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

and also IN nreribe lie moder which we shall prove
Il bv chilling sone peison who saw the iact' ih'i0
is no such rull Of eyi,SDce.
tfIor,. H., o. sSoc,.;ng that we have charged
tbt Ill r1 uonc Nav that we are not permitted 70
-, 4, -, 70 - ia mot charged IL, we should DC
pa 81, LITIGATION or without lustlhca-
a.; 49,, "a III a Circumstance in mi lgatlon
W - The fnry have q right 10 see the cir
~ nScr ich this article, alleged to be
S.an 20 issne5k the world. Ii it was through
,h ~ sven was through the indiscretion
". W Az i'm ibis a question which this Jury
~ W, ;b1 T. cons in determining the amount of
d'aaos ays., haCbse no justification upon the
SanorS ~ nv 4, public act, in voting $SO,UOO
into tba noetS Of brother and brotheriu-aw, were
nccasion fn, = and Il the public large TO be mis-
LID he IA no, titl, 20 the same measure Of damages
that he wos5 be II he had no participation IN II.
If il be eeIA med fsat the Legislature corrupt
and that IT, ,ost h 7upt measures which rendered 1t
infamous Wss hot hich were carried the Gov
ernor's ye,0 ~ ~ personal vote and voice Of the
plaintiff BE- /. OF X; condition in which to stand be-
fore the lure g. Ella he same OF redress Tor
the suppoSsy ,yr). that he would have been If he
could have ~ had no participation In this mat
ter" | colS T. ~. that am taken by surprise at
the suggepb,., AL hardly know how 10 meet It,
because IL h " s9iG E,ely opposed to those well get
tied rules ur9a ids Isbect as understand them, that
IL scarcely J. a. a. views which have suggested
1t seems to & u, be clear to your Honor that this
evidence does Stoestablish the truth OF the mat
ter charged 81 nel T. thus fact when taken in con-
junction wi = sae. Facts the jury have right TO
presume this v, d influenced either by bribery, by
personal mott; . ID opes Of ambition, by desire to
serve his fro. q he expense of his country, or
by desire Ia won the interests Of his party
at the EXP, ~ u bis country, and thus Is
clear mani SO uni fashionable corruption. Does
your Honor seliev{ that at any freside in the
State of New ork ito men can be found 10 differ
upon the question: corrupt legislation lie legsa-
ton for the private III I'd Of other parties than the pub.
lie IL is NOT recest that il be for his own private
emolument. II fr the purpose of corrupt
ing another sell lny soul or my country, i
am corrupt II ma-ers not in this respect who Ia
70 be benefited by H. Ia the mQl.ye eorr--n, bu'
Was the act bIibel Under your Etnors decision no
officer can in any ey ent be charged with corruption,
unless you can prove direct and personal blbe! The
Press Of this country is muzzled from this time FORTH
and corruption may walk forth unsbashed and nnre-
buked; il has received shield here which will pro-
tect il everywhere My learned associate refers me 10
the definitions of corruption. cannot stop 10 debate
question of that kind We have never yet heard the
suggestion from the lips of man, that n breach OF
public trust was no. corrupt, or that casting vote
against ones conscience was not coIrupuoni lDal
fasehoOd TO the constituency who elected an of1cer
to the Assembly is not corruption; that fal:enod
to the State in whose Capitol site as presiding
officer Of delberaiive body, lie not corruption. we
do not charge bribery. We do charge corruption
And if in the shall prove corruption by bnoe'
~, does not weaken Our only reason Tor
retaining TO specify any peculiar form OF corruption Is
that Of witnesses are adverse TO u.s. and what
they will prove we do not know. Bot We do know
that we can prove those facts which If unconradiced
will leave no TWO honest men IN doubt az 10 what was
the motive for the official action Of the plalntln VINO
has invited us 10 into court of the purpose OF ill.,
vestgaling IT, and seeks 10 shun investigation.
MIR. SEDGwIcK-It is a pretty early stage Of the case
TO argue appeal from your Honors decision, but,
such Is to be the order, detire TO say word. ray
no fail init ded man Can read the libel for which we
have brought this defendant into Court without giving
il the construction which has been given TO 1t by the
Court. IL 10 in every sense reasonable Just, and
proper construction of the language 1t is what tue
author meant when he wrote II, and what be leaves
bis counsel to disguise Now, If that is proper con-
structon OF the igtl, if that lie what he Meant TO
charge IL is entirely mmateria what IL the char
acter Of the legislation which they seek 10 bring in
| here. A may be just corrupt in voting for a
good in tile Legislature as for bad oDe 1t 10
tie motive that operates upon him that TO try THAT
! and not the character Of the legislation. III II
had been Just that railroad bill that Gov. Morgan
would Lave drawn up, without any object or interest,
of course, or any personal considerations II II mad
been for Instance, the bill overriding the Court and
organic ng the Ninth-avenue Railroad il would not
have been the question whether that good or bad,
bat whether Mr. Littleohns votes upon II were cast
upon public grounds upon private grounds! whether
for what he believed TO be the public interest or
what he knew TO be bis corrupt person al interest
don't confne the question 10 question OF bnbe, nor
does the Court 1t IL question Of impure, persona In
erested motive operating upon him. II matters not
whether the bill was drawn by the Governor in the
Executive Chamber, or whether concOcted by the
men who have been named here this morning as those
who cOncoced the corrupt leglsla ion for the City OF
u
ar Iment Of the counsel who has sat down is
precisely the argument presented before, only
perhaps compact, and in terser form. He pro-
poses 10 prove that the legislation itself corrupt,
| which it may be in various ways. IL may have been
gotten up by interested parties, deceitfuly and cor
rupully; il may have been earned through the Leg
islature by wholesale bribery of Others that three
| fouTths OF the members who voted for the measure
were directly bibed for their votes; and yet man
may have voted with these corrupt meubers, and may
have advocated the and st be a. little liable
to the charge of bribery corruption anybody who
voted against the measure from the beginning There
| il a distinction. IL is the motive which
operates on the member who gives bis vote in par
ticular case that decides whether il s just far and
honest vote for what he supposcs TO be the best meas
ure that can be procuredor whether it is cast with
out regard the merits OF the question and for
corrupt personal motive. Now, here is distinction
which tie counsel wholly loses sight Of He endeay-
put il aide; 10 put ii out of the case and TO
argue that If the legislation was bad, or If any Of the
members concerned guilty, then all guilty
Of corruption aud therefore could be beled in the
manner in which Mr Litllejohn has been lbeled by
the defendant 10 this case. Now look at this second
| answer; 1t IL the only one left in the Gaze,
except the 9TH; and you will zee, they have
| there specified the various acts OF Legislation
| which they say are corrupt. / undertake to
say in reply TO what has been suggested by the
sell that III OF these measures Of legislation Is
any relative Of Mr. Littlejohns interested TO the
amount Of $40 900 ~ cents, has been. We
desire to do away with that and that when they come
TO the proof we shall see what there is Of it. desire
TO do away with the impression that is sought to be
made upon the Court by the assertion in such broad
emphatic terms. There is not one word Of truth in
it. We challenge investigation, that anything
anybody connected with him has operated IN the least
degree, in the remotest manner upon him il giving
the vote which he gave for these measures. We do
not pretend to say they are shut out from testmony
that il not the purport Of the decision; but il
II, that they shall prove what they have
charged. Tie difficulty IT, the counsel says