Year: 1873

The case of William Nj. Tweed was uneX-
pectedly given to the jury yesterday; the
closing speeches of the counsel having been
materially shortened. After the jury had been
closeted for three hours without agreeing the
Court adjourned until ten o'clock this morn
ing when we shall probably learn that an
agreement is impossible. We have before had
occasion to express doubts of the present sue
cess of clumsily conducted prosecution. The
prospects at the adjournment of the Court
last night did not encourage us to change our
minds.


The truth is that too much time was wasted
in bringing Mr. Tweed and the others accused
with him to trial. To force their trial was
doubtless not advisable until the Bench had
been purged of the men who would have ruled
and charged to suit their accused cOnfeder-
ateS. But the greatest obstacle to the success
of the people has been the almost fatal bundersof
the Acknowledgement and his associates in franz
ing faulty indictments, found out OF season,
by Grand Juries without legal existence; then
in suppementng them by others so vOluminOus
as to be almost inexplicable; and finally in
depending upon testimony of infOrmers, OF
which it is not III the nature of the humanity
of which juries are usually made to be alto
gether unsuspiciOus. The documentary evl-
dence against Tweed we have always believed
to be conclusive; the oral testimony of Gar
vey and Davidson simply weakened it. We do
not mean that in reality it was not cOniirna-
tory, but with the average jury their statements
would rather tend to create diStruSt than con-
tidence. The result of the Hall trials the
differences OF opinion of judges as to the mean
ing of the word audit" and the quashing OF
indictments found against Tweed's alleged ac-
completes, on the ground that they were ille-
galy found have also had such effect in
hndering justice, that the present doubtful
issue of this case surprises us less than it
grieves.


We had occasion to say, yesterday, that
Judge Davis had ruled inexOrably against
Tweed. We may add this morning that his
charge to the jury was as positive and direct
against the prisoner as his rulings. Had as
severe an opinion as to the meaning OF the
word audit" and the duties and responsible
tiles of the auditors, been made in the
Hall case GOr upon this point that
case turned), it is more than likely disagree
ment would not have followed. Judge Davis
charged in effect that the duty to audit en-
braced the personal examination of all
accounts, and that such duty could not be
delegated. He moreover charged that any
omission to audit was willful neglect, and
threw out altogether the plea of Ignorance of
duty, declaring that every officer is bound
to know the duties devolving upon him;
decision which if not speedily reversed, and
public officers have any fear or conscience
left, ought to create general cOnsternation
His ruling as to the facts was equally positive
and severe Altogether the people and the
prosecution have no reason TO quarrel with
the Judge, however they may have reason to
think lightly of the efforts of counsel.


We hope the day may bring us better
result than we anticipate at this writing. In
our comments pending this trial while not
concealing our fears of the result, we have
endeavOred TO say nothing calculated to
prejudice the case, favorably or unfavOrably,
to the prisoner. We have no confidence in
the sagacity of the jurors; they are below
the average intelligence of metropolitan jury
men. We shall deeply depore an acquittal,
which might have been averted; but in any
case we shall have no reason to anticipate any
neral Whitewashing of the accused. Forty
disagreements by juries in his case cannot keep
the people of the clty he ruled and robbed
from regarding him as thief.