The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-01-30

ley OF the CITY, with all his time fully occupied. 1t
this Office but STILL through all this, must look
ut the intent OF these parties In order to deter
mine whether t9ey y were w smp a Negligent or
TO the fact that Andrew J. Garvey in addition to
his having robbed the city,
HAS COMMITTED PERJURY HERE.
And by and by will ask you to disregard his tes-
timony altogether. II you take the testimony and
read 1t carefully through you will see that before
he made out these seven spurious bills he had, In
fact, received every dollar coming to him, by his
own calculation; every dollar before he down at
his own freside, among his own family, surrounded
by his wife and children to make out these seven
spurious bills to plumber the city he had in his
pocket or In his bank account every dollar that
the city owed him. This Is the man that comes on
the stand and whines out this miserable, lying,
false excuse, that he had to become an instrument
plumber the city because they owed him large
amount OF money that he could not get rom them;
that his hand was in the lions mouth and he could
not extract IT; that he was In vice and had no
cholce You Will see as We proceed, gentlemen,
tnat this Is lying eXcuse-the last resource or an
abandoned man. Why did he not go to Mr.. Tweed
his case-that he had done work for which the city
owed him money, and that he wanted them to
but ne was every day closeted with watson.
featured them TO suit their purpose. 1t is most ex
traordnary that the man who says he was in
straitened circumstances for want OF money
which was due TO him Tor work done Tor the city
should commit q crime rather than go to the men
whom the Legislature had clothed with power to
audit his bills, ana get them to audit his bills that
he might get paid what was due him. There was
proof that Watson had had interviews with Gar
vey In relation to the claims OF the latter The
bills themselves on their face showed, by certain
alterations, that somebody had discharged the
duty of audit There was no proof that the Board
examined the bills submitted to them. That
Garyey and Keyser had not appeared before
the Board is no proof that the Board did not
meet That the members of the Board were
deceived by Watson about the bills Is not to be
wondered at. They had other duties OF vital i'm
portance TO the community to perform, and 1t was
inevitable that they should place dependence upon
Watson, whose duty 1t was to audit as well as
theirs and who had more experience. 1t was In
evidence that Mr.. Tweed had no connection what
ever with the Davidson or Keyser claims. True,
the Garvey claims were fraudulent, but Tweed had
nothing to do with their getting up. Even Garvey
himself dare not say that he had any conversation
with Tweed about the claims. Seeing Garvey on
the stand they knew that he would leave nothing
undOne to
COMPASS THE RUIN
OF the defendant. Garvey had time to make out
that, and in making out his fraudulent claims he
lions mouth, &C.; but the effort conspcuously
failed. Watson, he said, came TO him to inquire
Wop MS INNS @ aha ne Ans s %Sa
was coming Undoubtedly the flood of fraudulent
bills against the city. At that time likely the
spracy to defraud was formed, ana Carney after
wards preached the matter to Woodward. Counsel
here read portion OF Garveys evidence in regard
to the manner in which he made out his bills, and
urged that 1t clearly showed that Garvey could
have got his own without defrauding the city. II
he was not the originator OF the conspiracy, he
was, on his own showing, willing participation
in IL. He was not able, though afforded the
fullest opportunity, to vindicate himself; but
he was not able TO mention word OF re-
monstrance ever uttered against the frauds.
to sa conot Mr. wees ey %"sa n%
be establsnedr Why Of course, by c;arvey. There
was pretence that in 1870 there was any connec-
ton established between Tweed and Garvey. The
hnht hnoIr
connection. Now what was GarveyA evidence?
He told you that he went to Tweed alter the work
the bills.n So that it would appear that his own
showing 1t was he who sought to corrupt Tweed.
But the
WHOLE STORY WAS IMPROBABLE
and the jury would have to disbelieve 1t. His
(Garvey's) statements about the matter were ut
terly inconsistent. He vas unable to show how
the alleged fifteen per cent was added, though
he got the opportunity to do so on the
stand. His attention was called to the par
In e e er p' ne eGu % give
transaction about the bill for 100000 for work
done on Mr.. Tweed's house in Greenwich, and
city by fraudulent bill. Garvey made out two
bills for that work-one for $685. 600 and the other
for some 10000 odd-in order, as he said, to be
'business-like." But the jury would rec0llect his
confusion, how he was asked to show on any item
how it was added: He was asked, "Was 1t added
on this tem on the prices Of material, the foot
ing upY" and his answer was, ~ can't say" All he
could tell was, that fifteen per cent added and
that II went into Mr.. Tweed's pocket 10 connect
Tweed with some fraud Of 1870 Garvey tells
that he did some work for him at Greenwich; that
he gave receipt for it to Tweed; that he wasn't
paid and that he paid himself by one of those
fraudulent bills on the county. But the
DEVIL FAILS HIS FRIENDS
just at the moment they need him, and that was
out bill for 500, 600; that he wanted 10 reduce IT.;
that he didn't think 5000 would look business
IKE, and accordingly he made It $6o,4So and that
was o curious thing that a man should endorse on
the back Of the bill before leaving his house that
morning, "Copy OF bill presented November T."
All the evidences were that what he called copy
OF the bill was made alter his return to Europe,
and that he was qualifying himself to be witness.
The bill was paid Garvey did not include Ii in the
action which he brought against Mr.. Tweed to re.
cover what was due him. Certainly, If Mr.. Tweed
action. Garveys statement that Mr.. Woodward took
over blank certificates to be signed by the defend
ant was not discussed by counsel He argued that
If the defendant thus openly committed himself,
why should not Garvey and Tweed meet each
other? Why should not the conspirators come face
70 iaeef Mny mas h Harvey Sep1 outside waiting
Wicked as Garvey is, he had not the courage to
look the defendant III the face and say 81 saw you
sign the certificate for my fraudulent bills,n and
the next beet thing he could do was to convey it
by innuendo. Even supposing that Garvey did 90
over with Woodward, an officer whose duty it was
to prepare certificates, and that the defendant did
sign the certificates and that Garvey was kept
waiting outside, the inference was that Woodward
said to Garvey. "You don't go inside:
YOU HAVE NOT AN HONEST FACE:
you spent too many nights at your home concoct-
ing fraudulent bills let me go inside; you remain
there and will deceive the old man and get him
to sign" Tweed was not present when the de-
posts were made In the Broadway Bank:
posits were madc there is absolute want
OF evidence to connect him with any knowl-
edge of the deposits or the source from
which the money came. IL money is found depos-
tied to-day TO the credit OF one OF the jury which
money had been stolen. no one should conclude
that the Juror knew It,. There might be reason
for such a deposit, and before the case was over
the jury might be satisfied that one existed in this
case. The jury would remember that Garvey told
them that Mr. Tweed said he was afraid OF an in
vestgating committee, and that Tweed said to
him,
sold Fellow, you'll have to come down with
money to buy them up.n
Very familiar with man who used to be kept
waiting III the outer Office II Tweed knew of the
large sums deposited to his credit by Garvey and
woodward, why wouldn't Garvey turn around and
say, ''Old fellow you can come dow yoursef; Won
know these large amounts we have deposited In the
bank for you." They knew that Tweed was afraid
OF an investigating committee, and what was more
natural than that Watson and Garyey should Keen