New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-04-28

The fact has lately been made known that the
old Board If Supervisors, at the close oi loo''
voted gratuity Of $500 each to certain reporters
of The N. Y. Herald, n. Y. Times, N. I. Express,
Nncs, Courier and Enquirer and Commercial Id
reriser. This sum was given for services rendered
to the Common Council BY those individuals No
particular service was specified, and no other rea-
son for the grant assigned than that they were
newspaper reporters. Tie matter, however, was
not acted upon in the Common Council; member
of the late Board Of Councilmen himself con-
becttd with the press having given notice that be
should resis. and expose the transaction. 1t was
accordingly consummsted by the Supervisors, where
the refractory Councilman could not be heard on
the subject and where only the sturdy honesty OF
Alderman Blunt was interpOsed against 1t. 1t
seems. however, that Controller Flagg refused to
pay the money; but that the applicants, with the
Ieporter of The Herald at their lead, got the
present Common Council to iusert it into the tax
levy f the present year, in which 1t went to AL
bacy and was approved, with the rest OF that re-
maIksble document, by the Legislature. We are
happy to add that Mr. f. w. Davies, reporter OF
The Sun, IN whom the managers of the scheme
had proposed to confer share of the plumber,
cau.ed bis name to be stricken from the list feel
ing that he could not honestly take the money.
The Gaze having come to our knowledge we
briefly made it public, with the remark that no re-
porter of The TRIBUNE had part in this unjllsti-
fable eratuty. To this The n. Y. Times replies
IN its lie aiding columns, and The n. Y. Herald in
letter to the Editor, charging that two employees
of THE TRIBUNE were paid $50 by the same
Common Council "for precisely the same services"
This is the very opposite of the truth. Two excel
lie short. hand writers were engaged by special
Committee of the late Common Council to take
down the testimony in an Investigation, which last
"a for several days. This testimony was duly
written out by them and published in Corporation
document of some POO pages. For that special SER
vice they were paid at the usual rates for such work,
by regular vote Of the Common Council, and not
by private grant jobbed through the Supervisors.
OF these two reporters, one only was, at the time,
in the seivice Of THE TRIBUNE; and We should be
glad TO btleye that sll young men connected with
the press spend all their leisure houIs as wisely as
be did on this occasion. But when our cotem
FOEifts pIctpu tDdt lLIs 20 tuc sahIc sVi' vi oeA
vice as that for which the reporters Of The Herald
Tim,s, Express, &c, got $500 apiece, they are
rdulgiog ID bit Of hunbug In TIE one case the
parties were paid for specific work, publicly per-
formed charged for in a regular bill rendered,
aid having nothing 10 do with either The TRIBUNE
or Any otter journal; in the other they receive
gra,uity of $500 each for nothing at sill except that
hey weIe the reporters of different newsf apers,
snd nay perhaps have served the members of the
Common Council in some secret way. Whether
il was piece of bribery Oh the part of the
late Supervisors and of the present Common
Council or whether il was a sort OF black
mail levied BY the reporters 10 question, or
whether il was benevolent gratuity asked
and eccived because they are underpaid BY their
employers, is something about which doubt may
be possible. There can be no doubt, however,
that these fellows have got $500 each OF the public
money to which they have no just right whatever:
al We submit that The ". Y. Times and ~ \.
Herald would better avoid their share of the disgrace
by correcting their employees than BY giving them
the Use of their column, for false. abusive and
irrelevant statements respecting The TRIBUNE.
1lT u TIT bah L.