New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-12-06
TWEED'S BAIL.
ARGUMENT AT ALBANY ON THE MOTION TO
REDUCE 1T.

CHARLES OCOEOR AND SAMUEL ]. TnDEN or.
POSE THE NOTION WEEDS GUILT AT.
FIRMED-RIGHT OF THE STATE TO SUE HIM
JUDGE LEARNED RESERVES HIS DECISION.
Judge Learned, in Chambers, at Albany yes
erday heard the argument to reduce the bail required
OF Vim. M. Tweed John II. Reynolds and Mr. stoughton
appeared IN support Of the notion and Charles OCOnor
and J. Tiden In opposition. The room was crowded
with czcns who appeared deeply interested In the pro-
ceedings. Mr.. Reynolds said that the motion was on
behalf Of the defendant Tweed In the OF The People
Of tho State Of NewYork against Vim. NJ. Tweed and
others to reduce the bail Of Tweed aud for other
purposes.
Mr. OConor Mt this point desired to read an AFFIDAVIT
in to the papers served on thcm Mr. Reynolds
objected tho ground thar the motion was made on tho
paper which the order OF arrest was granted II wo
move additional papers, said he they may reply with adj
dtio papers, but not otherwise We stand here to see
whether the first order Of arrest rightly granted
| and was not to need additional papers. Judge
Learned decided that Mr.. OConor could ct present his
additional afidavits, and Mr.. Reynolds proceeded
The complaint asks for Judgment for $4,000 with IN
teres from September, 1870 and IA verified by e. j. TIL
den. In tins case where the amount claimed is &c. oo
the bail required Is $OOoOO and the slrctirs have to
qualify in the OF ss,O0OOO. There 10 affidavit or
allegation that Tweed thinking Of leaving town. or
| that be and the other defendants were not good
| The object Of hail Is only TO keep de-
| PENDANT in the jurisdiction OF the Court
Never, all IN" Julical t''F
heard of. is there IA time wien such excessive bail was
required, rs fixed In this Mr.. Reynolds then
the plant and continued: suppose from
section Of this complaint, in regard to the issuing OF
bonds, that the city paid no money on them. What be-
came OF these bonds Is unknown to III" AtorncyG"nr
raj. far appears from these Ileadings Tide people
the State o York have not been injured a. far as
this complaint shows. The complaint IL for the recovery
| Of >6,MOUy, which the complaint does not show was
taken either the state or the City OF N'w-fork
The bondholrs max" complaint. they do not invoke
the dignity Of tie stat" of NewIork. The Ir"p" com"
here int, rncdlers IN Orr peoples bus mes. III t."
honhodrrs satisfied. why should not the >nple he
What jr said IN NEWSPAPER II rrtvry set f"rh ny th"
about the los Of the vouchers from the Controllers
Office: mint inmat rial I" ills COMPLAINT since mere
L. II" rNd n'" that IL "crd had al! 'hh |" 40 Win tnc
| rwRED's DILEMMA
We are unfortunate, ~, III the In,s' and arc
apu.cd. Then sliced by the supervisors Have
meyer comes after us and then the people OF the state
r. WHOM shall We respond if are Liable II the people
get the &C. pUNO what will they do with They have
paid moi ing their bonds and called upon 10
| pay nothing. Tacn the CRY Of Ncw-I"rk may recover
sG.uO1ooD the Beard " supervisors. u ia Important
to fIi ont nov. whcth there H. any r':ht NJ property
IA III. state NJ New YORK Ia any of this money
! suppose Tweed and Incrr>"I undertook 1" d"irari
and j. sued bonds and the citv called I'on 10
pay a,tni. how can tie Ir"llc hainidn ms action -
piriN ha- been damaged II - tie Ii i"y ~
New York nd tie oPe II is rid he sni' li-ii-
tcd u, lie MAJ or w,ic net con,.ell ed N root 'in.
nothing be- been alleged Thrrc ,houli I've fact
presented the complaint verified. 10 max" good ht
litigation thai Nj. Otoritin Ta~ in roiIu-ion win
| iIrv,s and Irl,ris. sc,rrai AM avis were na'r 10
Obtain She "r'r arr"'t W ~ P''km'im make one
tlcr. l. one m regard to THE Br'aiw". i'iii AMI Mr.
Ten Iuah.s about y ndt he saW la III" Controllers
Mr Reynolds then read At length from Mr.. Tilden's
affidavit and claimed that too much was stated ~ tic
n""rtnnt U that siMSooo ban Required. They show
in regard to The Br"ad~ay Bank HAT ccr'an sums were
| nh
drawn az iinst certain bilanos ut mo- ,ls = proved
You fall back On The Ia rest >i>pri,n' I'VE mnpr I'm,
ton. something beside Suspicion ami belief and news
l%rn nn to ir r1n:,et; That prove. nothing for
who committed the forgery IL not stated The object OF
i aaa Of f' the C" 90 might *
c",ivc bail in regard 10 tn" greatest crinAi under the
! most tyrlnniral governments.
The complaint reads like a news!aprr or"l'; Iii
writer o", ana not VIA H., prfS' sr T., w. :" o o
| ibis Grant that Han, Tweed 4 Company bad
rrl h"nds. there Is II" ail,c:.i"n mat IT," de
i"ndamto are ~" adj" to pay or ih.i ICY trk OF Nee
fcndnit> the cornpl.i hu 10 -ay that the bail
~ !; operates asa great oppression. and
.uuii ted to YOU 10 reduce H. TIE Treasurer
OF the state o %rM York. Wit" la, -"l,,r- ,lo@00oo
The u for Xar" Eurr was hxrd ny tn. Cnir jas.
Of the United stai's u; So0U an, the jude added hat.
If that amount could no. u" rLisr' w".hl ll,icD'"a
motion reduce 1t. would Ihr I" know II ba Tor th.
highest I'm nj. :" ri, x ~ ;S m nd m ws gr
|
Mr. O'CoIior replied that good deal -" what was said
Looked like a motion Tor absolute dssl,ar;s The plea
that el-e than the people OF New York WIS ihs
motion to reduce bail. l hold that our duty here -
simply on the asslnpilon ih an action %i,c Brought
| and 10 whether the hail should be altered
Mr.. Rev nOlds wclt that tiic order OF arrest as
regards Tweed the defendant. should he yar"cd; tat
part Of their rnoton; or II Twccd WAS he'd' MS
Sir U'Ionor inquired OF the judge ~. on motion TO
reduce bail, hc would hear i"ii"h to 'aralr arrest
| Judge Iarncd decided that ho would, and TIA coupon
Mr. Ot oEor sat down.
TIIDEN on TWEED.
SIR Tldrn then addressed the Judge in opposition TO
the MOTION He agreed with the counsel the other
side "A, To the object OF bail. He supposed Tweed could
nav GOOOOO. The other side admitted as much IN Their
argument; VI money. largo Tor ono man, wOilu
not be excessive another Tho amount to be recOv-
cred was Immense and doubtless was easier for Tweed
TO give ball u s,OOOOO than for Burr In $1,000 or Je
Davis in 100000 What the factsf Accounts to the
amount Of &sl2OoO are audited by board, Of which
| Tweed IL member; he certihcs the claims; $7ooGO
warrants q the city are proved TO ayn ps n
woodward Whenever Garvry colIecteda warrant he paid
q per- cent 70
percentage every time without more an s wy 'iFGt
P% rtUt The Identification date amount
sts into another The coincidence Of amounts having
seven figures perfect on tn. doctrine OF chances Tho
aim IIOUOO0 u the public money, rcsultng
out Of one well be asked to give bail 70
one man would not begin hold another. The money
In this is traced positively to Tweed II Is certain
nm thai s,n AZ to whether ttAs action IL well brought
leave 10 inv associate. On thu authority of cases de-
cided in England and on elementary principles think 1t
must b+ maintained.
At thu point Judge Learned requested to have his At
10 drs WI In brief the proof that Tweed had
Fraudulent share IN the d o0s,oW.
Ar Tilden replied that the claims, In the MAN,
actitio,s There Ia no doubt OF that. There Ia pr
tsnse that Tweed had right to quarter Of the ano4nt
Ne Mmself WA menoer. The accounts only
ditsd ON prrfcnse The Board Of Audit held hut one
n..f,n~ and a that authorised Tweed To certify