The Enquirer

Albany, April 29.

JOHN MARTIN.

This unfortunate man was convicted at the court of Over and Terminer, held in this city before his honor Mr. Justice Spencer, and Judges Ten Eyck, Moore, and Tiffany, on Friday last; and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison of this state, at hard labor, for the term of TEN years.

He was indicted for offering bribes to Silas Holmes, and Nathaniel Cole, Esqrs. members of Assembly with intent to influence their votes in favor of the bank of America or the six million bank. Messrs. Holmes & Cole were called as witnesses, and they proved most satisfactorily that the accused had made them various offers at different times: He offered Mr. Holmes $500 and a handsome present to vote for the bill, a few minutes before he voted on the first enacting clause: to Mr. Cole he offered $500 to vote for it. Martin's free and voluntary examination taken before Justice Merchant, and Justice Canfield, was also given in evidence; he confessed that at the instance and request of —a— he had made corrupt overtures to no less than six members of the Assembly including Messrs. Holmes and Cole. Mr. Foot, his counsel, seized on the circumstance stated by the witnesses and also in the examination, that Martin premised the offers, with "if they could see it right to vote for the bill, then they should receive the emoluments he held out," and he insisted that this qualification prevented the offers from being criminal. He also contended that members of the Legislature were not inhibited from voting in cases where they expected to derive an interest from their votes, and he inveighed against former instances of equally improper conduct in members and others, and he relied much on the exemplary piety and morality of the defendant, as proved by several of the witnesses.

Mr. Woodworth, who acted in behalf of the state, denied these positions, and considered the case too plain for discussion.

The charge of the presiding Judge was full and decided: he stated to the jury the heinousness of the offence, that it struck at all our security for life, liberty and property: that the qualification of the proffer of bribes "if they could see it right," was a mere device to gild the bait, that a bribe thus offered, was equally corrupt, because the reward held out was the very mean to make the party attempted to be bribed, see it right; and that it produced the same effect in influencing the vote of members + that the two witnesses, were unimpeached and corroborated by the defendant's voluntary confession, and that if the jury believed the witnesses and the defendant's own confession, they could not hesitate. That the defendant's former goodness of character would not avail him against these united proofs: and that if the defendant was to be believed, he had been seduced to the perpetration of the offences, but if so, he was equally amenable to the law. The jury retired, and in about 15 minutes returned with a verdict of GUILTY.

A full report of this interesting trial is expected to be laid before the public. It is the first conviction under the statute of the 7th of April, 1806.

This conviction discredits the sagacity of those editors, who pronounced the charge of bribery to be "ALL SMOKE," and it is hoped will have a salutary and lasting effect.

Republican.