New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-03-22
ALDERMAN CLARK'S TRIAL.
.sprrr GIVEN TO THE CASE BY
NJ YESTERDAYS TESTIMONY
r, PALMER TEsTTFTEs THAT HE
" v,o THE RESOLUTION IN QUESTION
,,,wN 1'p-CoNTRACToRs on
TIVE STAND


r,r,rollor George W. Palmer VINO went o''
f"o.d Yesterday afternoon in the trial OF ex-
the s'".U Tosonh r Clark a charge ~ bribery.
ACORN eo,,ov.bat new aspect TO the case Mr..
CAV -.ieed that the resolution for the intro
PaIn'I - nassage Of which Il Is alleged Mr..
CUT .s,ved hrbe OF 800 was drawn mp by
1'".N .,or Counsel Burr ut the request or Mt
- The latter testified as 70 the financial CON
80 which made him desire the passage OF the
o''f The reason why Alderman clark was
re- -, present the resolution was because he had
ASK .ho --,nance Committee OF the BOARD Of
pee" .ho wear before and thoroughly IA
Aa'.,.h .ho details Of the matter. According 70
n''a, ...,,orv the resolution drawn up IN the
~ u ~o-nora;ion Counsel Burr and sent to Mr..
- ~ regular typov-ritten form.
assistant District-Attorney Nudge was called
~ s.ari and testified that he had drawn the
resolution IT., . ..,.
.a,5 10 testified that he had been printer
" ono time The only offices he ever held were
,oso a, Alderman and % inspector OF elections IN
New Lots
Mr. Clark denied that he ever had anything TO
=, With Harris or Mcguire the contractors, who
r ,s asserted paid for the passage OF a certain
..eolu.ion He declared that he had never talked
..h then, on any subject and that they had never
,,6 single dollar 20 him
me afternoon session a the trial closed with
testimony as 20 Mr.. Clark's character by several
-.sder,s of East New-York Among them were
n Pa-nhart formerly Methodist minister. and
: Linton
throughout the trial yesterday the sparks con-
.-gs5 ~ fv between Assistant Dstrict-Attorney
-, Cot who IS conducting the prosecution. and
Hsn-v YonEc. ne lawyer for the defence Oh
sections we're constantly being made by both sides
and some ~ the personal remarks exchanged were
FAR from being pleasant. Justice Keogh. however
NJ NJ
70 him % check Ny Yonge he answered:
The defendants counsel must preserve every
Interest 81 ms client. ana II he annoys the Judge,
ire Jury or the District-Attorney they must
sand it"
N- Van Cot in outlining his said that a
contract ~ Harris and Mcguire for laying some
va-e- pipes had not been ratified by the Board Of
Aldermen There was hill against the city for
ovsr $1,000 which the firm could not collect until
,he Aldermen had acted. 1t Is for securing the
payment Of this money. according 10 the indct-
men THAT Clark received 10 per cent. or more than
The morning was largely taken up with tho test-
r0ry ~ John Mcguire and Isaac Harris. me con
tractors who are alleged 10 have bribed Mr.. Clark
Tie former took the stand first and as ne was
sss,s ~, orS ali, ~ bte car througbout the OK
smSs,ior NJ Mcguire said mat his partner at
tended % all the financial affairs and had signed
the contract with the city. the collection OF which
al vas dated June O. 1856 Mr. Mcguire testified
thar be- lad talked about the contract with Alder
man Clark in Pennsylvania-ave. East New-Nork.
The prosecution was dumhfounded. however. when
The witness said that the conversation had taken
rlace IN August or September. 1907. The resolution
authorizing tho contract adopted IN June 1895.
and Assistant District a ttorney Van Colt at
tempted to correct Mr Maguire.s recollection. Nj.
yonge was nervous and irritable and was con
stan'lv making objections. while M Van oott,
WITH his mouth close 20 the ear OF the witness was
iaborng TO get the testimony in the proper form;
After he had shown the witness the contract ana
he voucher for the money with their dates, Ar.
Mcguire admitted that the conversation might nave
been In 1Ss The testimony was fnally eXcluded.
Isaac Harris the other member OF the hrm. OF
contractors next went OF the stand. and testlned
about conversation ne had had with Alderman
Clark In regard 70 the contract He said tnat
NJ Clark d'd not a. the time appear to take any
great interest IN the matter
W Harris then testified that after he received
him N Tho Arbuckle Building. According 70 the
Grand Jury minutes and the text OF the indict-
menf NJ Clark received 500 Mr.. Harris eX-
planned that the Grand Jury stenographer might
have made mistake IN putting down remark OF
his % % the Jurors. thinking II a reply 10 a
question ~ Assistant District-AttOrney Clarke
l. seems that the Grand Jury minutes are At
variance with Mr. Harriss testimony yesterday IN
still another particular They say he testified
that the meeting with Clark. when the payment
o. money took place. ~ the CITY Hall. Mr..
Harris said that ne said such thing. and
tina, 10 must he p mistake 81 the stenographer.