than the criminal they brought from the jail to vote upon this occasion. Well, gentlemen, I say therefore, they begin with Lex, and he was so overawed and intimidated with his reception, that, if I recollect a right, he left the house immediately; he thought it prudent to disappear from the ground. Then we fix it beyond all reasonable controversy, that the beginning of the irregularities on that day, was by those who had the badge in their hats, a badge very honorable and which should always be treated with the greatest respect, and never used but in an honorable way. While the accounts were reading off by Mr. Long, the treasurer, as I recollect, without waiting for him to finish, Dr. Helmuth, saw and apprehended something or another that induced him to interrupt him, not waiting till the reading was finished, but to interrupt him by a recommendation to the people to keep peace and good order. Whether it was what had happened to Lex, or not, I do not pretend to say, but there was some strong impression upon his mind, that induced him to say, he wished them to keep peaceable and orderly. The accounts were read-no inspectors had been appointed to the knowledge of the voters then convened, or to the knowledge of the corporation. In the corporation there had been no nomination; nor had there been in the congregation. At this time Witman arose, gets upon a chair and proposes a question, which is represented as an offence, which was the cause of all the riots that took place afterwards. Let me examine' for a moment. A bye-law was passed, which was considered questionable; and on the other side, they have not shewn, that it was passed by the corporation. If they did suppose, they had a right such as they assumed, after all their time for preparation, Witman proposes to the congregation, the question, whether they will appoint the judges, and annul the bye-law. What offence was there in this? To whom was the question to be put, but to the congregation? Are they not to judge whether their rights were infringed on, or not? But, it is said, they acquiesced for many years; by no means; it was not acquiesced in, without an objection, without interruption. It had not been in operation one year, till an opinion was taken upon its illegality. But say they, Witman ought to have known, that to repeal a bye-law, two thirds were wanting. I have seen nothing of the kind, heard nothing of the kind read; but if the bye-law was unconstitutional, it needed no repeal; it was but a blank piece of paper. How happened it that they who are so strenuous supporters of bye-laws, when there was another bye-law, disregarded it? The bye-laws relative to badges was disregarded. They say their tickets were not open; not always we allow; but pray gentlemen, if there is a badge of a party, and if the party has carried its judges, would it not be an opportunity for fraud, if the judges knew by the badge, when their party came to vote? Undoubtedly; and therefore it was reasonably intended by this regulation, that a hint should not be given to the judges; otherwise the voting by both parties would be ridiculous. This bye-law was totally disregarded, and this was the only one at all to be considered as impor

tant. Taking this question, was what is considered, wrong in Witman, and why? Could he not take the sense of the congregation, whether it was void? I say he might; and if he thought it was void, it was his duty to do so. He would have been faulty if he had neglected it. A great deal has been said about his seeing the names upon the paper, and therefore that it was an improper interruption. Not at all; if he thought there had been no appointment by Mr. Honey, at that time, he ought to have taken care and prevented him from doing that which was illegal. And pray, what would we have heard, if he had waited till Honey had appointed his inspectors? Then, it would have been a matter of reproach, that he knew by proposing it at such a time, it would create confusion. I say, he did nothing but what he was entitled to do; he had a right to appeal to the congregation, whether they had a right or not to appoint the inspectors. Suppose a constable at the ward election were to propose judges, would not a citizen, be right in saying, "will you have the nomination made by ourselves, or by him " Undoubtedly. But says the gentlemen, you took us by surprise. Why, surely when the Germans, upon every occasion, say "you are a damned rascal," it is not a very great encouragement to us to make communications to them, when we must expect nothing, but you are a damned rascal, in return. Therefore, Witman did not propose it to them, and you do not find that he proposed it to his own party. They vote, however, the Germans do not say this is an irregularity, and we will not vote, they join in it and vote upon it, and what was the result? The witnesses say, there was a great majority for the appointment by the congregation; on the part of the defects, there are only one or two, who undertake to say, that the majority were on the part of the presi dent, but many say it was impossible to tell on what side was the majority. A confusion, it is evident, did arise, and I am willing to allow that it was impossible to tell, and therefore it is equally uncertain, on what side the majority was. Surely if this be the case, there is no great fault attached to it; Witman made the motion, and afterwards Honey nominates the men whom he had appointed day before; at least he calls them into the enclosure to take their seats as inspectors. We will suppose this was an ap pointment; but it is clearly in evidence that he had not done so be fore. We will enquire for one moment into the nature of this enclosure. It seems that this enclosure was built some years since, by the German society, that the vestry might not be pressed upon by the crowd. This was of the most improper tendency, and encroaching consequence. The corporation had no power to make an enclosure in that school house, and say, we will oppose by force any person who shall attempt to come in here; they had no such legal right; and they ought to have known, that it was left to the discretion of any to come in or to go out as they pleased, and it was not in their power to impede them; they had no right to oppose the entrance of any one whomsoever. If they did, and a life was lost in the scuffle, I would ask if it would not amount to murder in

T

the first degree? I refer to the statements of their own witnesses, when I say, that it was doubtful which way the majority was; more than one of their witnesses say it was doubtful, being thus uncertain, it was natural, that each of the parties should think that they carried it. What is the offence for which the life of a man should be hazarded? When a man was called upon to take his place; when they were confident that Wagner was regularly chosen as inspector, and therefore was called; instead of having a conference upon the subject, or of arguing the point; the cry is immediately raised, "there is an Irishman," and instantly they endeavor to carry into effect by force, the nomination by the president, in opposition to what may be said to have been the nomination by the congregation; not entering into any altercation about it; but the moment Wagner endeavored to enter, he was seized upon, as if he had been committing some outrageous trespass, as if he had been a fugitive from justice. It was said on the other side, that there was no injury done to him; I say otherwise; the man was in serious danger of being killed; some one' had him by the neck, and he was so far choaked, that he exclaimed in great distress," for God's sake don't choak me." He does not appear such a child, that he would have thus exclaimed, unless there had been danger of his being choaked, and I fully believe, that he would not have exclaimed in that manner, unless he was in serious danger. Witman tells you expressly, when he got over the railing, he was tumbling and exhausted. If when a man endeavors to place himself in a situation to which he was entitled, instead of reasoning upon the subject, there is a recourse to trial by battle, there is immediately an end to fair elections. If his life had been lost in the struggle, the most melancholly consequence would have attached to him who opposed him with such violence. This affair being over, the English party resign their pretensions and go on without any further disturbance arising, we believe, on their part. What is the next offence imputed? We have seen nothing wrong in this, and the peace officers would have been justifiable in taking those into custody, who attacked Wagner, and committing them for trial for this unprovoked aggression. Witman takes the unwarrantable liberty of standing within the enclosure, and observing the voters. He was one of the vestry, and he had a right to be there. Ah! but say they, he was so near that his elbows incommoded the inspectors. Now is it possible for any one to wink so hard as not to see, that the looking to what was the qualification of the voters, and who were allowed to vote, was the real offence for which he was insulted? After a little while, the book. in which he made his memoranda is taken from his hand; and it is declared, that when Uhler interposed and did what is imputed to him as faulty, it happened at that time, a man was going on with a peculiar threat, of tearing his hair out of his head, and Uhler took hold of the man who was going forward to put his threat into execution, and prevented him. But say they, he drew back his hand; perhaps so-it was his duty to defend himself, if the man

''

assaulted him. Pray gentlemen, let me now ask, what is the rea son for finding so much fault with Uhler in that business ? Certainly every man who sees another, about breaking the peace, is bound in duty to interpose; and the moment Uhler was satisfied, that the man did not intend to put that singular threat into execution, he quits him, and is not seen, though he 'staid there all day, doing one thing improper. We are told there was great irregularity in bringing the constables there, I beg leave to differ from my friends in particular; I say alderman Geyer was perfectly justifiable in what he did. Mr. Geyer was at the meeting of the vestry, where Dreer stated, that they were fortunate in escaping with their lives; and he made the observation, that their names ought to be communicated, who would resort to violence. He had then, reasonable ground for supposing violence would be committed, and was therefore justified in sending constables there to preserve the peace. If they have acted contrary to the duties of their office, let complaint be made to the magistrate and they will certainly be indicted; but there was nothing of the kind. We have evidence however, of misconduct on their part towards Mills, who tells you, that he and another were sitting on the window seat and a pain of glass was accidently broken; immediately a storm is impending; he is spoken to by a person in German; and was told, he was abusing him. In consequence of this information he told the man to speak to him in English, and he would answer.him. Could there be any thing more reasonable? The constable was right in what he did; he gave no more provocation than this, and being charged for breaking a pane of glass which was perfectly accidental, and for this the peace officer was knocked down, and only saved himself from falling to the ground by catching at the desk, which was near. These are irregularities only, but what shall we say of the distribution of money, by Mannhardt; the sum, to be sure, was small but the circumstance is a feature in this business, of no small magnitude. What will be the consequence, if it come to this, that not only liquor, but money shall be given to voters? I know they endeavor to say, that it was only one of eight dollars to a man whose sleigh was hired for the day; but we will turn to our notes. In the first place, I will beg to have it ascertained, whether it was one or two dollars, whether it was the same or a different person to whom we allude, I think they were different persons. I understand that the dollar given by Mannhardt, was given professedly as a reward for electioneer ing services; the money given to the sleigh driver, was given as part payment for his services. I find no fault with it; we will take it, that dollar was a part of eight to which he was entitled ; but the one respected the deficiency of provision, and the other was for liquor. How far it was consistent to give the sleigh driver, a dollar for purchasing liquor, as a present; the payment of which he could enforce; I am at a loss to imagine. However, it appears to me, that the first dollar was given for electioneering purposes, and then I have something to say respecting the desire expressed by

Mannhardt, that the man should be there at eight o'clock. George Kline says respecting this, "Mr. Mannhardt asked a person that came in, to partake of wine; he presented beer, it was a glass tumbler. I went to Cherry-street, and gave in my vote. I returned and saw Mr. Mannhardt give another person a dollar to go and spend, and told him he would wish him to go and bring in as many German tickets as he could. I did not hear any thing about ammunition. He told him he had been hard at work that afternoon, and he thought he ought to allow him something for his trouble." Kugler, the sleigh driver, says, "I went to the school house, and they had no beer, and Mr. Mannhardt gave me a dollar; says he, go get something to drink." I think then, gentlemen, I am supported in my idea of the manner in which the testimony was given one of the dollars was presented for electioneering purposes, and the other as part of pay for sleigh hire. I refer it to you gentlemen, to say, what is the meaning of his giving that injunction to the man to be there at eight o'clock. What am I to understand by his saying it was the timid time? It is to me a mystery, I cannot explain it. I think, gentlemen, I have in as few words as possible, proved that money was given by Mannhardt, for electioneering pur poses. I say again, I have no hostility towards Mr. Mannhardt, he is to me a perfect stranger; and I will not say one word about him, but as respects this transaction, in which he has violated the law, and therefore ought to be punished.

I proceed, to shew, that the liquor thus improperly provided by the committee of vigilance, had the effect which will be the conse quence always, of such a proceeding; that there was an unusual number of drunkards upon this occasion. I refer to the testimony of alderman Geyer, who states, that he never saw so many drunk upon the election day. I do not say how much liquor was there; two barrels, however, were certainly there; and there was a third barrel which must have had beer in it, but was then empty. I presume, that barrel was not carried there empty. There was also some wine, for which Bealer was complimented, because he had not made a charge of it. He was a retail grocer, and how such presents may effect the sale of their articles, you can determine better than I can perhaps. But it was bribery in plain unvarnished language; it is plain, that wherever, if a party wants to carry a certain ticket, he gives money for electioneering purposes, it is unquestionably bribery, as the law so denominates it, it gives no milder name. There was a scene of drunkenness and disorder. I refer to support my assertion to what was said by alderman Geyer, a man of observation, respectability and able to give what he said with perfect clearness and accuracy. He says, "in the evening I dispersed several mobs and never saw so much riot, or so much drunkenness," Now then, before we proceed to particular facts of riot, what are we to expect, if men go to elections in the temper of mind Houser has described, and there is also liquor to excite their spirits, already in a state of fermentation; and we do not see, that these men did not take liqner at their meals as usual,