The Newark star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1909, 1909-11-18

that its recommendation that no fur
ther action be taken by Council in the
premises be and the same is hereby
concurred in
The minority report vas as follows:
Resolved, That on the 4th day of
May, 1909, Alderman Bray committed
disorderly conduct within the meaning
of section 26b of the city charter, in
tina he, the said James A. Bray, cor
ruptly intending to obtain money for
voting as a member of the stationery
committee to override the opinion of
City Counsel Nugent that the bid of
the w. II. Shurts Co. was unbalanced
did, on the said 4th day Of May, 1909,
receive offer of a bribe of $100 from
Joseph A. Wright, alias Mr.. Schwartz
and did make an appointment with the
said Joseph A. Wright, alias Mr..
Schwartz to meet him OH the evening
of the said 4th day of May at the Hotel
Broad, in the city of Newark, for the
purpose of receiving the said bride, and
did attend the said appointment with
intent to accept the said bride.
Resolved, That the said James A.
Bray be placed on trial before the Com
mon Council upon the aforesaid charge
and that due notice of the hearing
thereof by Council be given to him
pursuant to the requirements of the
charter of the city of Newark"
Alderman Wright entered tne Coun-
Gil chmalnber before roll call, but as
an interested party declared he should
not vote. He was recorded as among
those voting for the majority report,
however, as was Bray. who did not
vote at all.
OF the $1,000 appropriated for the use
of the committee in the investigation,
which has dragged on since the COM
mittee was appointed on June 4, ST.
96S.S0 has been spent. Louis Hood,
counsel for the committee, who wrote
the majority report. received $1,11s.S5.
The bill of Walter Ressland, the Coun-
Gil s-tenographer, for his transcript and
stenographic report, was $724.6O. The
fees and expenses of serving subpoenas
amounted to 5000, which will be paid
to Chief of Police Corbitt. The remain
ing $685. goes to Alderman Charles H.
Gaffeney, chairman of the committee,
for Incidental expenses.
Every one who has followed the re-
ports of the Bray hearings is famil-
lar with the story of the chain Of cir
oumstances which led Alderman Bray
TO request that his official conduct be
Investigated. 1T concerns the occur
rences of May 4 last, when Alderman
Joseph A. Wright. at the instance of
City Counsel James r. Nugent, tele-
phoned Bray and represented himself
to be a "Mr. Schwartz and made
an engagement to meet Bray that eve
ming at the Hotel Broad, testimony
being to the effect that the Fourteenth
Warder was enticed to make the date
by an offer Of a %..hundred,' the plan
being to trap him.
After Alderman MCGOWAN had agreed
with Alderman Congleton in his stand
and had said that as the committee had
been unable to agree upon an ~exonera-
ton, the Council should go deeply into
the matter and decide if an %exonera-
tion was possible, Alderman John F..
Sinnott, one of the majority members,
said: This majority report is not an
generation. Any man who followed
the testimony from beginning to end,
could not honestly and conscientiously
come to any other conclusion than that
of the majority. 1t is worthy of note
that no party lines were drawn, but
that five of the seven members signed
the report. It is a fair and honest re-
port"
lii reply to this Alderman Congieton
said:
II have honestly and conscientiously
listened TO the evidence in this case and
spent much time in studying it. /
have my report with that evidence
alone i'll mind
Alderman Emil Wohlfarth, another
member of the committee, said that he
had felt like a grand juror when he
examined the evidence in the case.
II did not consider the evidence
enough to put the man On trial before
the Council" he said. THE conclusion
I have reached is that l would not
stand in favor of trying him unless
there was absolute proof, unless he act
ually received something" He asked
his associates to vote as their con-
sciences dictated, and to look at the
case as if Bray was their 'own
BROTHER
Alderman Congleton was the only
Republican to vote for the proposition
to substitute the minority report, and
it was defeated, 6 to %.
Those in the affirmative were: Congle-
ton, Ryan. MCGOWAN, Day, Eisner and
Semel. Against were: Aldermen Baum,
Biertuempfcl, Cairns, Dolan, Fischer,
Gaffeney, Harrington, Hopper, Hop
ping, Huegel, %Ingraham, Kroehl,
Mount. Schmitt, Seeker, Sinnott, Smith,
Shape. Taylor. Vossmeyer, Wohlfarth
and President Pennington.
Bray didn't vote and Aldermen Whit
field, Wright and Mills were absent.
Wright entered the council chamber
before the roll call on the main aues-
ton and although he protested and
refused to vote, declaring that as a
principal in the case he should be ex-
cused, the rules were enforced and all
who didn't vote were recorded with
the majority in the Affirmative, Alder
men Congleton. McGowah, Day, Ryan,
Eisner and Semel voted against the
majority report SC that the oflcial
record shows that t Council disposed
of the Bray case without unanimous
action. with Bray and Wright recorded
In favor of the adoption OF the report
the official tally sheet shows "a in favor
8 against. with Whitfield and Mills
absent.
The majority report which was
ordered filed embodied most Of the
testimony which has been heard in the
various hearings before the committee.