New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-08-20
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
oOUe,pOsdsrcs OF The N Y. TnDuss


ALBANY Friday Aug 10 1853.
The Court went into private Session again this morn
ing and at ~ minutes TO = Z. N took recess 81 4
L. ~ At that hour the Court reassembed, when che
President arnouDc,d that the question would be put IN
the ioOAing form upon each OF the i've articles: Stall
"tbe managers be precuOed from giving evidence the
" let srticlel" 4 be following was the vote;
sHe1 Tsbsr vsHatIb lodges OeHio M waa-ia sens.
kGLs-ssEsio. Bartlett Beekmsn Clark cous- corns. Dav.
export Jones neEwsa Manroe Neweomo Pierce Pr-sdsu Rug
as s.s sSS ard johnson" H0 f's"
So the motion to strike QUO the First Article was lost
The question then put the ID article and
neestyed. Ayes Is Senator Wright voting ia the
sffrnstHe;) Noes, IL.
The vote ON the 3rd article was-Ayes 49, Noes, I5.
Senator Williams voting In the negative.
Tie ssrse vote Was given on the 4th article
On the 18th article the vote stood ii Ayes to II Noes.
Senators Williams aud Wright voting the afirma-
tive.
The President then put the question 10 the Court,
Shall the Respondent notwithstanding be at liberty
Jet 10 gbe first five asclss by OF their insult
fcisbcy and indefinite chargesi This decided In
The affirmative, by 81 Ayes " l NO-SenatOr Gus
This gives the counsel for tue Respondent tue priv
eee eater whenever the prosecuting managers in
rOduced Testimony these articles, - object the
ground that what they propose to prove is not specific
alp alleged In the charges Here is an uDbOunied OPP
portunty for discussion and consumption Of tune, aud
may safely say that they sil avail themselves Of
this opportunity as frequently possible
The reteBton of these articles by the Court, was
somewhat unexpected, BY many. it was thought by
them that they would BIZ stricken out Tue truth Of the
business IT, if these articles had been stricken out. &c
would have been, In effect quashDg OF the whole in
oicment for the substance of the impeachment is
tanned III them. SOme say the uihnsgers would have
abandoned her in event OF their failure 20 Sc
cure giving Of evidence these charges HOY that
is am unable to say But this will say the refusal Of
the Court srse these articles changes tho color
OF the represented ny Certain parties and pu
in IA shape much to the disadvantage of the accused
Commissioner. No matter what decision the Court may
come 10, exposure Of The secrets OF toat Letting
DoaTd BY Witnesses abundantly able make such an
exposure will afford instructive lesson besides as
uni,hUg The community Tnis 10 the people, viii be
worth much.
IL has been said that the Commissioner was opposed
TO having the motion made ~ bis counsel. BaG this
clearly Is fabrication without the least truth In the
first place il unexpected and bold movement On
the part OF bis counsel and its Importance is indicated
by the length Of time t discussed privately By the
Court. And, as / have already said, the motion was
next 10 one to guesh the whole Impeachment then
Mr. MatLeT opposed 10 the motion
These questions having been settled, Mr. LOOMS,
Chairman VI the Managers Of the Prosecution, Opeoe
the case he passed Ia review the action OF the Letting
Board, poiaitg in What manner thoy violated tae
Iaw and their know duty lie said cher did not select
bids but bidders il was the they selected aud they
(te Nanseers) expected TO show thar this Letting
Fosrd did not 90 10 work for the interest VI the state,
bus entered into an agreement % benefit themselves aud
thtr friends Instead Of guarding the STATE ani It's
easury from plumber they punteed tue STATE ani its
teasury themselves and scattered iis moneys abroad
throughout tie State.
Before he had conellied the Court adjourned 20 IL
A. NJ. TO morrow .EsoP.