Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-03-31
THROUGH AT LAST.
The Sweeney Investigation
Ready for the Jury-Ths Ar
gumeats fer Defense and,Pro-


gumeats fer Defense and,Pro-
secutioS
The testimony having all been taken,
the committee concluded, last night, to
sit in the chamber OF the House OF JONI
mons. At 1880 o'clock, Mr.. Good began
his argument for the defense.
GOOD DEFENDS.
Adopting the usual course before
jury, he began by complimentlng the
committee upon its impartial attention
given, and Council, for their fairly in
yestigating the charges, and stated his
reluctance 10 trespass upon time de
recalled his motion, made at the outset,
to exclude reporters. which motion the
committee had seen fit to override. But
he thought the papers had not been lair
to the accused and had given more space
To- the evidence of the prosecution than
the deieuse-publishing things which
would prejudice the public and Dwelling
lightly upon matters favorable to the
accused. lie advertised the REGISTER
and told how widely its columns were
read, especially its head lines OF its ac-
count OF this investigation. lie freely
forgaye the reporters, As he believed
they were blowing to higher power.
TESTIMONY WANTED.
There was one fact he wanted the
committee to bear in view and to report
to Council, and that was that the gentle
man who preferred these charges, al
though invited to do So, was never put
upon the stand; and it was shown that
he could have given information IN re-
gard to many transactions OF which ne
knew more than anyone else. And yet
he was not put on the stand, ana the
defence was debarred from Its croSs-eX-
animation. These facts he wanted to
have laid before Council in the report OF
the committee. Mr.. Good said he would
review the charges SSridtln, and he be-
gan on the one IN relation to receiving
money from the Baltimore road. lie
said il was neither IN the nature Of
bride or corruption, and the practice OF
receiving ii had been established by
long precedent.
In regard TO the second charge, recely-
iug money from Turner Hall, the orator
could see nothing wrong about that.
The association received the specific sum
from those who rented the hall and for
that purpose. He thought Sweeney
more liberal with money received IN this
way than most of his predecessors, some
of whom kept it all. Ii the Sergeant was
entitled to any of this money, he was
entitled To- all and he considered the
Sergeant and his deputies one. The
:; rseant is the one, said Mr.. Hubbard. J
The fourth charge was drawing more
money in September than vas sufficient
to paw his deputies and retaining 50 %
for his own benefit. Mr.. Good said he
knew and had been pointed out no law
To show that this was wrong, ami there
fore he saw nothing wrong in II.
The next cnarge Was similar Ia the
COMMUNICATING money collected 10y
his deputies a. balls, &c. No testimony
had been introduced 10y the prosecution
10 show the truth oi this. The dcpu-
ties had been passed over 10y the prose
cutiou without question. tie dld not
know whether Mr.. Hubbard intended
the committee To believe that these
deputies would swear in behalf of their
chief or not, hut such were the facts.
Then as tn the charge OF Keeping
stolen property There 1t was, IN the
nom, and the committee had seen all OF
il except what mad been identified aud
returned. There was not 4 scintila OF
evidence to show the Sergeant hal ever
taken q particle OF it. Ii VAS true Me
Gully and others had divided up the
cheese, but what portion OF 1t dbl the
Sergeant gct2
lie reviewed and denied the charge
oi taking II from sprisonoE, and dwell
cd on the
MORAL HONESTY
of his client, who was the best Sergeant
a city ever had or could have. tie IT.
pcatCd the testimony of Mayor Sweeney
TO that effect aud dilatei aud comment
ell upon it,. The charge oi drunken
ness he utterly secuted. What II eight
or ten men had sworn Sweeney was
drunk, did not Sweeney swear posi-
lively he was not, and did not that set
tie it? Then about Sle profanity.
Profanity was u bad thing, and he did
not think much OF the man who would
wantouly use it, but he did not believe
his client was more profauc than the
next man. Aud IL he waS-what had
the committec 20 say about III
This much will suffice to show the
line oi argument pursued by Mr, Good,
IN reference TO the charges. They were
taken ny aud separately argued, and
wherever sweeney testimony conflict
Ci with that ot Que or more others, his
WAS taken as good When he had tn
,shed the charges, he again pitched into
Davis aud said he'd rather he Jun
Swrcuey-s swear rs he does drink as
he does than hea spy and 4 traitor tn
his bcuellutor. lie wanted the com
mittce tO report TO Council, either a
short report. Or one that would include
all ul the testimony, and after an arsu-
mcnt of an hour and halls duration,
he took his seat
MIR. WURgARp'S ARGUMENT
WAS IN the nature OF u review and COM
mcntary on the evidence. Tie began 10y
Davis from the attacks q; the
other side. and said hc would like 10 put
DAVIS aud Sweeney together and, after
comparing their actions before the COm-
mlttee. say which WAS the gentleman.
Ii was not only the right, but the duty,
Ol every CltlEVu to do as laws hau done
aud prefer charges when uCceSSary. Tie
supposed the doctrine OF not doing 81
would lust now bc very acceptable to
the defense. but unfortunately this duty
is not to bc measured by the wishes OF
those To- he investigated Davis had
brought and prosecuted the charges
with great delicacy "A delIcacy
sweeney might struggle Tor in
vain. AS they nigh, see who
hal heard the blatant aud viudlctiye
tone assumed by him, When on the wit
ness stand. The defense had seemed
anxious a. have
DAVIS ON THE STAND,
Why had they not put him thereG he
was ready aud willing TO answer any OF
their questions. lie had done his duty
and enough when he made the charges
and brought the witnesses who had fully
them. Hts testimony was
not needed and he Was not examined,
but why had the defense, after the noise
Il made, not examined him. Then the
dcirnSe had claimed that Sweeney : full
testimony Was not printed, For his
part he would wish nothing more than
IN have hal that testimony printed MOUi