New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-15

lates any provision Of the election law relating
to the registration Of electors, is guilty Of any
fraud in the execution OF the duties OF ms
Office shall be punishable by Imprisonment lor
not less than two nor more than ten years Anu
the committing of the act Of aiding ana auet-
ting, inducing or commanding any person , III
the wrongful exercise of those functions is also
punishable. Judge Bartlett then advanced 10
the subject Of a construction Of the Election law
as applied to this particular case. lie saiu'
This law provides AMONG 9th e1,v tn in c,ies
but in rural or suburban communities, IKE the town
Of Grayend Each II town ec Is av dstct are three
inspectors Of election y Is y rGggTs sba i be- hcd
| The statute provides the manner in which lists OF
qualified voters shall be prepared and ceri i 10
remain in the custody of the chairman of the in
specors until the close Of the polls On Ggf@1
copies thereof shall at all reasonable hours be ae-
cessibe to the public for examination or FOR making
Under this provision of the law the inspectors Of
any wilfui violation of this provision subjects the
inspectors OF election to prosecution and punishment
gnG n The b se ease of OF the Eon Day in 1855 John
VI MURPHY Morton MOTIFS or ana ' in The r, e
ton district Of the Ta OF Of S s Of ySr re
was their duty to make three copies and certify
The Substance OF the charge against the three
| inspectors Of election. and as members OF the
Board of Registry. IL that after the Soth cay OF
| they violated the election law TO the registry
n
have the list Of voters and copies thereof accessl
| bic to the public for examination, ana the charge
| Command. induce and procure" such Inspectors to
commit crime. and did laid and abet' them in
He has demanded that he shall be tried sepa
ratey but although he Is thus tried alone it Is
who ere not on trial shall be considered although
The first question for you to determine IL whether
their guilt Is made out. 1t is necessary that the
| inspectors OF the First Election District ala
neglect and refuse TO perform the duties that the
| law imposed upon them IN Keeping copies Of the
| lists accessible to the public.
| CERTIFIED COPIES AS GOOD As ORIGINALS.
| Ny understanding OF the proof in this Is
| that the lists which were in the several polling
| places during the week preceding the election
copies but were the original registry lists. and
there is testimony 10 the effect that OF these
found in the morning and left in the evening
hanging to posts in the rooms he suGs1u S
manner could not have done any harm to the public
of the lists shsn be- posted the election law pre-
scrlbes no particular manner IL which the aces
maintained 1t seems TO me plain however; that
sPe not only wnsntss kat the public
should have access TO them. but imposes on them
Then if the inspector retains the copy It ia for You
10 say whether by leaving his house he ga moi err
did not inform some there 10 his intended
whereabouts. On the other hand if ne left his copy
u
in charge that ~ any should desire TO see
a copy an opportunity should be afforded for him
TO do
AS to this branch Of the case the contention OF
the prosecution IL that the wilful neglect and re-
fusai OF the inspectors OF the First District to keep
the list OF the copies accessible. shown by the
failure OF Gaynor's representatives,, Is part or
this case.
OTHER POINTS cpNsIDERED.
Judge Bartlett then reviewed SOM 6s the testi
Inony as 10 the occiNre noes at the homes OF sew
era Of the inspectors told by the men sent
down by Mr.. Gaynor to gain access to the lists.
Judge Bartlett charged that no inference against
the inspectors could be derived from the inter-
views with people at the houses If no mention
had been made OF the registry lists. The Court
left IL to the jury to decide whether the men who
had visited these houses did actually inquire for
the lists or whether they only inquired whether
the inspectors themselves were at home. In the
who went down 10 make copies OF the lists
and who visited the homes Of the inspectors did
really ask TO see the registry lists.
The Court considered the question as TO
whether these men had gone down I'm good faith
10 make the copies Then he came 10 the point
OF McKane's interference. and whether he
took part IN the obstruction in such a manner
as to render him liable as the principal. and
whether he directly "counselled commanded,
induced or procured" them to commit the crime
for which he stands charged.
Judge Bartlett then proceeded 10 the consid-
Grafton OF the Mayer interview. The Judge
/ said:
Both parties to the interview agree that at that
time the defendant expressed his willingness that
Mr. Gaynor should have copies OF the list In some
manner. but they disagree ms 10 one part OF the
conversation and that is the most important Ac-