The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-16

ceased to exist and read from the act to show that
the Board OF Supervisors "shaf be abolished'' from
July !, 1870, the duties heretofore performed by
them being conferred upon an entirely
NEW SET or OFFICERS,
Judge Davis inquiringy suggested, "was NOT
that q mere successiOnT
. "No more q succession" replied Mr.. Field, "in
this case than George Washington was the success
sor of the President or Congress. Both in their
times were the chief executives and that was all.
There was no succession. for washingtons was an
Mr.. Bartiett-also for the defence-followed Mr.
Field in maintaining the same point; after which
Court briefly, and argued that Tweed was officer
de .tactO; that the Legislature did not actually
abolish the Board by the spiris OF the p Law on July
presumed to exist until all its duties In the audit
Ing OF certain accounts were discharged. 1t was
competent for the Legislature to confer power upon
the persons named in the act making them Com
missioners OF Board OF Audit, and the defendant
was not
A MERE UsURPER.
He continued to I'LL the office, and left 1t to his sue
cessor to try his right to Dust him by ao 'caTantS
ject TO the charge OF the Court.
Mr.. Bartlett again rose and addressed the Court
In rather tame way, and everybody was by this
time rather sleepy, as the days proceedings had
been extremely dun The discussion looked in
volved and "hair-splitting'' to q layman and
e
no fela can find Out.n Eight Of
resting In various positions their hands, ninth
was picking his ear, tenth str0ked his mustache
lesurely down with both hands, and the remaining
turned in his chair and looked at Bartlett with
SOFT well fed leonine expression: Storrs the wit,
would ike to walk around the room once or twice
to stretch himself. Mr.. Field wore q red necktle
Saek IN his a. se
anxiety visible a;S about i him.
manner, got up when his bower, Mr.. Bartlett, sat
down, and made the point that Tweed could not
have been an officer either de 5re or de Jact0 on
July 8. 1870 as he had already been superseded.
He could no more be an officer then than Mayor
Han could assume to be Mayor now.
Judge Davis said-The case Is very DIFFERENT be-
cause we haze Mayor in Mr.. Havemeyer.
rl CROWD OF KEEN ONES
thought this was intended as judicial joke,
Then Mr. Bartlett got up again and said the same
thing over that himself and associates had been
saying for the last nalf hour-ony Of course, IKE
sounded something like new point or an elabora-
ton Of an old one. III ..1o..
Mr.. Field felt that it was time to he at 1t again,
and told the Court that there could not be de tuye
and de dctO officer at the same time The de Jdct0
officer might claim his rights but 1t was Impossible
The Court stated that in its opinion there was in
this city at this time an instance showing that
there might be two officers with but one ONCE;
We have two deputy chamberains-On legal
necessarily, and the other illegal; but there were
two deputy chamberlains until 1t was determined
which one was legally entitled to the office.
Mr.. Field regretted hts inability to
MAKE HIMSELF INTELLIGIBLE
through the medium OF the English language; but
that there could not be two in actual possession.
The Court said there had been time when two
Judges OF the Supreme Court each claiming TO De
entitled to seat sat the bench together, and
each dscharging his duties at the same time.
Mr.. Field-Yes, one vacatng orders as fast as the
other granted them. tAnother shuhiing laugh
Judge Davis continued to state his illustration,
and said that each of those judges was in posses
sion Of the office, and the illegal one was equally
protected in his duties with the other.
Mr.. Field-NO sirl no sir
The Judge mildly cOntlnued-each was protected
until their rights were determined.
Mr.. Field (rapidly)-NO sir no sir no sir
THE THING AT THIS TINE
degenerated INTO a sort OF prOmisCuOuS 'jaw,n
which the Court quickly perceived and stopped by
holding that the defendant was at the time in ques-
ton officer de fdctO that the highest int rests
of the people required that the office should be con-
tinuOuS and that one who discharged It's functions
even without right, but with color OF right, was
responsible. The evidence was ordered TO be re-
Ceved, and exception was taken thereto by the
defence.
"Keyser Co." and other parties, were handed to
witness, together with the certificates OF audit of
various dates, but all coming within the period ter
minated by July l, 1870. The witness was exam
ined only as to certain signatures, Mr.. Peckham
conducting the examination.
o. Are there any accounts in the Comptroller's
ONCE in reference to the books OF audtY A. The
record OF vouchers and the audit books are all that
know Of; Mr. Watson's room Adorned the room OF
ton separating the rooms; private door rom the
COmptroer's room led into Mr.. WatsOn's room (;
Mr. Watson died in January, 1871.
THE STOLEN VOUCHERS.
@. Do you know of anything being taken from
the ComptrOller's ONCE about the 18th 18th Of
September. 1917
one of the defendants eight counsel here rose
and objected to the question. He said this ques-
ton brought up the consideration of the peint
whether the Court was now going into the trial Of
CASE OF IMAGINARY BURGLARY.
There was no pretence that any burglary in fact
had been committed. Mr.. O'COnor, who drew the
Indictment in that case, does not and dare not
take the ground That there was burglary. He
merely alludes to it as though the persons who
broke into the Comptroer's Office first broke out
OF 1t. Counsels theory always had been that the
person who did that job was legally inside that
Office. The indictment merely charged that the
papers in question 'whOlly lost but did not
alle0e how or In what way 'lost," nor even
whether 'Iost" in an extraordinary manner. 1t
that the defendant had control OF those papers
Mr.. Tweed's position here was serious one and
involved the question whether the prosecution
could come in here and testify either from memory
or by perjury to whether certain papers OF
which they had control and which they claimed to
be now lost were OF certain character me
prosecution proposed to show that the defendant
signed some sixty or seventy papers, they would
come in and have their witnesses swear from their
genuine, and the defence would have no oppor-
tunity OF showing, in consequence OF the
ABSENCE OF THE PAPERS,
whether the signatures were fOrgeries or not. IL
would be very different IL the defendant had been
in control OF the papers when lost, but the prose-
cution had been their custOdians, had lost them
and now proposed, at the risk OF memory. or, per-
haps, of perjury OF their witnesses. TO show what
those papers which they have lost contained. 1t
was their duty to produce the papers.
Counsel then read extracts from the Indictment
in reference to the disappearance Of the vouchers
and q lengthy brief on the subject OF parole evil
dence together with copious citations OF authori-
ties from the books.
At the close OF the argument the Court ruled
against the DEFENDANTS objection and an exception
was taken.
The Court then, at four O'Clock, adjourned until
this morning.
"REMINISCENCES OF THE RING RE-
CINE.