Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 December 1886 — McQUADE CONVICTED. [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

McQUADE CONVICTED.

The Broadway Boodler Pronounced Guilty on the First Ballot. The Convicted Man Unmoved by the Result—The Judge's Charge to the Jury. [New York dispatch.] Ex-Alderman McQuade has been convicted of selling his vote for the Broadway franchise. He received the announcement of the verdict without sign of emotion It was a dark day for the ex-Alderman. Col. John R. Fellows drew pen-pictures of the br be-takers from morning until the great chandeliers were lighted in the evening. Then the Recorder reviewed the testimony, and laid down the law in double-shotted sentences that swept away all hope of escape. There -were moments of fearful denunciation during the summing up for the people by Col. Fellows, but there were still more fearful moments in the solemn charge that

fell mercilessly from the Recorder’s lips. The announcement in the morning that Col. Fellows would make the great speech of the day drew hundreds of would-be spec, ators to the courtroom, only to find they could not get near the guarded doors. McQuade appeared resolute, almost cheerful, but his brother Barney was pinched and pale. He looked more like a man accused of the great crime and en route to Sing Sing than any other man in the room. It was difficult to tell how the jury stood until Col. Fellows began to sway them with facts garlanded with eloquence. Then it was plain that he held their most profound attefition. The points made by Col. Fellows were afterward covered in the judge’s charge—namely, that the Lyddy injunction should be taken official notice of ; that the office of the Broadway Railroad syndicate was in the office of the company’s counsel —Robinson, Scribner, and Bright; that these lawyers knew from Clerk Ma oney that the Aidermen were to hold a special meeting and pass the franchise before the order for the discontinuance of the injunction had been obtained, and before Maloney had sent out the calls to the Aidermen to meet at nine o’clock on the following morning ; that there was an agreement, because the boodle lawyers and the Broadway Railroad people know it; that five of the Aidermen, including McQuade, met at McLaughlin’s house, because the unimpeaehed servant girl, Kate Metz, saw them go and come from McLaughlin’s house; that McQuade did 'a large business, and used checks, except about just after the boodle transaction, when he was seen with SSOO and SI,OOO bills in his possession; that, while the witnesses disagreed as to details and dates, they all substantially agreed to the chief facts in the case as stated by Fullgraff and Duffy, and corroborated by other witnesses and documentary evidence. Col. Fellows scored a point when he told the jury that the public and press were watching them, and they could never hold up their heads again if they allowed bribery to go unpunished. Recorder Smyth reviewed the case at great length. He pronounced tho testimony of the servant girl, Katie Metz, to be direct, unshaken, and worthy of much weight. It was in the nature of things, he said, that crime should be perpetrated in secret, and, therefore, the testimony of accomplices was olt m necessary. Because a man had once committed perjury, it must not be assumed that he would always perjure himself. It was for the jury to decide whether Duffy and Fullgraff’s testimony had been corroborated.

Complete Expose of the Half-MiUion Steal —Duffy and Fullgraff’s Confession. On the trial of ex-Alderman Arthur J, McQuade, on charge of being bribed to vote for a license for the str et railroad in Broadwav, exAldermen I uiolph A. Fullgraff and Michael Duffy came to the front with confessions and asto mding revelations <.f fraud, • iving a complete story of the scandalous jobbery. Ex-Al-derman Fullgraff said an informal meeting was held in May. 1881, after the l o ird had adjourned. Eight cr nine members were present, of whom McQuade was one. The subject discussed was the fact that it was necessary to have thirteen votes to pass a bill for the railroad. The first meeting was held at Fullgraff’s factory. This was before the bill was passed. Thirteen Aidermen were present. McQuade was one. Mr. Nicoll asked who else were present. Witness named from memory Kenney, Sayles, Waite, McCabe, Duffy, and Jaehne. McLaughlin was Chairman. De Lacy was also present. It was agreed that the thirteen members present would hold together on any question that came before the Board. Nothing was said about the Broadway Railroad. It was agreed to meet again one week later at McLaughlin’s house. Witness attended the latter meeting. McLaughlin was made Chairman again, on Duffy’s motion. The first business was the question of the Broadway franchise. It was said that other companies and a cable road wanted a franchise. Jaehne, De Lacy, and others spoke, saying that the Broadway Cable Road Company had offered t 7 >9,000 for a franchise—one-half cash and one-half bonds. Witness did not know who the money and stock were to go to. It was said that the surface road had offered $500,900 cash. Witness said that the offer of the cable road was considered unreliable, and the other was considered the best. It was decided to accept the offer of t.ie Broadway Surface Road by a unanimous vote. Witness voted for it. The next question discussed was who should be intrusted with the money. Something was said about the amount. Twenty-two thousand dollars was to go to each member. One member thought the amount should be $25,009 each. It was said that the lawyershad concluded to pay only $22,000, and that amount was decided upon unanimously. McQuade voted aye. Another meeting was held at McLaughlin’s house, but twelve out of the thirteen were present. The question discussed was to select a member to hold tho money. Witness thought that McCabe and Maloney might not be trusted with so large an amount. Duffy suggested Keenan, and he was selected. DeLacy then said he wished to have the members present go to Keenan and assure him it was all right. Witness said the possibility of a veto was considered, and in that case it was decided to leave the work of getting a two-thirds vote to Maloney. After the veto another meeting was held at McLaughlin’s house to discuss it. As more votes were necessary, it was decided unanimously to cut down each man’s share to $20,000. Ex-Alderman Michael Duffy, who also turned State's evidence on his indicted fellow Aidermen, testified that the thirteen Aidermen were to receive $22,000 apiece. Duffy testified in conclusion: “I didn’t get any money until about a month after election, and then I got $10,00). I met McQuade on the north side of the City Hall a few days after, and he stopped and talk d. He said, ’Did you get your money from the Broadway Road And I said, ‘Did you get yours ?’ And he said, ‘lt’s all right; I got mine all right.’ ”

M’QUADE.