The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-03-07

JAMES P. HEALEY
 the very inception of the conspir- acy he reprimanded Purcell, par ticipated in the hiring O. s4evy, and his connection with the latter's operations including the attempt to procure his silence or cooperation during the investigation was such as to justify an inference that he was participating in the "kick backs" In 1885 and 1887, in addi- ton to being mayor of the city and prominent in state politics, he was lieutenant governor Of the state and presiding officer in the Senate. He participated in the hiring of the lob- byists Mackenzie and Williamson and directed their activities per- sonally throughout both sessions. As chairman of the board of fi- nance, as well as mayor, he must have known of the size of the pay msnts to various favored contract ors and the methods used to con- ceal those payments.
 The Illustrative instances already discussed are ample to connect Lea " and Kelly with the conspiracy. 2
 None of these defendants took the stand. While 1t is true that they were under no legal obligation to do SO, the jury in weighing the evi- dence, were entitled to draw an un- favorable inference from their fail- ure to testify.
 Three Categories
 In the appeals from the judg- ments, the defendants assign errors in the action of the trial court in overruling various motions, in sus- taining demurrers to their pleas in abatement, and in overriding their motions to quash. Most of the matters raised in these motions fall substantially into three general ca- tegories: (D those assailing the validity of the appointment of the special states attorney, and his as- sistants and his right to prosecute; {; (2) those involving claims of IT, regularity In the proceedings of the grand jury; and (3) those Involving the claim thet the defendants could not be arrested and brought to trial upon an information of the states attorney without a preliminary hearing. It appears that on Feb ruary 4, 1888, the states attorney and assistant states attorney for Waterbury filed with the Superior Court an application setting forth that for several weeks they had been conducting an investigation into the financial affairs of the city of Waterbury covering operations during the last few years and the disappearance, under very suspicious circumstances, from the cosnptrol- ler's office, of important financial records; that in their opinion a grand jury should be at once im- panelled to determine whether there had been violations of law and whether or not 6 prosecution should be instituted; that they felt the public interest required such an in- vestigation and that any prosecu- tions which might result therefrom should be conducted by an attor- ney who did not reside or practice in Waterbury and had no contacts of 8 business or social nature with any who might be involved; that inasmuch as the applicants had re- sided and practiced law in Water bury during their entire profess sional careers, they believed they were disqualified from further con- ducting the Investigation, and any prosecutions that might result therefrom; and they prayed that a special attorney be appointed by the court, under 829d of the 1897 Sup- plement to the General Statutes, set forth in the footnote, 1 to conduct the investigation to a conclusion and for the further purpose of in- stituting and conducting such prose- cutions as might be warranted. On the same day, an order was en- tered by the Superior Court grant, ing the application and appointing Hugh M. Alcorn as special attorney and Harold E. Mitchell and Hugh M. Alcorn, Jr., as assistants ito con- duct the investigation referred to in the application" Later. after the information was filed but before the trial was commenced. the court, on October 25. 1888. entered an order confirming the appointment Of the special prosecutor and his assistants and directing them to prosecute the cases of the defendants to effect.
 Court Justified
 The trial court was justified, in the absence of any objection. in acc cepting as true the statements of the states attorney for the judicia. district of Waterbury and his as- sistants. sworn officers Of the court made in the application and con- firined by their presence before it, and the reasons given were Q suffi- cient bafis for the court to exercise its discretion in holding them dis- qualified to carry oi the proceeding.