Year: 1874

for him to do, it was more than could be &C
conplished during the financial depression
and alarm ut that time. He could neither
sell property nor borrow money on it, while
three months before he could have raised the
whole sum without difficulty.


When the time arrived for him to deliver


the money and other property to his success


sor, he was short in the sum of $508, 900


(not S5S2, 1000, as was incorrectly stated yes


terday), including interest The city authori-


ties at once repudiated any responsibility


under the implied agreement with Gage in


1869, and held him pecuniarily responsible


for the whole deficit, and criminally re-


sponsible for Ill that he failed to turn over to


his successor He vacated the Office late in


December, and was indicted on the 5th of


January, first for perjury in swearing to his


monthly accounts, and, secondly, for not


turning over to his successor $50S, 1000 of the


city money. The first Indictment was pro-


nounced defective and quashed, and it WAS on


the second that lie Was tried Inst week, and


acquitted.


On the trial the defense offered to prove


the fact Of Cages proposition in $40 !;


tho favorable opinion thereof by the Finance


Committee and Corporation Counsel; the no.


torious fact that Gage proceeded to act upon


the implied assent Of the city to that propo-


sition that Gage in good faith actually paid


into the City Treasury about $3.50, 200 inter-


est-money; that the city accepted that mon


ey; and that no one on the part of the city


then, or until he left Office, objected to the


arrangement; that OF his deficit, S115,o0


was locked up in a suspended National Bank,
and that $4,000 was otherwise beyond his
reach in another bank; that he had conveyed
Ill his own property of every kind to trus-
tee, to be held aud sold when possible, and
the proceeds applied to liquidate hisindebted-
ness to the city. AL this evidence was ex-
cluded By the Court, but it was that Kind of
evidence which addressed itself to the
question OF the moral intention of the &c
cused officer. Legally speaking, the Court Was
right, but the equity of the defense was not
thereby 1essened- Moreover, in the amount
with which he was charged with not handing
charged against himself under the very i'm
piled agreement now repudiated by the city,
and the evidence OF which was excluded from
the jury. The amount charged against him
was $50S, ZOO; this included the $3.50, 900 Of
deposit interest, and the $751; in tho sus-
pended National Bank, and the $4,000 of
other items, making in all $4,000 leaving
his actual deficit OF public money about
$24s, 200 morally due the city, and claimed
by him to have been invested under the gen.
oral license for the use OF the city, and to
secure which he had transferred all his
Though the law under which he
was indicted does not mako the act felony,
nor require, as in the case of larceny, that
felonious intent be established to complete
the crime, the jury evidently, if their verdict
was an honest one, took in the whole ex-
cluded defense, gave to it Ill the weight that
it could have had if admitted, and, believing
that Gage had an implied warrant and agree
nent with the city to lend the money for the
use Of the city, at his own discretion, and
that he never intended to keep dollar Of it,
and would have returned it all had he not
been overtaken by the sudden and unex-
pected financial panic, gnve him an acquitta
The rigid exclusion of the entire defense,
strictly legal as it may have been, had the ef-
feet, perhaps, of giving to that defense
an influence much greater than it was en-
titled to, and greater than it would
have received had it been admitted
and then controvarted by all the facts.


1t is hardly necessary to moralize on this
trial and this verdict. But it is pertinent to
ask wherein is the business of the Office Of
City Treasurer administered now any differ
ent than it was under Gage's proposition and
assumed agreement with the city in 1869.
Where is tie law under which, if the Treasurer
defaults, there can be criminal prosecution?
The Revised Code, Chap. 3s, Sec II, defines
to be larceny. Any officer or
person employed by private corporation,
bank, broker, commission merchant, or rail-
road company, who embezzles or converts to
his own use money or property is to be pun
lshed as for larceny. ANY State, county,
township, city, town, or village officer who
embezzles or fraudulent1y converts to his own
use any public money or property, on conyic-
ton, is to be imprisoned from one to fifteen
years in the Penitentiary. Ordinarily this
ought to cover such q case but would
it apply to the case of a City Treasurer
authorized by long usage, implication, and
consent to lend tie public money at his own
discretion for the use Of the city, and who
loses portion Of that money by the failure
Of such investment? Is not the time come
when the city should abandon this interest
business altogether; when it should with
draw all sanction or authority to any lending
Of the public money, and should hold the
Treasurer directly responsible on his bond
and criminally under the law for any deficit?
The city cannot demand of the Treasurer
interest on the deposits without assuming the
risk which any loaning Of the public money
involves.


THE CONDITION OF WABASH AVENUE,


The present condition of Wabash avenue is
fr +ho Nil,