, 1874-02-14

LY TRIBUNE: 'SATURDA'
statute escaped your Honor's attention; thnt i
tie statute on the subject Of disfranchsement
providing that, II any city officer failing to pa.
| over. shall be liable to be removed inamediatel,
[ from Office.
Mr. Reed-He discussed that in his opinion.
The Court discussed that question. think
| in my opinion. i take this view Of it: That tilt
| section you rely upon as DISTINGUISHING aud re-
moving from Office is the secrion that insist ap
| plies to Collectors and others-not to the Git!
Treasurer; aud thnt, when it comes to subse.
| quent sections that apply to tho City Treasurer
| the removal from Office for failure to pay ovel
! money is not provided for at al. Such is mi
view OF the case, and such is my decision.
REPU6SAScY AGAIN.
| attention Of the Court for tho purpose of SHOW
ing if anything really has, by possibility, escaped
the Courts attention. l address myself partic-
ularly to the argument On the Indictment for
not paying over; and may, or may not,
be right; bat what I esteem to be the
strongest point in my argument was
the repugnancy between the law of 1868 aud
the law Of 1883, in this: that the law Of 1888
allowed but one excuse for not paying over, to-
wit: unavoidable accident" and the law of
1863 provided another, to-wit: = a"lawful loan
ing" That is the point upon which I had
placed the most reliance. Now there is another
distinctive ground Of repeal, which your Honor
has considered, aud only considered, as under
stand it, aud that is. whore there IL q complete
revision Of the scheme, then, by substitution,
is there repeal. But tho first point that I
mentioned, and ono which I really consider to
be uoanswerablo--:he repeal by repugnancy, in
this, that the later law permits what the earlier
law forbids-your Honor has not considered,
aud may not consider it worth considering; but
I merely mention it, with all respect, for the
purpose Of getting the opinion OF tho Court, If
the Court has an opinion.
CANNOT SEE rrs FORCE. .
The Court-Any argument that Mr. Dexter or
ar. eTst. made would be worthy Of oonsidera-
ton There IL no doubt about that. feel that
have con aide1ed every question that Tos pre-
scented, at least supposed that had If
omitted that, and Il 1t did not strike mo with the
force 1t did you, 1t la unfortunate. But do not
to the consideration OF the questions as have
presented them in the opinion thai I have
written. have very carefully looked at all tue
provisions Of the city charter, which you call the
law OF lSG3, leach and every one applicable to
Collectors OF revenue, and the Treasurer, who il
the custodian OF that revenue, and who has to
disburse 1t undor warrants, properly and legally
drawn upon M1n,-a1d lind no one OF them at
al that, in my view either repeals by general i'm
p!ication, or is rcpuSnant to, that provision OF
lay OF 1883, as you call It, Or the law Of s!5,
old revised statutes, rs to render that provision
OF the old law uullty.
THE NEW INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY.
Mr. Reed-ln your opinion On the motion to
qnash the Indictment for perjury,-as your
Honor expressed i'll do not understand wLeth-
er your Honor expressed any opinion upon the
question whother he could be indicted 1T all on
the affidavit. But understand that the lean
ing OF the opinion ls that he could be- II these
two avermonts Which your Honor decided were
necessary and we're not in the former indictment
were in d new Indictment
The Court-Well: sufficient unto the day is
the evil thereof. 1quashed this Indictment be-
CAUSE think there are two good reasons for 1t.
But do not propose to give m opinion upon
any indictment before it is found, or ii ono is
found, AZ understand from some eHspaper
paragraph that 1bers has been.
Alr. Reed-1 was going to s.y, gentlemen, at
torneyy for the defendant, tlat there is an in
Grand Jury, that answers the very two objec-
tions completely that Your Honor made to this
one; so that it would leave the question upon
that new indictment whether any indictment at
all could be framed upon this affidavit.
ANOTHER JUDGE MUST PASS on IT.
OF this Court, whoever he may be, when tie
question is presented.
Alr. 6wett-Les LIE not get entangled about the
facts. confess that 40 not understand this
ject. understood the opinion to be
that the report, not having becn rendered at the
end Of the month, and the Comptroller having
8 right to demand q report st another time,
in order to make this binding report, OF legal
report, the time having passed, the Comptroller
must hare made N official demand upon him
for the report.
FILING ACCOUNTS.
Ihe Court-Ihat III my y1eW, and it ia 20 OK
pressed iu the opinion. + may not have been |
very clear upon the point. lily view upon the I
question was that, it the Treasurer goes into the
ComptrolEer's Office and files his account without |
oath, or at the end OF the month, or the first |
day OF the month, which, think, would be !. |
substantial compliance with it, and tho Comp |
troler reoeiyes that report, there can be 10
perjury assigned upon it, because there il
no oath: and he cannot afterwards go into |
the office aud make affidavit, uulees, at (
the time ha makes that affidavit, La is required
to make his accounts under oath. Then, il he |
is required by the Comptroller to mako his &C
count under oath, and swears falsely, he is guilty
Of PERJURY. The fact IS. that II he edopts as I
his report the report lying in the Comptroller's |
flice,-the identical paper, and makes affidavit
70 that that day. under tue requirements OF the
Comptroller, think, II any one Item Is falsely |