New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-08


bo fails 70 carry out the provisions from ignorance
Is lust as guilty he whose intentions are as
honest The assertion that the witnesses FOR the
prosecution committed perjury merely from partisan
motives Is utterly unreasonable. believe IN paru-
sanship / think that the safety or our lhsttu''ohS
Is based on the clash and conflict or contrary ideas
But can any one imagine that man would out
Of party hostillty-a patriotic sentlmeht-Bo U" '"e
stand and falsely swear away the liberty OF
another? Is there anything in the demeanor' the
history and the characters of these men TO JUSTIFY
this charge?
II their stories true. this defendant mas not
lrnorant,y. but wifuly. violated the duties OF MS
office Mr. Sedgwick went to the place merely 10
see tha, the poll of the vote was honest He mad a
legal status there He kept memorandum. OF t rs
COUNT. made then ana ,hsrS , ana no y witness stand
lie and The other witnesses for the prosecutor srd an
noTncci and unfolded and ned before the lunch
con was served The other side meets US ,, III
,cm The truth he is stained with darker crime
than that with which we have charged MN y, S,e
Indictment We have not accused him OF Conspiracy
lie and his witnesses show US motive t drt ms
n" luncheon and were i76 in number when the box
wa, rcopened. The unused ballots were IN eSsy
roach lie SAYS he put them on the MES anu tnen
there were twenty-one additional ones. From Ne Ne.
ville's statement. these must have come RON .ne
ese could get at the ballots. This would indicate
more serious crime than neglect 6n ascrihs sde hs
the prosecution prevailed. -. ..,,x Ia, ,b,s
The Democratic candidates lost n9thins 10y ;r, ts
sfranse in view OF the fact that nne-tenths OF the
a"q Ind snst consider sas
remarkable instance Of Providential interven
Gn tr On Sins cds Ss tF would probably
exemphcation OF the maxim that tRe ueV" 'a"e'
cor Of his own" ONenewe1 iaughtero , ,
no party or organization desires such crimes ,ns
No party or organizaton could eXs ehs capS
oae at his election The candidates OF the Demo-
cratic party in this city needed no such crimes
wns and md could easily have spared 5000 votes II
was well known In advance who would win. ie.
this disgrace was brought on us ana our party 50
hat man might advance his position in the neigh
borhool In which he lives
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
1udge Rorrett then delivered his charge to the
| jury. He said in part:
The offence with which this prisoner Is CHARGED a
one Of tine ,Sos t two crimes most danger
Gus to the republic were bribery ana ome ,i -
,S nr,rir then they do not elect their officers
II officers. when elected. sell their votes then the
| The new ballot law is exceedingiy specnc, n
charge in this is that the defendant negeS s
ignoranre of the law is no defence; but there ~
no question of ignorance here as az The
charge does not relate TO placing me WenE onv
extra ballots among the Others put ,nai ", NY
fnrI tToro s minge the ballots? Give him the
| benefit of every reasonable doubt tonsiuci a.,
the SURROUNDINGS and ask dil he act tar sS am
| honestly and. II he was negligent. was ne ~ VIII
fully ana in disregard of his duty? , o.
1t with you whom y ou VIII p mae am, mem
| ora nd,im of the facts the time and place, an9
| II he speaks truly the ballots were openel anu
| c,nvassel before the luncheon. The Democratic
vote was changed from $50 to 1871; the Republican.
| from % TO H. That may throw some light on tne
| ,no,ivss II was this DEFENDANTS duty TO return
| the ballots to the box and thoroughly to minge
| them II that fairly done he IL emitted 20 an
| ocorttai II you believe that he did not Drns
| about what was called for by the law. ther WITHOUT
| regard TO party or to the effect of what was done
or TO- sympathy to anything but your OATH 1t Is
| duty TO convict
Mr.. Schampain made several reQuesSs 10
charge In reply to question oy juror
Judge Barrett said that Neville had right 10
| refoId the ballots before returning them TO the
box. The jury withdrew at $40 p. IN.