The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-05-15
NEW YORK FRAUDS.
The Trial OF Alderman Jaehne Be-
gun.

New YORK, May 14.-In the trial OF Al
derman Jaehne this morning, Francis y.
Twomey, clerk of the Board OF Aldermen,
was called to the witness stand. When ask
ed to produce the resolution offered by Al
derman O'Connor, June %, 1884, he answer
ed that he did not have 1t. 1t had been re,
ferred to the regular committee. ana ne naa
not seen it since. Witness was present at all
of the meetings of the Board in 1884. He
had missed but one meeting OF the Board In
20 years. He had recorded the presence OF
Alderman Jaehne at the meeting specified,
In the published minutes. He Identified the
COPY of the resolutions printed in the min
utes, which was offered by Alderman O'Con-
nor.
Mr.. Nicol assistant district attorney, start
ed to read the resolution, to when tne de-
fense objected, and the objection was sus-
tanned by the court. The defense was also
sustained in an objection to the production
of printed copy until it had been proven
that the original resolution was not IN exist
ence nor could not be obtained.
Supt Twomey then testified that the reso..
luton referred to had been in the custody Oh
Alderman Mclaughlin, chairman OF the
railroad committee, who was now dead Al
derman Jaehne was present, when it was Of
fered on June Sd. The printed copy was
substantially the same as the original. Inc
reading of the resolution was. then allowed,
Mr.. Graham's objection being oyerruled.
Witness also identified the petition for the
ed and referred to the railroad committee,
June 30th, 1884.
Mr.. Graham demanded that the .prosecu-
ton elect with which petition they should at
tempt to prove the charge of bribery, but
the Judge admitted the petition. The report
of the railroad committee In favor OF Ine
petition made on Aug. 6, 1884, was ldentiiled
and read. Witness testified that the m0tlon
to lay the report over had been defeated, and
that the motion to adopt it had been carried,
the defendant being one Of the p voting for
it, The MAYORS veto of Aug, 18th was then
introduced and read. The defence asked the
court to instruct the jury not to accept the
assertions contained in 1t as 1acts. For IN.
that a million dollars had been offered for
the franchise, whereas such was not the
ease, and it could not be proved.
Judge Barrett SO instructed the jury, and
added that the assertions OF the counsel
should not be taken as fact.
Witness testified that at special meeting,
Aug 30th 1884, Alderman Waite presided,
and that it was on the motion OF Alderman
Jaehne that the report in favor Oh tne
Broadway franchise was carried over the
mayor veto.
After recess. Clerk Twomey resumed the
stand He identified the minutes OF the
meeting of the aldermen of Oct; l3, 1854, and
the message of the mayor OF the same ua1e
in reference to the petition OF the Broaoway
Railroad Company, received Oct. ON, anu
L0ey were HQlulbtCu dilu lOeOs LIZ AAASSSNe,~
of the mayor was in opposition to the grant
Charles B. Waite was the next witness
called. He served four terms as alderman,
in 1881, 1882, 1888, and 1884. La the latter
year he was member OF the railroad com n
mittee. He was particularly interested In
the Broadway railroad franchise on account
Of his friendship for James A. Rlchmond,
and had promised him to do what he could
for the road. In the summer OF 1884, W.T.
ness was stopping at the Pequot Hotel In
New London, and on the evening Of Aug.
29th. he received telegram telling him that
there would be a meeting OF the Board OF
Aldermen the next morning, at 9 CLOCK. lie
went to the city and presided at the meetlng.
There were two or three newspaper men
present when the franchise, was passed, ne
believed. When questioned about the pro-
eeedings in the board on Dec. 31st, 1884, wit
ness said he called up the report on the cable
road. as he was anxious to have 1t passed.
He was persuaded, however, not to push 1t.
Defendant and two or three other aldermen
told him not to push it and that ne would
not lose anything by it. Defendant told him
they had made enough out Of the Broadway
road to take care of him II he did not push
it. Witness dropped it, He never had any
other conversation with the defendant con-
cerning the Broadway SURFACE road. !,
Inauguration Of Cleveland he met Jaehne in
Washington and casually asked him II he
hadlmade as much money as memper OF tne
board of aldermen as people said he had.
Jaehne replied he thought he had made from
100000 to $150,000, and when the witness
expressed surprise replied that Moloney had
handled all the money and was not the man
to do it for nothing. Witness had an inter
view with the District Attorney in May
1885, in relation to the investigation OF the
Broadway and other railroad matters OF
1884 He subsequently had series OF talks
with Jaehne up to the time OF his arrest. In
the latter part of October, 1885, he again met
him. They talked about the Broadway rail
road, and witness told defendant that the
aldermen, if they were not very careful
who was going around barroOms talking
about the money he had given them for tn ell
votes. Defendant replied that Maloney wa:
not any worse than some OF the members
when elected they had not enough to pay
election expenses and at the end of the veal
they were buying real estate and that every
body knows they could not buy real estate
on their salary. When asked if he had
bought any real estate, Jaehne replied he
had not been fool, and that they could moi
find out where his money was. Witness tes
tilted also as to other conversations between
himself and the defendent, wherein the lat
ter had revealed secrets to the effect thai
nearly all of the members of the board hat
received money for their votes on the Broad
way franchise.
Jaehne told witness the aldermen had sew
erai meetings at Alderman McLaughlin's
house, when the railroad matters were talk
ed over At one meeting there it was stated
that each of the % aldermen who were tt
vote for the Broadway franchise would re-
ceive $4,000 each for their votes; 1t was t.
be paid in cash on the day it was finally
passed. He told Moloney that he needed
some money, and the latter answered hi
would find it in his box; and he did fine
there an envelope containing one $4,000 bill
and ten $1,000 bills. The aldermen, he says
got their money in different ways, some a
the City Hall and some in bar-rooms, and al
around Witness also detailed Jaehne's con
fession at Byrnes' house, where five detec
tives were concealed and heard it, all Of
which has already been published.
The detectives who had heard Jaehne''
confession at Byrnes' house corroborated the
nr,e