The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-12-21

signed and presented this indictment of
1882 which was in every legal detail and
particular exactly similar l do not wish
to make any criticism or comment on the
action of the Grand Jury or of the prose-
cutor, but / will let the facts speak for
themselves.
The prosecutor, judging from his state
ment, seems to have conceived the no.
ton that the offence charged against the
defendant in the Indictment in question
turned upon some difficult and abstruse
problem in bookkeeping. He therefore.
he says, engaged an expert accountant.
There was no more need of an expert ac-
ceuntant in the premises than there was
for an expert astronomer. A subpoena di-
rected to the County Collector, when the
Grand Jury was investigating this matter
would have enabled the prosecutor to
learn, from a source of undoubted know
ledge and veracity whether or not the
Board by paying the Heller claim on Feb
ruary 2, 1899, had exceeded the appropria-
ton for the fiscal year ending November
so, 1899 The very allegation in the in
dictrnent that the Board paid the claim
and thus exceeded the appropriation con-
tradicts itself. For if the claim was paid
it must necessarily have been paid out of
the appropriation of the current year; and
if it was paid out of that appropriation
there must have been funds in thai appro-
priation to meet it; and thus while the
payment of the claim might possibly have
exhausted the appropriation it could not
possibly have exceeded the appropriation.
AS matter of fact. as I have already
said, the payment of the claim neither ex-
ceeded nor exhausted the appropriation,
but there was, after its payment, a bal
ance of over 100000 to the credit of the
appropriation.
The Grand Jury found this indictment
in November, 1899, and they surely may be
assumed to have known that the appro-
priation had not been exceeded in the
preceding February. The prosecutor in
his statement says among his reasons for
entering mol pros as to these indictments,
that two of the defendants are dead, that
the other defendants have gone out of
office, and that they have been succeeded
by men in the present Board who have
started with 'many professions of re-
FORM
To what extent he was Influenced in his
action by any or. all of these reasons he
does not say. The fact that two out of
twenty-eight alleged criminals have died
since the indictment can scarcely be taken
to establish the innocence of the surviv-
ing twenty-six The fact that twenty-six
alleged criminals, whose offence consisted
in official corruption have retired from
Office can scarcely be taken as a valid
reason for not Furnishing them for their
misconduct while in office. The fact that
alleged dishonest officials have been sue
ceeded in office by honest officials can
scarcely be regarded as a justification or
vindication of the former. These alleged
reasons have manifestly nothing to do
with the action of the Prosecutor in
abandoning these indictments. He aban-
doned them because there was no evidence
of any misconduct of any kind on the
part of the defendants or any of them.
The two other indictments against the
Board were respectively for conspiracy
and for corruptly purchasing excessive
quantity OF goods at excessive prices.
The Prosecutor says in his statement as
to these indictments, that there is no
this he is correct He also says that the
law applicable to them is the same as the
law applicable to the indictment for ex-
ceeding the appropriation. In this he is
wrong.
Here, then, is the situation. The entire
Board of Freeholders are indicted for
three serious offences, two of them in
volving moral terpitude and corruption,
and the third imputing a reckless degree
of negligence to the accused. These in
dictments are presented in November,
1899; the defendants are publicly arraigned
in court; are required to give bail for
their appearance are exposed to ignominy,
contempt and infamy; are injured in their
business and professions; are socially and
politically ostracised; and after being
subjected to this enormous outrage for
the space of nine months the discovery
is announced that there is no evidence of
any kind of any wrong doing on their
part, and that they are not and were not
guilty of any crime or offence or of any
official misconduct, negligence or laxity
in the execution of their office as Free
holders of this county. Now, surely
some one should be held responsible for
this gross perversion of Justice. The
Prosecutor tries to unload the RESPONSE
bility for the finding of these indictments
on the Grand Jury, and the responsibility
for the delay in mol pressing them on
the expert accountant. Those who know
much about the methods of Grand Juries
will not be very apt to think that the
Grand Jury which found these indict-
ments would have found them if the
Prosecutor had not advised that as a
matter of law, the evidence disclosed
criminality. 1t is almost incredible that
the Grand Jury should find these or any
indictments against the advice of the
Prosecutor. There is probably no firmer
bullwork of personal and political liberty
than the Grand Jury system when honest
ly and capably administered. There is no
greater engine of oppression than the
Grand Jury system when not honestly
and capably administered. / think may
leave 1t to the conscience and Judgment
of the people of this county, irrespective
of politics, to say whether or no the find
ing of these indictments affords an Illus
tration of the Grand Jury system honestly
and capably administered.
JOSEPH A. RIORDAN,
Ex-Freeholder.
Harrison, N j., December, 21, 1900.
H0B0KEN POUND MIDDLE
Randolph Perkins Sells the Prom.