New-York tribune., 1894-02-10
CONVICTION AGAIN SECURED.
JOHN A. DUNPHY. THE ELECTION IN.
SPECTOR, GUILTY.

SPEClOit HClLII
THE JURY GIVES IT'S VERDICT AFTER SHORT
DELIBERATION - GROSS FRAUD EXPOSED
BY THE TRIAL-A GRAPHIC STORY
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
POLLING PLACE
Another triumph against election fraud waA
scored yesterday when John A. Dunphy was con-
victed by the jury in the Court or oyer ana
Termner on the charge Of neglect OF duty.
Dunphy was chairman of the board OF inspectors
in the Twenty-sxth Election District OF the
With Assembly District His offence was part
of the Tammany conspiracy though MS par
ticular fraud differed somewhat from that Tor
which Peter Neville was convicted on Wednes-
day Dunphy allowed and encouraged men VINO
could see perfectly well to swear that their eye
sight was badly affected Then he let a Tam
many follower go into the election booth TO heip
them.
A PROCESSION OF BLIND" MEN.
Assistant District-Attorney wellman conducted
the prosecution alone, Colonel Fellows not even
delivering the final address to the jury. The
session was begun with William S. Young IN
the witness chair. He gave a graphic account
of the amazing proceedings in the polling place
at No 26 Bedford-st. He Is salesman, anu
lives at No 80 West Ninth-st. On Eiecuon
Day he was watcher in the interest or EDWARD
n Rartlett in the Twenty-sixth Election Dis
trct Of the With Assembly Dstrict WHY
there he saw fifteen men come IN VINO ueciaIeo
that their eyesight was defective ana smal tney
were unable to prepare their ballots. The oatn
administered to them was in substance DIS io''
lows: ,r ,,,.s,ont
is so defective as to render you unable 10 pro-
pare your baots?" . ..
Mr.. Young said he called Dunphy's atten.
.ion IN the fact that this oath was not
the legal one The words Of the statute were
'Do you solemnly swear that py reason VI
total blindness loss OF both hands sucn to'al IN
ability in both hands that you cannot use e.m h,is
hand for ordinary purposes, or physical aisaoin @
by reason of crippled condition or a,sease' ''~
are unable to prepare your paliots'
BARNEY" TOOK CHARGE OF THEM
Nearl, all these fifteen men were accompanied
into the booths by Barney" Mcfarand'
Tammany watcher. The witness watched the
won who TINS swore that they could not see
70 nrcpare their ballots, and he believed that
,bev were fully able to do 1t got TO pe
a Joke in the polling place. ana tne rei,aS h'anS
was often made: Here comes another oi''u
These men who pretended to have an impaired
vision were able TO precede Barney Mcr az
land into the booth and out OF II. ana 10 nv o.
their ballots to the officials themselves, C"o
negro could even well enough TO pick up
match from the stoop of the polling place. ms
case Of Martin Higgins was interesting az Nv.
ing how bold Dunphy was in his disregard OF the
law Higgins was drunk that after remain,
ing ten minutes in his booth he came ou. anu I
said that he could not prepare ms odalo's. so us
wanted some one to help him do 1t. as ne was
unable TO tell which was the Tammany ueket;
Dunphy asked him If he could sec ~. He sa,a
YES he could. He could also read ihere was
Nothing for him to do but 10 leave the poilinB
In five minutes Higgins came back with MG.
Farland and said he wanted ms paiIo's. ~
also asked that some one be allowed 10 go into
the booth with him.
For what reason" Dunphy asked.
"Nv evesight Is defective" replied the voter:
The bogus oath was solemnly administered. ana
Higgins and Mcfarland went INTO 'he poo'"
together. -
those Indicted for perjury for swearing falseiy
that their eyesight was defective Both testi-
fed that some one had gone into the booth
with them. although neither was blind nor as
abled Both said they had. taken no oath
whatever Neither heard anything said about
total blindness.
CONTENTION OF THE DEFENCE.
Mr. McClelland said that he would show for
the defence that the substance of the oath was
administered in each case. Dunphy. in his own
behalf. said that he did not feel that he had
a right TO disfranchise voters because their
vision was defective. He denied having con-
fessed to a witness for the people that he had
no, administered the statutory oath. Thomas
Mcmahon, another election inspector OF the
precinct testified in corroboraton OF the ac-
cused man. James p. Hyland. the poll clerk.
declared that the oath Of physical disability was
put TO all who asked to have some one go IN
the booth with them. There were also several
witnesses to Dunphy's good character Mr.:
McClelland. in his address TO the jury. argued
that his client had honestly tried TO do his duty.
ARGUMENT OF MR.. wELLMAN.
In his closing address to the jury Mr.. Well.
man said:
propose 10 argue the contention that this de.
fendant unintentonay guilty Of a violation Of
the law. The defendant admits that he received
% h that he 'ns 0s
Early in the morning he showed his aeguain,tancs
x.rftI fha 1l. hAs mil isf -
blind man. Yet in the afternoon he put osths in
wnSs wor nc tota bndness Gan any honest man
lieve that his violation OF the law was uninten-
The defendant had an object in administering
such an oath. He wanted to avoid the law with
jury We do not attack the defendants character.
but simply call your attention to the motive which
defence says that he did not examine the poll clerk
and the ballot clerk before the trial II he dd not;
LAWYER. In case involving the liberty aysr OF ms ms
Ssn' %has testimony as S@1S they W would give VIII
not believe that these witnesses had not read the
drill drilled in it, for they 4 partly: while even
the lawyer must read it each time from MS BOOK
instrumental in securing twenty fraudulent votes.
10 per cent OF m the total vote this thers
election officers in the future.
JUDGE BARRETTs CHARGE.
In charging the jury, Judge Barrett said. in
| part:
This trial is one of grave Importance. While the
charge seems to be merely technical one, this Is
not So The alleged offence really strikes at the
very foundation Of ballot system. II has
seemed best our legislators that we should have
n secret ballot, and laws have been passed in ac-
cordance with this intention. II voter Is cor.
rupty approached there is now no way. under the
law in which a person can know whether that vote
was cast arranged. -
There is no question OF ignorance of the law in
this case for the defendant admits that In the
morning he administered the proper oath to blind
man il is agreed that the statutory oath was not
put in the other cases The defence is that the
oath given was substantially that prescribed by
law 7 do not hold the defendant to the strict
letter of the law. II he said entirely" blind. in
stead Of totally blind he cannot be held s to be be
even let the case go to jury But 4 the oath
administered was such that those who took It
falsely be convicted OF perjury, then the de-
! fendant did neglect to do his duty.
The jury retired at o'clock and in exactly
twenty-five minutes came in with verdict OF
i 49, i.a irdia