Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1840-12-11

doubt that II came from the Wing CORRUPTION
| fund, which was under the control Of the
Wing committed Where else could il come
from! Mr.. Havens, who, with all bis reluc.
lance, swears that he paid over to him q large
sum, hut cannot tell where il came from. A
package was handed to him by young man,
but be did not know who he was, nor where
the money came from, nor for what purpose il
was sent to Glentworth. This single fact
was there no other, that Glentworth, in this
operation, expended several thousand dollars
in money, establishes beyond all doubt or Con.
troversy the participation of the Wing mana.
gers in this fagicious transaction. Client
worth was only the agent, and his principals
or employers furnished him with the money.
Andtit - prored ny Havens himself thai
q large sum Of this money passed through his
hands into -Glentworth's. This connects the
transaction with Wing leaders in New York
throwing ont Of the case Glentwortl's confess
sions, and every other circumstance. Those
who furnished the money to purchase the votes
Of these vagabonds, were not only party to
the transaction, but they were the principals in
it, and Glentworth was only their agent
However guilty he may be, they are still more
guilty.
But as the last effort to escape the infamy
due to their criminal participation, in this au-
dacious crime. The Wing committee and
others set up plea that Glentworth went be-
yond his instructions. They assert that they
had heard that certain gentlemen in Philadel-
phia were intending to send on men to vote
the Democratic ticket, and that Glentworth
was sent on to Philadelphia to get persons to
come to New York as challengers to stop ille-
gal voters against them. Was there ever SO
preposterous pretence! But drowning men
cling to straws. Let us examine this honest
plea for moment. 1t is to be remembered
that those criminals plead double, as the law
yers call it, for they had previously pleaded
not gully, by denying all knowledge or parti-
cipation in the transaction. They deny that
they knew what Glentworth went to Philadel-
phia for, and some Of them any knowledge of
his having gone there. These two pleas are
inconsistent, and contradict each other. The
first denies all participation in the transaction,
and the second admits it, and sets up justifi-
cation. Both these pleas cannot be true, but
both may be false. If the object for which
G|entworth was sent was lawful and proper,
why did these honest men deny their partici-
patton in it! Why so much concealment?
But these innocent and prosecuted gentlemen,
one at least is counsellor at
law, seem to overlook one important point in
their defence. They seem to forget that there
are accessories after as well as before the COM
mission Of the crime.
j Gientwor.h sras sent TO phsladelr h;a to OBJ
tain watchers! it is certain he did not procure
men for that purpose. He hired men 10 come
on aud vote; and they did come on and vote.
The original purpose, therefore, is Of no i'm
portance, because these Hessians were brought
10 New York by Glentwofth to vote, and some
of the Wing managers took charge OF the
men, assisted in getting in their votes, and
others paid the expense Of the operations; and
others aided them to escape detection.
But that there was ever such purpose is 4
perfectly ridiculous. Would any men in their
senses expend several thousand dollars, mere
~ to procure challengers at an election!
Would they pay thirty dollars each for such
an object! And would they scrape up the
very dogs and offals of a city to get persons
10 wa.ch the polls? Must not challengers be
decent r.eu, whose statements would be enti-
lied to credit? But the simple fact of the a.
mount of money which was required to get
on these men, is Of itself conclusive evidence
that it was perfectly understood for what pur-
pose they were to be brought to New York.
The large sum paid was the wages Of sin. It
is not to be forgotten that this extraordinary
plea, which from lis improbabiity, would re-
qnire the strongest proof, has not single par
licle Of testimony to support 1t. There IS no
evidence or pretence that any men were
brought to Philadelphia to vote the Democrat
ic ticket; nor is there single circumstance
proved, tending to give even coloring to such
a charge. They say it was rumored that men
were to be sent on for this purpose by certain
gentlemen in Philadelphia. But do they
bring this rumor home to any individual OF
the Democratic party? Do they prove any
word, act, or deed Of any Re-
publican, either in New York or Philadelphia,
which gives even color to this rupor! No
thing Of the kind. But the public are called
upon to believe that the Wing committee, IN
of an idle rumor, wholly unsuP-
ported, expended thousands OF dollars, to Inn
port some hundreds Of watchers to prevent I'M
aginary frauds, Of which they had no knowl-
edge whatever! Is. this the way the Wing
spend their money! Glentworth
knew better. He told Capt. Shultz, when
going on, that he was intending to DO some.
thing that would "tell for the Wing ticket"
But certain honest Wings rely on their let
ter to Glentworth, in which they tell him. that
if he has any thing further in view than to
bring on men to guard the polls against frauds
and protect the ballot box, he slust 60 20 fur
Their. This letter is the very strongest evil
dence against them. Nocandid man can read
it without being fully convinced on the subject.
Il bears on its very face the most conclusive
marks Of dishonesty and sinister design. The
very fact Of writing the letter, shows that
Draper, Blatchford, Grinnel. and others pres
ent at the time. knew, OF believed, that Client
was engaged in enIisting men to bring TO New
York to vote, in violation Of law, and by the
commission Of perjury; and that be was as
Stunning 10 act as their agent; and spending
their money in this operation. What language