New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-04-15
Jury. jury hearing case necessarily Judges
somewhat from the behavior of the defendant
GARDINER ON HIS DEFENCE.

GARDINER ON HIS DEFENCE.
rs Colonel Gardiner his defence here? asked
Mr. Untermyer.
rs he not on his defence here?" replied Mr..
Peckham. Then there is no possible reason Tor
this proceeding"
Mr. Untermyer was silent and counsel proceeded.
He declared that the condition Of the city proved
that the Police Commissioners must have guilty
knowledge OF the existence of the places referred
to in the newspapers.
II would not need any further evidence to convict
the Commissioners before jury" he declared
did you ever try?" queried Mr. Untermyer.
II have heard of trials in such cases where con-
viction should have obtained. but that the public
prosecutor showed that he also should have faced
an Indictment With places like the Haymarket
fourishing some one Is to blame With the law en-
forced city would be clean any city In
the world
80 IL is, and cleaner" interrupted Mr.. Inter
myer 81 sorry for those who SANDER our city"
81 am of Them replied Mr.. Peckham, eff to
tell the truth about the city be to SANDER It, If the
officials suffer such places to exist and say they
can't find them they should never be where this
Gardiner is now. but where he should be after
Indictment and conviction.
rs this anti-Tammany demonstration a
illegal argument asked Mr.. Untermyer
Does the cap fit Tammany?' was Mr. Peckhams
retort
Court.
Mr.. Peckham continued
Suppose the District Attorney did obstruct the
& THAT Il mary do m en-
Is admitted then why not in writing? If the Grand
ment the the individual members would be liable for
criminal libel If the learned District Attorney
for libel? Then jury may e rS on the s s
trict Attorney much to the disgust OF the pub
lic deserves any vindicatlon.
Mr.. Peckham took up the question of Dr. Park
bursts advice to the Grand Jury and said that it
did not refer in any way the District Attorney,
but to the prevalence of vice. He continued to
argue that. convinced they OF the exist
ence of gambling houses and disordery houses
when the District Attorney declined present
the evidence they asked for the Grand Jury could
do nothing but report those facts to the Court.
A presentment, Mr. Peckham said, Is not in
dictment necessarily; 1t may be report of a
dition of affairs that demands investigation.
Peckham, Mr. Gardiner should have the fullest
hearing before Jury to defend himself agalns tb an
the statements of the members of the Grand Jury,
and what they say of his neglect of duty he
could be convicted ard consigned to the penten-
tiaTyy r,o . . .s sos.ron
this record" he said in conclusion mo public ofi
hereafter will ever get possession of the true
sentiment of a Grand Jury
Judge Foster explained that his ruling cannot
destroy the presentment. The motion Is to expunge
The Court will not physically obliterate the rec
will remain the files. subject. of course TO the
rules of any higher court to which the ruling OF
Mr. Peckham said he believed Mr.: Untermyer
sentiment found in Brooklyn against Mayor Body
MIR. Untermyer suggests that there is no evil
dence to justify the presentment," said Judge Fos-
ter to Mr.. Peckham You suggest that this Court
Jury actuated by malice and intended to hurt
Colonel Gardiner, what remedy would Colonel
Gardiner have?"
Mr. Peckham said there intimaton of
malice. and Mr. Untermyer replied that the Grand
Jury from its first session had assumed an attt-
tude of hostility to the District Attorney, and had
refused examine witnesses subpoenaed by Colonel
Gardiner. Counsel then renewed his application
that the presentment be dismissed or expunged
from the record.
Judge Foster instructed counsel for Mr.. 'Gardf-
rer to serve notice upon the Attorney General as
what portions of the presentment his motion re-
ferred to and set Wednesday morning for the sub
mission of briefs