New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-28
two payers givs When The receipt ~. s y. h NJ
HS ~ sa - did Smith, Seckel e. Co. cay

-
s;ehed them the capital tina; the authorizes hei1 Js
willing TO back them II their machines None -csint
before any paper Wa signed; w,o. S;cs.on ac-
eors;ng 20 tbe rssress they shoud have soinstphg ~
sbow he capitalists ia Philadelphia ths yas
nee the receirk was 10 be put 20; II lne -. 1a W
- ssaa..sst.f ,l,e whole matter Yves 70 drcpi mr.
- 80 s., seoud clean the city for $40 900; he
aid he could ge. much larger amount ana an over
a. nv :. IA h. abouId divide between Mr. Eolng ana
.,v.eIf. told Mr. Smith thought the streets couiu
NJ. he cleseed for less than $500 600.
" IA Won expect TO make anything cut OF that
n, Hall object TO that question.
The Court ruled against the question and Mr.. Brady
o. Did Mr.. Smith at any time Offer you money
A. He did be called some time in Apnl and wanted
70 paw Mr.. Ebng and myself some 600 or ssc1; l
told him would not receive a cent ne 1au ne
wanted TO pay me ESQ; my business before went
into this Office was livery stsble+keeper. -.
o. Did you know at the time Of the agreement that
the head OF department could no, be interss'eu IN
contract by the provision Of the city charter
Mr.. Halo, l object to this 1t IL mere in@''e'
Mr. Brady-wbat is q matter Of law'
NJ UaIE-ThH is q question OF law ann this "ithess
can't tell whether Mr.. Ebling knew the law or not
MI Brady-Now, may il please the Court want
10 show that ct the time Of making that agreement
Mr.. Ebling did not know the law upon inns suoe1
The Court ruled against the question, and Mr..
uteed asked the Court TO note the exception OF the
defense. .. I.a
Mr.. EbinQ and Mr.. smith Wnen Tue oesI VI -"
papers was spoken Of; Mr. Eblng said he would de;-
NOV his if they would destroy thers; and as regards
the contracts, they Smith, Seckel d Co., might rect
assured they would get the contract 10 ce%n inc Guy
q they were the lowest bidder.
M Brsdy-This, may it please the Court, ends the
ease.
After a few minutes internission, the case was
summed up for the defense, first by Mr. busted.
His address was very short. He said the question
had arisen in the evidence whether ignorance OF the
hw Yves any excuse. He contended that the motive
lad been from time immemOral TO the present ulng
the great question 10 be passed upon ny aJuy IN
Cor a violating penal statute. If the Dlstnct-At-
Norney should fail to show az matter OF Ia ~ ina
the defendant knew he was engaged in felonous
transaction when he made this agreement, then t1s
indictment fell TO the ground he should leave the
summing up Of the upon the law to his colleague,
Mr. Brady then addressed the Jury. He said he
lad introduced no testimony upon the character OF
the defendant for the District Attorney had admitted
good character and as for HIMSELF be believed HIM TO
be as pure and spotless in character as any Once
holder anywhere now existing lie sald thiS wlt1oui
any prejudice in favor Of his client because he had
not been personally acquainted with the defendant
for very Tong time and politically it was well known
they were far apart as the poles asunder, ana there
was no probab lity that the distance between them
would be ever lessened hairs breadth. Mr..
Brady then proceeded to read the statutes under
which Mr.. Ebbng was indicted, and said that the
Office Of Commissioner of Streets and Lamps was an
office lately created, and did not exist and was not
contemplated in the statute under which be IL H.
dicted, when that statute was enacted Inc lndlct-
ment says that Mr. EblDg conuptly wlliiuly ana he,
Iouiously accepted q brbe to award q contract and
he not being able according to law, TO award con-
tract contend that according to both law and evil
dence in this case the indictment falls TO the ground
Being only executive officer, Mr.. Ebhng had no
power 10 award a contract. The law contemplates
punishment only when duty is violated for considera-
hon. and not otherwise. Suppose Mr. Eblng had en-
tered into contract TO get man situation IN the
Custom House for $780, could he have been indicted
for il Certainly not. Where duty IS violated for a
consideration then there is case within the limits
Of the law. But outside of his official duties every
officer has q right 10 act in his private ca
pacity and every officer does so act. We are
indicted under the law Of 1885, and not under the City
Charter and to this law, therefore, we shall contne
our attention. Now az regards the evidence. HOW,
ask you could Ebing get anything for his share if
Smith a. Co. bid TO perform the work ior sI50,OVo,
and IL they to receive all this for themselves
But Smith says the bids were to be marked up Oy
Eblipg This was only one of the many lies he told
ppon the stand. For Mr.. Ebng must open these bids
in the presence of Controller Flagg aud would not MT;
EbliDg be cutting pretty figure TO take his pen aau
mark up these figures, Mr.. Flagg looking on Now,
how in the world Mr.. Ebing was going to make any
thing out Of this puzzles me- and must regard IL as
one of those humbugs transparent that mole can
see through i--one of the many got up by smith IN
this case. Now, who is this Smith, the party who
offered the reward Now, in the eye OF the law,
who offers bride to public officer Is an accom-
pce and may be tried, and if convicted sent to the
State Prison for ten years. and this may be done he
merely offers the bride, matter whether the oflcer
takes IL or not if the officer takes 1t and acts
lust the contrary TO what he proposes to do Green
leef says in his Treatise Evidence, that the evl-
dence Of eccomphce must be received with great
deal of caution by the jury and the Court falling so
70 charge is guilty of breach Of duty. After a
lengthy review of the evidence, Mr. Brady ended and
the Court took a recess for half an hour.
The jury having, at 81 o'clock, all resumed their
seats, Mr. Hall summed up the case for the prosecu-
ton as follows:
May il please your Honor-I have tried many cases
with my learned friend on the other side, but never
before have known our views OF the law TO differ 80
widely as upon the present trial! The first point upon
which trust your Honor will charge is that this is
offense at common law. Mr.. Hall then referred to
several Observation-Disclosures, Gritty and others
10 sustain his point The next point raised by the other
side is, that the defendant must be excused because
Of his ignorance of the law. Again he referred to
Brooms Legal Maxims, Baekstone's Commentaries,
and Others to sustain his position that ignorance of the
law was excused l have cited these authorities,
may il please your Honor 10 reconcile the difference
between my learned friend and myself Now let US
review the facts of the case and this indictment
has been sustained. Now il is argued upon the other
aide that their client is not sagacOus, and il were,
Is the by the blue bottle caught in this net spread by
these cunning Philadelphia gentlemen. man who
can 60 through political contest this man has
done, who can come up an independent candidate
third and ourthrate candidate, and still be elected al
though be may be knave, is no fool We find this
man elected in November, 1854 TO this re-
sponsible Office which has the control of nearly half
million yearly; and up to the time of his election,
am willing TO admit, was man who stood well before
the community Ths man was confectioner before
be went into Office and il has occurred to me that this
should not leave the sweets of private life for the
bitten Of public life. Well this coufectioner was
elected, and 10 him il was Like drawing prize in
lottery. Immediately he was elected his friends
crowded around him, and he began 10 think he was
really somebody, and at once began to think how he
should turn his prize TO the best advantage and brood
ing over this, he naturally gave way to temptation,