New-York tribune., 1872-10-18
THE TWEED TRIAL.
RELATIONS OF THE SEVERAL INDICTMENTS

begun on Tuesday last resumed yesterday morning
IN the Court OF oyer and TermneF, the motion being 10
quash the indictment pending IN the Court The
ground that IL superseded BY two later indictments
| now IN the Court OF General SessiOns. The o0unsl
| engaged in the case were all present tho District,
| Attorney being assisted by Wheeler u. Peckham ana
Henry L. Clinton while the other side representa-
by John Graham, David Dudley Fold, John r. Bgrrl.
Elihu Root, VIM. A. Beach, and the two Bartlets Mr.
Tweed did not appear.
| The PROCEEDINGS were opened by Mr. Graham whs
said that the only reply which coEd be made 10 bis
ment Of Tuesday was by AFFIDAVIT
Judge Brady said that he entirely opposed 70 hold
the prosecution 10 such strict discipline and believed
II only right and proper that that side should have
opportunity to make their answering argument
Mr.. Pcckham then delivered long argument cea-
batting BIr. Graham's premises and conclusions He
said the larceny indictment which said 10 have
superseded the indictment in this Court merely
charge that Tweed obtained warrant. It was bers
charged against him that he obsned By OF frAad
a certificate Of audit. It lselfevideDt that hoss
charges very dssimar. and could not be called
the same ofense. The counsel had asked him 10
show how false signature to the certificate
could be forgery. The statute made falSo
signature by which peeuniary claim or evidence Of
such claim was created forgery Tho statute creating
the Audit Board made the certificate OF the Auditing
Board the evidence OF cOrrect claim against the city
II was not necessary that damage should have actually
would have guilty Of forgery then IN obtaining his
signature fraudulenty he within tho Mock Auction
act Counsel argued that the proper course OF the prs
Oner was not 10 move 10 Quash indictment, but to
stand his trial. and then II attacked on the other plead
| the previous trial. But II the statute were 10 bo
followed strictly, then the proper course was hot
motion to quash, but plea. When there was
| any difference in the records the Court eond
not on mere inspection determine that the two ndst-
nents were the same. That could only be determined
| on evidence In these two indictments there was
broad distinction In this Mr. Tweed stood alone. In
the other Mr. woodward charged with the main act
and II Mr. Tweed should so elect, Mr. Woodward must
be frs tried. The Court could not decide on nere in
spectiop that they Identical There was not fea
ture in the two alike, except the amount Of tho DRAFT
mentioned In each The act different, the crime DIFF
ferent the accused different and the means dher-
ent As 20 the ndorsement for forgery there was no
resemblance in the crimes. One might receive paper
by cbcanery and fraud and aerwsrd perperae another
| crime to mako the first efectual; they were eVea
| more widely different than fraua aud larceny Bai
| he admitted that In one feature the Two IN
dictments were alike both set out the same warrant
aud in another Of the present ndctmeAi It waS
alleged that he converted this warrant And was ar
pued that there could be conversion without forgery
and that evidence OF the forgery must be given 10 s
tain this CRIME. Now that evidence might be obechOo
able on the trial. but that alone was no reason EFmehee
OF one crime might be pertinent to the prooi Oh aheu
| not. It's admission re5tcu cnLheB NN
nency 10 the crime on trial Aud so might Se heSes
sarv Ia noye forgery to the cheat and YET the
crimes be distinct Might it not be that ne oDnel we
warrant by a cheat and aferward' as ho was nioFned
was the TRUTH forged the Endorsement ana thu ooassa
the whole money and that those two we're distinct Of
| fenses1 Mr. Peckham concluded by asking the COuth
deny the motion TO quash the Indictment anu 70 OfaA
| the trial 70 proceed.
| Mr.. Graham thus began never realized what
people the people OF me Clty Oh neW,l OK SLs
until this day. Here Is their strctttofhey an sss
| assistant, and two apponted-nOJ elected-AtofaeJ'
Generals. claiming to be ther rec - n.Ess
very simple question put to tlem Dut iIsteae on
ing It Ike men, they make faces at IL ana dOuge "a
STg SSsg o, "ay fSc pe6pe of Ns@YorE when we ase
against tbcm that they means 70 Indct Mr' l"eeu IN
any answer that point they certainly are reereants
the duty they owe TO society as imposed upon hsn.
own laws; and il IL could be possible 70 colrct ths
people OF this great state into this courtroom "a
by tho conduct Of the four gentemen can scarcely
conceive what would be the impression oi tbS peope ~
Mr Peckhsm-The Court called nv attention, on Tues
day, to the question before It, simply ask thas tne
| else allow me 70 reply. 49,,
Judge Brady here stopped Mr. Graham, who then pre-
ceeded with his proper argument He spoke OF tepen
which appeared OF speech made at political mecuss
in league with his client for lie double purpose Of -
client This msstatenent OF tle facs as he sHd
the ttorney had many verbal conflicts and aa1
ceased several times ~ speak 70 each Olci OWNS 20 A
unusual severity with which MS clients had Oeeh ea'ea
| by that gentleman ,,,,... =,
| Mr.. GldnAm went on 10 FAY lhN III ti4o Viltfhp' -
throas. Il seemed like overriding Providence that
thcy should defeat themselves. There was an Ia
stance Holy Writ where one had built a gallOws on
which he first hung But that they IN their ever
overriding law. argued that they could not spas
the component parts oI a crime mo al l we eiia's
| cause OF action ndivsible. Nor was tDefo any
With regard to the argument Of ths prosecution oouE
sci did not consider that anything had bsen urged 70
| tOrueY could deny that in February last, the
Court OF General Sessions, this indictment was qushod
as being superseded by the other Indictment
was brought up anew. He cOntended that, under the
statute any part OF this indictment were Included
the indlctmentsn tho Sessions. It should be quasAed
entirely. This provision tse inserted for
mercul purposes, and the IN civil SUITS la
people Of the State OF NewYork did not desire lap
| the blood OF their victim, SIMPLY because they had
| him IN their power Counsel SAID; 81 ask this
Court, in any decision n may render on thu.
application, 10 embody the great principles OF lony aud
mercy WDlcA ne at he IOuhdalfOh OF cImihal justice.
and II the sentiment has DeeA wiped out, because
often alluded 10, et it now be implanted the memory
OF the community lAe people OF he otlte oI Ne"-iOrx
do not enter their courts 10 triumph bus 10 throw around
the members Of society that protection aud security
alone which demanded in the prosecution OF guuL
which are guaranteed TO them by the Constitution aad
laws OF their own State. Here is merciu statute TO
be carried out, and here is great principle o crmin1
jurisprudence to be administered Now sir DO not these
two indictments which pending IN TIE Sessions
embrace the indictments which before this Court In
showing this forgery they Will 20 over me ground VI
mentaities which specified IN this Indictment were
resored to to make the forgery because M ha signed
false certificate OF audit; and Mr. Connolly signed
false certificate and If the Controller gave an order ior
draft upon the face OF that, the Orer iorery.
Counsel the defense desired that Court woul not
consider this as motion 10 qussh the indictment oe
preliminary objection ana M the nature oi liea 20
the jurisdiction OF Court for n Honor Grc ei
against them they would move quash Oh Oshef
grounds.
The said it had understood the % DO 70
Quash the indictment but agreed thai tie matter
should be considered counsel suggested. 1l3 Court
adjourned the Judge stating that ne would inform tueu
when ready 10 decide the question
,.ro,