The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-26
TWEED'S APPEAL.

CONTINUATION OF THE CAsE-THE CoMsToCK
LODE ExHAusrED-cUMULATTv PUNIsHMENrs
UNJUST TO CUMULATIVE RoBBERY-'AN AVA
LANcIE OF JUDICIAL TERRoRs.
ALBANY. March rs, 1875.
In The Court OF Appeals to-day Judge George Ii.
Comstock, counsel lor william NJ. Tweed, resumed
ana concluded MS argument. He proceeded TO
discuss the question oiJoinder OF offences and &C
cumuated punlshments. He said:-
The areument in Iavor Of the accumulated sentences
pIononhoen ia s sipt oteces esnae.y i
lneauurs NAV be lawfully united and tried ln-
dictnent From ths postuate the CONCLUSION Is drawn
that many punhments as there are counts or offences
be imposed aud in order 10 make Them enec ual IL
noaaced TO eomnence Where previous one pronounced
the same instaut terminates ANA so on ad t9taaaa
enough deceive incauaous minds on this point
This question be answered-first it has never beer
doubted that both lclones ana misde nieanors
S l may 5 Sg modes Cd soa n sg t
possibilities o. proof ana TINS rGposition includes any
TRANSACTION lie o6scuriTy in the statement OF TINS
who have not ooked beyond text books has led, per
happens that me Judge himself does not he
arse upon one mans ipconslderat. use or hnguaecl
Indeed without mSeh care, care ana eireU mioeaion OF
win Try, cutie faeat to express The ml
counts, SO as TO include all modes Of stating one
ernnai act without Hsns words so broad as TO 1cude
mon law there ono difference in The administration
ielonles which were mostly capital offences. the prs,
given as suficent reason Why plurality Of eionions
crimes could no be united IN one and tried
demeanors could be joined because that against
Law PIP. aSi 5s5 marginaJ But there was another rea
SON given quite as eosent why dis!inet ielonies
wna ss a9 the This aa wSa1 eS
ss%e both as to nisdemeanors and Clones
and now there is difference whatever because the
right of challenge is now and with US the same in both
q the subject and then ook up the question Of jnrisdic
to the unity the offence
FOURTH coUSr
Judge Comstoek then took up the onrth count in each
class said to be count Tor misconduct IN o;ec relating
70 de d SAM t u 40 e o1Tr tsee counts ana ne
distinct and different offences the Judgment OF the
law. there was ata repusnancy OF counts throughout
ihorues. but The counsel dened thar there was any
snch distinction ana proceeded follows ~ started
with he PROPOSITION thai all the counts set forth but
pose that ths IS true TO the first. tn ri
iour we lei aside in order to remare
n6on supposed aivergense OF that count INTO another
the same IDENTICAL matter and have pointed the
to say that such i. not our theory and we thlnk
A different view viii relieve the prosecution tie iurv
and the Juase rom the charge OF eross and incon
WY each otGeF and nin setting the osnce
ons that the laws Of $40 imposing the daty On tie
Ing; lhat they could not officially otherwise han in
Without Joint meeting and Consultation upon the
several CLAIMS was not 9sia action they were guilty
aitAoosh they eertied The claims I sili OF mex Es
Of nct The Judge Charged ra IN snbsanca a aag
they the dafes of their 20 T naH
By the resolution of that day. They to audit
eash judge told them that Gs ali si the 20 eS we y
fe stated for snca was the proof tna even =, the ans
oca iS'' pass 1a a6 Sa
TO scrutnze the accounts 70 it they correct
Bill Exceptions page 49, oii oH 2s7 % page ne
; We're sas iss1 2n these sss Propositions the my
all counts ncglec. No can a to see that
the oarh It Be carsia ept mind S
taa ia all the counts are for and that
preparation IN any form Of the public money. il l.
dnuslvely into that subject, but Nothing .: that
have uAss' ow a merely
70 intensity ana asgravate the offence charged
account; q he false aadisins wliia But he he
offence this nature into endorsement Or larceny
pToSe M se 9r neh me
Inc fourth count as distinguished from tne others
the extraneous evidence he alleged misappropria
Fl me ra hs s m r. d
Town no different rules Tor the guidance the jury
eS d jury
have fa IA the Sarn
It's meaning The final instruction D. 764 defned the
bad down the eeu na 5 Ss
the % n Of m sw a wo 5
nuang and certifying OF false claims without examn
nlready sad with great exactness constituted
fahless and discharge OF an oicsl functIoS
Is in the view Of the criminal law the Thing as
pDtieia duty, that duty being fidelity to a pub
correct theory il we Understand oica duiy to resuIs
NOT o merely the pertanctory dong Of act but the
,orreet theory because the neglect pubic duty 50
trust This IS the only view Which cam reev to the
T9 , ts and sta
II explains the rulings in the course OF the ria when
ecu not be had both on. Che fourth aud
Other Rer m hs or
As ruled t6ai the sSyietcn could fre be 0'f had
ian only that all the counts in each class cover
pro ronounce the Judgment see proceedings after
reasonable and seems to accord With the comnSs
the use CT Ha neEs5 Of
W. rooo, ~, THE ! rIIH OF The ARGUMENT
TINS Indictment described only single offence, winch
RUNE mcgee p al tee aH Of pS6c oeer or
leading 10 TINS result,-Frs All the frst
second third and fourth counts each re Tor the
he unity the classes unity The counts OF each
haa eret9fe we the ny o. the whole ndle
eos ID we case IN TINS way we learn nat the
u offences in one Indictment, in viola don OF Their own
IN ay 4 we cam IA n eo5s
Tiai wit, without imputing the grossest errors 70
u pefemptory challenge. the refusal to compel an sec
lon the den al OF the motion quash the rin tha4
'erliet might be had on all the counts and Toe fai
harge 70 the lury all is consistent and harneniOus
he accused person, although he might well DE CON
ounded with the proixity OF ndie tnent which has
10 precedent, was placed IN no peril Of conviction or
punishment TOR more than one offence until The Jury
seIe ulscharge when the accumulated Sentences the
udge lell upon IN in ~
AN AVALANCHE OF JUDICIAL RRDzs
wonderful work is the indie ment The 1rial and the
Sgmeht IN ihis case What marvellous ingenuity.
nat subtle refinement in the division nj
= one idea IN the 20 counts How exqaJgte the per-
ormance OF procuring the verdict all the counts un.
er iar ana plausible pretences that only punish.
nen, was intended ana then the humane and enient-
= ~ was caled-conrivance Of rejoicing go offences to
MY hfty 1--WE by fresh pu.a on OF the same single
yea The defect in this curio1sy artistic work Is its
ossamcr material which Shes AWAY soon NJ