The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-02-17

qEE-Tha Con gressionsl Committee OF investi-
cation into the alleged corruption Of Congress
10y Me-srs. Lawrence, Stone Il Go. have rua
against snag; their principal witness, Mr..
Wolcott, having positively refused to answer
questions pat TO bin hy The committee respect
ing the employment OF moneys he receivedfrom
Lawrence, Stone & Company.
The results achieved BY the committee may
be summed up IN few words. They have dis
covered nothing tending to show that any mem
Der Of Congress receil 81 c bribe il any shape
Cor his vote on the late tariff amendment. They
have a-eerisined that $4,000 Of the S87 900
expended b. Lawrence, Stone IL Company was
spent on the Times ana Journal Of Commerce OF
this city. They have further discovered that
the famous Mstteson offered to secure twenty
five votes on the tariff question, provided $685.
0C0 were placed in the hands Of q certain
honest editor iu New York: but it does not ap-
pear that the transaction was consumusted
And i; has likewise been secertsined tina. sum
of SIS, 900 xas paid by Lawrence, Stone j. Com
pany 10 MIR. Woicott, who went on TO Washing
ton to urge forward the amendment OF the tariff
Further than this The committee has moi gone.
When asked what he did With the money, Mr..
Woi,ot! refused to answer, though be distinctly
declared that ne paid no Congressman for his
vote, ana bribed no member Of the House 10
any way or shape.
Neither the committee nor the House believe
him; at least such is the reasonable inference
from the psint. forte Il DIRE to which Mr.. Wolcott
has been subjected in the hope Of opening his
mouth. Unless the money wa spent in briting
members Of Congress, Congress has no concern
with it, and would have 10 prctext for contnu-
ing to examine, much less for impriscning Mr..
Wo.cctt as contuInaci0us witness. Mr.. Wolcoti
takes the ground that MS answered denying that
he bribed members--is true, and that Congress
has no authority either to question him further
or to hold his body in durancc.
The issue between them will probably be set
tied on an application for habeas corpus. II
seems quite likely that Mr.. Wolcott may get the
better of Congress in the fight. There is no in
trinsic mprobability in his denial that he bribed
Congressman. 1t is known that many Eastern
men are quite remarkable for their tenderness
Of conscience; there is nothing radically absurd
in supposing thH after having got the money
for what purpose we can all conjecture Mr..
Wolcott's conscientiousness may have rebelled
against q corrupt use of it, and thus that not
dollar may have ever reached Congressman's
pocket If, On this showing, the question be
reuewod-What became of the money:-why,
the only answer that can be made is that
the money remained where it was, viz: in
the pocket Of the conscientious Wolcott
II appears to be generally understood that at
the time the money was paid over TO Wolcott
he was a clerk with Lawrence, Stone 4 Com
pany; and that subsequently he has gone into
business US banker with an Ex-Governor of
Massachusetts. No doubt he put money into
the business. and no doubt he could show that
such money came from avery legitimate source,
and formed no part of this long-sought $4,000.
All these things could doubtless be very salts
factorily explained, and no doubt they will be.
II has become so common of late years for po-
litical rogucs to get money from rich men or
associations under pretence of bribing Congress,
the Legislatures or the press, and to keep the
whole Tor themselves, that Mr.. Wolcott must
expect to he rather roughly handled until he
discloses rather more Of his private business
than he now seems willing to mako public.