New-York tribune., 1873-01-30

which explains the convincing evidence that has been
laid before by the prosecution Evenin the address
which yon have Just heard there suggested
word In explanation OF the fact that OF the $1,000 900
which this audited. 100000 was taken by Tweeds
coaduors and supporters and OOOeo passed into his
own,bank account
Gentlemen, we all Eegret that the great City OF New
York, which has put ho9ors upon him until they had
more to offer has been Compelled 10 that their rust
misplaced. do not wonder that resort is had In
the last moment not TO pages Of judicial record the
uterances OF judges upon the bench the impas
stoned eoQuenoe of Irish alluding Mr. Fuller
tons quotations from Currans speech against normers)
speaking under the Indignation and excitement OF pol
ca wrong, and slludng TO hedrawing forth OF feons
from their dungeons 10 testify to anything TO their
own heads. When all their resources fail when the evi
denee is overwhelming, ready wit is combined with
what is actually down in the papers and proofs and the
language before you.
TwEED's NEGLECT OF DUTY.
The first question before you is, Was the defendant
guilty Of neglect to audit his WAS guilty of
wiful and corrupt perversion Of the duties of his
object shall not dispute regarding the meaning OF the
word audit" nor shall assume TO appeal from the
opinion Of the Court whose province i i to determine
the meaning of the word audit" shall simply assume,
as did in my opening that 1t means this: that when
the duty was imposed upon these men mem to sdd ahsse
%@d and they had no right t9 DELEGATE as that 4St
Court in the civil suits had decided that the
should not urge this on them as authority but should
leave 1t 10 their own sense Let them examine It. III IL
anything IL was reference to Mr.. Auditor Watson
TO collect the bills from the Board of Supervisors and It's
committees, audit them and prepare them for the
their only action the signature. Mr.. Lyons and
every witness says everything was hlled up by MT
Board Of Supervisors But If Mr.. Hall and Mr. Connolly
gght make an excuse that they were deceived Dy MT
Watson, Mr.. Tweed gould not II Is his certificate as
Supervisor which all depends.
The conceded evidence in the case shows the imtla,
step was the act the defendant Tweed; ae signed
his name across the face OF bills without his sg
they could not start. Watson, you will find had
or false right or wrong Even the ordinary transae
tions which he did, he didn't do that. He was
been established by vouchers, and had passed
the scrutiny Of the defendant He was to
whether the voucher according or not ac-
oording to law. When the bin came from the Board OF
Supervisors certified by Tweed Watson @ informed "a. the the
Board proper by law to be paid by the Controler
So we md that up to this time there nothing for
Tweed rely on but his personal knowledge and his
one of two things either Tweed wrote his
these bills before Auditor Watson got them noyn knowing
nothing about them at the same time assuming to be
able 70 tell me coanSr IN Ine b9aT8 th, ng ha ei
bills which the defendant certified, about one In five OF tho
whole amount upon different occasions on the date OF
the audit warrants drawn, and every time pro.
portonae amount of the money realized upon the Dli
certified by the defendant went into his own pocket and
he didn't tell us a single word upon the subject the
amount being over 100000 The evidence OF Garvey
shows he knew and shows it; too, independently OF the
If make estimate you win find that % per cent Of
Tweed
Now gentlemen, want you 10 take that little docu-
ment and look IT Che table prepared by Mr.. Tldenl
want you TO bow this thing runs The items CORE
spond 20 the warrants that before you.
When you look into Tweed's and woodwards
account, say on the 9Th OF May you find charged
Tweed's account, and you find the testimony OF the
clerks and bookeepers Of the bank that there was not
another check drawn Of that amount not only Dy Wood
ward but ANYBODY else that day The speaker traced
the transactions in similar manner through other days
same way-umty absolute from the 9th Of May down.
viii you tell what inference is to be drawn from
the fact that fraud initiates with the signature OF ne
defendant and finds its completion in the tracing of the
money stolen 10 large extent into his own pocket ana
about itl II not incumbent upon himself 10 90 upon
the stand TO Show It. If It depended alone upon that we
would have right TO draw any conclusion IRON the
fact. Bot he has bank account In tins case case OF H2O
count came from this You have heard this
described in eloquent terms controller OF events as
don't take care Of their own bank accounts; they
had clerks and bookkeepers Where is the 6ookkeeper
N that tApl every '1 time E A. Woodward chose to
How Explain except upon the hypothesis that stole
iti Where is the bank book seG Where is the expla-
nation OF what Tweed did with this money, except what
the counsel says ingenl0usy about using at Anny
for party purposes which is saying TO me community
ouTned about the lst of May and passed about
posession alter the ist OF May aud ending the ist OF
September What then becomes OF the pretense that
this by him 10 further the interests OF
partyi Now these things are entirely independent OF
Garyey VINO sits SO heaVly upon tne so1Is o ,ueso @
fiud whole communicated speak Of IT only because
it came from the counses own ps-has come TO GER
tain conclusion upon evidence submitted say
in the words of the old maxim, Inc voice Oi te people
That is independent Of what Garvey said Now l
will tell you what Garvey said. YOu Will draw con
irast between what man does and says when truth Is
on his side and what does aud says when truth
is his side. They offered in evidence two bills
cepted and they brought the checks that they alleged
had paid bem aud they thought tins was strong
Garvey said be never saw those checks before. Inc
theory the defendant that there was between the
there we're payments for work and materials fur
nished How dld we meet that by showing hol ohiS
bat produce instantly every bank account he kept,
aud the items composing these books; ana showed ha'
these checked never were deposited by GJryeY.
GARvBY's TESTIMONY VALID.
Mr. Garvey tolo You that item of the $4,000
check for 100000 Of Jay Cooke Co. The next day
We produced the cashier Of Jay Cooke Co., who cor
roboraed this These facts show the truth Of his story
Let ne call your attention 10 contrast wish 70 draw
Mr. Garvey testified that he had given this receipt TO
Tweed, and Mr.. Tweed drew out check and had HIM
write his across the back They claim TO you that
SHOW s6 and produce thls eheeki The claim tnst
| the statement OF Mr.. Garvey that be gave
snhtertpse' You think, win hesitate long before
dOubting this statement of Mr.. Garvey Why does not
that defendant himself who rs here either produce that
check or account for its nOnproducon Why Goes not
the cashier bank 10 us that there was check
drawn upon that day for such an amGn1s ,on the &
chain Of evidence. If Il is not produced or accounted
for ls not story of Mr. Garvey corroboaed by tne
aets defendant hmsef There is contrast as 10
fhcsc IS the one that e1plalns every
thing and that his whole recordf Who the one
that comes forward here, concealng all that II ~ was
true would valuable TO hmseff III IN the conduct or
Mr Garvey upon stand there has been anything IKE
excjtemenL as has been complained Of to be won
dered that man who felt that he bad done everything
.ic. ~ hlull defanllnf.