New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-09-03
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

Correspondence OF The N. Y. Tribune.
ALBANY, 1husday, Sept !, 1853.
Mr. Reynolds opened this morning for the defense. He
said il not their Intention at hrs to Introduce any
evidence nor would they now but for some matters
which had been brought light by the Managers need
ing explanation. la regard TO the articles, proper,
they would not deain the Court with any testimony
whatever He claimed that the Managers had been pur
suing voyage OF discovery which together with an insa
tiate desire for victory constituted their whole case
He particularly severe upon the Managers, and fire.
quenty called in question their motives In hlsrespect
he exhibited much bad taste, well as great want OF
good policy His bitterness Overleaped the object he
sought aud landed ounderng in the slough Of imbecii
IT, His address too abOunded with errors OF fact, as
well as uIoundsd deductions and it would have been
far better for the of the respondent had the per
formGnce of this duty been committed to other hands
The manner of bis making the address and the sbun-
dance Of bis yectiye deprved OF force and 1t fell de-
void Of mpressioDupon the minds of his listeners.
Hespoke several hours. The first half hour secured
attention. All after this owing TO the Constant reera-
ton Of his abuse, fell without attention or approval
He referred to the law of ST. reading the provision in
regard the work for the Enlargement The law said
the work should be let most safe and advantage
To the State having due regard 10 price, the ability
Of the parties 10 perform the same, and the security
offered He asked where then, the direction thai
this work should be let ID the lowest bidder He
tended that the whole matter of letting committed
10 the judgment OF the public officers and the Letting
Board TO cOnstIue il. Whether the members Of the
Ltttlng ana aiDODg
their Judgment the safe and advantageous terms
TO the State, question. tie would not say they
had not because he would not claim for them an inia
hbity not possessed by other Witnesses however
he said had testified that the work had been let on terms
safe and advantageous TO the State IL had also been
shown that the work had been let the average of -
per cent below the estimates OF the Engineers. The
allotment, too, was half million lower than prior
allotment agreed upon by a majority of the Canal
Beard This first allotment defeated mainly by
opposition Of the respondent and another member
of the Board Therefore, he claimed the respondent
entitled TO the thanks of the people for saving to
their Treasury half million of dollars.
In reply Ia the charge Of purchasing large quantities
of lumber at exobtan prices, when il was not needed,
and suffering to rot the line Of Canal he would show
the magnancy OF the charge and the asy OF the test
mony Beside this he claimed that the managers had
proved that the respondent had purchased one foot of
timber Ii was the duty Of superintendent to purchase
timber
In regard to the West Troy Dock that affair was
of malignaney throughout 1t originated with inpu-
dent official known as the Auditor and magnancy fol-
lowed II from his Department to the House of Assem-
bly, and from there brought By malignant prsecu-
tons into this Court.
He said witnesses would be produced show that Mr.
Mathcr visited his Division when those Supern,endents
who they did not him, absent from their
sections In regard TO giving public notice of his in
tended visits he would show the interests Of the Canal
did not suffer any from the neglect of the Commissioner
in this particular.
He considered the mileage fuss, which the RespOn-
dent is charged with receiving as gra.uty granted by
the Legislature and that nobody had right interfere
with the matter.
SIsos ScHERsEKHoRS was then called and testified
that he did not know of any timber being scattered
along the ne of the canal except such had been
fused There was about two years supply Of oak on
hand when he into office, Superintendent, in
1859.
This afternoon the cross-exsmnation Of Mr.. Scher
merhorn was resumed and concluded.
WILLIAM T. RUSSELL and MARTIN Z. MrERs were
examined and testified thar they had frequently heard
of the Commissioners being upon their sections, aud
they lot eeing him. They also testified that lumber
was allowed TO lie along the canal going to waste
JoHS RoOSTvELT vas examined as 10 the Of the
high price charged by him for his hemlock. He gave
Is reason the short tae allowed 70 get il, ana the
difficulty Of Transporting it.
The Court adjourned before his c7oss-examinaticn
was concluded 1ES0P.