New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-15
THE COURTS.
FAIR PROGRESS IN THE TWEED CASE.


THEY CAN SHORTEN THE TRIAL
The interest manifested in the Tweed trial
grows significantly less. The number Of spectators N
the courtroom yesterday iuconsderaDle mat
occasoned much comment and conjecture az 70 tne eh
PLANTATION OF IT. the most common opinion pe'nR CA
pressed by shruR Of the shoulders and the responsive
query: what win the whole thing amount !"
any .wayf" The opening for the prosecu''on,
which Mr.. Pcckham began Thursday was resuneu
yesterday and concluded. The counsel meh''oneo
to the jury the fortunate circumstance which enaolea
the prosecution to produce the ten vouchers on woio
the idictment Is chiefly based. Mr.. Keyser, seeing
published In a newspaper that he had received iarko
SUNS OF money these bills when he knew mmsei'
that he had not received dollar. demanded lrou' 'o
Department copies OF his bills that he might zee now NO
stood. The Citizens Committee had demanded inc
vouchers for examination, and were TO receive lne o
Monday the day after they stolen from the oon
troer's Office. As Keyser's vouchers were In ano'ier
part Of the building they saved for the PROSE
cuton.
At this point an attempt made by Mr. Graham 70
force the prosecution 10 state whether they ca"ou
conviction the ground that the defendant oiu NV
meet to audit that he did meet and was guii'y VI
some derclcuon of duty. Judge DAVIS promptly Nv
med this, and allowed conviction on both OF ei'n.i
points Mr.. Graham followed up his motion win
another TO quash the second. third and fourth counts
or the Jury acquit under them, at inc Same
time laying great stress on the avermeh' :" '-
indictment that tine certificates we're made ou'
pursuant to the section Of the statue, for nc
that II that true they were proper oeriinoo7 y"
which to give payments also that the SAID counts a'
closed felonies whereas the indictment charges n'su
meapor Judge Davis pursued the same course with
reference to this motion. The meaning OF the InoeE
ent was that tue false bills falsely certified "cio pau
under forms OF law and by means OF such false eeru
Gates The point about disclosing feonieo ne urSou'
was not well taken.
After Mr.. Peckham's address, the tax ievy OF 1910
was put evidence under Mr.. Grahams oDJecuoh '"A
this being bill appropriatng public money 10 ioca'
purposes required two-thrds vote Of the legislature
and there was no certihcation of such vote Mr. Ora
hams points OF action detailed IN paper contain
ing the objections OF Mr. Field raised on the las' M
and the paper handed In, and to save time the Nu
was considered TO hsvo overrued them all ana Ao"ou
exceptions.
As in the previous trial, the first witness ealieu was
Deputy Controller Richard ii. storrs, who produced tue
welLkDown resolution OF May s, 1870. drawn up by
Mayor Hall the meeting OF the Supervisors uirecuns
the clerk to collect bills due by the county oT tne e
natures. 1t signed by the Mayor, Cohtroier Oon-
Molly and Tweed. Another objection came from MT.
Graham, who said 10 had not been shown mat lwecu
ever filed an oath of Office and under Sec. 49, LIST Rev.
Stat page 49, his refusal neglect TO take inc oa'
within 20 days after accepting the Office caused the
Office 70 be vacant and he s not liable for any ofense
committed in such office. Judge Davis dispersed ths
argument by informing him that the law presumed
that person dschargng the duties OF the oinco was
responsible for their discharge until the CONTRARY was
shown, and the incumbent could not DehehI ny MS
neglect to take oath Following this the way was
hedged by continual objections from MI Graham' Tue
same process that was gone through Win on the hs'
trial was repeated this time more rapidly. The first
Of the Keyser vouchers for to for iron work. &c. for
the new Courthouse was handed In by Mr.. storrs and
taken subject to Mr. Grahams objection, which applied
to any bills bearing date after April TO- 1917
(the defendant being required by law 10
take the oath of the Commission OF
Audit within 20 days after the Law was passed. or any
time after May 1870 when there being no proof OF oath
OF Office the office was forfeited. Mr. Graham just pre-
yious to this objection, had moved that all counts be
ouashed except those framed on the nrst certificate
after May g. 1870 and all which the Issuing OF GER
tiHcates or neglect audit, after July 4. 1870 Both
these points overruled as well as objections TO tho
various Keyser bills, and then the testimony was re-
sumed Mr. StOrrs said he found the resolution of May
in safe 10 the Controllers Office and did know OF
any other meeting OF the Commission OF Audit than that
0ne
Mr. storrs nert described the manner In which the
voucbers were kept in the COnproer's Office. and no
the missing stolen In Sept 1871 In July pre-
yousy he visited the Office with the Mayor and saw IN
the vouchers relating to the accounts OF
Miller & Co., B0ar Co., j. A smith, Datldsoh' LOCK-
wood. Jacobus, &c. &c.
On crosse Examination by Mr. Graham the witness sald
he would that the vouchers never were re-
moved from the pigeonholes after July 10, 1871 He
never saw the ten Keyser vouchers produced after the
inspection with Mr. Hall III July, 1871 nntIi ne went DO
fore the Grand jury On me monday avn ~, % of tSs
papers were missed witness iounu INC sass VI ,e
office broken, that hand might De put III ahu
the knob turned. The lock was an ORDINARY one, ana
opened from the inside. Witness never took particular
pans TO zee II the locks were secure. -,
Mr.. Graham here said that the robbery was eneceo
from the inside and every knew III whose interest II
was DONE There was no burglary, and MT. oOohor 10
the civil suit had referred 10 II asa sncaed Dursaiy
Ne Graham then put question, Do you know that
so late the Friday before the socalled burglary
dnced that they were there when the Committee Of
Cltizens and Supervisors called on Mr. Connolly ana ne
promised to produced them the following MONDAY
Mr. Peckham SAID they willing " concede that
Mr. Storrs also said he knew no reason why Whten
was not on duty at the time the vouchers were
stolen. o.. A.,
dtor 1871 took the stand aud produced the Record OF
Vouchers and the BOOK OF county EXPENDITURE. nj.
Sorrs then recalled and testified that ne was NOT
present when tn Controlr came IN .ne % tpa lie
thought Tweeds signature was ON many OF the vouchers
lost.
took the papers away, and they we're E IN New-fork
IL was gdSi 70 pns aI m @ 10 be lost
The marks on the door might be made under Common!
directions. Were the jury to De told tina, u missing
vouchers contained Iweed's signature Mr.. etotrss
memory that 1t was on them was fra, aud the papers
themselves would be the best proof, and Tweed wOnlo
be a mailman put them out OF tho way. Connolly
the custodian OF the papers, alleged IN the haict
meut.
Judge Davis said the evidence the papers were
public documents, kept for public Mr. Lynes saw
them there on saturday and on Monday they were lost
and the law required ali having them 10 show
that a felony had not been committed.
Mr. Storrs was then further examined by Mr.. Peck
ham. He identified 10 OF Garveys audit checks on the
Broadway Bank, one for Ingersol, one for j. A. hing
jr., whose signature no did not know.
Mr.. Peckham asked tho witness ~ he knew where
Connolly 81 don't know" was the answer; " he
has gone away" Said Mr. Graham, sBrcasticahy
won't you tell the Jury that you piled mp indctpen aus
against him high that n innocent he must nave
run awayf" YES" said Mr.. PeekhsIn, with a smile
found several indictments against him and he ran
away"
Mr.. Graham very ironioaly)-Aud won't yon tell the
Jury that you piled ny indictments against woodward
80 high that he also awaYi
Mr.. Peckham tsmiliDgl-Yos found lot Of iDdiet-