New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17

making publications. Of TINS character "''""
Fon,tb I, follows, therefore that the matters Get
forth in the first third and fo1rth answers constitute
no defence; and therefore, as conceive, no PROOF Gun
be given under them vt. 90
impue improper, wicked, corrupt conduct TO she
plaintih; and III this case, the second answer, as
understand Substantially dOes make that allegation
hold, there ore:
RIM. That the proof must be confined TO the sec
ond answer and must be such proof as will tend al-
rectly to prove that the plaintiff wickedy, wllhuy,
and cOruptly voted for those acs which are set iortn
In this answer, and they can only be s9ppored 1y
proof Of personal corruption, or to s0eh evidence ~
the fifth answer as is competent IN mitigation. =;
In that aspect of the cnse, ths lues ION If
bic. Under these propositions, the PROOF must b;b
EARLY conlne lleelf wihin the line Of eViden'" WIN"
j have iudica,ed. .,
The defendant excepted TO each and every one Oh
Che foregoing propositions separately; -. uono,
MIR. pORTER-Do l understand that your hona
holds. that y ben we charge corrupt legt lauon, O.
shat the plaintiff oorruptly advocated ~! ina W.
not prove the truth OF the entire proposition
Tie CouRr-You can prove that he was corfupt .!
appliances or influences made TO him. ont you CanV'
prove the proposition that the
and that he advocated and took part IN thsG
AR PoRTER--I submit TO your Honor, thas Tue hoeI
divides itself into two branches me one cDaiens
that certain were gToc9red oa
and me other charge is that the plaintiff eorrupty ad
Soca,eS them According 10 the construction your
Honor gives 10 the libel, submit that 1t Is perfectly
consistent that may prove the trulh OF eaei Drah
of the nropostion. II there were doubt on the suo-
;ee ,be rIintifF himself rae solved for lie has
Introduced in evidence another article, containing
similar charges by way Of aggravatlon OF damages,
aud is perfectly settled by the authorities that we
beye a right without any plea, to justify the tIuth OF
any matter that may be read in evidence for the pur
pose OF a2Rrayatng the damages. l am sure
must misunderstood your HOnor's decision. Does
my friend upon the other EIDE m,sn to clam tnat we
he told your Honor, that if driven TO 1t, he should
admit that this legislation was corrupt, and be ADMIT
Ted if !, was 80 corrupt, and this plaintiff cotrdpy
participated in il, then our libel was JustlnedIi1
ceased TO be libel. II may be better here for the
pur ose Of avoiding Misunderstanding, 70 state more
fulh than my learned associate has done, what we
purlose 10 prove; and how we purpose to prove IL
Our charge in that htel was OF a corrupt COM
bnaiion your Honor constructs IT., we charge
upon that construction, that the plsintif was
one of that corrupt combination. We charge that
il was a combination TO defraud the people oil
the State and of The City Of NevYOrk; that 1t was
done for private unworthy, and corrupt ends We
propose 20 prove it, How We must first character
lie these acts This jury is 10 characterize Them. we
must then characterize the ae;ors. Inns jury mus
rharacteze of them. And how is this to be done
sly learned friends the other eide say, You can
not penetrate into the secrets of the Pisn heart;
snd you cannot you cannot found any judgment or
verdict upon the fact of corruption. That Is pro-
Dmition DO LAWYER viii seriously advocate for
one moment. Ire gentlemen call upon us 10
produce tie witness who has ever touched the
u.
Then NAV call for 1.-THE iaD does not The lac calls
for the corrupt aCt and the act which otherwise would
be lawful, becomes corrupt by the corrupt Intent.
To illustrate have proposed 10 prove as stated oY
my learned associate in the opening, that certain rall
road bills were proposed in the House of Assembly for
private advantage, and in fraud Of the public. we
propose 70 show that there was corrupt combination
fOr the purpOe Of passing these bills between members
of the House and other persons not members of the
House, but who were engaged IN oorTuply influencing
them There were actors without-theIe were actors
within; they had common purpose; and the
purpose Of neither the good the country,
but private advantage. We propose TO show that
these hills cost the people between two and thres mil
lions of dollars, voted away by l'leohn and ms con-
fecr.,tes for no purpose except deliberate prongacy
and the profits 10 be derived thereirom. Now, SIR,
If this be true is it no defense say establish this
truth if can prove to the satisfaction OF this Jury,
that lie corrupt intent consisted simply in this: That
Of the millions thus taken from the people, $4,000
should 90 to the brother and 10000 to tie broherin
law OF The plaintiff When we present those facts, it
il for the Jn1y to say whether there was corrupt
motive When we find that the act in their judg-
Ipent against the pu lie interest when We
find that men were bought and sold ike slaves ID the
market; when we prove that this was done publicly and
openly, and under the eve of Speaker Ltleiohn;
when we prove that, seeing these things, he cor
sened; when we prove that the Governor OF the Stae
arrested the legislation corrupt and when we prove
that the plaintiff left his place in the Speakers char
foI the purpose as dispuant in the arena Of arguing
the question whether his brother should receive 00O
ard his brotbern-law $40 900 more Of the profits Of
ills injurious IegiHl2iOn--ls u 10 1eLente Why,
Sir is il possible that may not prove it When
We charge that are bought and sold that we may
not prove i'll When charge that Mr. Iittleohn
corrupt, that we may not prove it, as we NAV
prove any other fact by eircum tsnsl evidence Have
not TO give thsJuy the benefit Of the light OF all the
surrounding crcumsa ces, which will enable them 70
JUDGE Of the motives Of the actoFsl How are we TO
arrive at that your Honorl When we show that the
measure VIGOROUSLY corrupt, and it was so
charged on the floor Of the House, and that Mr..
Speaker Lttlejobn undertook to defend the measure
on frivolous aud unworthy grounds that he voted for
IL and used his influence for IT, and joined issue with
another DEF artnent Of the Government that ques
ton, viii your Honor say that we do not establish
corruption, beeaute do not trace the brbe directly
TO his pocket? You hang men on circumstantial evi
dence wish TO know on what principle ii is, in
tse where tie very gTdvdDaeH of the accusation
siss in the intent, that you viii not receive circumstan
tisl evidence 10 establish the intent Your Honor un-
tleretand, gave a very limited definition TO corruption
submit you, Sir that il has been held either
upon trial of Impeachment upon criminal trial
for corrupt action rs legislator q public officer
that you were Lot permitted TO leave 10 that tribunal
that is 10 pass upon the fact the determination of the
nOye Of the &C, and its circumstances. Your Honor
proposes III the first place 10 exclude the evidence to
show that there was the corruption which we charge
and then 10 exclude the evidence Of his participation
that eorruptoni but you offer TO the privilege of
proving that some man advanced TO him with q bride;
rendered it, and that he pocketed it II Won look at
our Statute you viii find nothing Of that kind
Corruption ard bribery are two things. When you
charge corrupt combination you do not charge q
criminal ofense when you charge the act of bribery,
you charge q directly criminal oiense submit TO
you, Sir, that the ruling which your Honor proposes
90 make is at war with every decision which has ever
been made IN this country in any country, upon
question Ike this. am surprised, Sir that the in
Eenious p sentaon OF this by my Learned friends
ciple npon which cases of this kind rest. never be-
fore beard Il suggested in Court Of Justice that Won