The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-28
date there appeared to be an item Of 900 which

was not from warrants; on July 70 an item OF
500 oOo July Is, $4,000; August l. ST. o46 49, also
items OF S25,s76 s4 and $4,000, OF which he had no
information at that date the total amount OF these
warrants was $3,5s9,32s Is. all OF which appeared
entries, In addition TO the other items just
named.
Mr. Burrn--hat includes also the amounts Of
warrants not yet I'm evidence and not Included III
the Indictment.
Mr. Peckham-Ies.
The witness was then examined at some length
as 10 the ifems In the accounts respectively Oh
Garvey lngersO Keyser and Davidson, on the
debit side OF their respective accounts, which
showed that on the same day that the warrants
were drawn ana deposited the payees had also
drawn checks. payable 10 Woodward, IN amount
CERTAIN FIXED PERCENTAGES
OF the amount OF each warrant; that on the
same date Woodwards deposit account showed
eS side S o account snowed
entries for checks drawn Tor percentages the exact
figures OF which, even To CENTS were invariably de-
posted to Tweeds bank account. FROM May .,
1865, up to September s. 1870, the amount de-
posted by Garvey amounted in all TO about, In
round numbers, $l.47s,0O0.
The prosecution was about TO close their examl-
nation OF the witness at this stage, when
The Court suggested that 1t would perhaps be
best to dispose OF the question when had been re-
served as TO the admission as evidence OF the array
of warrants concerning which the witness had tes-
titled, but which were not embraced in the ndct-
ment. The question was then argued.
Counsel for defence claimed that THESE additional
warrants were inadmisslbe whether they Were Were
OF distribution OF profits by the parties or whether
they were sought to be introduced to show actual
guilt on the part OF the defendant.
THE OBJECT
appeared to be to show that because MIR. Tweed ia
claimed to I've guilty of one offence he is actually
guilty OF another; it was not showing that he was
guilty, as charged in the indictment, but that nc
was habtuallv guilty IN other cases OF what is
sought TO be proved against him here, and that he
was even prurienty addicted to it, The pretence
that this evidence was offered to show Sctentu7,
but IL was nadmlssible to bring forward evidence or
any act committed of the subject OF the offence as
constituting proof of the guilty knowledge III this
evidence was TO be admitted the defence would be
far worse on than they would Rave been II the
whole 1870 warrants had been embraced in the in
dlctment, instead or fihy-nve merely; for this
reason that after this evidence is IN IL they la ny
its aid in convicting him of the offences actually
covered by the existing Indictment, they can tnen
indict him upon these additional warrants Surely
hty-fve selected warrants ought to answer the
present purposes OF the prosecution without, at
the same time, dragging Ia the whole 100 war
rants. BESIDES TO admit these warrants Us a. ,n1s
at as to all the warrants between Nos. 90
and 100.
offered In evidence were contained in the tabular
statement from which the witness had testified:
Mr.. Pecksam replied that they were, with
The Court then said $50 far as this evidence will
go to explain the tabular statements before me-
that is to show by the production OF
THE WARRANTS THEMSELVES
That the statements already made by the witness
correctit seems to me II is clearly admissible
He has stated that OF each account GER
tain items OF the credits are made up upon
warrants issued by the county authorities
and passing into these several accounts,
and that certain other credits appear to be from
different items; for instance, that of the
So 63e 6S 80 that went into the bank to WOOdward's
credit S3,5sl, 224 26 was derived from warrants
and credits based unon warrants set forth in this
tabular statement l don't see on what ground
can prevent the production OF the warrants TO
suhstantiate the statements already made in refer
ence to this matter. With that view must admit
these warrants to be proved; but the question
whether they shall be allowed 10 follow 1t up by
showing that these additional warrants are based
upon fraudulent accounts raises the other question
whether they are at liberty to prove the fraudulent
That question Will then farly arise. excepted to
by the delence).
MI. Peckham then offered in evidence the
NEW OR ADDITIONAL WARRANTS,
also the entries regarding them in the county
Liabilities account the corresponding entries In
books OF audit Nos. ana 10, and the schedule
prepared by MIR. Tnden, all of which were admitted
and excepted to by the defence separately.
Witness tresnming)-I think the statement in
the schedule OF the endorsements upon the war
rants is correct and that 1t was proved by me; so
lar as witness had investigated the accounts as to
the proportions that each bore to the other he had
taken for example the credits TO Woodward and
computed the percentage they formed of the war
Of Checks in Garvey's account was ABOUT
siXty-sX per cent OF the amount Of the warrants
Il warrant lie drew q check for somebody for about
siXty-slX per cent OF IT, and ia all such instances
there appears IN Woodward's account credit OF
the identical amount OF Garyeys check: in all
cases where lngcrsol deposited u warrant he paid
over
Mr.. Field said he objected to the witness stating
what he could not know.
Nj. Tilden-Irhe witness won't state anything he
doesn't know.
COULD HE OR COULDN'T he?
Mr.. Eeld-The witness could not know what Mr..
power that enabled HIM to be cognizant of 1t.
The Court Why spiritualY
Mr. Field--It cannot be temporal
Witness cOntInued-Whenever Ingers0 depOs-
tied Il warrant there appeared on the other side OF
his account u payment TO somebody. (lnquiringly)
There Is nothing Objectionable in that, so far
Mr.. Field-We object to witness proposing ideas
in this manner.
Witness (pompously) Il shall decline to answer
any question In such an imperfect manner that 1t
may appear TO tins Court as ialsehood. U.aughJer)
l cannot answer without explaining myself be-
cause there are different percentages as to Inger-
SOILS account.
q. What proportion Of Mr.. Tweed,s account did
you find as percentage of Garvey's account? (Ob-
jected to, admitted ana excepted tO) A. In each
case of deposits of warrants Garvey's credit,
Garvey passed over to somebody amount equal to
about sixty six per cent OF his deposit and wherever
such debit appears In Garvey's account there APP
pears In WoOdward5 account Il credit OF the same
exact amount; wherever such credit appears in
Woodward's account there appears on the debit
side of his account an entry for about twentyfour
per cent OF the amount on the lace OF the warrant,
and wherever such debit appears found an entry
on the credit side OF Mir. Tweeds account amount
ing to the same exact sum.
THIS CLOSED THE DIRECT EXAMINATION.
and the witness was then crosse Xamined by Mr..
Field as ioows:-I am not counsel for the people
ment on one point in the civil suit against Mr..
Tweed at Albany; 1 also made affidavit oil
which Mr.. Tweed was arrested: the people were
plantilis in that suit; in arguing that question at
Albany ! appeared with Messrs O'Conor and
Peckham.
q. You also made an AFFIDAVIT in that suit on
which Mr.. Tweed was arrested and held to bail in
$1,000,O00 A. dd.
q. bid you appear before the Grand Jury as
counsel in respect to various indictments against
him? A. did not; appeared only as Il witness.
q. Have you ana Mr.. Tweed been In
VIOLENT POLITICAL ANTAGONIST
Tor years past y. Naively) We haven't gene.
rally sympatZed very much (aughter)
never had any malice towards him.
z. There was notable contest at one time be-
tween what was known as the Young Democracy
and the Old or rammany Hall DEMOCRACY, OF which
Mr. Tweed was a member. You we're allied with
the Young Democracy, were you no.. a. had
very little to do with them: was not concerned
In tnat contest except To have two conferences on
the subject of city charter: went to Albany and
made speech against the present charter before
the Senate committee OF which MIR. Tweed was
chairman.
/