The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-15

ton or duty was created BY IT, In addition to that
IL was claimed that Tweed was O member OF the
Senate and was, therefore, ineligible, under the
UOintment' and for that reason no legal respon.
sibty attached to him In entering upon and per-
forming the duties OF that once OF appointment.
In other words, his position justified him in re-
PocKRTINa SIXTH OF THOSE STOLEN MILLIONS
has ever complained OF the passage OF such a law.
The people, who were the parties interested, on
their side quietly acquiesced in the assumption Of
this authority and power, which the defendant as.
sisted In passing, and SO he has pocketed 600 600
under the forms OF this law, and he now asks
action upon this trial to hold that he was clothed with
perfect immunity from punishment for these gross
and abomnable violations OF his official position,
ana mat there was no law to punish him for his
the character Of The oiences 1 Charged against the
being removed, he proposed to establish to the
satisfaction or every honest man on the jury. II
it struck at the root Of the whole evidence, would
necessitate the discharge OF the defendant and
THE PUBLIC ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY REDRESS.
He asserted in the first place that these questions
were not proper to be used at this time-tney
was submitted to the jury, when each side had the
right OF appeal. In the second place 1t in
o oG I'VE as to the
these objections were even far more forcible 1t
would be the duty OF the Court to say that for all
Constitutional and legal. The arst COLLECTION had
really no application to the case. The bill simply
city OF New York. It true that the bill did not
certify that twOthirds OF the members OF both
houses for Its bt the Court Of
could be examined to ascertain II the requisite
number were present. He found upon the exami.
by "a to in the Senate and 90 to in the House,
that there was not only twO-thirds, but three
fourths in the Senate and almost a unit in the
PRETTY UNANIMOUS WHILE HE WAS IN THE LEGIs
LArURE.
fence. The next objection was that no member Of
the Legislature should receive any appointment,
on and Void What Was that act #
certain powers upon certain officers, among whom
was the defendant, the present President Of the
Board OF Supervisors. His office had already been
created; he was elected president by the Board Of
Supervisors OF which he was member, and among
inc o. act the n
powers he already possessed. He united 1t with
other powers, and whatever question might arise
in regard to comforting the power or audit, SO far
as Tweed was concerned, he had the power by
virtue OF the office OF auditing accounts as Super
visor. He submitted that this was In no sense an
appointment under the meaning OF the constitu-
tional provisions and the defendant was stopped
y anu ' fo te
volume 2, page 325-The State vs. Celles. Tue PeO-
pie vs.. Cook, &C., in support of his argument. The
public had acquiesced in the defendants accept
ance OF the functions OF trust in the payment of
money through this agency OF the Auditors, and
the Legislature made special provision for the pay
ment OF these bonds Everybody acquiesced. The
term expired. The defendant was now charged
not merely with wu neglect to audit, but also
with corrupt perversiOn OF the duties OF his Office
by means OF apprOpriating moneys to his own ac-
count. Now, the argument was that he was abso-
lutely exempt from responsibility, bat the Court
and the public would see the utter fasity OF that
claimed that no attempt was made to establish
tribunal unknown to the constitution And what
was done Simply provision for the payment of
the city debts
Mr.. Tremain, In conclusion, directed the atten-
ton OF the Court to numerous authorities, and
submitted that the motion OF counsel for the de-
fence should be Overruled
could not be received in evidence.
RULING OF THE COURT.
Judge Davis, In passing upon the motion, said
the objection raised a most serious and important
reply to the ObectiOn-that 1t was sufficient that
the defendant was an officer de JiICtO without RI.
gard 70 the question whns.as ne Was an off,cer de
s:..ssV-n:: a not think that the objection was veil
charged nepcct of dntv or raf,so, 70
ne rform Gnty enjoiSeI nv the law ima%
inc Il wOuld he imnossjhle IN suctatn araInst
an official under our statute for wllitnilv
men of the Indictment peing neglect Unless he was
Obliged by law to perfOrm a duty ana unIess he
was An Oicer de j,lie he would he 6v law unIer mo
obligation to periOrm such duty The Indictment
neglect of duty and the other charging q ~ I'M,
DrOper execution of his sole duties am inclined
10 think under the authorities before me that he
was
AN ACTIVE OFFICER
these duties-that he discharged them
proves no corrIpton or wiliui to do what
the law denounces as n crime I'm this case ~