Chenango and Unadilla Valley Fifty Years Ago
by S.S. Randall
Chenango Telegraph, April 3, 1872
Early Courts
Continued from posting of October 21, 2017
The jail liberties, or "limits," as they were termed, prior to the abolition of imprisonment for debt, were originally very restricted. In 1809-10, when the County jail was first removed to Norwich, they consisted of only about two and a half acres--terminating in one direction in the center of the garden north of the old house of Seth Garlick. An old legend is related of Seth's "thirty days in the [-unreadable-]" where he is presented as lugubriously seated during six days of each week, in his own garden, on one side of the stone dividing line, separating him from liberty and the dear delights of home, while his comely helpmate sat cozily knitting on the other. Afterwards, in 1819, the "limits" were enlarged so as to include the entire village--from one end of which to the other I have often seen Peter Sken Smith, in the days of his impecuniosity, stride like a caged tiger, vainly rebelling against his bars.
One of the most important trials in the Circuit Court held in Chenango, took place in September, 1812, at Norwich. Gen. David Thomas, then State Treasurer, was indicted by the Grand Jury for the alleged bribery, or attempt at bribery of Casper M. Rouse, a member of the State Senate, residing in Chenango, in order to procure his influence and vote for a bill then pending before the Legislature, for the incorporation of the Bank of America, in the city of New York; and in which Gen. Thomas individually, and as a leading politician, had a deep interest. The charge, involving as it did, the public and private integrity of a distinguished functionary of the State Government, and intimately connected as it was, with an exciting political campaign, created an intense interest, not only in the vicinity where the alleged offence was committed, but throughout the State at large. Those were not the times when corruption of this nature was allowed either on a great or small scale, to taint the purity of the Legislature ermine. It was felt to be absolutely necessary on the part of the great political party to which Thomas belonged, and with which he was known to be closely identified effectually to clear its skirts from all participation in this nefarious transaction. The most eminent legal counsel in the State were engaged, both for the prosecution and the defense. Thomas Addis Emmett, the Attorney General--known far and wide as one of the highest luminaries of his profession--conducted the former, and Elisha Williams, of Hudson, the ablest and most successful jury advocate of the State, appeared on behalf of the latter. The forensic combatants were in all respects equally matched, and each worthy of his foeman's steel. The trail took place before the Hon. William W. Van Ness, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, a jurist whose long experience, eminent abilities and pure moral character, were eminently adapted to hold the scales of Justice equally poised. The principal and most important witness on behalf of the prosecution, was, of course, Senator Rouse himself, who testified that Gen. Thomas, as the agent of the applicants for the Bank, in passing through Norwich on a mission to the southern and western counties visited him at his residence, and asked for and obtained a private interview, in which after alluding to the efforts of a party or clique in the city of New York, to which he knew the witness was strongly opposed[-unreadable-] for a bank in which they were interested, he appraised him of the intention to apply at the ensuing session for the "Bank of America" to be located in the same city, and informed him that if this application should prove successful, he, Rouse, should have ten shares in it. Rouse in reply to this suggestion, told him that he had not a favorable opinion of banks, and besides had no money to invest in bank stocks; to which Gen. Thomas responded that "if he did not wish to keep the stock, he would pledge his honor that he, Rouse, should realize one thousand dollars clear profit from the shares," It did not clearly appear from his testimony whether a definitive answer was or was not given to this proposition, but Thomas, on leaving him requested him to call on his arrival at Albany, on Soloman Southwick, editor of the "Albany Register," and a leading Democratic politician, interested in the success of the application. Rouse did not call on Southwick as desired, not did he vote for the charter, but about the middle of the session, the agents for the application becoming alarmed, John VanNess Yates, afterwards Secretary of State, called upon him on Sunday, and invited him again to see Gen. Thomas. He did so, and after having, in answer to the anxious question whether he had divulged the conversation which took place at Norwich, responded in the negative, "Thomas earnestly requested him not to do so, and told him that although he had voted, or should vote, against the Bank, he should have his thousand dollars." Rouse subsequently voted for Gen. Thomas as Treasurer, and the latter voluntarily published an affidavit contradicting the material allegations thus sworn to by the former.
Mr. Southwick, then in the "full tide of successful experiment," as an organ of Democratic public opinion and a prominent political leader, was also examined as a witness, and in conjunction with the equivocations and contradictions elicited from Judge Rouse on his cross examination, and the narivailed eloquences and ingenuity of the counsel for the defense, succeeded in throwing so heavy a cloud of doubt upon the minds of the jury, as to the real motives and conduct, not of the defendant, but of the witness, Rouse, that they were induced to return a verdict of not guilty. The evidence, however, would seem to have shown unequivocally that whatever might have been the duplicity or tergiversation of Rouse in the transaction, there could have been no reasonable ground to question the complicity and the guilt of Thomas. And yet, it is not difficult to conceive that an ordinarily intelligent jury might be induced, by the ingenuity of able counsel, to infer, from the hesitating and confused manner of the principal witness--from the fact that he even took credit with Gen. Thomas for having kept the alleged proposition of bribery a profound secret--and from the fact that he continued to evince his entire confidence in his integrity, by supporting and voting for him as State Treasurer -that the whole of his testimony was unreliable or, if reliable in part, distorted and rendered worthless by material concealments or misrepresentations, or by conflicting and irreconcilable statements. They may indeed, have been lead to fancy Rouse himself upon trial, instead of Thomas. At all events I feel confident the result of the trial was a general conviction on the public mind in the neighborhood, that the judge's reputation officially and personally, was much more damaged than that of Gen. Thomas.
No comments:
Post a Comment