The New York herald., 1873-12-25

Clerk OF the Board OF Supervisors with high trusts,
then % existed with the then lights not with the
lights we now had. Had Mr.. Han any right TO
suspect Mr.. Connolly or Mr.. Tweed or MI. watson
suspicious man, and even suspicious man
would not have taken alarm then. Thus stood
matters in 1870 when Mr.. Hall, overwhelmed with
his duties, had to reorganize the city govern
ment. They had heard something OF his duties.
He claimed that with all these duties, and sur
rounded by these old officials, he was justified in
taking their certlfcates and looking no iurtner.
suppose Mr.. Hal had said, we win pass no claims
except those which have passed into Judgment
and are certified by the Clerk OF the Court. That
would have been thought a very stringent and
very cautious rule. But this could not be done.
The Courts could not pass on claims against the
county; only the Supervisors could do that-and so
Mr.. Hall moved the corresponding resolution that
they should pass only such claims as had passed
the Supervisors or the appropriate committee, ana
that these claims should be certiiied to have have 80
this equivalent to requiring the Judgment OF the
Court and the certificate OF the Clerkf
Counsel here read the resolution OF the Board OF
Audit, and claimed that 1t was all the most eau
tious man could ask, demanding proof OF the pre-
viOuS action OF the Supervisors or the proper COM
mitttee authenticated by the President and Clerk,
before they could act: and then they would act on
what mad been acted on Tor l3 years TINS was
judicial determination Of what was to be passed.
After this II was mere ministerial act to verify
the signatures OF the Clerk and President and sign
the certificate. 1t was like the case Wnere board
had decided class OF cases and afterwards signed
separately the judgments IN each particular case.
He said this In view Of the corner into which the
prosecution was driven, and on which they rested
their hopes that these auditors would have met on
that these bills examined by him were authenti-
Gated and endorsed, as he had explained. They had
seen the Keyser vouchers, and one OF item, long
they must remember that these vouchers had been
tossed about from court TO court, and they were
not sure 1t was IN the state 1t was when IL went
before Mayor Hall. But when they remembered
Mr.. Halls acquaintance with Mr.. Keyser-his age
and and 6 sae oil ~ ,hat 10
no great neglect to accept such bill with little
examination. He recalled to them that the bills
all dated as lar back as 1868 or 1862 that they
were made out in great detail OF items; that Mr..
Hall could not detect the falsity OF the items ex-
cepr by the confession Of the parties who made
them out. He reminded them that Mr.. Hall had
to sign an average or over 90 warrants day
and could not examine. each bill, but must de:
pend on the examination of subOrdinates. II
juries were to hold an 0mctal criminal for the
acts OF subordinates no honest man could be found
to take Office. 1t was hopeless for the prosecution
10 attempt to show any corrupt or fraudulent act
in the Mayors conduct. The prosecution relied on
to consider eacn case therefore Mr. Hail was
guilty. They had come down to that-a mere
technical ofence.and on that they proposed to
suit would be disgraceful. But when they were
reduced to that the law stepped in. The Board
them, without Garvey's presence. Woodward and
Watson would have been the most natural persons
Mr.. stoughton then, addressing the Court, called
attention to the case IN 49th New York Reports
and asked his Honor to consider, first. whether
the construction which he had suggested ought
not to be given to this statute, under which the
Indictment was found; whether there had not
garded as an.audt, and that II there has been an
audit then the statute had not been violated,
that act II a Inc Conrt o came 10 erent com
clusion. then 10 bear in mind the meaning OF the
word "wilful.n that 1t is criminal neglect of
known duty either in auditing bills on testimony
known to be insufficient and certifying bills
known to be fraudulent, or that It is in failure to
meet under the act OF 1870. Bearing that In mind
he would ask the Court to consider II there was
any evidence to go TO the jury that Mr.. Hall had
l Sis were ase ana ra9ulen and Whether he was
not justified in acting judicially upon the testi-
mony prescribed by that resolution and that il the
Board didn't meet there was no evidence whatever
that Mr.. Hall supposed or knew that they were
bound to meet after the meeting referred to- He
the fourth count, and tnat upon that there should
be an instruction to acquit.
the jury, invoking them to remember how en-
tirely Mr. Hall was separated from those implicated
in these frauds.
Mr.. Tremain commenced his summing up by al
luding to the unpeasantness OF his duty in asking
OF them the conviction OF member Of his own pro-
fessi0n, and gentleman for whom he had always
felt respect. He could not shrink rom that duty;
words without swerving from the line OF duty.
The case was important to the defendant, his
If se asa oi w
It It would be sad Il where, By the neglect S Of one
millions had been robbed from the public, morbid
sentiment should excuse him from punishment.
rapidly. II those who had high and imperial
powers were allowed to perform these duties
according to their wishes those lower In po-
snerin would, instead Of obeyIng the mandate Of
the Court to convey prisoner TO jail, ride about
with HIM to hotels and his home meaning no
wrong, and inferior officials, each In his degree
would similarly neglect to obey the law. This ease
was important to the public for the enforcement
widow ha no
despoiled BY the neglect OF these guardians; i'm
portant to the honor OF the city, important to the
disrepute; to the nation, on whose name these
transactions had brought 'dishonor. The jury had
merely technical could they not trust the merciful
Judge, who was trusted with wide discretion
Sed 6 n ans 70 H mercy y Of the ,
then explained the difference OF the pun
ishments, of misdemeanors and felonies. In
charges, four Of which they had not attempted to
prove The 81 they had proved were on the war
OF these there were four counts framed to meet the
strictness required by the rules Of pleading, the
first three framed under the statute and the fourth
under the common law. He explained to them
that the statute made the wilful omission OF an
oflcial duty misdemeanor, while the common
meanor He recalled the fact that the defendant
himself when District Attorney procured the con-
n e
surplusage that the word "wilfully" meant 'in-
tentionally,n and whatever his good faith, ii
he intended to do the forbidden act, 1t was doing
1t wilfully. In that position the Court sustained
him.
the Court here took recess.
After Recess.
Mr.. Tremain resumed his argument for the
prosecution, claiming in the beginning that q
mistake on the part OF Mayor Hall in the
method prescribed by law I0r auditing these
claims was no defence TO him. He was bound to
know the law. II he made q mistake, and under
that mistake refused to or unintentionally did not
hn w UyIil Ho
then discussed the question OF what those duties
were. He alluded to the almost imperial powers
conferred by the Charter OF 1870 upon the Mayor
OF the city, including this power to audit all these
state claims. He argued that TO audit meant to
examine, 10 inquire into. That had been settled
in the various trials growing ont OF the Board.
He reminded them that 1t was their duty to take
the law from the Court, and then, turning to the
Court, argued that the duty imposed on the Board
OF Audit was to examine, investigate and call wit
nesses before them IN joint meeting and that the
public was entitled to the joint action Of the three
minds. and that they could neither act aenaratelv