The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-06-22

The Investigation now Proceeding before the
Recorder Into Municipal Abuses.
In this matter which has been pending for long time
past before the Recorder It was alleged that the Alder
had fraudaenty disposed Of city property and had
resolved certain brides ss the Of their
ton. The investigation the part Of the people has
been conducted by N. B. Blunt, Esq., District Attorney,
in connection with James R. Whiting and Ogden Hoffman,
Esqs.
among other persons summoned before the Recorder
to give evidence Mr. Taylor. The counsel for the
proceeded to interogate him a. to his know
edge OF the transactions complained or Among otner
inquiries addressed the Witness requiring the
to state what conversation had passed between
the witness and another par-ths object being TO sho
that the Witness by the agency of another had made
niprs per arrangement with OF the Alder
the purpose Of securing the acquisition to the
witness Of large amount OF real estate owned py tne
city.
& W storghton Esq, counsel for Mr.. TAYLOR, advised
him nat to any question tending directly o. ma
rec'ly establish that he TAYLOR, had bribed or had
ole cd TO brbe either of the Aldermen.
Dir Stoughtan conteLded that at the common law, the
giving ole irg to give a bribe was a crime In the
h. L. s'''s 'A''''S - '''' . - '''
Aha this was general principle of the common Law,
n4H that H. crime TO give, or even to Offer the
party giving ring protec ed by the com mon law,
r being ccmielec TO answer any questions whatever,
Ia establish that fact
Tnx should II 10 held no offence to Offer bribe,
person might with mpunity proceed and make such Oilers
% putc ofcerf one after another until be had found
Astempts like these would be constantly made unless
the party should know that If he failed In the attempt
De Wo&id De EtDc 10 ana Oh
com paint Of tie person whom ha thus approached.
The counsel snforced this view by various Illustrations
On the part of the District Attorney it commended
the oher band that although II crime 1t the
common law in person who should bride or attempt to
bripe judicial officer yet that the crime of bribery
applicable only to this class of officers with perhaps
two exceptions. But that Al common Law the attempt
10 tIbe munich pal Officer in respect to his cor porate
powers, not crirae, epd that, therefore, as the
witness could not be subjected to punishment for such
offence, the law did not him from
eripg the inquiry.
Tive Recorder in consideration of the Importance of
this question: has beso great attention upon it, and
understood that he has decided 10 the full extent Of
The proposition contended for by Mr. Soughton. Hold
ing tuat the same reason which made bribery crime
in he Of any jutcia officer is fully applicable to
any ottcr public officer ana ne therefore held that Mr.
To, lar was exempt from answering the inquiries pro-
pounded 70 him.
II may be well to add that the principle commended for
aud finally decided by the Recorder Is of paramount
liz po:'arce and cannot fail when made known to pre-
the commission of the offence of bribery any at
,eIupt to commit it,
Sr. Taylor expressed himself entirely willing to
The questions proposed provided the views commended for
D. his counsel should not be sustained.