The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-30

and urged on by an unreasonable public opinion.
Nothing had been left undone or said that could
prejudice the case OF the defendant and produce
his conviction. He did not believe there was a
parallel in the history of tigations to this. They
with the most inrammable articles on this subject
and the defendants alleged offence had been pro-.
ens q Ss ana sr
been a studied effort on the part OF those
who who conduct the public press to produce luce
made to intimidate the Jurors ne was adj
dressing, to prevent the acquittal OF the de-
from the testimony given on the trial IN tins case.
He begged to call their attention and the attenton
press that morning The ink was not yet dry upon
an article which IN his judgment ought 10 suDlect
world to a punishment far severer than that which
the worst enemy of Mr.. Tweed would Visit on hlm
adminisered for the purpose Of administering the
| law We organize juries and select men from the
and and Who Under the solemnity OF an oath, are
bound to render verdict according to
the evidence the ca otSer They can
they can listen to no other argument save such as
is produced here and 1t was violation OF the law
and q brutality and an indecency for any other
person outside the walls OF the Court to attempt
to influence the jury empaneed to try this case.
MR. Fullerton was about to read an editorial arti-
Gle published in one of yesterday mornings papers
when he was interrupted)
Mr.. Iremaln-l do not object. desire the fullest
latitude relative to any attempt to influence the
result Of this trial. and only desire TO say that II
y ena eaas e ae 10 wh te no @ read
from another article or two, and to comment upon
Them.
Mr.. fulerton-I have no objection to your read
ing any thing you like on this subject
THE COURT HAS WORD TO SAY.
Judge Davls-I think 1t Is my duty to say word
this subject. l must assume that this jury,
under the instructions have given, have not read
side. have myself seen articles on both sides OF
| the question involved here Of character that
ought never TO have been published. lam not
| ia
upon newspaper articles at all, or to allow counsel
on either side to make any alusion or read or re-
! mitted to the jury Is the evidence taken in this
Court-not what this man or that man may have
print. The case must be decided on the evidence
alone, and counsel will refrain therefore, on both
sides from any further alusion to these newspaper
articles.
Mr. Fullerton continued, saying that the whole
out OF the act OF 1870, the fourth section
of which directed the auditing of certain county
liabilities. 1t was for violation OF that fourth
ton that the defendants were indicted. They are
charged with having certified false bills and claims,
knowing them to be so. Before they could convict
the defendant they must find out what he did under
the law and what were his motives. Unless he
erred with deliberate intent he was entitled to an
| acquttal ut their hands, 1t required some courage
TO say that considering the tide Of prejudice and
the past fifteen months. but he hoped before he sat
down to establish the innocence OF the accused
Mr.. Fullerton cOntinued:-The case arose under
the law of 1870, imposing on certain parties the
duty OF auditing, and the Indictment charges Will
the Jury were conscientiously satisfied that there
was not only violation, but wful violation, the
There was an ofllcer in the Comptroller's ONCE
| charged by law with power to audit the county
bills, and he exercised that power after passage
of the law OF 1870, as was proved by his name,
: James watson, on the very vouchers produced,
certifying that he had audited the bills TO ascer-
tain the meaning OF the word audit 1t would be
necessary to look to cOntemporaneOus legislation,
and thus ascertain the nature of the duties i'm
posed by the Law OF 1870.
Counsel read the resolution passed by the Board
OF Audit, the Mayor, Comptroller and defendant,
nroof Of an honest intention to do their dntx
Judge Potter delivered an opinion. In which he
held that it was proof Of guilt, OF intention not
| to do their duty but the learned Judge the
| Bench Judge Davis differed from Judge Potter
and held different opinion. Thus it appeared
The Legislature provided that the accounts OF
counties should be settled, examined and allowed
counts. says merely that they shall audit which
showed that 1t was merely ministerial act that
CURED in one case and not in the other. The
Legislature passed bill that all expenses incurred
in the prosecutions niS by the Attorney General
paid by the Comptroller on the certificate Of the
Attorney General and Mr.: O'Conor; but it was
clear that the Comptroller HAD nothing to do but
paw when the certificate came before them. When
Mayor Hall, the Comptroller and the defendant
were created Board Of Audit in 1870 they natur-
ally looked to the Law OF 1867, which created the
original Board OF Audit to cOnstrue the act OF 1870.
The power of examining and swearing witnesses
was not implied in the act of 1870 which simply di.
rected taem to audit When the defendants entered
upon their duties, suppose they went about and
visited the armOries, how could they tell whether
the work was done or not for which payment was
claimed How could they tell the bills were cor
power to summon or swear witnesses; they had no
power to spend dollar in Investigating; they
in the Comptroler's office to construe the act of
1870 they had in the Office James Watson, man
Of large experience in public affairs and then
a man enjoying the confidence Of the Comptroller,
man supposed to be the best the island Tor
Judging of the amount OF work done for the city,
What did they dor What could they do They
naturally turned to Watson, and by resolution d.
rected him collect and lay before them for sig
nature and audit the claims before the Supervisors
But they did not bind themselves not TO audit after
the powe se TO % on re opny
ton exists always that public ofcer did his duty
Garvey has proved that Watson was looking up the
bills to lay them before the Board. The bills them
selves on the face of them (hands the jury bundle
of bills, evidence, by alteration of figures that
somebody had been auditing to the best Of his abil
lty No evidence whatever was produced that the
Board did not perform their duty, even in the
Keyser never were before them, but there was no
necessity for that. II they called Garvey before
them they would be no wiser, for Garvey would say
they were correct as fast as the Attorney General
and counsel for the prosecution could draw up am
davits. They would naturally prefer trusting the
judgment OF watson. There was no reliable evil
dence that they did not meet a thousand times
when Garvey, Keyser and Ingersoll were not there.
There was no reason in the world why the Board
should not place entire confidence in james Wat
son. They were not then aware of his infamy and
guilt and 1t was the easiest thing In the world for
HIM TO deceive them, and he did deceive them.
They could turn to no more reliable man than
Watson to ascertain what they could not asccr-
tain-tbe amount due on the bills-that they might
audit them. beg at your hands. then, q fair and
patient hearing. In order TO get at the intent OF
these gentlemen charged with auditing these bills
against the county OF New York, we must
| look 10 contemporane0us legislation to learn
the construction which they naturally and properly
put upon the law, and with what intention
they proceeded to discharge their duties. When
| this act appointing the Board OF Audit was passed
there was Board OF Supervisors OF the county OF
| New York. The duty OF the Board was to audit
among other things, bills against the county: and
their power still continued after the act OF 1870 was
passed. There three points will call your atten-
ton to OF great iniportance. First-That the Board
OF Audit did all they had power to do Second-rnat
| there Is no evidence to show that they did not
audit the bills before them IN the very sense In