The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-05-09
SUMMING UP THE CASE.

Ex-Judge Garretson Says the Wrong
Charge Has Been Brought.
When THE JERSEY CITY NEWS extra
went to press, yesterday, ex-Judge Gar
retson had begun summing up for the de-
fence. He had said that the indicted
Commissioners look upon the charge as
unjust, and said that the Indictment is
defective because of q lack of specifica-
ton and because the indictment should
have been for malfeasance in office, and
not for conspiracy. After the great press
had begun to reel off copies of The
an hour, Mr.. Garretson quoted several
decisions to support his claim that the in
dictment ought not to stand, and then
said
'sThe only claim made about the Janu-
ary payroll that conspiracy to defraud
the CITY was entered into is that the names
of Dooley, Smith and Larkins are fraudu-
lently placed on the payroll" d"
The ex. Judge claimed that it had been
shown that these men had done the work,
and emphatically declared
81 say it is an outrage for Grand Jury
to indict these men. If they had taken the
trouble to enquire into the facts the in
dictment would never have been made In
regard to the man Smith, we are not try
ing him for defrauding the United States
government, and, if he did that, it don't
affect Jersey City.
ssWhy don't the State put on the wit
ness stand Somers and Van Keuren, who
voted against these claimsy These men
did this work, and it is a shame and an
outrage that they were compelled to sell
their claims for doing the work, for Ter
sey City ought to pay for the work as soon
as it is done. Tumulty said, as q witness,
that the only reason the payroll of Janu-
airy was not paid was because. an error
had been made in the presentation of the
payroll to the proper committee.
WANTED MORE GRAND JURY WORK.
"Here is a pay roll on which is the name
of John McMahon in two places-one for
Sl5 and one for $6-but here is the certiti-
cate of the foreman, and his name only
appears once. Had the Grand Jury taken
the trouble to look for another certificate
they would have found the name in it for
doing other work"
In the other payrolls that were ques-
toned bytMr Garretson, he claimed that
had the Grand Jury made proper in
yestigatien no Indictment would have
been made, and said that in order to con-
vict these men the jury must be positive
that the payrolls were fraudulent. He
added that there is Mayor and Board of
Finance who must concur, except in case
of some special exemption But that
even these must pass the Mayor. In re-
gard to Cooks bills, Mr. Garretson said
that ordering them paid was no evidence
of conspiracy.
"Now In regard to these contracts" he
continued, they are the results of hard
and careful work, and these men know
their business"
"By - they do,' muttered man in
the court room.
Judge Garretson claimed that the
Board of Works knew when it received
the bid of Byrnes to clean the streets at
IS mile, that the work could not be done
for that amount, and that the
Mayor said to them that Francis
G. Meehan's bid of $35 a mile was
the only one that could be carried out
with Justice to the city. The Board did
not reject all bids on the street cleaning
contract because they were irregular, but
the bids were rejected because of the re-
suit of meeting with the Board of FL
nance and the Mayor. At this meeting
the Mayor said that the best interests OF
the city would be served bySawarding the
contract to the highest bidder.
1.-THE routine of business in the Board OF
Works must be considered" " said Mr.. Gar
retson. ssBids lie week in possession OF
the clerk before being acted on, and if
adopted they are sent to the Board OF