New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-01-24


abuse which so admirably represents red tape
in the diplomatic service.
| STILL TWEED GO FREE BY DEFAULT'
We do not consider it honest or expedient
TO hide from the public the fact that the
chief criminal of the Ring is in danger of
escaping all adequate punishment for his
| frauds. We had occasion at the opening of
the Tweed trial to point out the painful fact
that the people were labOring for conviction
under the great disadvantages of an ignorant
jury and an incompetent prosecution. For
holding this view and urging his more
vigorous prosecution by stronger counsel,
THE TRIBUNE has been accused in some quar-
tiers of defending Tweed. But then the same
uneasy critics, who would certainly depart this
life if they had no TRIBUNE to rail at, saw in
our hint that the people would not be content
with the impeachment of Judge Curtis with
out the thorough reorganization of the minor
courts, defense of the Judge whose accusa-
ton THE TRIBUNE was the first and only
paper to make.
We are debarred by the obvious pro-
prieties during the tendency Of the trial.
from commenting as freely as we should
like on the evidence thus far educed in
the Tweed case; but we think ourselves
at liberty again to express the anxiety we
have felt in relation to the result from
the beginning, and to repeat our suggestion
to the District-Attorney that duty to
the people requires that his counsel
be strengthened, for they are in every way
overmatched. In the midst of the trial, Mr..
N,bo oil
practically rests, for in his ability alone the
people have confidence, has been stricken
down, and though he appears in his place
daily, it is clear he has not the strength for
the work before him. The simple truth is that
the case is going by default. The Assistant
Dstrict-Attorney, who, with Mr. Peckham,
drew the indictment, ought to appear in
the case. And the people should have
retained Abraham II. Lawrence or some of
the members of the Bar familiar as he is, and
as all the counsel for the defense are, with
the complex laws of the Corporation, and par
ticularly with those manufactured by the
Ring for Ring purposes. We suppose Mr..
Phelps has resigned to the AttOrney-General
the conduct of the case and the employment
of the counsel but will this plea avail him if
the case be lost through incOmpeteneyf
We are not disposed to censure the counsel
without good reasons therefor, and we pro-
coed to give them. The circumstances OF the
crime and the case imposed upon them the
necessity of relying mainly upon bought testi-
mony. They were forced, We suppose, to
depend upon Garvey and Keyser to connect
Tweed directly with themselves in the
commission of the thefts. Now while
cd TO
confidence in the minds of suspicious jurors,
it was not in the nature of things that they
could call upon others or do without them.
But the prosecution must have seen before
this what a blunder they made in putting
Davidson on the stand He was to all
effect and purpose the prisoners witness,
for he had no sooner sworn that q
crime had been committed to which
he was party than he denied, with an actual
show of Indignation, that Tweed had any
thing to do with him in the matters. The
prosecution is to call Keyser to-day, and is
expected to produce Connolly on Monday.
Let US hope they do not propose to show by
them simply that crime was committed. but
that, as far as they knew, Tweed had nothing
to do with it; and so fall back on the evil
dence Of Garvey only.
The evidence thus far has established that
another great bunder has been committed.
Suppose Tweed is convicted, what does the
reader suppose is the extent of the punish
ment which can be imposed upon himf For
his thefts of many millions lie can be fined,
under this Indictment $3.50, and be confined
for one year. The offense is tech,
nically called misdemeanor, though this
last absurdity is the fault of the
law, not of the lawyers But if the testimony
taken is fully accepted, it proves not merely
one but more than score of crimes COM
mitted by this defendant. The same evidence
which warranted the one omnibus indict-
ment would have justified the drawing of
a score. The same evidence which would
convict Tweed for one year on this bill would
send him TO prison for twenty on as many
separate indictments. Convicted on one, he
would have virtually been condemned on all.
Now here has been committed grievous
blunder which further shakes our confidence
in the prosecution. 1t reduces the great trial
almost to farce.
We have no wish to prejudice this case for
or against the prisoner. OF his actual guilt
We baya never had doubt. since the publca-