The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1902-07-19

down there on one occasion. had con-
siderable money in my clothes, and had
to go through the country down there
| looking for the secretary, and he came
with me. and at various times he came up
to Scranton, but at no time was there
| any understanding that he was to receive
| any money for his vote. Mr.. kilcoyne
| told me that his expenses were $50. l
said. 'They are very small. Tom, and
don't think Sillman will have any hesi-
tation at all in paying them" .kilcoync
| also testifies to the same effect.
THE WITNESS FEES.
| C.-The payment of witness fees to
councilmen. Several of the councilmen
received from the agent of the defend
ant each fifteen dollars witness fees and
mileage, five dollars at one time and ten
| dollars at another time. They attended
| several hearings, the number of days
varying, according to the testimony, from
| four or five to fifteen days. 1t appears
that this money was paid before the first
ordinance was declared Illegal There is
| no evidence connecting the payment of
said witness fees with the action of the
Icouncilmen in their official capacity.
| D.-The alleged payment by p w. Gal
lagher of the sum of five hundred dollars
| to three councilmen before the passage
of the first ordinance. The testimony of
| L. w. IallaSIeT is tHe only cNlueHCe III
| the case Of a direct bride paid to the
councilmen. This testimony is given
without equivoCation. The witness tes-
| titles that he not only paid money to the
cOuncilmen in order to secure their votes
| for the ordinance. but that he received
| the money from Mr.. Sillman, the mana
ger of the Scranton Railway company.
| to be used corruptly. What does the evil
dence show as to this positive charge OF
bribery? In considering this evidence. it
must not be forgotten that the answer
positively denies the allegation of bri-
| berry as set forth in the plaintiffs bill,
and that in consequence of this rcspon-
| sive answer the law requires certain
standard of proof from the plaintiffs. But
| apart from this, the three councilmen in
volvcd emphatically deny the bribery,
and so does Mr.. Silliman, the manager
of the Scranton Railway company. 1t is
a case of four witnesses against one.
Whatever may be said as to the degree
OF proof necessary to sustain plaintiffs
allegation of bribery, it is certain that it
would be unsafe to find that the allega-
tion is true when it is so emphatica
denied, as we'll as so inadequately proven.
l therefore find that the plaintiffs have
failed in their contention charging brib-
cry, so far as the passage of the second
ordinance is concerned and that the tcs
timony of p. w. Gallagher and all the
circumstances disclosed by the evidence.
are insufficient to warrant finding that
the sum of five hundred dollars was paid
to influence the official action OF the
councimen in conenction with either or
dinance.
FREE PASSES.
g. AS to the free passes and the payment
of witness fees referred to in the second
finding and the bearing these matters
have on the second ordinance. I adopt
the finding of Judge Gunster in his opin-
ion modifying the Injunction, Wherein he
saws:
"As soon as the giving of passes by the
comnanv, and the acceptance thereof by
members of the borough council had
been declared illegal and improper. the
councilman who had passes Immediately
surrendered them to the comDany and
as far as 7 can Judge. the ordinance of
August oS 1890 was introduced and passed
because n majority of the borough coun-
oil honestly thought IT should he done for
the hcrenfit of the community. The fact
that thoy were maid their witness fees
and exnenses at the former hearing by
the agent of the company. does not an
near TO have ANYTHING to do with this
ordinance. That was all done in con-
nection with the first ordinance. and was
done hefore that ordinonce was declared
,iIer.1 T have examined the testimony
careful,y. and while the corncilmen who
voted for tho present ordinance are the
son,e conncilmen who voted for tho frst
one, / cannot find that their votes in the
present case were cast from improper
motives or procured by improper means"
A. 1t may be we'll said that many sus-
picious circumstances are disclosed by
the evidence, and that some things have
been done which deserve condemnation.
The employment of councilman to do
work in itself legitimate, when he Is in
a position to grant official favors in re-
turn, opens the door to criticism and sus-
picion; the payment of fees to council
men who are witnesses, in excess of the
amount allowed by law; donations to
churches, under the circumstances the
donations were maus, OF atlenptea TO ne
Hiaoe' W 'he ueie''.an. . as.h's ~ 'Iis
casea. NJ, e ~ go 30, 30 s"oa.u ', ne
aVoloeu' Iney nle spi'ic VI we tircu'n-
stances rel'eu upoi. ny .he p1ain,i'S 10
corropora'e .ne ,ess,ilions VI IL w, Sai-
lasher u, VIZ '.a,Se VI oMou. piipery
coh'al'ieu -. n'' 'es'i''ois, t>r'cithe,ess'
the hiost 'na' e",l y. saw apout these
circumstance 10 'ta' 'n's 'ohu u GREATS
suspicloli aiiu "vup.' ns sehc.ui con-
ciusioi, OF iac', oaspu upon eohsiuera-
lioli oi an .no e',le't'e; il'u tilal ~ mas
ordinance OF august ~ iess, by the coun-
en- ol 'iu ne polpuSn n,p VI o,u fo,se. was pro,
n,oans ~ ''''"'''
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -