New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-11

ZION.
Next counsel wanted stricken out the
testimony of Mr.. ACnow on the fact
that IN 1910 lothian p. Aids was elect
cd President pro TEN. of the Senate
by tweuty-four Republicans and ten
Democrats against the opposition OF
seven Republicans.
Aids Evidence Excluded.
There is no evidence to connect Mr.:
Barnes UP with this in any way" said
MIR. Wolf. THAT certain Democrats
voted for Aids does not show a cor
rupt Advancement between Mr.. Barnes
and Mr. Murphy. As a matter OF fact,
there is no evidence 10 show that
twenty-four votes were not enough le-
gslly 20 elect Aids"
Didn't Grattan lthe Albany Senator
vote for Aids ." interjected John NJ.
Bowers, for the defence.
There Is no proof that Grattan was
a Barnes agent" shot back Wolf.
The court ruled that the evidence
might go out, but reserved the night
for the defence later to argue for a
reversal Of the decision.
When It came 70 the motion 10 rule
out the evidence Of Jacob j. DICKINSON,
once Albany correspondent for a New
York paper, that Mr. Barnes had told
him Grattan had changed his vote on
the racetrack measure a. his request,
the court decided il should remain.
Next came the argument Of Mr..
WOLF 10 have stricken out the testl-
mony Of ex-senator Harvey D. Human
and Franklin y. Roosevelt, Assistant
Secretary Of the Navy, in regard 20 the
frht over the election Of a United
States Senator by the Legislature in
1911. He declared it had not been
shown that Mr.. Barnes had acted IN
ANYTHING except a proper manner IN
asking Republicans 10 stick 20 Senator
Depew. their candidate, rather than
ioin with independent Democrats to
defeat the Murphy entry.
Objects to F. ID. Roosevelt's Story.
"In that connection l move also TO
strike out the testimony OF Mr.. Secre,
tary Roosevelt along the same line,
sad Mr.. Wolf. "As to the statement
Of Nj. Roosevelt that Senator Grady
had told him Of an agreement between
Mr.. Barnes and Murphy that the Re
publ.cans would remain steadiast Tor
Dcpcw. go as not 20 interfere win the
efforts Of Murphy TO elect Sneehan'
there was no evidence that Mr.. Barnes
SAID it was trae when he heaId the
story from the lips Of Secretary Roose-
Welt. This and the evidence OF lIIiam
Loeb. IT,, which we do not move 10
strike out. Is all there Is on the Sen
atorship.
Here came the important declaration
bv Justice Andrews on the question OF
"corruption" or Improper" conduct.
~ think | will deny your motion,
the Justice said. while there may not
have been anything corrupt, there IS
prirna facie evidence of an agreement
between the head of the Republican or
ganization and the head Of the Demo
cratic party that the votes OF the re
publicans should be cast for one man
so as not to interfere with the election
of Mr.. Sheehan. ! think on the lace
of il such an arrangement between the
heads Of two parties is improper.
you DO not mean TO say II is cor
rupt ." asked MIR. Wolh
NO; but il is improper replied the
court. 81 will rule that an improper
alliance Is within the meaning OF the
alleged libel. AS it stands there Is
some evidence to 80 to the jury on the
ouestion Of an improper alliance. l
don't define the word corrupt as mean
inc pecuniary corruption.
you are not holding that the EVIL
dence YOU speak Of is true p asked Mr..
WINS, jumping up like shot
ooh, no. It is still subject to denial
or correction
Turning TO the testimony of ex-Sen-
ator Hinman on the defeat OF the
Hughes direct primary bill and the
passage of the Mead-Philllps measure
70 which the Governor was opposed
Mr.. Wolf asked that it 20 out. lie
linked with il what had been said along
that line By ex-Senators Josiah /. New
comb and Frederick NJ. Davenport,
Henry c. Mcmillan and Walter /.
Arndt. There was no evidence. he con-
tended. that any OF the Democrats who
had voted with the Republican ma
chine Senator's or that any Of the lat
ter had voted in any other way than in
occordance with their consciences.
There was testimony" said Mr. Van
Renscboten. chat Mr.. Barnes told
Colonel Roosevelt the Democrats would
Wins Wants Definition.
"Before we go any further" de-
clared Mr.. Wins, who had been some
what anxious over the declaration Of
Justice Andrews on corruption and
impropriety. 81 want your construction
of the word corruption | want 10
know whether you wish Us TO submit
authorities on the meaning OF the
word"
II don't think | will define anything"
Justice Andrews replied. because |
do not have 70. | will not be bound
down by anything, but can deny this
motion"
Al this point adjournment for the
day was taken. There was difference
OF opinion later as TO whether the
courts language meant 20 rule out
the testimony under discussion. The
defence commended It had. Counse for
Tho plaintiff contended they had not
finished their argument. In that case
- Is likely the justice will take back
his decision. II he intended 10 make
ona. and hear the argument through.