St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-11
The McQU4DE TRIAL.
ssSquealer'' Duffy ArOuses the
wrath of Counselor n eVycO mbe.

wrath of Counselor n eVycO mbe.
NEW YORK, Dec. 10.-To-day's session
of the McQuade trial opened little late.
"Squealer" Duffy was again placed in the
clair to be lashed by his mercileSS tor
mentor, MIR. NewcOmbe. Duffy thought ht
and Fullgraff had talked over what they
were to say at McQuade's trial in Police In
SpectOr Byrnes' Office previous to the frs
trial, but had not done SO since. On thai
occasion Fullgraff had refreshed his memory
on certain points. Mr.. Newcombe tried tC
show that on this point he had contTadicteC
previous testimony. but his questions were
excluded as misleading the witness. The
redirect examination began by Mr.. Nicol
in trying to eXtricate the testimony of the
witness from its muddled condition. IL
the question. if Duffy had sworn falsely or
the first trial. the witness replied that he
might have made mistakes, as he had q
poor memory. ''Mr. Duffy" spoke up the
recorder yesterday you testified that you
SWore falsely before the senate committee
because you were told to SO testify. Vino
told you what to testify?" ''Mr. New
combe," answered Duffy. Newcombe arose
HIS FACE PALLID
and lips blanched: AT this point" he ut
tered. ''Of the case l ask permission T." take
the witness stand in my own behalf in regard
to this NATTER
Not now. Mr.. Newcombe," replied the
recorder, ''all in good time"
Gen. Tracy also arose and demanded that
his associate be permitted to defend himself
Oh so forl a charge. declaring that, when a
member of the bar must deal with such
people as the witness. he was open to such
charges and he was entitled to an oppor-
tunity to defend himself. The recorder
said that Mr.. Newcombe should be allowed
to make statement but he would not have
any speech making now. Duffy was then
dismissed. Lawyer Newcome stated that
he had received two letters threatening him
with personal violence if he did not ''let
up" on eX-Ald. Duffy. He says that he
was warned that Michael Duffy was going
to attack him from the witness stand
and that he had prepared to meet the charge
of Duffy. He wished to read in court a
paper constituting a written statement of
the aldermen. made at the time of their en-
gagement as their counsel before the senate
committee. In that statement they one and
all denied that they had any connection
with the alleged bribery in the matter OF
the Broadway franchise. This was
TO BE THE ANSWER
to the charge by Duffy that he had commit
ted perjury before the senate committee by
instruction of Mr.. Newcombe. Mr.. New
combe further stated that one of the threat
enlng letters was evidently written by an
educated person. 1t was signed Justice" "
He had thrown the letters away. EX-Ald.
Charles B. Waite was then called as wit
ness for the people. Waite retold his ver-
SiA of of ha r
of 1884. 1t did not differ from the story
told on the former Trial. After this recess
was taken.
Waite'S testimony was continued after
recess. He swore that the aldermanic
chamber was locked at the secret meeting i'm
Aug. 1884. The next witness was j. Frank
Herman. He was the city hall reporter
who first made public the proceedings of
the doodle aldermen in the secret meet
ing. He was at the city hall early that
morning and saw several aldermen go up
stairs toward the chamber. He too went
up and entered the cloak room. opening
the door with his private key. He could
SEE INTO THE CHAMBER
from the cloak room. Aid. Waite was in
the chair. Herman had previously tried to
enter by the public door, but it was locked.
so he entered the cloak room. Witness
heard the Broadway franchise mentioned.
and waited no longer, but left to write up
his news. Upon crOSS-eXamination Kier-
nan told Mr.. Newcomb6 that he heard only
this mention and did not wait to hear what
action was taken. He did not know
whether the door opened inward or out
ward. and had not investigated this point
since. Witness went to Morrow's barber
shop about 10 o'clock and found Aid.
O'Neill there. He talked with him.
Morrow was industriously preparing Aid.
Wendell for shave. On the redirect eX-
animation witness stated that ii was fortu-
nate because the aldermen gave him the in
formation which made it possible for him to
finish his report. Osborne Bright, of the
law firm of Robinson. Scribner q Bright,
was the next witness. The firm acted as
counsel for the Broadway road in 1884.
He related the story of Lawyer Lyddy's
procuring an injunction to prevent the 1854
board of aldermen from passing the fran
chise over the mayors veto, and the man.
ner in which the injunction was dissolved
by the payment of S12. 500 to Lyddy. The
order vacating the Injunction was
granted by Judge Bartlett, of Brooklyn. on
Aug. 29. 1884. He saw Maloney receive a
copy of the order from James Richmond,
president of the Broadway road. Witness
identified as prepared in his Office in type
wiiter copies of the committees report, the
RESOLUTIONS CoNDEMNING THE MAYOR
for his veto of the bill. and in fact all of
the documents accompanying the resolution
for the franchise. In cross examination