Executive Persecution?

The Harvard Crimson assumes no responsibility for the sentiments expressed by correspondents, and reserves the right to exclude any communication whose publication may for any reason seem undesirable. Except by special arrangement, communications cannot be published anonymously.

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON has, in my judgment been guilty of bad taste in its editorial of the 20th entitled, "Executive Persecution," in which the Department of Justice was made the object of attack. To anyone who is familiar with the facts in the case, there can be only two explanations of the attitude taken by the writer; either gross ignorance of the facts involved, or partisan motivation. I cannot believe the writer has been naive enough to show partisanship in an attack on partisanship; and, as I prefer to be charitable, I must assume the former alternative. To anyone who has followed the matters discussed by the writer, it is quite evident that he is ignorant of several things.

The Department of Justice has changed hands since the days of Doheny and Fall. The writer has referred to the "intense activity" of the Wheeler prosecution as compared with the laxity shown in the Fall, Sinclair, and Doheny trials. The people who were incompetent in these latter cases were not the people who brought about the indictment of Senator Wheeler in Washington. The writer also forgets that the "persecution" of Wheeler showed no laxity in prosecuting Senator Cameron, the officials of the Atlanta Penitentiary, and rum-corrupted attorneys. He is not expected to know of these incidents; the persons prosecuted were Republicans and their cases did not receive the publicity that the Wheeler case is receiving.

As to the bringing of the trial in Washington, let it suffice to say that the jurisdiction over the alleged crime is legally in Washington; and that new evidence which had not previously been heard justified a new trial on entirely different grounds. The present charge is one of conspiracy to defraud the government, while the former one was the improper acceptance of fees while in public office. The action of the Department of Justice was entirely legal, and uninfluenced by persons outside the Department. The writer of your editorial has apparently forgotten an incident which took place early in this year, in connection with which the Senate discussed this whole matter; and in spite of the efforts of Senator Walsh and others no way was found to discredit the Department of Justice. As to the use of perjured testimony by the Government. I have no answer to make;--but may I ask if the writer has ever read or seen the evidence of either side, which has been, or is to be, presented at Washington?

It is easy to see that the writer of your editorial has gathered what little knowledge he has from the mutterings of partisan papers. There was no talk of "executive persecution" when Senator Cameron or the Atlanta officials were prosecuted; and there would be less in the present case if we withheld our judgments until we made a rough examination of the facts. At least we would not see the Department of Justice as an instrument "for personal or party revenge." L. H. Stone '25.