New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-06-14
THE PROCEEDINGS.

was rapidly filed yesterday morning, with the accused
Aldermen and their friends and they we're careim 10
put in q prominent place John Butler whose hal'e
heads one of the indictments against Them John Butler
"A a how about fourteen years old. He was evidently
disturbed at his position the head ana front OF
formidable indictment. He dressed In cheap, DuI
neat clothes and had frank honest look When ne was
called 10 stand ND as the chief OF those indicted in one
indictment there general burst OF laughter Inc
Aldermen are very bitter against the Recorder and one
of them remarked to Butler, Well he has begun TO
break the law so earlyhc may come to be Recorder
hsgrOws up"
The counsel who appeared for the Alderman were
David Dudley Field Dudley Field John ID. Townsend,
ex.Jndge A. J. Dttenhoefer, Elihu Root and John W.
Weed The People represented by Dis1otAttorney
B. X Phelps and his assistants, Mr. Rollins, Mr. kus-
sell and Mr. Lyon There had been some talk about an ar
rangement by which this argument might be avodedand
nearly half hour spent in private talk between
counsel and the Judge. 1t IL o'clock when the dis
cusgon opened.
FxJudge Dttenhoefer said that the defendants made
q motion to Quash the indictments against
them. There were two indictments. Both formed
PARTS of their papers The later indictment included
John Butler and was for maintaining common nui-
sance; the other was against the Aldermen alone and
was for violation Of the charter. As the former was
the later indictment, they all their athdaYs IN
that and asked that those pertinent be considered II the
other.
ordinance was passed An Of this matter has been re-
ported except that Alderman Reilly in urging the pas
sage over the Mayors veto said;
"Th stand is merely board two feet wide by six feet
long to stand on vacant piece Of gIouud inside the
stoOpine tor poor boy to sell newspapers on IN the
morning and evening He has the consent OF the owner
He goes to school in the daytime and he is the only sup
port OF thc family, as his father is sick"
The thirteen Aldermen all state that they had no con-
nection whatever with John Butler, derived no benefit
from the erection Of the stand, and that was removed
May TO- before the indictments were found.
question here as to which OF the two indct-
ments was first found and Mr.. DittenhOefer insisted
that the information ard the records showed that the
Butler or nuisance bill found after the other though
both were found on the same day.
Alderman Rely's affidavit only differs from those OF
his associates hisnOt being that he had not seen
the newsstand and Alderman Guntzers only in the fact
that he dill not vote for the first passage Of the resou
zion.
On introducing the affidavit Of John Butler, Mr. Dit
fenhoefer laughngly said that be meant TO Introduce
the boy as exhibit and called on him 10 stand up
His affidavit, after recting the ordinance OF the Com
mon Council, is as follows -, M. a.,
''That he is not quite fourteen years old That the
stand mentioned IN SAID resolution was designed ana IN,
tended this depOnent Tor the sale Of newspapers and
about TWO feet wide and nye Ieet long. mat oe-
pOnent had received permission to place said stand on
said premises from MT Wallace, OF tne nn OF wallace
Co.. the tenants aud occupants OF the premises adjoining
oe bsSe bsd1 pae5 Sy Geponen That the aid
designed solely for the sale OF newspapers 10
butte the support OF his family, his father being SICK
and having been so for the last three months That the
within days after the passage OF the said resolution
9 9gy7 VS. SAID Boaro o. A''l'H0' '-' ''A '''
The affidavit of Francis j. Twomey Clerk Of the Board
OF Aldermen out that since 1874 the Common Coun-
Gil mas granted permits for only nfty-six bay windows
and seventy-six stands The Register OF Permits says
that no permits are issued from his bureau for stands
unless within the stoOp limits and only go such
mis have been issued this year, such permits being an
nual James W. McGOwaD testifes that from an exam
inatou Of the police reports he finds hatln twenyeght
precucts there 246O bay windows and 7S9 stands
extending beyond the stOOp line.
In introducing the two afidayits. Mr. Often
hOefer said rejection intended on the gentlemen
mentioned in them, but IL only desired 70 show how
teI9raatiy violate what ihoy saw Is the law The first
OF these aidayts is by J1ln Rudophy city surveyor
house projects IL feet inches hey the line;
that the stoOp Of the house OF Edwin Lnsteln mem
Der Of the Grand jury projects II feet IL inches be-
yond the street ne tnat the balconies Of the house OF
AmoOn, I9e foreman ~ ~ I9e ~ no S S M ~
line OF Ffhave and that the stOOp OF the house OF Dis
over the line Of and his bay windows
In sixhaye extend out one feet Sl2 inches and the
When Mr. Pbepss name was mentioned there was
an one Of the small ones" The other aHdayt was by
James MCGOWAN, 10 the effect that none OF these gentle
had permission from the Aldermen for these OBJ
structions."
JOHN D. TOWNSHIPS ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Townsend opened the argument for the defend
ants After stating the facts they appeared by the
indictments and afdayts, he argued that the indCt
ments should be quashcd
l. Because they are evidently not the result Of calm
and dspassOnate consideration by the Grand Jury,
based upon such competent testimony was in their
reach.
IL They are manifestly the result and consequence Of
undue incorporate zeal upon the part Of the judicial
officer who then presided the court in which such
Ill Because il is clear that the Grand Jury were mis-
led as TO duties and their powers by and
improper directions administered 10 them from the
bench.
Mr. Townsend then read extracts from the charge Of
Recorder HaCkett about the stencil nuisauces.
Tie Judge" don't see mat this has any bearing on
Mr. Townsend" The similarity between the two cases
certainly seems to make it relevant.
The Judge" can see maj erroneous lnsuucuons 10
the jury about the Health Board concern this case.
Anything he said about your clients IS relevant"
ME- Townsend argued that the charter Indictment
bad as charging Offences one under the charter,
emily punished. The indictment charged no offence
since there law fOrbiddng to the Aldermen the
pleasure OF passing resolutions which nules The
Indictment charges them with causing the resolution to
take effect so far as in them lay II they had power
fhority they committed no offence, for they did
nothing. The nuisance indictment did not set out how
the nuisance maintained. newspaper stand
not In law an obstruction enCrOachment OF NUS
force and an ordinance Of 1866 recognized permits for
newspaper stands and the ordinance Of 1876 only revived
10 hucsters during ensuing holidays 70 occupy not
more than OuG-fOurth of the Sidewalks This became
Mr. Townsend said further that member Of the Board
OF Aldermen. acting in ms legislative capacity was not
subject indictment for any vote he cast unless he was
Influenced by base and corrupt motives. No corruption
was charged. Inc hecOioT vlIeu ~ TIE ok ~
1870 provided they should not indicted unless
their action before the Grand Jury. The Charter OF 1873
repealed that provision, with the power Of indicting
official action aud the new charter did not provide for
tine punishment Of the Board OF Aldermen acting In