Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1873-02-01
Charge OF Judge Davis---The Case
fer the People Clearly
Made Out.
The Conviction Of the Thief Post
pOned---NO Agreement by
the Jury Possible
What Next!


Judge then spoke in some detail of the
organization of the Board of Audit anC
. its duties, and ruled that the Language
of the Legislative act creating the
board, was that all liabilities against the
county Of New York, incurred previou.
to its passage, shall be audited, meant
that the performance OF those several
things necessary to ascertain that the
existence of the liabilities were Justly
and properly payable, it required at the
: hands of this board more than were their
clerical duties. They were required to
pass upon the liabilities in such form as
should furnish to their Judgment
satisfactory evidence that they were
just and should be paid. a public Off
Ger clothed with such authority cannot
delegate it, nor can a body of public
officers, because the duties constitute a
board of trust, for the benefit of the peo-
pie. II is of no Importance whether the
evidence has been given here to show
wilful neglect on the part of the Mayor
or Comptroller; it is enough for this
case if the people have satisfied you
that the defendant, Mr.. Tweed, was in
the mercy of the law. To be guilty of
neglect is an intentional act OF omission.
An officer is bound TO know the duties
deyOlving upon him, if he accepts and
enters upon the duties Of Office. There is
no necessity to prove malice or intention
to injure somebody. The defendant is
also charged with issuing certificates
cOrruptly upon false claims without
/ having audited them. In order to prove
| this the people should establish that the
/ liabilities were false, that the ceItifi-
! Gates therefore were false and the act
I IL Il. i rTNH.
I Board of Auditors met on the fifth of
/ May, 1870, and organized, and passed
/ a resolution referring claims to County
Auditor Watson: said its passage was
not in itself a criminal offense, but
simply, at most, a declaration of
intention; as TO the future action, the
law does not adjudge the mere inten-
tiOn of crime. In order to constitute
criminal ofIense, an intention must be
followed by action. If, when the time
comes for the performance of that duty,
he neglects or refuses to perform it, then
the resolution may be, in connection
with the act, strong and conclusive evi.
dence Of the commission of the crime.
Il is now claimed that the subsequent
action of the Board was without any
formal meeting, and that the signatures
We're put to the certificates and subse-
Quently presented tOtholla. II tuis posi-
don be true, it is consistent with the ev-
idence that those officers neglected
to audit. This question of neglect is
wholly Independent of the evidence of
Garvey or any other witness, or of the
mode of making up the liabilities, or of
the question whether the liabilities were
false or not. If the Board did not sub
sequently meet and sign the certificates,
as claimed by the prosecution, separate
ly, without the joint action required by
law, it is your duty to convict the
defendant; if the Board negligent
ly signed the certificates, without
examining the character or the
justice, they would be guilty of negli-
gence under the statute. The people in
sist that no such examination was
made. Upon that question comes in all
the evidence of fraud in the accounts
themselves, and of the alleged partici-
patton OF the various parties, greater or
less, in the proceeds of this audit; be-
cause that evidence tends to show that
what they did was intentional, with
bad motive, and to accomplish a bad
deed, if the Board, or any member en-
tered into any arrangement connected
with the claims by which they should
be exaggerated in amount, or by which
false or spurious claims should be passed
by the Board in which he shall
ultimately participate, that is, neglect
of duty, not only wilfully, but carrying
with il a stain, morally and legally in
finitely deeper and grCsser than that of
simply neglecting to meet and perform
their duty. As 10 Che Davidson claim for
safes, the Judge said it was for sixteen |
thousand nine hundred and forty dollars, |
and we have a warrant issued under il |
for forty-nine thousand one hundred and |
seventy dollars. Davidson swears he |
never knew of the alteration; that he |
indOrsed a warrant Of which he was not |
allowed to see the face, and obtained |
check for sixteen thousand nine hundred |
and forty dollars. 1t is not necessary to |
know who made the alteration, as the |
question before US is not who did /
that act Of forgery, but who was guilty |
OF negligence in ascertaining the true
character Of the claim, and whether the
defendant is thus guilty. Davidson /
swears that he never appeared before
the Board; never swOresto or furnished |
any evidence of the correctness of his
account, and was paid the original |
amount on the one sworn tO-forty-nine
thousand one hundred and seventy dol
laTs-which was deposited by Wood
ward in his account, of which a certain
sum was transferred to the debit of
woodward, and twenty-fOur per cent to
that of the defendant. If this transac-
ton stood entirely alone, as a single res
olute act, it proves that it might be more
easily justified in entertaining a doubt
than in the presence of ftfty-five
transactions, all reaching the same ulti-
mate result, the Judge submitted that
Tweed was guilty OF willful neglect in
passing DavidsOn's claims. Kevser's
claims We're gross frauds, and no honest
man could otherwise consider them.
Old and new bills were mingled and an
addition made. One was a bill for six
teen thousand one hundred and fifty
dollars, and had across Il: 1--WE certify
the within bill to be correct. William
NJ. Tweed; +. H. Woodward, clerk.u
This and various other accounts, made
out in favor of no one, were examined
in detail. Keyser testifies, and l see
no reason to doubt it, that his
name upon these warrants is q forgery.
There is a tabular statement here which
shows that every dollar of Keyser's
sixteen accounts went to Woodward's
credit, while, on the same day, the tick
cts show a transfer from Woodward's
and Tweed's accounts. In conclusion,
the Judge alluded to the Importance Of
the case, which is also to be considered
in the light Of its effect upon the defend
ants family and friends, because of the
stain that is left upon his character, by
a conviction; on the other hand, that
the jury should consider its effect as
an example to the community.
The jury then retired.
Subsequently a motion was made
by District Attorney Phelps to
have the defendant committed until
verdict is rendered. Graham's act was
most unusual. The motions were very
uncalled for and defendant was under
a one million dollars bail already, while
the manner in which he answered every
summons Of the court under the intim-
idation of the press, showed he was not
going to eyade any verdict rendered
against him. Finally the prosecution
waved the motion, and iSWeed was al
lowed liberty. At eleven o'clock the
jury having been out three hours, Judge
Davis returned to the Court and directed
to hslf-pas ten o'clock to-
1t is stated that poll of the iury in
the Tweed case showed eleven for ac-
quiItal and one for conviction. The dis
Senting juror is said TO be Mr.. Hazelton,
who remained firm to the close, not
efforts to induce him to
change. Il
Mr.. Fullerton, counsel for Tweed,
thinks the defense Won a great and un- ,