Manhattan: The New Justice

The U.S. takes pride in the fundamental integrity of its courts. But last week, in the New York election, citizens learned by what precarious threads their pride sometimes hangs.

In Manhattan and The Bronx,, voters sent to their State Supreme Court, to serve for 14 years at a salary of $22,500 yearly (total: $315,000), a scandal-tarred candidate named Thomas A. Aurelio. Thus ended an object lesson in perversion of the democratic process.

Error One. Thomas Aurelio, who had a respectable record as a Manhattan magistrate, was one of two candidates nominated by the Democratic machine. Under New York political practice, both were also nominated by the Republicans in a regular trade.

Error Two. Five days later, the facts of Thomas Aurelio's nomination were laid on the record: he owed the nomination to a flashy, potent racketeer named Frank Costello; day after he was selected, he had called Costello's private telephone number to swear "undying loyalty."

At a hearing in which the State Bar Association tried unsuccessfully to disbar Aurelio, the full story came out. Cocky Racketeer Costello conceded that he had been a bootlegger, rumrunner, slot-machine magnate, betting commissioner, had spent ten months in the workhouse for illegal possession of a gun, had paid no income taxes on his lush rakeoffs for 13 years. He knew almost every big-name gangster of recent history: Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Dutch Schultz, "Trigger Mike" Cappola. But he added: "I had bundles of real important friends of mine, too."

Racketeer Costello admitted that he controlled four Tammany district leaders, had used them last year to help swing Tammany's leadership to Michael J. Kennedy, had since conferred with Boss Kennedy at least once a week. He put full pressure on Kennedy to nominate Aurelio, and succeeded, even though Kennedy was said to be under White House pressure to name another man.

Error Three. Although both Democrats and Republicans promptly tried to disown Aurelio, there was no legal way to take his name off their ballots. The two parties swung their official backing elsewhere--but Democrats favored one opponent, Republicans another. Thus the anti-Aurelio vote, whipped up by every New York newspaper, was divided into impotence.

Error Four. At the polls last week, precinct leaders of both parties took a realistic view of a plain political fact: for voters unused to splitting tickets, an attempt to vote against Aurelio might spoil the whole ballot. It was easier, and safer, to forget all about Aurelio and urge the straight ticket.

Aurelio polled 267,000 votes, won even though his two opponents polled a higher total between them. A State Supreme Court Justice had been named, not by the district's 630,000 voters, but by one gangster.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.