New-York tribune., 1873-01-31


meeting Did they meet and sct Jointly upon the 20
accounts, Did they NEE. and act at eny time upon any
particular accounts claim Ther6E, In connection
be by you bearing upon the vouchers
| and other papers brought now before YOU
WHAT KErsER's VOUCHERS SHOW.
The main body of the vouchers for liabilities are sone
and they are shown satisfactorily to the Court to be lost
but there arc ten believe of Mr. Keysers vouchers
brought in They are submitted To you as evidence
Toy are before YOU what appears upon them 50 Tar as
It bears upon whether there was an actual meeting OF
the Board the purpose OF passing upon these ALLEGED
liabilities, Is therefore appropriate suDlec. ior yonr
| consideration. ] shall not detan you by calling your
attention all of hemone or two Will be sueient ot
shall now call your attention. In the first place. sew
eral OF these certificates OF audt-three beneve-aie
SIGNED only by two OF these men, Tweed and connolly.
The testimony shows that some OF those whlcn are lost
also not signed by the three that there were soe
| were signed by Tweed and Controller Connolly.
That is Circumstance. Of course. wnien ncn yGe ySe
| question whether parties actually met, or whether
these certificates were sent around ana % Sgnea a"s nVa
upon the the certificates and for that purpose
pass them around to you oa & @ S o see tbo % b H. in the
ink by which the bills are signed THESE are i sIcu
stances appearing upon the race OF .e PsputI pa met
rs the required them, or whether they were sgnSu
as claimed by tne people Sstnn s There is another
voucher which the INK sghed Oy IWeeo rs .ivS h,S
"nestiop o neglect 10 audit is wholly independent so
,P With the character Of the labity-quite ndepend-
nt o the evidence of Mr. Garyey OF any other wit
ness who testified on the subject, or OF the mode OF
making up the liabilities themselves; llte ~
also of the question whether the liabilities were tae OF
NOT t bears upon the simple proposition whether these
parties met board Of audit, ana as such actng ~
Est qua tsoye5 10 sn tie ceTatcs upon which
these liabilities were to be made anu upon Wiic dI1s az M
o ho1ds ~ b sed was TO be created If they didn't
SO meet signed these certl1Gates az % t S @ %
proseeuton separately severaly without the JON. a..
lion which the law requires then 1t is your duty t
| convict the defendant in this case ii iney % uiu
that then they are guilty under the law, and ~ IS yV
duty 10 say 40 quite independently OF the 0tner cons
Grafton 10 be presented in this case Another ptopo
tion for you consider upon the evidence ID % nS h
not upon the question OF neglect to properly huu o
upon the question raised upon the Iourtn coI, u
granting Of certificates upon raise ana Us
ms branch Of the ease may properly be dyiGea aIo
three parts First, that when aii,esanu & Se o. sornc
them merely for the purpose OF gettng az i lie
order, because there l. any paftcur nv nisop ~
form OF cassfcatlon-up9aa the claim o Local propo
sition that the omission 10 meet as required Ob la
to pass upon these several aioOns % .enorsclv would
be violation OF the law, don't mean oy .nae " hidh
would be violation OF tht law AGAINST hese,C M nion
il that Board met and without proceeding 70 exalhe
these accounts the manner m % fbess Ss
gently BODY proceeded 10 slSn tne'o a stcc
without examining into their character, JheTJustCc,
tSy the ypTo%iion OF tie statute Now insisted here on
the part of tae people that not Only did sney Vo ~ %
any Investigation or examination OF tue accounts si
cent TO justify the granting OF the cerSa.c % AZ ar
i io,inn nv t1at Board and the individual members
to pass upon them and give o,bor Ser'Ingaty n1sty
who was alleged to have Investigated them Inc qne,
ndit and mon that question comes all this evidence
of fraud in the accounts themselves ana o ths aeeu
% rpcecIs cf tbiS audit because that evidence tends
10 show that what they did was Intentional ana WIN
bad motive for the purpose OF accomplishing Dad ehu
| say, by way OF illustration. II the Board Oh
any member. entered INTO any arrSngsaehIdt ia gshogId
| be exaggerated in amount, or by when false
and spurious claims should be passed by the Board IN
OF duty not only wilfuy, but carrying with 1t stan
morally and legally infinitely deeper ana Crosse & man
that OF simply negectng to meet ana perform tne uy "
| which nave already called your attention. a.,
have SAID this properly divides Itself INTO three
classes | shall cali your attention 10 Davidsons claim
with view OF asking you to pass upon tho Question
1eTss %1St4sT such nm 'ot action as the law requires with
"A 10 ascertain its justice ana whether tne uolehu
@iaim' | cai attention to a single transaction aud 1
think that brings the question in TINS case very snafPV
| before you.
| TRANSACTION CLEARLY TRACED.
He sta,es that he presented an account claim against
he Supervisors for safes The voucher is lost, but the
warrant gives US the date, for it declares IL was for
"safes furnished the County Courtrooma and Offices,
March Is7o and must have been sent In after
March &C. and as Mr.. Davidson says, prior TO July l.
1t was an for safes and Mr. Davidson swears
that the amount was sl6,oiO; and We have warrant
issued for s9l7O A. Mr. Davidson swears that he
knew OF the alteration OF that account ana tha
when he came TO Woodward for pay, having been sent
by Watson some person ne came TO the once ana
there ndorsed warrant. and ne SAYS saws ne was t nor
| face downward and be was asked 70 lndorse
it, and he would his check; he laid hold of 1t, and
Watson kept his hand it, and said Put your name
there" and he put his name, without the Co.. on the
back of the warrant and a check for sl69iO gwen
HIM. and that ended his knowledge the subject. He
did know that The amount III the warrant was dli-
ferent from the slG94O and point OF TRUTH upon
the account there si90 ~ paid According to the
testimony OF Mr. Stors this account was IN lts proper
place al the time that he and Mayor Hail made examna
ton. and contained upon certificate signed by the
defendant and Connolly aud perhaps by the Mayor, or
this may be one which Mr.. Hall did not sgn. This is
one Of those accounts which have been lost.
Now By following this transaction little further, you
will a6le TO reach the point at which the defendant Is
connected with it In another form You have evidence
which brings home to him the certfcaton OF an account
by Mr.. Davidson at sl6,9so How did It get changed
Who made the addition we 40 not aCw G" we a,d ian an
some interested party who Is moi not necessary tr
inquiry who did that act of forgery, but who acting
that account. guilty Of neggenee in ascertain,
guilty OF negligence ia inyesgatlng that account or
failed to investigate It, On that queston-what was the
nshed the County Court-rooms and offices. between
March and March 20, within twelve days Where are
~ worth OF safes furnished in twelve days
Was inquiry to the correctness OF that ae
aud pass the account OF Davidson or make any
inquiry whether si9.i72 Y worth OF safes had been
rounding the buildinsf Are you satisfied
that the slightest inquiry qSy enc on that % Sub sub
sened ss70 A. and allowed, was absolute false.
hoodi Did any officers Of the Board take the slightest
pains to make any lnquiryi You, as men OF common
sense. are TO answer that question.
Ali the-drect evidence ON that subject is contained IN
what shall call your attention to.
INFERESCEs FROM ONE TRANSACTION
First the account was presented at $4,000 the second
is the fact that il has swOlenito almost $4,000 by
BODY the third the evidence OF Davidson that he
never was called before any Board Of Auditors. He
never appears; he swearsto his,account, fur
| Of W
what may be deemed perhaps Of much Importance
| auvtbinG that hen that account paid. was