Year: 1873

The trial of WILLIAM NJ TWEED, which
for the past three weeks has occupied so
much Of the public attention, ended yes
terday in a disagreement of the jury. IL
we are not misinforned, eleven OF them
were for the aoquittal of TWEED and only
one for conviction.


From the beginning, the prosecution
seem TO have anticipated some such con-
clusion rs this. 1t will be remembered
that after eleven jurors had been lnpau-
elled they desired to challenge perempto-
rily one Of those already sworn. They
declined 10 assign any reason for this novel
proceeding; and although IL afforded TO
the defence a serious ground of exception,
and exposed the whole trial to the danger
Of being nullihed in the event OF TwEED's
conviction, Judge DAVIS allowed the chal-
lenge. Next, after the jury was complete
and the trial had been commenced, the
District Attorney asked the Court to grant
him recess in order that he might con-
suit with his associates, because, as he said,
he had received communications which
made it doubtful whether the prosecution
should proceed at all. The precise nature
Of these communications is not known,
and it would be unjust and improper to
assert that they contained evidence Of any
deliberate intention on the part of any of
the jurors to violate their oaths by giving
verdict contrary to their own honest
judgment upon the evidence. But the fact
certainly shows that the District Attorney
has not at any time regarded this jury as
one from which he could probably obtain
q verdict of guilty.


No one, however, could have expected
there would be such disagreement as has
now actually occurred, or that any such
majority Of the jury would be in favor OF
acquittal. This surprising result is posi-
bly, due in some measure TO the want of
confidence so frankly expressed by the
prosecution at the outset; but il is due still
more we think to the extraordinary atti-
tude assumed by Judge DAVIS during the
whole Of the trial. The duty Of a Judge is
to hold the scales of justice evenly balanced
between the prosecution and the defence ;
to exhibit no bias toward either side; to
give as great latitude in the admission Of
evidence and the presentation of argu-
ments TO one party as to the other; and in
his charge to illustrate the testimony and
state the law to the jurors in n man
ner to enable them TO perform their
duty with justice, neither acquitting those
proved to be guilty nor convicting those
however guilty they may be supposed to
be-against whom no conclusive proofs
have been adduced. This is the ideal of a
Judge and Of the method of conducting n
trial but il is an ideal which Judge DAVIS
does not seem TO have had in mind for q
single moment. He tried the case as IL the
| chief object was not TO do justice, but TO
win the applause of a party. The only
purpose he exhibited was by all means to
convict the prisoner. Principles of law,
the courtesy due to counsel, and the rules
of evidence, all seemed of less account with
him than his desire to force conviction.
| Against such purpose the jury naturally
rebelled; aud the consequence OF these ex-
traordinary efforts by the Judge, going be-
| yond all that was done by the counsel for
the prosecution, is the next thing to a
unanimous acquittal of the prisoner.


During the progress of the trial repeated
attacks have been made upon the ability
OF the prosecution, especially by the TIT
bune. These attacks have worn very much
the appearance Of an attempt to favor the
acquittal of TWEED, doing by indirection
what there was not courage TO do openly.
But whatever may have been the motive,
ln v proper that We should say that the