The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-10
NEW Y0RK'S BIG STEAL.
Aldermen Fullgratf and Duffy Acknowledge
the Crimes Of Bribery and Perjury.


New YORK Dec 9.,-The court officers to-day
refused, as in the former trial of McQuade, to
allow any people in General Sessions Court, Part
?, unless connected with the case. None of
the accused aldermen were present except the
prisoner and Fullgraff. The latter was still on
the stand undergoing cross-examination at the
hands of Mr.. Newcombe. The unfortunate self
confessed "boodier" was badgered by Mr. New
combe counsel for McQuade, at great length,
and made to appear in sorry plight, indeed, as he
passed from point to point 20 tell the story of his
shame as a member of the adermanc combine"
tocoEfess that he had only accepted $18 900 for
his vote in behalf of the Broadway railroad
franchise, but had received from Alderman Duff
fly 81, 900 for his vote in favor of the Thirty
fourth street road, and had perjured himself in
his testimony before the Senate investigating
committee. Mr.. Newcombe asked Fullgraff if
he had not been paid fer votingfo for the Forty
eecond,street road, the Chambers-street or the
Wall-street road.
II decline to answer" Fullgraf said.
"Why do you decline to answerr
Because it might incriminate others
"You must answer said the recorder, "un-
less You say that your answer would criminate
or degrade you"
Fulgraff said that an answer would criminate
and degrade him.
in regard to the Chambers rsstreet road he
made the same answer and in relation to his
vote for the franchise for Wall street he an
swered with emphasis that he did not receive
bribe
Mr. Newcomhe asked him if he had received
bribe IN connection with any other franchise and
Fullgrafs answer was: mot that / know of,
sir"
Fulgraff's refusal to answer the questions
whether he had not been paid for his votes on the
Forty second-street and Chambers stree. fran
chses We're practical admissions that he had and
contradicted his former testimony that he had
been only bribea for the Broadway and the
called Fnllcraf's attention to his contradiction,
and the informer replied that he did not
know that he had testified previously
to the fact that he had been only bribed for his
votes in favor of the Broadway and Forty-sec-
ondstreet road. Fullgraf's contradictions
crowded on each other fast and relentlessly. He
said that before he made his peace with the State
he bad been shown a statement by Alderman
Duffy which convinced the witness that he was
in danger of conviction, and he hastened to turn
informer and secure immunity He understood
that this promise of immunity covered his per-
jury before the investigating committee.
The judge called his attention to the fact that
when he committed the perjury he was in the
post office building, which is in the jurisdiction
of the United States, and that the State authori-
sies had no power to promise him immunity for
s acts done there
The witness was also made to confess that he
had not made good his promise to make restitu-
tion of the doodle which he had received.
Ex-Alderman Duffy next took the stand His
tat neck crowded over the edges of his turn down
collar aud his face was flushed to such an extent
as to suggest coming attack of apoplexy After
the usual questions, he gave his version of the
combine" in his usual slangy way of descrip-
tion. His story did not vary materially from
that told on the first trial He acknowledged
committing perjury before the Senate investi-
eating committee. when he testified that ho re-
ceiyed notice Of the meeting at his office through
Maoney. This acknowledgment created ripple of
excitement in the courtroom as it was the first
intimaton of perjury on Duffy's part Follow
ing this advantage, the counsel for the defense
charged again and elected another acknowledge
ment from Duffy that he had again committed
perjury before the Senate committee
when he testified that he did not
know of any corruption in the board
Duny repudiated his testimony in the first trial,
that he had not been confronted with evidence
Of his guilt In the Thirty fourthstre job He
declared the testimony then attributed to him
vas false but did not feel sure that he had so
sestiiled. Several other points of disagreement
were brought up, in Dulfy's previous testimony
and 10 each point Duffy answered '.Yesn 10 the
question: did you know that Your answer was
untrue when you so answered.
II was evident that Duffy was too stnnd m
protect himself. Over a dozen times he ac
knowledged that hc had sworn falsely on the
Grst trial
Al the opening of the night session. Duffy
confessed that he had, during recess, had con-
ultation with the assistant district attorney
Fho charged him to tell the truth. TO the
questions as to disagreement between his
answers and the evidence on the first trial, and
wheihor he had testified falsely before. Duffy.
nace wise BY expcriOncs refused to reply At
many peiais Duffy's obtuseress was painful. He
'erea'sdly ceEs-adicted his o1n testimony.