New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-01-10
cllsive evidence against the existence OF any such
bargain lie pretended. Now for tho direct eva

elusive evidence sgaintt the eIistepce OF any such
dence First Mr.. Opdy ke positively denies II. second
Mr. Andrews positively denies II. Ihird' MI Turns
aeeoon ne Of his interview with the IFesiIent anu re
rea sons given for the appointment confnfe ". Inc
harran n one was na.le was utterly without per-
u nance the part Of Mr.. Opdyke ne ga NOT 20 W
Washington; he did not send them ne aiu no, VIZ
Thorn. lie did nothing toward Introducing MT stanton
NOR pntting forward Mr. Andrews That rs PositiveIs
swoi to by Nj. 0pdyke ami II the contrary "ere true
there must be abundant means OF proving = inrc 10
cart ain friend Of MI W eed in department IN w ASH
inrton who knows al ahof H. and could give MN tue
preof in an instant These reasons amount IN demon
rntou that there tEuih whatever in The story OF
the bargain 1t is wrong therefore to conclude tnst
Williamson here told deliberate iaschoodf thihR not
and my theory Of his testimony Is this; il appears
that Nr Opdyke met Andrews BurHs and Ulmn IN
broadway on the I'd @! july when NJ. Andrews stated
that he was he appointed Surveyor and ~ Optikc
replied that il his friend stanton could not get thc once
hi. getting it. This, Mr. Opdyk dsclhIes was the
first time be ever heard that Mr. ARdr"ws or hls
ricpde applicants for this Office. Som 'me ciIcr
this GDd about the time " the az uai appointment
which was or the 10th Of july Mr.. Opdykc remembers
hearing q conversation with Williamson as 10 whether
Mt. Andrews would be likely 10 throw The patron sc
OF Ills 0dee favor OF the radicals oI the 20 lstfFhV
wing Of tie party. he being "a compromise eandl'
date Ills gives Us the KEY TO explain MI
WilliamSons testimony without imputss, 10 Ilin
nteniioua u1truih. IIc may lave had 10 his
mind the idea Of getting fTom Andrews az eX'
llanation Of the direction in which his patronage
lie bestowed. and so Mr.. Wl.l.aInson may lave
even conyeync Nj O9lyke the iden that he was IL DO
anything toward making his appointment certain The
leading counse for the defence IN us adore 70
apparently overwhelmed by tho evidence against tie
existence of snsh bargain the Libel Supposes, al
vanced IL understood LiT right te hcoT! that aiter
the interview oi the "a OF July MI Opdyee iorined
scheme 70 secure AR. Andrews Influence III bis
favor by holding ont 10 hlm the IDEA that be
could help han 20 make the appointment certain.
But this IA cn;i.e.y contrary to NcNeus WloIe
story which is that Andrews first moved in TIE matter
hy getting him to inieroede with Mr.. Opdyke No. TIE
evidence is complete that the who.e story o. bargain
between M Opdyke and Mr. Andrews lei influence or
money is sheer faSrtc ttiOn. My learned iilrbd the
senior counsel advanced tho idea that candidate tyr
Office should pay nothing toward the expenses OF MS
election observed that the junior counsel did moi
advance the idea. He as held office. aud proba-
bly enieitaiIsa different opinion But my friend. the
senior counsel though he has not held office, peihais
knows what is seek it, ard If his experience ustes
had seen with my own eyes some proofs oil DIS e1
perience, but perhaps / "as dreaming. Certainly;
however he must have been living in a dreamland
II he does not know LAT in oycry election the candi'
da.es are expected 10 contribute III proportion 10
the necessary expenses Of the election 6nd their
own means. he law recognizes and sPccines
tie proper expenses Of electors aud everybody
knows HAT the amount is obtained from the
candidates. ron other oifce.bQldeIs interested in
the party II the candidates. ali from citizens VIII"
oeirr thor election. The amount Of Mr.. Opiy kes
pcues the election has been mentioned by the coun
bel large Whether large small hos nothing To 90
with this heel The money is shown 10 have been prop
erly expended There were three organizations. for
each OF whiCh ticket boxes and distributors were To be
placed at e0et Of two three Kindred election dls
ticts. We called Mr.. George W. Blunt to prove tAat
these expenses customary. and that TIE amount
raised in the present case In tie usual manner
The defendant on, cied 10 the proof and It Eas eI
cuded as irreeras a. the present action II IT, there
fore with very bad grace TO the least that tie dc
PENDANTS counsel ventures 10 represent " you
that Mr.. Opdyke paid much himself or that the
amount raised from tho Custom HOuse-rascd. be II
remembered not on tLe application Of MIR. OpdJ ke'
but Of committee Of ciiZens-was unusual or ef'
elusive.
Without concluding the cosnsel here gave way, and
the Count adjourned TIL tomorrow al 10 o'clock