New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-02-09

! Committee on Internal Affairs, with the
| result that an agreement was reached;
and Il anybody in the Senate. wants to
! bring out what that arrangement was,
] we Will tell it: but it is our desire, as far
as mortal man can do it. to confine our
! selves to exactly the specific charge
! which which is here presented TO this
| honorable body
! Now, the effect of this agreement
! that was entered into was that the
! amendments Of April were sent out
! into the Assembly. BY this committee
| After that / don't remember The exact
| date. but while this legislation was
! pending the learned respondent-and l
think that he is such an able navigator
/ In legislative affairs that this ripple on
! the waters of the Internal Affairs Com
nittee could not have escaped his notice
it is impossible for him. who has been
such an able leader of the House not 10
| have known that there was so1letnlnS
rotten in Denmark, something in that
committee which required his attention
Watch the beginnings as the Latips
say-the beginnings the change of front
on the part of the Committee OF Internal
afairs-and you will catch the thread;
ali YOU have to do is to draw 1t gently,
persistently. and ii all becomes as plain
as a simple story can be plain
What happens now is that We have
the Malty bill: the Internal Affairs Com
mittea is irretrievaby committed to the
| bridges I do not think it would be pos
si5le even for that committee to change
front again The bridges have been held,
and one question that 1 am going to
ask this body is. If a man on black
horse walks up to you and puts pistol
at your head. and says. Stand and de-
liver.' and you deliver. are you an &C
complice%
Senator Bracket wanted to get the
proposition precisely accurate. and MI
Osborne went over Il with him. reading
data from the legislative books.
Now" said he we have that beautl-
tul position of the Committee on Internal
Affairs having two bills, the Malby bill,
as clean as hounds tooth, from which
1t had come. 50 to speak. and the Stevens
bill amended absolutely in favor OF
bridges: so that they had the two
strings to their bow and were prepared
to jump any way the situation required.
They were absolute masters of the sltud-
ton In one hand they had bill in
favor of the bridges, and in the other
they had one in favor of the bill intro
duced by Malby and introduced by Ste
yens This is the situation which IF
course. must have been known TO the
learned respondent in this case. we claim.
Nov. that being the situation, the
Malbv bill was a club that could be
welded at any moment against the
bridges. and. as I said before, we shall
claim and prove that every day it stood
there it was a menace to the bridges
and To their interests
GIVING OF ALLEGED BRJBE-
At that point recess was taken. When
the inquiry was resumed Mr.. Osborne
declared that neither lie nor Senator
Conger meant to attribute any miscon-
duct to Assemblyman Stevens. They
simply meant that certain persons had
taken advantage Of an honest bill in the
Assembly and had USED it for their own
purposes.
From that point Mr.. Osborne. who had
floundered somewhat in the technical
tiles OF legislation. found firm ground.
He was coming to the real point of his
story, the actual giving of the bride.
His audiencesrealized that, and straight
ened up in their seats. expectant. Sen
ator Aids evidently realized it. and ap-
reared to brace himself in his chair.
Senator Conger still 'chewed gum. His
laws moved with the monotony of q
pendulum
u will state as nearly as / can" said
MIR Osborne, that there were three
personal conversations between the
learned respondent in this case and Sen
ator Conger, as recollect it. The first
was at or about the time that the Ste
vens bill was first reported out. having
been amended, and was recommended to
the Committee on Internal Affairs, with
the policy of the bill intensified.
AT about that time Senator Conger
was approached and was told that he
had better do something about it or
! that bill would be passed And he there
upon sent for his brother. Frank Con-
ger. This conversation is not one that
| he had with the learned respondent, but
/ with representative of that committee,
! and an agreement was entered into be-
| tween Frank Conger and these repre-
/ sentatives of the Committee on Internal
/ Affairs to the effect that if a certain
! sum Of money was paid to them that
/ that bill would be taken care Of and
! would not be pressed for passage.
/ This effort TO amend the bill SO as to
! take the meaning and the sting out OF
/ il was done pursuant to that agreement.
Now the existence of the Senate bill
! i'll its original shape, as Introduced In
! the Senate, was just as harmful to the
interests of the bridge companies as the
! Stevens bill. and if that bill was report
ed out to the House and passed, all the
evils that the bridge companies feared
would become existent While these
| matters we're pending before the Com
! mittee on Internal Affairs, the respond
| ent approached Conger-Senator Conger
] and said to him:
You must remember that. however
we'll you may be situated so far as the
| Committee on Internal Affairs are con-
| cerned, / am q member of the Commit
| tee on Rules AS I understand 1t, at a
! certain period before the Legislature
adjourned all bills that have been un.
. reported in the committees are taken