New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-23

and when the Republican party was
cut Of power in the state A chairman
Of that committee ] never attempted
70 build up any machine nor TO die
tate nominations nor to act in accord
ence with the ideas which formerly
had prevailed with regard 10 the func-
tons Of that Office.
The jury declared that had no
cause for action against Mr.. Roosevelt,
who charged me with acts which ! did
not commit. and, therefore, temporar-
lily the public may believe that was
guilty Of what ! did not do.
However, the knowledge Of the COM
Tlete reotitude Of my conduct must
content me, which. after all, Is the
only important thing in life"
Complains OF Courts Attitude.
Mr. Wins discussed at some length
the situation in which the Barnes
forces find themselves as result OF
the verdict He said they were salts
fed that the matter set ont in Colonel
ROosevclt's answer in justification OF
the charge was badly pleaded and in
admissible and that Il was the duty OF
the court 70 direct 2 verdict for the
plaintiff as requested. His statement
is, in part, as follows;
The verdict is entirely unexpected.
We were satisfied from the beginning
that the attitude of tho court toward
the libel was not in conformity with
precedent. and quoted the early similar
cases Of Governor Morgan Lewis and
Of Lieutenant Governor Root, Speaker
littleiohn and the late cases Of Hoev
against The Times tho Cohalan case
and the case Of Trigcs against The
sun Hamilton against Emo. as well rs
numerous decisions of Justice Gaynor,
who was a master in the law of libel
From the outset there was a differ
ence Of opinion between court and
counsel for the plaintiff as 70 the ap-
rlication Of these presidents 10 the
case nj bar The result of this was
that ut the trial OF the case numerous
objections were taken 20 the admission
and the rejection Of evidence. and the
entire charge 20 the jury was excepted
to. with the exception OF the courts
discussion on the law of libel. The
books are full Of cases in which the
lower courts and juries have been re-
versed. and we are satisfied that the
matter set out in the answer in Justi-
0cation Of the charge was badly plead
ed ana lDaOUlcSluics hliu lihN ~ """
the duty Of the court 70 direct YER
dict for the plaintiff. "a requested.
The court declined such request,
treating the libel not IN It's entirety
ard leaving two specific questions TO
the Jury, In opposition 70 what we be-
lieve 10 be the proper law Of the case.
The result OF the courts rulings at
divers times was 70 produce very
considerable confusion in the minds
cf counsel on both sides, and both sides
reserved all Of their rights by the nee
essarv procedure in the form Of ex.
ceptiors. This is ell that can be said
about the matter.
an the meantime may add that II
remains absolutely true that, as mat
ter Of law. the charge complained OF
was without justification and was con-
fined in its application 70 the time
covered by the Democratic admlnistra-
ton, and that there was no evidence
Of any kind in the case OF any collu-
sion between Mr.. Barnes and Mr.. Muir
phv, but the most direct evidence OF
the attempt on the part of Mr.. Barnes
10 defeat Mr. Murphy az every point
The justices in the Fourth Depart
ment. before whom the case VIII come
on appeal. are Frederick ". kruse, OF
Olean. presiding justice: James A: Rob-
son, Of Cansndaigua; Nathaniel Foote:
of Rochester; John S. Lambert: OF
Fredonia. and Edgar s. K. Merrill, OF
Lowville. associate justices.