take his part against the magistrate who presumes to inquire into his conduct; and yet they dare not bring him forward to declare that he did not make that disclosure to Stevenson. If he never made that disclosure he would assuredly out of gratitude to his whig friends who are loading him with favors, have contradicted it long since in the strongest terms.

See then the dilemma in which the whig leaders have placed themselves. If Glentworth's disclosures were false, he has deemed them in an atrocious manner,

The presentment embraced some other subjects cognizable by the court, having no connexion with the Recorder
and should have been dismissed from office with disgrace six weeks ago. If these disclosures were true, the ten whig Grand Jurors who voted last week to screen him from punishment should have given their voices to indict him. Such behaviour in a party can only arise from the consciousness of guilt and the dread of further exposure.