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

FEBRUARY ~ the same Dill was poSSe"
and sent to the Assembly, where 1t was
referred to the Committee or Internal
Affairs
Now. then. in April. 1901. something
( happened" said Mr.. Osborne. ms
Committee on Internal Affairs. WHICH
had heretofore had a state of mind tha'
out-Heroded Herod and out-Stereneu
Stevens. now reported the Senate bill out
TO be amended and recomnitted III
form that was entirely in the interests
OF the bridge interests; that is, the SUI
stance of that bill was that the contract
need not be in writing, and wheh 'iie
bridge was over $1,000 it was to De iel'
70 a referendum. In other words IL Inc
bridge companies had written the OH
themselves they could not have dohe oe'-
ter for themselves, because there were SO
few bridges that amounted 10 Slotp
that practically II was exactly what
they wanted.
so, we say that between February ~
and April there had been an entire
change Of front on the part Of the Com
nittee on Internal Affairs Among other
things. the Senate will have 70 deter
mine as committee OF the whole what
motive the Committee oil Internal Al
fairs had to change their opinion regard
ing this legislation.
Another significant fact was that
Stevens dropped in at very opportune
moment. The report was accepted, the
bill was recommitted. as l say. exactly
as the bridge interested would have
wanted IL Stevens came In IN a great
state Of excitement, apparently find
from reading the minutes-and he pro-
tested and said that the singer had
been taken out of his bill. in substance
that the amendment was in favor of the
bridges. and he demanded Of the Assem-
bly, that they reconsider that bill
BILL. RECONSTRUCTED.
This is the way the bill now stands
on ApriI s. 1901. in the Committee On
Internal Affairs" said he. but no
sooner had Stevens passed out from The
Assembly than the Committee on Inter
nal Affairs Immediately arose and
amended the stevens bill itself to con-
form TO the requirements OF the bridges
that is, they put exactly the same
all1en1IllSIL Al liie IltFCliS NAAA 1890
minute before the Assembly had
taken out OF the Malby bill
Mr. Stevens. not keeping as close an
eve on MS bill as he might have done
allowed that TO go through. and the Dill
then was'recommitted amended exactly
as the Internal Affairs Committee hao
intended TO amend the Malby bill-that
is. only a referendum in case OF sIo,ouo
and no written contract. That. is the
way the matter now stands.
THE IMPLIED INVITATION.
we will claim here, among other
! things. that we will be able TO show. II
/ we are called on to do it, why il was the
! Committee OF Internal Affairs changed
front. We claim that that Is an abso-
! Int overwhelming and incontestable
! corroboration of the witnesses we eX-
! meet 70 nut upon the stand. that it can
not escape from the mind Of any reason
/ ing man. and that the Committee on In
1ernal Affairs had some good and sub
! stantiaI reason to change its front be-
tween February 20 and April S.
I'VE will show. in addition to that,
/ that the learned respondent in this case,
! one OF the most astute legislators that
| the State Of New York has ever proc
duced at that time the leader Of the AS
! sembly. at that time one of the mem
! hers of the Committee on Rules-and if
/ understand the duty OF the leader Of
the, Assembly, that august and very
highly responsible position requires him
10 keep track of. to become acquainted
with. the details Of legislation pending
before the Assembly-i7e vas present.
conducting. as he does. his business with
industry and intelligence-it IS abso-
lutely impossible that i1caUld escape his
attention that the Committee on In
ternal Affairs had been first in favor Of
the Stevens bill and suddenly switched
around and became opposed to it.
u call your attention to the fact also.
that apparently he concUrred III all the
votes that we're made III the Assem- bly,
on that day OF April S; that he con-
Cured in accepting the report which
amended the bill apparently in favor Of
the bridges; that he concurred in The
vote to reconsider the' Malby bill and
send il back. and that he concurred in
the amendments of the committee which
! amended the Stevens bill in favor Of the
policies demanded by the bridges; that
he did all that in one day.
Now. We claim that his attitude that
Gay of changing from one to the other
intensely and completely corroborates
the witnesses which we shall here pro-
duce. And why?
The Stevens pill IS now resting III the
| Internal Affairs Committee, in favor of
the bridges. and the Malby bill is slum-
bering side by side with il in favor Of
I the policy Of Malby and SteYens-abso-
! lutely inconsistent positions-and, what
/ must have been perfectly plain, We shall
/ claim. and circumstances will prove III
! this ease II must have been known TO
/ the learned respondent in this case, that
as long "a that Malby bin remained IN
/ the committee il was an invitation to
! come up TO the captains desk and
/ settle
! As The lawyer blunty interpreted the
legislative manpuvrings il this fashion,
/ Senator AIds's face flushed and he
wriSgled III his chair while Senators
! around the circle looked at each other in
J amazement and the galleries gasped IN
! their excitement. Senator Conser placid
! iy chewed gum.
WHAT CONGER SAID
TS,lt more hl,iut INTERPRETATION Of legiS~