, 1874-11-18
the not Of 1859 bolfk sioh an old and rnus.y law

1
ExrnfaetY nE-ESAoTEp
Hoyernl t1mou antl In 1865 wlero tlore woro et|oH
IN tho s.ato. It was n,anlfest TINT that act iti-
cluded the City Tr0aBurcf, booa'tso II sad my
officer or person." II the position Of tho gentle.
mon woro maintained, tho City would 10 preyant-
II tlers wero no law requiring hin, to "pay
over" tho bondsmen would cortafnly not DO
liable to tho city, and AIr. Gngc could on1y DO
snod in Ru notion for money lie had received.
It was condition of the boud that he aloud
pay over the money.
| uroN THE QUESTION or nnpEA1,
| ho advettod to decision In tito 2Oth Illinois,
whorein 1t WAS held that "jurlsisctlon might bs
eonourront, and yot not repugnant," and. ao-
! ports, Il had boon decided that tho samo act
might bo AZ oflenao against two different aovor-
eighties. He considered tho former conclusive
answer to tho question Of ropoal by Implication,
because tho supreme Court said criminal act
expressly repealed, or tue proyisiona OF the Two
statHteh were clearly repugnant. Ho doalrcd tlo
| Count to remon,bor that thoro was no p1oA that
Mr. Gage had boon convlotod undor Aily proyis.
| Supreme Court said tiiat wher0 tho Legislature
| Conferred upon corporation tile same authority
as statute. tho statute WAS not repealed.
1t wan abantd to say that tho Legislature iu-
I tended SEQ. " OK Ehap. 8 to apply to Mr.. Cage
man who waa cha, god wtl apptopriating
| $500. 000 belonging to tho Taxpayers 1t applied
| to mon ,ro tlld not turn over their ofco.fnrnt-
ture and papers, and no Indictment co1lld bc
! framed under It: 1t fFAs herolT civil ptoceed-
| Ing. The idca Of imposing penaly Of a. pa!tfy
S100 iu tbs case or q City 1rossnrcr who had
one two, or throo million ut QUO TINA ii lla poa-
sesaon, is ridiculous.
| TIE nECIsoN.
! Tho 0ours-f have, with tive utmost fairness
aul kiutnnss for every tire co,lnertod With tliEs
case, permitted tho discussion to go very wide
Of the mark in regard to tho question bcfore tho
4 5.p Hal. fS%t~
n,lttod the discussion to proceed upon tho
inertia Of tia motion to quash. Will, the
Wow of discovering any extraordinary
reason to justify tno Court IN taking tns or
counsel for tho defense; vIlilo I do not hesi-
tate to sny, fhat,, should any ,exsraordina"y or
new fact ho brought to Tho mind Of tile Court to
! just;iy taking the step, the Court would unhes-
do 80. II anything dovriopod IN tho caao at thia
stage TINS It wns proper FOR tho Court to cou;
si.lor. and which tho ends Of Justice required II
10 cousidor, aud upon which nay DO prcdiuated, If
yon plotae, sotne hxtraoroinary stop CT action III
tlle case, tho Conrs would not sirink at all from.
the responsibility Of doing it. baveo listened
| to tue learned arguments OIL 10th sidos,--and
have becn Instructed and adihed to 500 II thero
wus any reaAon wliY tho Court aiould road}a
| cate tlle question upon tho motion to quasi THIS
| Indictment oa1l understand tIle anxiety and
feeling OF counsel, aud that Their Judgment III
apt to be warped by tho position tnoy occupy in
lhia case. Il III not possible for the humnn mind
| to act in judicial capacity under sucll
ojrctllnstanoes 'Whou engaged On ono side Of
a casa tbs discrimination Of counsel will bo moro
| or less affected by their relations to the caac !;
and therefore waited hrd listened patiently,
aud am compelled to say gentlemen, with h!l
deforence to you, that
uAsSor see ANYrt,1xa
that tuatlfca ill my Judgment tho action OF tho
Court in readtudscaing at thsa atags u !ilo paao
the motion toqussh tl1o iudiatmaut. That was
1 tnfr fStIF{&
unmindful Of the liberties Of tho citizen, aud
trust tho Court never Mill bo. | nm III tenlons
OF them as the law H. and no moro. 1t IL not
uocossnry, If this Indictment is bad, thai thoso-
fore matl-au innocent man-alal1 be punished
wrongtally, under its .pruyis1ons; tho. fnturo
p1oateBs Of the caao will furnish abundant oc-
portnnlty to protect him, provided ~ lotection
Is, by tho law. But defereuce. aud
| 4 rnorrn DCrEkENcr
ono TINT / think IL die to my brother Judge
Rogers Who lIls dcclded tIis case. requires n.
tho hands Of the Court sroat dual OF delcaoy in
tailug Tho stops aake,l u this Court BY couurci
for tic delense: would hot fcEl 1t proper to do
30 at uli in any point Of Wow. except upoh Gofi,o
| prominent aud apparently decisive reason INV
introduced into tha cihe. Fur example, il oHr
Supreme Court has. III II casa strictly aualasous,
aud. indocd you may any III legal lans.!as1 can-
clusiyeIy 10. paasod ul'"n tho question since
the motion had bern ir:arti b. Tnttro uoSers, I
shorl1 ttnk It proper then fur tllis Court to l'or
nit tuis plea to be Withdrawn a1d tho luutio to
DO renewed. nnd, il naeesAa:y, q.nsl, tha inditt-
mont. DutI do mol tli.saR tau1o III Any such uv5r-
wiIclmin authority pratuccd as To ell ul'an tile
court to do tint. Tho arsllusn.a wHro OK
hAustyo and learned, and hRte iii doul's they
wcle submitted to him (Judse 1soscn) mainly.
1t il claimed by COUNSEL that THIS nc. OF 1869 III
the city charter. oycrluoiou thu!,, las hosn dia
| covered alneo. 1t will hardly Ito fos tho Callrt
fur llatEmplo rcaHop, to reopen and readj,li4.
eale the motion upon tho law then existing
ard. in yisw' of tho learning; that ssa in
| cd II. f1,ut nTfr,t1nnt1t hath fy {tnlirt
caunso1 I can lnrdly preaicnto th!a extfauidi'
nary actou upon that Theory AID s1ippoa't'ol,.
II tbis indictment ii bud. nj sou hay 1t 's; II il
| IT, inticeA, without iax, tllcra Ii ahuhdaht op.
poriullity III tbs futtra pr1sreas VI tho ol6o to
prutoet aIl innocent rar:ics from punisn'nnnt,
| Dlt cannot BRING myself to tt,s ooncl'aipn that
II III tho lu!y Of tho Court to turn around ald
nEApJUu1oAvE TIE MOTION
at this time, Notwithstanding thu broad scopt
liza: has baen Elven 10 tho ar.nnsrt urnn tao
question uf 4uashug tho Indictment. nil nos
Inclined, Therefore, gentlemen. to cutorlniu tho
motion, aud that tact IT tue proper tno. Gu u
essary subsequently t:.as Il hi!i eE exceptions
pilonid be prcInled, I Will not hesitate 10 adni
iu 1t tho fact TINT tho Court denied ths motion.
Alr. Nood said lie lad discovered by examining
tie trauBcrirt Of tne recurd in the case thai it
was not stated that The Indictment wss resnrnea
into open court. lie, therefore, aHked leave Il
AMEND TIL: TRANSCRIPT.
TIE error would not effect the Inertia, but coulf
bs taken advantage OF Oh q motion ln artest oi
Judgment.
anlerdnble, aud If tho TACT was not suited 1t wAs
| fatal
Mr. Reed replied TINT tho record could not bt
anleuded in Cook County.
Tue Court said it could not DO amended auy
| where.
Mr. Reed retoincd that It was the transcript
sent to Lako County that ho desired TO ameud
aud not tho orlgiual racord.
Tho Court then granted him tho neeled per
| nniaalou.
Alr. Reed wanted to tako tho transcript tt
Chioago.
Mr.Bwctt objected, saying the papers belonged
here, aud should remain wlere they wore.
This euded tho proceedings for tho day.
1he trial Of A1r. Gage ia sot for next Tuesday
and, ii nothing unforeseen occurs, it will 10
doubtedly bo commenced that day.