New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-06-19

Strong for the passage Of tho biD. ,., ,, c.
rossexamined-At my first conversation with Mr. strong
no one else present. this was in November this OH nad
nothing do with the Water Board never on EARN ndresy
went 10 Mr. Strong friend Of Coyle; no one but Coye
was interested contract; told Strong was the 1lspos
ton OF the Board to let Coye up; Strong said would cost
e. coo get the bill through at our second eonVcro %
subject the befoei Coyle said he would pay tne
5000 fCounsel-I done want to know what Coye sala
Before the conversation above named opened he envelope
named and took the out did not count me boy theh
took n 10 Mr. Strong; tho wanted said bill through
was because thought COye might DO ruined ese the Whoe
Rldirec-ihc envelope was handed to By NJ. Coye;
returned the boy; he took il TO Strong understood from
Mi Strong received any other moneys.
TESTIMONY or MIR. JENNINGS.
f. W. JENNINGS swOrn-liaye resided in Wnliamsnurgh -
years have known Senator Strong 20 am acquainted
with bis general repgtaoni in my estimation 1t Is bad
Cross cxamiuedaye not had political differences person
ally with Mr.. Strong both belong TO one party in primary
matters we may have differed 49,. ..u,, =,
Re dreoI have had no difference Win hlm that coud al
Recross examined-I was primary meeting once when
did take the poll book away; do not remember that Mr.
Strong was officers Of that meetings went up from
regular meeting the frst floor to the seconI aud took
away book by aud made TO surrender by
poee.ocer Counsel for defense objects 10 this attempt TO
damage the character Of witness and the Court racd ht inc
opposing counsel had only been justified in eeitng the test
mony effect by the fact that endeayor TO show
bias Of the witness against the plantif)
Edwin A. Tweeder sworn-aye resided IS in Brook
Ign; know Demns Strong; should not know bin met
him; not acquainted with his reputation.
TESTIMONY EyCK
Mr. Conrad A. Zen Eyok tho next witness and IN the
George Thompson then called and sworn.
TESTIMONY THOMSON
Demas Strong during almost all that time; think
quained with his regulations majority OF the people whom
but particularly OF laie speak OF his reputation nha
Cross examnedMr. Strong very active mani the ma
jorty Of people speak unfyoraoy of b some speak well OF
TESTIMONY OF MR.. FISHER.
Mr. Seorge H. Fisher was the next witness VINO testneu
follows: Have resided IN Brooklyn since 1853 and nave
bo oft he Strong;
known him since 1883; knew his reputation 80 far as
have heard; what have heard has generally made
CIosseAauned-IIaye very often talked with persons op
posed TO him. he aas been very acyeoten candidate for
public oHiceand attracted public attention great dealt
could not strike balance Of pubic opinion In regard 70 h
@ Was he not generally elected Objected to by the Court
bat suffered TO pass Witness very clear bis
his ticket have heard people praise certain
Rodirect--Q What qualities were so praised A Energy
order regularity personal habits, domestic relations q
What qualities were eondemnedi OBJECTED to by opposing
TESTIMONY OF MR.. PROFIT
Mr.. G. X. Prot Have known Senator Strong
Is 20 year, here and in California; an acquainted with MS
Coss-ex mned-Q You have been bitter personal enemy
Mr. SiTOng have mott A. Yes have had long tiga
ton with hn SIN pending II was on question OIL personal
Counsel here upon objection that the de-
will stop calling witnesses for character the moment THAI
the other side will they will call 20 more than the defense
do)
John p Rnncie sworn-liaye known Demas Strong 10 or
90 years. 8 reputation is not very good ~,
T of and ON s or 70 years; have read articles
against DIR Strong say two three four years back
those within year against him. cant remember fur
Their back had any dsagreoniens with MI strong
dom agree with him politically occasionally opposed
him when were IN the same party nave spoken against
Redircct-Have personal feeling against him.
examined-when have SPOKEN against bin It has
only been TO repeat what have heard.
THE TINES EDITOR on TIE STAND.
Mr. George c. Bennett proprietor The Bo0kya Time
was then called sworn he testified follows am one
Of the proDrietors OF Tie BrooHyH L. newspaper Edgar
McMuon regular correspondent that Winter wrote the
article referred TO IN this several questions as to MT
Strong nId McAuen frequently in conversation in Al
macouy against Mr. Bennett and not aerin be author OF
tho arce published the article because believed II to
be true and that its publication my duty.
always owned the paper; have had
yarions edors many years have passed when dd nor pup
5 sTs ssDeT against e s linn Rs % 70 ago.
publication OF from Our hsD mnsanseS se
state for nalfeasance duty be called "assalng" him.
have saed him in Mr. Pratts lawsuit with Mr. Strong
was very sorry il hadn't; have let him up great deal
agghtcr have personal animosy toward him; don't re-
member eSsy e o B f or august sS and az
article MeMues therein one also prompted BY witness in
Issue OF Nov % l65 reprint in The Brooys Ttes from
TnE TRIBUNE OF March H. lsC6 shown. but the author not
iden,ihsd Counsel Tor defense objects the statement
handed by the opposing counsel Of the authorship oil article
10 tho last papers presented immaiea TO the case Tue
articles are all within tie responsibility Of the responsible
editor Ike Court declined sustain the objection and Wit
ness declares them all have been written by persons in the
Office. It'll. ....,....,.
edorials we're written BY Mr. Mullen; he wrote all the Al
bany corresoondence and the M C.s'-mesn cusseslet
ter cannot tell the reception OF the alleged libel
GUS letter; was by mail to the office mailed from New
YORK CITY; did not the any person persons
that recoeet Of before We published III We neyer show our
boespondenee IL was not shown that know Of
think il was placed in the compositions hands immediately
never Of the Office think was received aooo!
sx week-it may have been lesaer The adjournment OF
the eeeture had consultation with any one IN regard
TO publication received private note from TIE ~Iis o.
il days peyou, to receiving the letter a,ki9s II we
would publish not seen MeMHen since The hIs day
of tins trial; be is not in our employ now presume ne IS al
bis usual business he was not directed 10 wIie al sy psfc
yer 20 have pIobaby spoken against Sroug IN yar-
ons isce never had auyihdg good him; made
n arrangement with Meuen Just before the Albany session
OF lsa TO be regular Albany eortespoh1shti can
no, teIl WHY the letter dated m April and not
published until May We printed the ettei pehete
In every respect st came TO the once 90 the rameua!
cannot swear bat do not think any one altered OF was
90 alter the letter before pubished 90 not
remember any bill that had against Strong never had
any conversation with him IN regard to OH or printing
AGAINST the city which be opposed AZ Albany never asked
him 10 favor said anything TO him about IT, Qnesuon
hether witness sent bill Alban. for legislation o.
ectc5 IN Witness stated that he had objection TO giving
ile whole history ofhe blu heard that Strong had killed
the hin I'm one OF his artfu after had occurredi
believe the bill was Albany in 1863 but am not cersln did
NOT go 10 Albany reference TO then nor IN oo there was
Iii the last Assembly in reference TO this; IN
,han, al that time and incidentally represented the to
several Senator'S do not know Just when tue other bill was
Killed but IL done BY bis molon 40 not know the
method used these matters the amount was from $500 to
$1,000 an o,r .,.,,. -, =. s.
rendered said against Mr. Strong
ba aid not strictly believe TO be objected by oppos
but finally the objection was Withdrawals never published nor
entertained any opinion against HIM ,sa, ad not believe 10
The PROSECUTION RESUMED.
The here rested the and after some discussion
In regard the Order the prosecution called Mr '" A la
""e TESTIMONY OF Mr.. TALNADGE.
Am in the coabusiness met Mr. Strong IN San Francisco
what his reputation in Ssn Francisco OBJECTED TO- and
the objection sustained by the Court 1he prosecuting coun-