New-York tribune., 1899-06-10

.erk of the Court OF Soeclal sessions; Danlel
r,vs,hard a deputy tax commissioner: Colonel
49,. BIRD Gardiner, District-Attorney; Thomas
uav6en a deputy tax commissioner. and
-..res Roth were the witnesses examined yes
..raav before the Mazet committee Their tes-
,,rnony follows In full:
COLONEL GARDINER Is LATE.
-, .,s ABSENCE Mr.. MOSS SHOWS BIG
LIST OF DISMISSED INDICTMENTS.
rD. Chairman called the committee to order at
Mr. Moss-Is any one here representing Colonel
Gardner?
:. Wr McKenna here? (No response)
nil say Mr. Chairman, that after the promise
~ the chief clerk yesterday TO serve the subpoena
80 Mr. Gardiner OF course relied upon the
S.o-,,.e ss given. and am prepared to call for
-. u,i,ness whom We have subppnaed.
- - Cno,rman-You have received no Information
from the office?
Nv Noss-No Information whatever. l will say,
rhue IN This subject. that we have had some cor
.s,ondence with the Dstrict-Attorney, as we have
Am ALL OF the officers. Generally speaking we have
,.ceived the information that we have asked FOR
,,o, the different public officers, but we nave not
49, ouite so successful IN getting information
., the istrict-Attorneys Office in trying to get
a., s,stis,ics Of the office The first correspondence
=, under date of May 1893: Il have your favor Of
The lsi inst | gather the inquiry you make is In
reterence TO the inquiries made by the Grand Jury
near the end Of the February term last past My
reply was not a report In writing, but conndentiai
records OF the office upon every subject upon which
thew have made inquiry. were submitted TO them
priyatey at their session Very respectfully. your
obedient servant Asa Bird Gardiner. District-At-
torney."
That I understand was the second communication
This IS the first April %. have your favor or
18th inst This Office has no printed reports ana
being constitutional office is not required TO make
reports 10 any one. Were it otherwise would
with Measure send YOU the desired document l
am dear sir very respectfully, your oOedlent ser
want. Asa Bird Gardiner Distrct-Attorney.
That letter being answered brought out the one
FIRST read Later than that and on the 2ith or
Nav we succeeded in getting this report from the
chief clerk: Memorandum TO certain work done
IN the District-Attorney's office, from January J.
1895. 10 May l. 1899. Total number of indictments
turned over by the preceding administration on
January / 1885 29ll Number OF cases presented to
the Grand Jury. 1851. Indictments found. 1880
Complaints dismissed 24u. That is before the
Grand Jury Number Of indictments disposed Of by
the Supreme Court and the Court of General
Sessions $3.50 Number Of cases actually disposed
Of in Special Sessions outside Of indictments, 0,g'2
Amount collected forfeited bonds, s2s.22S. Dur
ing the April OF this year 5S6 cases considered
BY the Grand Jury. of which 23l were indictments
Two thousand hve hundred subppnas served for the
April Grand Jury and 200 per diem in the Court
OF General Sessions No appeals to higher courts
reversed except three, and these reversals were In
ole cases where convictions were had under previous
ADMINISTRATIONS in which reversals were eminently
proper Fines imposed by the Court or General
Sessions are collected In that court
SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY
CASES DISMISSED.
The Chairman-Is there any memorandum ind-
eating the disposal of the indictment?
Mr Moss-That we will show in another place.
Now II appears from this report that the number
OF cases actually disposed OF in the Court of Special
Sessions was 5972 1t will be shown that proper
tonatey a very few Of the cases tried in Special
Sessions are actually tried by the District-Attor-
ney's Office All health and milk cases are tried by
special counsel and II is only when case requires
considerable examination as to facts that 'he D's-
tric,-Attorney tries them. The number of indlct-
men,s dismissed by the Supreme Court ana 0peoiai
Sessions IS stated 10 be ESQ.
We subppnaed the Clerk Of the Court Of Genera!
Sessions to produce record OF indictments uis-
missed and Of defendants discharged on their own
recognizance by the consent or on the motion OF
the trict-Attorney Those records were given US,
also an opportunity TO look at the original papers
with great freedom and kindness. We find that
there we're dismissed in the Criminal Branch OF tne
Supreme Court from January !. 1898. 10 May o. 1892
fourteen cases and in the Court Of General Sessions
during the same period the number Of indictments
dismissed was $50. In the Supreme Court the num-
ber Of persons whose bail discharged on the
consent OF the DstriCt-Attorney SO, and In the
Court Of General Sessions 1872 so that the entire
number Of indictments disposed of on the motion
by the consent OF the DistrictAttorney In these
courts was 2OOl. The statement shows that the
District Attorney has disposed OF $50 cases Now
If that report is correct and the return Of the re-
port OF General Sessions is correct IT shows that
out Of $3.50 cases. 20Ol were actual dsmlssas by
the motion or on the consent OF the Distrct-At-
torney
| have had a hasty tabulation OF these cases
dismissed on the Dstrict-Attorney's motion made
and | find that 365 OF them were cases for grand
larceny of different degrees; 279 OF them were for
assault first second and third degree: 81 OF them
were forgery 80 burglary 81 disOrdeTy houses: 81
false registration; 100 cases OF misdemeanor; 46
keeping gambling houses; Il pool selling. 42 policy
65 petit larceny; 81 robbery and robbery and ex-
tortion: Al receiving stolen goods Sc liquor tax
cases: 265 excise cases 10 libel; l9 OF injury 10
property: 10 abducon 30 for perjury IS for felony.
styled; is receiving stolen goods: murders 3
for bigamy: bucket shops, boOkmaking which
IS much the same pool selling 25 for manslaugh-
ter; for rape; for arson; for attempted larceny
6 conspiracy; for attempted burglary.
NEARLY EVERY KNOWN CRIME
Nearly every crime In the catalogue is included In
these dism.ssals.
The Chairman-Does not the record OF each indct-
ment disclose the reason upon which the recon-
made 10 the Court for the dis
charge?
Mr. Moss-Every indictment has an Endorsement
either by the Distric-Attorney by the Assistant
showing the reason assigned by
the Court. OF course the Court acts entirely upon
the representation made by the District-Attorney
and holds the DistrictAttorney responsible for that
representation. The Court makes the order, but the
Court seldom inquiries into the circumstances
When the District-Attorney has made the recon-
the Court acts as a matter Of course.
The Chairman-Mr. Moss. presume you have no
detailed information as to the reason of this enor
nous number OF dismissal without being