New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-09-17

Sill, Mr. Lieohn desires correction Of this statement
psde win do c6eefay and In exact accordance with the
facts.
all other matters which Mr. L. may hsve 20 complain Of
have to say that shall very gladly correct any miepre
senson have made that may be 'bownto meo be ,uch But
ton Of los, Winter lereof Mr. Ltejohn proninen,
advocate consider ina. legislation every way wrong
for his share In &, DEEM Il Of such sh sesT tbs,
WINGED that be h part in without hope or expectation
of reward
that Mr. L. demands shond be corrected viii do
whatever seeo to me just because Mr. L. threat
Of such threat might Be- induced 60 forher than
would otherwise done But whether threatened or not
mied. Yours ,,,,,,ru
Mossrs MARSH and wEsB. OswegO. Ny.
Q. Did you attend the Legislative Assembly eau
Gus of the last Winter \ A. Yes, Sir.
Q. Did you attend il for the purpose of opposing
Mr.. Littlejohn's denomination as Speaker A. For
that express purpose, and no other.
Q. Did you publ sh, Immediately preceding that
caucus, charge against MIR. Littlejohn, In your
paper A. have no recollection Of it.
q. Which was Withdrawn immediately after
A. There was something published, not Immediately
before that election but earlier which corrected
tho next day, l think. An erroneous statement was
made in The TRIBUNE, not by me, with regard TO
some of these West Washington Market Leases; but
contradcted it the very next day. without waiting for
Q. Was it with regard TO this caucus A. No, Sir,
i think not.
Q. Was it intended to operate on that election. A.
/ cannot say, because did not write it.
O. Was it Withdrawn Immediately after the election
Of Speaker A. No, Sir; think il was before
many days before the caucus according my recoee-
iiOn
Q. Were you q candidate for any Office at that
time A. No. Sir / was not. q. Not a candidate for
Senstori No, Sir, don't know that was; may have
been spoken Of among others.
.. Hadn't you spoken of yourtelf q candidate to
members Of the Assembly : A. No, Sir, had not,
neither At that time nor at any other time never
q Were any of your partners in the paper there 90
ieing votes for you as Senator, to your knowledge
A. No, Sir, not 10 my knowledge.
Q. Not Mr.. Danai A. No, Sir, he was not there.
Q. Nor Mr.. Campl A. He was there as q MEN,
Q. And Mr.. Cleveland I A. He IL our Reporter
there every Winter. re
@. Has lie any interest in the paper : A. No, Sir
q. Is he relative Of yoursl A. lie married els
ter Of mine.
O. Do You know whether either of them were So
Letting votes for you at that time A. am very con-
fdent they were not
O. Has your paper since made an attack upon Mr..
Lttejohn in connection with the Liverpool Consulate
A. | am not aware that It has.
O. Did not yon announce that he bad declined ire
ferring to him as prominent poliiican) because he
smelt fat jobs hero A. don't recollect 1t, sir;
have not published nor written such paragraph
Q. Have You seen such paragraph In your pepper
A. can confidently say that never wrote, fnsti-
gated nor inserted such paragraph.
Q. AT the time Of the caucns, when the nomination
was announced, did you make any verbal remarks on
III A. | cannot recollect any; i was very strongly
opposed to bis election, but don recoect any remarks
made.
Q. Did you oppose his election and solicit votes
against him. charging him with the same corruption IN
Office which you have charged in your paper, in order
TO defeat bis election
Objected TO as to the general form. Objection over
ruled.
A. have no recollection Of saying So but did op-
pose bin on account OF those measures, aud probably
said 20, though have no recollection off
Q. To members Of the Legislature whom you talked
with in opposing him. did you repeat in substance this
publication a. cannot remember the words
have no recollection Of the precise words used
Q. Don't You know generally what arguments you
used against hu-whether in substance you did repeat
what you had previously published in your paper A.
/ will tell you what was the substance OF what sna
/ thought Mr. Lucius Robinson honest, upright
legislator and had not the same opinion OF Mr. Lat
tie John.
o. That generally is what you said A. That is,
In my judgment, what i said.
o. That in your opinion, Mr.. Lueius Robinson was
an upright man, and Mr.. Littlejohn was mott A
said legislator.
Q. Did you not say in substance that he was guilty
of those things that you had previously charged him
with in your paper
Objected TO. Objection sustained.
Re-direc. examination, by Mr.. WILLAMs-Q. There
is the paper of lth Of September which was read IN
evidence Is Mr.. Littleiohns name mentioned there
A. IL is contained in the list Of Yeas the City Rail-
road bills.
q. Is there any other allusiOn to it .herel A. No
Sir; there is none.
Mr. Williams aekcd the counsel for defendant to
give him the paper containing the article which was
partly read the evening before which they refused,
the ground that il had been entirely Withdrawn.
The Court took a recess.