New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-21

o, In February. think II was "o.
sn .i, Md boen n month Goyernor a.
80, that the matter came up h"'
| had to take II up. f,r,her
Mr Ivins-I object TO any 1u.sne,
...,inorv in respect to conversations
In which the third parties were
an, unless there be made speo'
,,on ~ those who were present. u
NJ Rowers-Q.-Please accept ny
,dmor,tion and give us the mans %
any third party present III aho Tho
',nyy.otion Al don't remember tno
name OF any third party being pr"S vnr'
Tall The details OF those COZ
~. AIR. Barnes Endorsed mr.
Platts protest. ,u.,
Mr.. Iyins-I object to that. NJ
~ Court-No. Tell what MI
Barnes said TO you.
Can't Remember Dntes, Gu,
,,ou state where the nrst
.oUNysrsation took place? A.-Iherg
waa more than one conVersa'ion.
.Li,L thare were several, but eahno'
state where they took place. my I'M
nrossion il that the one on the tai i,
wav was after the passage OF nc pi'i'
hut even OF that ! am not sure;
Mr. Ivins-I shall have 70 ASK e0uh-
col IN ask his witness TO what Dill "'
refers. ,
A. Ivins-No; wait minute. Two
hills were passed By the Legislatu,re :
in franchise tax. one known as .he
Eord hill and the other known as the
hill which finally became law; Do'h
we're passed by tho Legislature
Mr.. Bowers-ln what form wouid you
like the question put! ILL.,. so
Mr.. Ivins-ln some Intelligent iorh'
Mr. Bowers-I will take your form
and then It certainly will be intelligent
nerhaps to the average man.
Wr. Wins You know perfectly Wen
there were two bills passed; one Was
pending and was in Mr.; RooseVelt
hands as thirty-day bill. You are
asking a question in regard 70 con
versation concerning FRANCHISE '"A
law.
versation. Io.
Mr.. WINS want to fix these dates
/ Now. the question is as to a FRANCHISE
| tax law. A..
The Court-Now, you may give tne
conversations, not your conclusions
give as far as you can the language OF
! Tho substance Of it. A.-The substance
/ | ca ngive only the substance. and OF
the exact language of the conversation
May give the history of the two DliIs
Plat Opposed Bills.
Mr.. Roosevelt Mr.. Barnes stated
/ that Mr.. Platt was right in his opposi
ton to the bill. The objection TO the
/ franchise tax bill when the ooJec[ioo,ni
/ first came up, there was but one OIL
/ before the legislature.
/ The Court-Never mind that: Jus'
give the conversation with Mr.. Barnes
Mr. Rcosevelt-M Barnes, in ms
earlier conversations with me- Cd
iected to the passage of the franchise
tax bill and upheld Mr.. Platt IN MI
Platt's opposition.
The Court-It is very material,
the important part of the conversation
is any alleged admissions made oy Mr
Barnes as TO his reasons for opposing
the bill. Whichever bill 1t means does
not make any difference.
Mr.. Bowers do not care anything
about the franchise bill.
Mr.. Roosevelt-It would be absolute
" impossible for me to remember
which bill | discussed.
Mr.. Ivins-I asked that the answer
be stricken out unless it be made .spe
cifc, as there were two bills pending
two bills passed, two bills simulta
neously in the hands OF the Governor
and that il was quite possible for tn
plaintiff to have opposed one OF thes
bills and favored the other.
The Court upheld the motion.
Mr.. Bowers-You must tell US wha
4 IN \
that Mr.. Platt was right in his oppo
sition to the bill.
PIatt Aided Colonel.
Mr.. Ivins-Your honor, | must as
which of the bills it was that he sal
that he was right In respect to, be
cause expect to prove that Mr.. Plat
opposed one bill and supported tn
other, and assisted Mr.. Roosevelt II
his passage of the other bill.
The Court-Who supported or VIII
attacked me bills is not of the slight
est importance here. The only ques
ton is whether Mr.. Barnes stated any
thing which showed an improper meth
cd of contribution made by person
to either political party that he be
longed to. That is the only part o
the conversation that is of any i'm
portance.
Mr.. lvins-I object to it on tn
ground that at that time there was n
statute with regard to political contri
buttons, and no law whatever with re
gard to the propriety of anybody, in
dividual or corporation, in one part
or another party, with respect to tn
contributions. That any testimony i
regard to it is immaterial and irrele
|, want, and has no tendency whatever I
, support the complaint made. At leas
the answer set up here refers to
| time after the passage Of the laws con
: corning political contributions.
The Court-Well, it does not nee
any statute TO say that to allow tn
r jury to believe that a contribute
; made by persons sympathizing wit
, each political party, to the organizatio
Of one of those parties, with the ur
derstanding that the business interest
/ Of the contributor shall be guarded an
j protected by reason Of their contribr
I tions, was improper.
e Mr. Ivins-If that were the converse
e ton.
The Court-That / understand frol
the answer is to be the conversation
- Democratic Contributors to Fund.
r Mr. Bowers-Perhaps we will get a
answer. | want you to go on and Civ
e 1t as closely as you can, give your ow
). language and Mr.. Barnes's languag
Y exactly what each of you said, whetht
$ made in the presence of third person
n or not, and please do not draw any COZ
"a ciuciong Iust toll sc What aocb 90 10