The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-13
BOSS TWERDS CASE.
Appeal from the Motion 10Th Reduction Of
Bail in the Case Of William M. Tweed.
Arguments of Counsel at the General
Term-yne Decision Of the
Court Reserved.
ALBANY, Jan. II. 1872.


ALBANY, Jan, IL. 1872.
The case Of william NJ. Tweed was brought up to
I day In the General Term OF the Supreme Court
Notwithstanding the interesting proceedings of the
Legislature there was good attendance in Court
OF lawyers and citizens as spectators.
The proceedings were on appeal from the dc
cision Of Judge Learned denying the motion for q
reduction OF bail
THE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. John f. Burrell, counsel for Tweed opened
the argument Judge Learned POUNDS his denial oil
The motion upon the fact that no afidavits pre-
sented the part OF Tweed, ana this circumstance
he considered sufflclent to justify him in refusing
to vacate the order OF arrest to reduce the
OF bail Mr.. BurriIl argued that the practice was In
cases like the present for the Court not to try the
merits OF the action that the truth OF the ALE
CATIONS in the COMPLAINT Will be tried couato-
rally or upon a1idavit, but only on trial OF issues
raised In the answer so that had the defendant de-
MED most emphatlcally every allegation IN the
him. Counsers next point was that the ball re-
quired was unusual and unreasonable, and not war
rantape or justlfied by the facts Of the case. He
submitted that in every view OF the case 1t was ex
cessive. The State constitution provides that EEK
Sson 0q &c q ; s
States The prohibition Is applicable. equally to
S to right
changes nave taken place during the past twenty
I'VE years on thus subject entity says that magis-
demanding sufficient surety, they make bail so ex.
cessive re4ulsitlon as In effect to amount TO q
THE FRIENDLY JAILoRs OF AN INDIVIDUAL
who Dailcd him In $4,000 will viganty guard their
muca more is The vigilance to be increasedY II to
100000 how much mOref In two capital cases,
one reported BY Barber ana the other by Parker
bail was fixed at $4,000. During the past twenty
years the highest sum exaCted for bail In civil
case was $3.50 900. Those who 90 bail for a party
In all places and surrender him In case ne fails In
his obedience to the process OF the Court. This
power has been given to bail for the purpose Of en-
with With, view TO ,, me release from
case Is excessive IN view OF the penalties and pun
ishment to which the defendant IS liable. Inc
recovered, Is that he be Imprisoned In the county
jail or within jail liberties for three months, waen,
discharged from imprisonment under the InsOlyent
law. Counsel then cited the
the FORMER was bailed IN $4,000 and the laIitr in
$780, OaO. Bail was exacted In Davis case by
9dge h not 1ikey 10 underest III an ms crimes
Responsible for defendant until BAN JUSTIFIED, has
his bond fixed at only $50 000a fact which goes 20
show the unreasonableness OF the claim for ban
made In this CASE TO Justify the large amount OF
bail demanded from the defendant not single
fact Is SET up In the plaintiffs affidavit except those
claimed to Constitute the cause OF action. The cou.
sci then argued at length that the complaint
guilty of any such acts as to Justify bail in
$l0ooo00. The charge against Tweed Is that he was
President OF The Board OF Supervisors and a mem
Der OF the Board OF Audit and that the latter
passed resolution thar the evidence OF the cor.
rectness OF bills should be the certificate OF the
Clerk or President OF the Board Of supervisors There
was nothing Improper In the resolution. The
Supervisors were properly charged with this duty.
passed the Supervisors could It lie expected to re.
quire further proofY rne complaint states that
duties OF the defendant were OF judicial character
aud II he erred 1t was
AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT.
Mr. OConor replied. He had already argued the
question OF county and State jurisdiction In reply
70 one argument, we deny that The county OF New
York ever was body corporate capable OF SUNG
and being sued. Ee then contended that the
amount Of BAN was not excessive; the provisions OF
actions Ony and II II applied 10 civil actions the
question would stu have to be asked, what Y ex-
ants Inability. Perhaps, on general principles, the
bail should have been fixed at s3,0oo,ov0. Mr..
he Evidence proving Twes s Guilt a.
overwhelming In its strength. No one defended
him, not even William NJ. Tweed. Counsel then re-.
spOnd at the Broadway Bank.
THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
In the complaint II such exist, can be remedied by
amendment; they have no elect to work the release
Of this defendants. Mr.. OConor then stated In brief
the points OF the argument which he elaborated last
week In the Connolly case, as 10 the right Of the
people OF the state to bring tins action.
Nr. David Dudley Field rejoined lie devoted his
hour 10 consideration OF Two points,
FIRST Ia the amount OF BAN excessive, supposiDg
there Is cause OF actionY
Secofld-llaye the people any right TO bring this
aCtlonY
As to the first point, Mr.. Fields argument was sub
stantiaily the same as that presented to Judge
Learned. The object Of bail was to imprisOD but
TO secure attendance. II bail be eXacted IN the
fixed in this action, what citizen Of the
three or four eXceptions--bug Is liable
In civil SUIT TO be thrown into prison, to remain there
until released by the slow process OF the lnsOlycnt
act? Mr. Fields cited several authorities in support
Of his position that bail IN 000 600 was excessive
As TO his second point, counsel denied srenuously
that the people had any right to bring this action.
If any claim exists IL Is in favor OF the county and
not Of the State IL VIII not be commended that both
the county and state can recover Tweed cannot be
made 10 pay twice. The county can sue as a
body corporate, represented by Its Board OF Super.
risors. the Revised Statutes provide that each
county, as body corporate, can sue and be sued,
TIE COUNTY OF NEW Y0RK
stands on the same footing the other counties.
fhe statutes of 1867 6S, go all contain provisions
respecting the county or New YORK and recognizing
rs corporate capacity. In conclusion counsel SAID
that the Island OF Manhattan was abundantly able
10 take care OF ITSELF and any attempt TO delegate
It's duues 10 tho Attorney General and the state
tended to that license In negligence or local duty, to
which the present frauds are In "a great measure
At the conclusion OF Mr.. Fields argument the
Court took the papers, reserving It's decision.
--------------------------
Att-My N0pH DlTN