The herald., 1898-01-31

Before proceeding 10 discussion in de
tail of the evidence which has beer
produced before the Board of Educa
ton by the prosecution and defense il
the course of the trial of the charge:
against Director Webb, l desire to no
tice briefly two claims Oft repeated ant
insisted upon by the defense in this ac'
tion. and its friends. to-wit: First, tha
there is no evidence of the defendant
ever having himself demanded or re-
ceived for an official act, any corrupt
consideration directly from any person
to he benefited by such act: second
that the only evidence adduced against
the defendant comes from the uncor'
roborated testimony of two witnesses
who are self-confessed perjurers. anc
whose testimony. if true, puts them II
the position of accompliCes in tht
crimes of which they testify.
The first of these claims merely
states the difficulty most often mel
with in prosecuting and convicting the
ringleader in a scheme of official rob
berry. 1t is rare that any man. witt
sufficient ability and enough lack OF
conscience to plan and carry into exc
cution such an extensive scheme ol
public plunder as that which is showr
to have ramified throughout portion
of the Board of Education. and the op'
portunity to find among his official as
sociates men equally immoral but OF
inferior intelligence to himself. who
may be by him used as the tools ful
the purpose of doing the dirty work tt
which he, from motives of prudence
does not desire to directly put his
hands, will be found in direct connec'
tion with the criminal acts. Indeed
with such ready instruments at MS
hands as were to be found in Adams
and Axtell: men with so little con-
science and at the same time no grea'
apparent intelligence to guard theil
actions as was evidenced by these par
ties, and especially by Adams, it would
have been surprising had man OF the
defendants known intelligence and as
tuteness found it necessary to put
himself next to any sort of crime which
he might have planned and carried ou'
in connection with his position upor
the board and with the assistance ol
such colleagues. So that the mere tac'
that the defendant, being. as we know
him to be, a person of more than usua
intelligence and ability. did not, MN
self. directly commit the crimes com
planned of. but might rather have
taken the part of chief planner an'
plotter and trusted to those others t'
do the dirty work. is not only not sur
prising, but is an extremely natuia
situation under the circumstances.
AS to the second claim. concedlng iof
the sake of argument. that no conNle,
ton should be had or could be sustained
upon the merely uncorroborated tesu-
mony of two witnesses of the character
which Adams and AXtell have shown
themselves to possess, it is the conten-
tion of the prosecution that this testl-
mony is so backed up, supported ana
sustained by facts and circumstances
surrounding it that it is shown to he
true by evidence outside of itself.
HIS PROUD BOAST
In the early days of the investigation
and before formal charges We're flee
against Director Webb, and in the
course of his cross examination ol
Adams, in addressing himself to the
Board of Education in response to the
charge of Adams that he, Webb, hat
run the Board of Education with al
iron hand, he said: And gentlemen
before we get through, you will find
did run the. Board of Education witt
an iron hand, just exactly to keep sucf
men as this, sitting in that chair dndi'
eating Adams) just where they belong
and i can prove it to you. You vii
find it out" This was proud boast
on the part of Mr.. Webb, and if the
testimony subsequently taken for and
against the charges filed against him
made that boast good, most assuredly
he would have deserved nothing at the
hands of the Board of Education sc
much as a vote vindicating him most
fully. That it did not sustain this
boast, but that on the contrary the
evidence showed that every corrupt
deal that was gone into; every robbery
of teacher, janitor and contractor that
was testified to: every breach of the law
that was discovered in all the course
of the investigation. occurred among
his most intimate associates in the bust
ness of the board. | shall endeavor to
make plain. If this can be shown; il
the testimony establishes beyond a
question that this defendant was sur
rounded on every side in his immediate
neighborhood by corruption; that his
most intimate associates upon the
board; his most intimate and chosen
associates in the business of the board
We're active instruments in this cor
ruption; that those who dared hold IN
teachers, janitors, and contractors, Were
the men most under his influence, and
that the subsequent statement or con-
fessions under oath of these men, i'm
pllcating him, are supported all along
the line by the hundred incidents which
grow out of and attend every human
transaction, then it would appear that
the claim that the only Testimony
against the defendant consists in the
uncorrohorated evidence of two per
jured witnesses is not true and should
be given no weight
HIS ORGANIZATION
AT the beginning Of the bisiorv of
this board-in its very organization-
we are confronted by facts which in
the light of the testimony taken unon
this examination. ii appears to me, are
of the most significant character. as
relating to the innocence or guilt Of
this defendant, and which, aside from
that, possess a value to thu uublic as
illustrating the way in which public
bodies may be organized for The rur-
pose of serving the corrupt ru!s Of
certain members Of them. If there las
been one thing more than another eg-
tablished, by all the evidence iaken
before the Board Of EducatIsn. j, is
that the most powerful ana potent fac
tor in the business Of that board was
this defendant: thai the peculiar
qualities of mind and character Tog-
sessed by him, his intelligence, aggres-
siveness. and force of character. made
him above all others upon the board
the leading and managing spirit
thereof. SO fully is this in evidence.
that II appears to be a well founded
presumption that he had at least as
much if not more, than any other