New-York tribune., 1873-01-31

,,.,.,o asmandod az the bench though nouinally, is
not in the strict Of that term TO be looked for IN the
conduct Of the jury IL 1t were possible TO eNemphty'
practically the rules of law their application to the
occurrences daily transprng. the greatest cruelty ana
Injustice would often be the result The old adage Is ana
NO one will dispute its verify, extreme right is extreme
vrong"-summwp jus, sTnp'um s,tjurTa. The learned
story who was one the greatest legal uninaries that
ever graeed the judicial sky has left behind him Few
sentences not written for day, but for all me clear
description OF the offices which devove upon you Mr.
Graham read from story on the Constitution Of the
United States section l7so the great object of trial
by ury in many cases was guard against the spirit OF
tyranny and oppression the part Of rulers and against
the spirit OF destrucveness and violence the part oil
the people Indeed, It swas more important TO suio
against the latter than the former. An oxc"e" PoI
nlAce was more 10 be feared than a sinSe IN
dvidual. In such cases there was a douoie sochiS ~
against the prejudice of Judges who may par'sAe o. .o
wishes and opinions Of the Government ana asas' o
uassOns OF the multitude, who may demand lhe N'su
with olamorous precipltancy ME- UtauA" "i90 - 80 -
the attention Of the Court TO Greeneai seo''o" 40 90
containing one OF the cearest exhoiuons OIL 'he
by which Jury was 10 discharge tne" uu's " ~ ~ -,
In the English language. The distinction IN tne uu'y
xh,ob /. tury have to perform IN civil Anu
e-,,,,nal act;on was that in civil cases. "no'o
the mischief OF erroneous CONCLUSION ""o
moi deemed remediess, 1t was not necessary ."ot
,hs minds OF the jurors be freed from all DOUBT ou'
duty to decide 10 faN0f OF tne Pai'S VI "
% the evidence preponderated. But In crmnAi cases,
,csnae of THE more serious and rTeparele nature ol
e coneeoeuees Of wrong decision. the jurors are re-
onird 20 be satisfied beyond any reasonable oouot vi
the guilt Of the accused. or IL is their duty 10 aeqt '
the charge not being proved by that hgh rule Oh e
Sence which the law demands. No onus against ue
accused attached to evidence establishing sas-
nicioo Mr.. Graham also read from the case
~ Rushel IN a Charles H.. 1910, where q
,ury were fined for misconduct in having
acquitted "a man contrary to the inftmations OF the
Court Upon a writ Of habeas corpus Chief Jusuee
Vaughan SAID that the verdict OF jury ana the eV
denco Of a witness were very different things. wit
re.s swears what he has seen OF heard generaiy
,uryman swears to what infer and conclude from
the testimony OF such witness by the act and force OF
Lie underst andng The jury had right 70 interpret
he facts ior themselves that the nature and duty
of their oaths.
DEALING WITH THE INDICTMENT
will presently show to you that this case although
the gravity Of the oonse great the proof instead OF
being great proof entirely dsproportionate TO tine
charge The prosecution have introduced IS eertncaes
Of aut Every Of these certificates Of audit con
taBs the fact that this Board Of Audit audited ana al
lowed the claim which they prOessed TO audlt ana allow
a. a certain 1t is true they asked storrs ana
other witnesses they heard OF the Board meeting
ur The adopiion Of that resolution But, having intro
doced this declaration OF this Board into this case
claiming that Mr. Tweed participated In that declars
ron they have concluded themselves by 1t as true I'M
less the circumstances of the case show false or they
have introduced evidence directly for that purpose
Fyery presumption in favor OF the truth OF thecer
fdcates Mr Graham called attention TO the case OF the
p-sple agt Burnside, and the Same agt. Eddy.
81. 10 the construction Of the indictments
The Indictment must be dealt with as IL Is In order 10
convict under the first count which charges an absolute
neglect audit the jury must find that the bill presented
q the Board By Keyser Co., or whoever else may be
,ft1
Board WAS prcdicable OF truthful bill There is, there
fore no ground to unless the jury find from the
e,deuce in each and every instance the bills were real
truthful and actual bills In order TO convict under the
rcond in each set the jury would have 10 ma tha
The bill presented was radically false that the defend
uts did Mt know It, and that nevertheless they assumed
- audit and allow these bills In order to convict under
the third count in each set the jury must ind
thlt a bill partially false was knowingly
certified to by the Board. and in order
30 sustain conviction under the fourth count the jury
must find the bill certified 20 radically false hil
that the Board knew to be false and with that know
edge allowed il at a certain amount AS to the second
und third counts misfeasaDce VIII not sustain them
w.fe,ssnce can never be used TO prove nOnfeasance
Mr. Graham referred TO Mr. Peckham's comment upon
,he fact Of Mr. Tweed not being called Is witness and
quoted from Judge Aliens opinion in case in 1.-THE
ourt OF Appeals that man Of standing at the bar
will unless under very ordinary circumstances,
The duty OF the Court to interrupt the proseeut-
,n counsel who would far forget himself and the du
Ses Of his Office attempt TO make use OF the fact
an any way 10 the prejudice OF the person on trial There
are two issues the speaker continued II understand
the Court 10 be presented 10 you by the Court One IS
m reference 10 the three first counts of each hfty-rYe
sets Dd Mr. Tweed eglect to audit under this act OF
,s-of n am right in the view have expressed that
opcston can only be submitted under the first count.
The other issue IS under the fourth count did Tweed
,orruptiy certify aud allow these accounts In the
amounts stated in the certificates OF audit VIII snow
you As pass on that beyond this hardened perlurer
,srysy there is not particle OF testimony charging
eorruption upon Mr. Tweed Let us for moment take
view Of the present status Of Mr Tweed in this case
In the first place the legal presumption OF his innocence
As strong as the strongest proof Mr TWeeds coun'
eel tell him. as they tel him here, that no such peTurer
as Garyey can cal upon him for response IN the way
OF defense. he has right to follow that sdVioe' Au'
other presumpton attaching 20 Mr. Tweed or whch az
t.cbed 10 him az the outset Of the trial. unless the pre-
sumption be overborne rs that he man OF good ch9rac
Ter Non have heard great dea against hlm Has ne Dee
A. badly assaed Gen. Grant with the charges agalns,
him of nepOsm or as Gov HOFFMAN VINO s uenouheeu Il
a. the tool of the Ringi He has stood his ground Ike
Roman while Others have run. he has met the h~ VI
country thus far VINO preends ne GsnpG Pip PII ~ tS
civil aotonsf Who pretends the pnolc VIII l9se one
farthng OF any claim they can subsantlatei what i'
Mr Graham discussed the good faith OF the audit
aTyey SAYS be did not Tweed in the transaction
except from what Tweed todd him in 1861 He confines
thr manufacture OF bills TO woodward and Watson. II
tbeY got mn bills one being the County Auditor, the
other Assistant Clerk to the Supervisors II Gsryey Is
not believed the conversation OF 1851 and Tweed
1, M, name on the face OF the BILL relying upon tnem
Se was iusthed in doing Is the evidence distinct
bowever as TO when Mr.. Tweed wrote bis name on tne
f,oe of the bill Even IL he did before the bill received
snv Other approval Watson's stamp is not taIsneo
Examined by and found correct Al tha'
ffnes "Chn" WAS that more than 10 say that
was the bill presented without certifying 70 It's correct
teSs Did not Hall and Connolly have as much, and nc
more when they signed, Mr.. Tweedf No combination
has been charged the indictment and none mas Deen
atteInpted to be shown. III the prosecution had moi
introduced Garvey their would have been one OF