New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-11-26
COL. O'BYRNE TEST1FIES.
WON'T TELL WHOM HE DIVIDED WITH
THE RELATIONS OF CLIENT AND COUNSEL MUST

:, ar non.r,ment On trial, appeared at tho nearing
yesterday and took lively Interest IN the Prooeee
when Colonel O'Bymo, the main witness oi "e 10Y
M formulated his testimony Mr. Post put seVerai
questions TO him for the purpose OF showing 'na' ms
,,ors e,d Influence in connection with obtaining tho
favorable action OF the Dock Board In behan Oh MS
clients tho oystcrmcn. were much less IMAM ne "su
r~nresented. Commissioner Post, DeiOfo uio u"'
proceedings began, expressed desire Tor an opPor
unity 10 testify His request Will be granted
The first witnesses called were officers OF the Fort
Jervis banks the supreme Court having dec ided on
the applc aton of the Corporation Counsel that hey
must produce transcripts of the bank accounts OF
Dockmaster David ". Bogart and his wife. william
f. Scott cashier of the National Bank of Port Jervis
testified that their deposits amounted to about $4,000
h.,ween August l. 1857 and November Is, 1850.
C. Eyeritt president OF the First National Bank OF
Port Jeryis. submitted figures showing that B0gart
and bis wife, between January, 1850, ana November
IS had deposited 81 800. Dockmaster Bogarts salary
was 81 500 year.
Colonel John o Byrnc. the next witness, was
accompanied by his counsel, Abraham Gruber. Mr.
Gruber wanted know several things about the scope
burmese bounds and lawfuncss of the investigation.
all of which he proposed should be spread upon tho
records lie was especially anxious for information
as 10 whether Mayor Grant had ordered the inquiry
Corporation Counsel Clara and Commissioner toahah
sat down more less gently upon Mr.. Gruber and
he slowly subsidized
reports that he had been shammng sickness for the
purpose of avoiding the subpoenas of the Commission
ers told how he had been waited upon by dele
CATION or committee of the Oyster Dealers Association
last February at his Office. Among them was James
W. Boyle After finding out what kind of a franchise
the oy stermen wanted the Colonel said he fixed The
amount OF his fee $4,000. Ono OF the committee
thought that $4,000 ought to be sufficient COM
pensa,ion and he finally compromised at $4,000
This paid 10 him in three instruments, after
the work was donc.7 S6.1sS ii July l.. a. OBS 20
on July 90. and the remainder on July "a.
The Colonel made a statement in detail of the
"labors7 he performed in learning the money
telling how he visited the Dock Commissioners with the
committee 10 see II lease Of twentyOne years could
be procured: how he had made an exhaustive study
OF the sodaon Act, which resulted in his discovery
that the franchise could he obtained only by legiSa
ton how he drafted the bill which after amendment
was passed at Albany, and how he finally succeeded
after much argument and persuasion in obtaining
from the Dock DEPARTMENT ratification of Chapter o2l
OF the laws of 1850. lie said that he believed as a
matter OF law the Dock Commissioners had no power
To set aside the grant he had obtained, for eqhtaDe
rights would arise which would prevent any revoca-
ton except for cause. The Colonel therefore was
perfectly clear that his fee OF $4,000 was anything
but an exorbitant If EOurhe Cochran Joseph H.
Choate or Roscoe Conkling had obtained such ran
chse and received the same or a much larger sum-
Colonel O'Byrne was sure nothing would nave Ocei |
said about IL.
" To whom did you pay any portion OF 'hls MONEY
asked Mr. Clark
Mr. o'Byrne said that he had used it for living eX'
pcnses Office rent. debts that he owed and The Ike
Part of il he admitted that he had given 10 some
other people, Who those olhef people "0io "0 w
clined 10 say
Did James W. Boyle asked Mr.. Clark, remain |
behind in Your office after the other committeeman
had gone, having paid you this money
al have no recollection that he did, was The |
answer
"what portion of the first nsalment of this $4,000,
namely. S61o5 Fl, did you pay TO James W. Boyie' |
was MIR. Clark's next question
Counsellor Oruber objected TO the question as lrrel
evant and as tending dvuse the relations OF lawyer
and client
Il ask the Commissioners of Accounts TO command
the witness TO answer said Corporation Counsel
Clark.
Commissioner Holahan said: Tho Commissioners
command tho witness answer
Il decline to answer Colonel oByrne replied
On what ground" Mr.. Clark asked
ION the ground that it might compel me TO divuige
nv relations with my clients
What clients'' the Corporation Counsel inquired
James W. Boyle. member of the committee
was one of my clients was the response.
The same questions asked 10y Mr.. Clark re-
garding the other instalments. MI Gruber msne
the same objections and Colonel O'Dyrne declined to
answer for the same he respecting the
first instalment.
In answer TO Mr. Gruber Colonel OByme swore that
no part Of his fec had been paid either directly or
indirectly TO influence legislation 10 obtain the
action of tho Dock Commissioners He denied that
he had ever heard OF any dissatisfaction on the part
of the oystermen or that any complaint had reached
him the effect that they had not received the value
Of their money transcript OF GolG Ss!
to ns I"9 Bank Where he made his deposits. was
presented 10 the Commissioners. No trace OF The
Si3 600 or any other large visible there The
highest sum deposited in the bank during the part Of
the present year IN which he deposited there was 500
Mr. Clark Will apply TO the supreme Court today
probably for an order to compel Colonel OByrnc TO
disclose what sums, if any. embraced In the Sl3ooO DC
After the recess Mr. Clark called a number of WITT
nesses who confirmed the evidence brought out last
week as 10 the lax methods IN vogue in the Dock De
parnlent In measuring the quantities OF mud and CRIB
work removed by dredging. and the opportunities
possessed by the Union Dredging Company and other
Contractors for obtaining excessive allowances George
w. Carpenter and John McDonOugh inspectors
was Obliged to rely principally upon their honesty
regarding the sums paid for dredging and work at 81
* william Ran Raimer Who sad he had been appointed
superintendent of Dredging in October. 1s72 by GEN
era Mcclellan. and held the place until 1883, told how
the Dock Departments dredging plant had wasted
away until it had disappeared. and new The work was
increased cost. 4 test had been made IN 1876.
ascertain the cost Of dredging by Assistant Engineer
Kidd now dead, with the witnesses assistance which
resulted in fixing the price of muddledging al little
less than nine cents Per cubic yard: The city now
cubic yard for mud dredging.
Allen NJ, sPooner and George B. Rogers. hydro.
duties. Mr. Clark succeeded I'm getting both these
officials TO admit that Their was no other check upon
Thompson's Guesses7 During the testimony of HYDRO
grapbcr spooncr, the experiences Of Messrs; Adams
accordance with the arbitrary plans of the Dock De
ps,%ent were brought out Although strongly pro,
s s topPied ao oyer into the river at loss TO
The examination will 60 on at IL a. m. to-day.