, 1874-01-31

We print tliH morning In 1ntnii. and Mt r,1a-
uaual length, the arguments made yesterday bo-
foro Judge Rogers On tho motion to quaah the
indictments found against Mr. Gage BY tho late
Grand Jury. Mcssrs. Dexter and Swett appear
cd for Mr. Gage, and States Attorney Roed for
the people, Ono Indictment, it will be romom-
bored, was found under the State inv Of 1888,
for failing to turn over tho city mouoyB,
and the othor for perjury, on tho ground
that Alr. Gage had sworn that ho had certain
amount Of money " Oh hand which he WIS un-
ablo to turn over upon tho demand Of his succeB-
sor. Mr. Dexter occupied himself mainly with
tho first and AIr. Swett with tho second, indict-
ment. The arguments are materially tho Hame
as those outlined in Tue TRIBUNE some two
weeks ago, but ampliied apd illustrated by tho
citation Of Laws aud decisions pertinent thereto.
Tho points nade by Alr. Dexter are, in brief,
US follows: That the indictments fail to charge
any criminal intent, aud that it is the fttnda-
mental principle Of tho criminal code Of this and
othor States, TINT the union and corporation Of
the net and tile intention aro essential to consti-
tutc tho crimo; that tile State law OF 1883. under
Which Alr. Gage was indicted, docs
not iii itaolf spp1y to his case. slnco
it euumerates State officers and funds,
and on1ts all mention Of city officials, aud, since
thoro was no such Officer aB City Treasurer when
tue law WAS enacted, that the city moneys aro
not 8 fund: created by law;" aud also that
this law WAS repealed by tho law Of 1868, which
specifically lofnos the accountability OF the City
Treasurer. Mr. Dextor argues that AIr. Gago's
case must ho governed by tho City Charter,
which explicitly prohibits the unlawful use Of
tho city money, and holds tho fact that
to be an evidence that tho Grand
Jury did not find tint le had made unlawful uso
OF tue monoy. He also discovers further con-
tru1ation OF this in tho city docunaeuts which he
cites, showing that the Common Council rccog-
| nized tue loauiuE OF the money; That tho Comp
troller reported It along with tho amount OF in
terest received and tho Mayor and Finance
Committee commended it. 1fr. Dexter it,
timatos that the PRACTICE was pornicious, but that
Mr. Gago followed it under tho direction
| aud approval Of the City Government. II
11r Gngo could not ba indicted uutler this law
then 10 could not DO indicted under Inv made
thirty years before, which was not intended to
iucludo city officials That tho State law doea
not cover Mr. Gago's caso il further shown,
according to 51r. Dextor'B argument, by the re-
cent introduction Of bill in the Legislature to,
mako it do 10. The points mado by Mr. swot4
in tue perjury Indictment are, briefly, that the
affidavit madc by Mr.. .0ago was illegal, in thut
the printed form to wlioh 10 aubsorlbed was
not that required by the amended law; that tue
person who lad administered tho oath had,
therefore, no authority to administer II; that
thore can DO no constructive perjury, and TINT
1onee tho Indictment will not hold. Concorn-
ing tho allegation that Alr. 1Ago swore be Aad
certaln funds ton has,d," which lie did not have,
hr. swett argues TINT tls part Of the oatll dooa
not refer to the locus L.. quo, but meaus tho
5unds chargoablo to tic Treasury. Tho monthly
statements show the amount due the city from
| the Troasuros. and ii tlasa statomonts ARC nat