New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-24
THE TWEED SENTENCE.
Yy-JIDGE COMSTOCK IN REPLY TO JUDGE
DAVIS AND Mr.. OCONOR.


IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF TwEED-His COURSE
REyIEwEp-MR. o'coNoR's CRITICISMS ON Ihh |
COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWED.
TO the Editor OF The TrdbHnt
SIR: The relation which happened to hoid
90 the hnbras corpus OF William NJ iwoeu' roccn."
decided by the Of Appeals, seons to me To r'er
n rrpper / should submit few opseiV"ih upon
the ,isied letters between Judge Noah Davis ara Mr.
Charles OConor Under the highest sense OF professional
s,,icntiun I accepted from the prisoner re- /
fa,ner in the belief that the law OF the
hand had grossly violated in the accumulated sen
venees prunolmced upon him, and 1t became Hy ohy 10
give to the case long and laboriois examination While
other of the Bar and DO doubt 90 kechs
>uprccate insult the Bench the more exact know
edge Of the case which possess may perhaps pe'tcr
.ougliy make statements anu Suggest soine
views intended and may hope calculated 10 remove
Che Impression entertained in any quarter that te
highest jsdclal tribunal in the State is moi eheo 10 te
fullest confidence of the public.
The correspondence between the two gentlemen haheo
"a certainly most remarkable That took place Tor the
rurpose of a pnbc exhibition is only too evident That
fts purpose was to undermine the faith OF the people I'D
ther court of last resort equally PLAIN That this pur-
pose will shoud be the wish OF every good cltzeh
for next importance to the purity W the Judges Is 'he
popular trnst in their ineOIrupbhity Ever! reckless
and uifounded attempt to destroy that trust ana To
CRATE Doubt and disrst Is a crime against 'he Inquest
Interests ef society.
-TuyIOygR COURT REBEIIING AGAINST THE HIGHER.
The letter of Judge Davis presents the unusual spec
face of subordinate judge in public rebellion against
the highest court of the State clothed by tine O"iseu
ton and laws with authority to review and reverse his
own decisions Certainly 1t is always possible that the
decision of f,e lower may have soundcr basis
IN the law the judgment OF the appellate court
which reverses it. But appellate courts are part O
every respectable system of jurisprudence ana
they arc necessary on account Oh ue uii,
,cettaipty sometimes Of the law itself and
far
ever-yaryng combinations OF fact in human affairs The
subordinate magistrate who should dare to uiohey 'he
mandate of the court above him would deserNediy DE
impeachei aud deposed from his Office. am glad 10
SAY that the before ms there L. III AL the
iudcal history of this state such example OF reck-
less indecorum and INSTRUMENTATION as that exhibited by
Judge Davis the of his Judgment by tine unanl-
,,ous decision Of higher court. every one OF whose
members is than his equal in the learning ana
qualifications which acorn judicial station
JUDGE DAVIS AGAINST HIMSELF.
In the letter referred to. Judge Davis states in sub
stance that the Court of Appeals had no authority FOR It's
decision except the argument of Mr. OConor his cor
respondent submitted in prior This Is an
extraordinary statement IN opposition to beg 10 say
that on argument of Mr.. Tweeis case many auihorl-
Ties were cited by myself and my associates which we
believed to decisive of the question: and many are also
cited in the opinion of the Court But there Is one
authority perhaps not absolutely conclusive III nstf
which might well suggested to this judicial assaiiant
of the court above him discreet silence on his part
This is the authority OF Judge Davis himself.
ON the trial Of the indictment against
Tweed, Judge Davis presided. as he did also
m the second On that trial tho prosecuting counsel
proposed to prove what the! c'eu sereS VI u'N'"'
and separate ocnses being in tleir nature AMI deini-
on continued and repeated instances Of Official neglect
20 audit certain public accounts. The accused objected
,;,na ,, Il ht ~ cbsllonsc in respect 10 each
.as f ne was tried for more than one The right 80
in itself Is plain that has qneS-
1ioned H. Bui the judge overrued all the prisoner OBJ
sections and ruled ont bis challenges on the very
and ,rcisc Ground that h re could he only conyic
zion and one punishment On that ruling be delivered
Ghis opiuion thus:
+. - \, al os,., l. o,.,o,r,ssino IN ,be counsel for
iscs,c yIV an inlrtn, unit.- oti,ls,.. alike in
rnod" I'M Inherent in ppaisIment or w,cr, IT unes
-. sb,c ,rr at1i Iscmpaucrs or where
81 mncs common law fclonies or fcones punishable
sce ..en =, ted nv sia,e IN such cases defend
s,ns are fc eIn,rrsse iy the uniting of the ofcnses
III lhr si,n' in , nv, IN, M ,s.sI H., IN. com,
iinatlon of a groa. variety nisGcInesnois. On ht
conrry. IN oy j''g'en' t's pory '1ho IS nag
e eleaT ,,'5.,,nea, ir,,d or hgr,,W 10 or
so iadcise'sts 0yaias' han is greatly reiierd Iom ne
eohSe9aence o. m, 2'smss % ne rsU "' c "o eye
sa;oS, h. ~ ,, ,e,fs Il these confs are nIi true and
az s. indictments weye f2nf chHe Tie s'ao'e act o
atlstuiJ bfm az stnpte utc't't, az ~ @
~ h. de- ,ir i,ssenj o. 6eimg injured IS sa6s11
tally 5eeoted bV roict'c9 against tie h""c "s pm So
"c'"Sj" "' sum" '@ ,,,,
Again. during me uI' 'n' 'u"-V S'""
a., An ,i Yt ' vi % s"yrei ,semesnots aI. CHARGED
an the Sl.nc Indictment and there is convict, ctAyr
on one or a. io' re rp9, o. piilShneht W'le c"I or
or" u ~, a, 3rc,,sstenc, They Inc iorl
are al iibcriv 10 nrOve a. inany as they and the
jury will render Their verdict II they IN lh" party
guilty nnIer ms r :, NJ ,i g,,,t ,nr,ce
a. ielgseut II mast lool 0i he Indictment aS an
eafretg. 49,. .... ,..,.. .,-,.. .....
Snch "t'' 'ii' 'lii'"'i, Va WV. w. ''''- nv W