Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/509

 468

tion the calendar of the New York City prison for the first, and indeed last, time in its long history, was devoid of the name of a single prisoner charged with homi cide. With the end of the district attor ney's term, Goff's employment as assistant prosecutor also closed. Resisting offers of continuance from the new incumbent, he returned to private practice, taking as part ner Cranston W. Pollock, who is still active before the courts. When a new election for district attorney came around, Mr. Goff ac cepted the Independent Citizens' nomination, as opposed to the political machines of the Democratic and Republican parties; but, al though unsuccessful, proved to be a good third in the race, and 'especially in repu table residential districts. About the same time, as a member of the Bar Association, which was engaged in ferreting out election frauds, such as double voting or manipu lating the returns, he was appointed prose cuting counsel. In accepting the post he stipulated that he should have free scope and full discretion, intimating that it was his intention to legally waylay the political wire-pullers and the poll officials, and no longer to allow scapegoats to be made of underlings, as he had found were made while he was assistant prosecutor. That being ac ceded to, he unearthed frauds to the extent that eighty-six indictments were ordered by the grand jury against election inspectors and canvassers belonging to both political parties; and some, on conviction, suffered imprisonment. All of which was done while forcing the prosecutions through public sen timent and vigorous cooperation with the stated and timid authorities. Since then election frauds in New York City have ceased to exist. Mr. Goff was also employed by the Parkhurst Society for the Suppression of Vice as their counsel in defending their investi gating agent, named Gardner, against whom a revengeful conspiracy had been formed to falsely accuse him of blackmail upon evil

doers, and whom false testimony had caused to be indicted and put on trial. In the course of the defense the district attorney called as a witness a cab driver, whose identification of Gardner was deemed neces sary. Told that Gardner was somewhere among the spectators — and he sat in full view — the witness was asked to point him out. Unable to do so the district attorney then called upon Gardner to stand up in aid of the identification. His counsel, Goff, whis pered to him not to comply, and he did not; whereupon the then recorder trying the case repeated the request as an order. Goff rose to protest and claimed that the court was thus unconstitutionally compelling his client to become a witness against himself. But his objection was strangely overruled. Then Goff audibly advised his client not to com ply, as he had a constitutional right to re fuse. Angered at this the then recorder or dered two court officers to take Gardner by the arms and raise him to a standing position. Whereupon the witness readily said, "That is the man," aided (as GofF contended in taking an exception) by the emphasis of the physical direction and action upon his client. The recorder decided preliminarily that Goff had incurred a contempt of the court, but postponed regular procedure toward establishing it. The trial had begun at 9 A.M. and had continued without luncheon until 6 P.M., when the recorder announced a recess until 8 P.M., to be followed by an evening session. Goff was physically worn out and begged adjournment until morning, and the district attorney did not object; but the then recorder was irreconcilable and insisted. On the reassembling, Goff an nounced that physical exhaustion, under medical advice, prevented his further con tinuance, at that time, of defense. The judge, however, insisted upon proceeding, when Goff announced his necessary withdrawal, and added, " as my client is now without counsel, it is the duty of the court to assign him counsel, with, of course, allowance of