New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-02-09
eered whether sfif living their owners
~rorlo have an opportunity TO clear
Themselves of the sulirch.
COMMITTEE AS COURT.

The Senate finished its routine Dust
mes. early THE morning. so there was
halt an hours interval before the AIDS
Conser inquiry was taken up. III thae
zine the Senate chamber was converted
into a seuhlance of a courtroom. A VII
ness stand was rugged UP III front OF the
clerks desk and tables for the opposing
counsel and numerous desks for . corps
or stenoeraphers were moved INTO inc
wei Of the chamber. Promptly at II
O'Clock Lieutenant Governor White re
ccnvened the Senate and went into tue
business OF general orders, in which the
Senate sits as committee of the whole
He called Senator Davis to preside over
the committee. then sat back in his chair,
81 interested spectator OF all that fol-
lowed.
Al Senator Davis's order the forh1ai
charges OF Senator Conger and the
answer O. Senator Aids We're read
when they we're begun there was only
scant fringe OF spectators on the Senate
hocr, and the galleries were sparseIy
filled. But before the reading was I'm
ished z horde OF the curious had as
serahled from every direction
First came the expected demand from
counsel for Aids for additional specif1ca-
lions regarding the alleged bribery Con-
xer,s LAWYERS contested this demand hot
II. ex-Iudge Van Wyck declaring that
this was pslpaele attempt to gain Decay
Which. 4 granted, would result IN ois-
closing 10 the Aids people the names OF
tho Conger Witnesses
What function would bill Of par
sEci,lars serve" 80 he asked TO put them
or their guard as TO allegations They
ssk the name Of the man who physically
delivered the money 10 Senator Aids
= bin OF particulars should not be used
70 inform them Of the names and where
shouts OF our witnesses. II is always
considered dangerous for one party 10
an actior to submit its list Of witnesses
20 The other party
The bill Of particulars vas ordered by
means OF this rollcall. SIS to s. These
who voted against furnishing the bill
we're the seven anti-Allds Senators TO
when Coneers original charges were
rrade-Agnev, Bracket, Cordts, Daven-
port Human. Newcomb and Rose, with
the addition Of Senator Travis, Of Brook
lyn.
No sooner had Senator Davis ordered
the filing CT the bill and begun to make
time allowance. than ex-Judge Van
0yck jumped 10 his feet and shouted,
We're ready. Here il as
The clerk read as follows:
To the Senate of the State OF New
York and TO Lafayette & Gleason. as
lalrN
Aids.
!, Bern CongeT. Senator from the Elst
District, do hereby. pursuant TO the de-
nland made upon me for more speclhc
statement Of my charge in the above
entitled matter. make and file the fol-
lowing bill OF particulars thereof.
F7irst-The name OF the person who
delivered the sum Of one thousand dol
lars (SI.0G0l 10 lothian Z. Aids, on or
about April oS. 1901. is Hiram G. Moe,
Of Groton, Toupllins County, y \.
Second-The said sum was demanded
by Senator lothian 2. Aids, OF Benn
Conger and Frank Cengcr, in the inter
ests OF the American Bridge Company "a
corporatioDl, the said Frank Conger
being an officer thereof.
Thirc-The particular bill referred to
IN nv said charge was an act amending
the highway law o1 The State OF New
9ark-vhlch act had been introduced in
|. 5n- asSe nbly by Assembiyman stevens,
II
ana both OF which acts tthe Malby bill
i.4v5nc passed the Senate had been re
fired to the Assembly Committee on
Internal Affairs.
tSignedD BENIN CONGER
augustus Van Week. New York, y. Y;
James y. Osborne. New York, n y:
David ". Van Hoesen. Cortland,
\. 7. Of counsel
february 6. 1910.
STATE OF New York. County Of Albany.
C.,v Of Albany. S.:
Beun CongeT being duly sworn. de-
poses and says that re Is the person
named II and who signed the foregoing
bill CT particulars; That he has read the
same and knows the contents thereof,
knowledge. BENZ C0NGER.
Sworn 10 before me- this eth day OF
February. 1910.
LAFAYETTE 5. GLEASON, Clerk.
Before the stir occasioned by the men
ton OF these specific allegations had
Quoted NJ Osborne rose to open the
case fer CoHser. He began with the his
-o-v O ihe highway legislation from
is91 Subdivision 10 81 the highway
laws o. 1890 he said, was the basis of
81 this subsequent highway legislation.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
II substance i provided that when
ever q bridge was destroyed OF injured il
should be rebuilt by the town board, and
tte cost Of rebuilding or repairing
saould be made charge on the town.
That LAW lacked three clements: There
VAS no requirement for q written con-
rrzcr between the bridge people and the
town authorities, there was no require
suent that plans be submitted 10 the
STATE Engineer, and TO plan for refer
.ndQm 30 voters on the advisability or
building or repairing Z bridge. In 1899
tee Law was amended TO provide that
whenever the cost was oycr 5000 there
must b 2 contract il writing.
In 1901, Mr. Osborne continued, As
sennbiyman Stevens. Of Franklin County,
and Senator Maihv introduced identical
bills amending this Law. These bills
tire legislation IN this case-were very
important in their details. First, they
prescribed tf1at henever the cost Of
bridge work was over $500 there should
0e a written contract. Second. they pro
1ided that wherever the cost amounted
"a 81 900 TIE Dlau should be submitted
= the state Engineer, and the work
could not be done until he certified that
he bridge was necessary and that he
approved ire plans. Third. If bridge