Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1859-10-25
DeirAldinz the Public.

Dclr3udiaz the Public.
One Of two things II cert either that the
Legislature of 1856 were not corrupted. that
they did not sell their votes for S. 900 and SO
3J0 in La Crosse Beads or that If they did SO,
and were influential by pecuniary cansidera-
tions, somebody offered these considerations
The frs: proposition does not admit of doubt,
since we have the report of the Investigating
Committee. three of whom were Democrats sub
stimulating the fact that nearly 81 100000 OF
these bohd. were distributed among member.
OF the Legislature and others whose influence
was used in securing their votes.
Now thase facts ising proved. the next qnrs-
ton that ARISES, IS: Is not the party Offering a
bride NJ guilty aa he who receives one Is there
any difference moral question If / hire
a 10 steal horse for me- an no. guilty
though stole it myself? No with
conscience can hold any other opinion. But look
at il as legal question. The Constitution Of
this State provides that men may be punished
for bribery Under the Statutes man NAV bc
DISTINGUISHED for bribery; and Section of
Chapter l67 Revised Statutes provides, that
every person who shnll corruptly give, offer,
or promise to any executive. judicial or legisla-
tive officer any gift gratssitg" whatever.
with intent to influence his act" " shall be
punished by Imprisonment in the State Prison
no. more than three years, dc" Does not this
law trca, the Offering Of bribe 4 crime.
much as the receiving OF one : Then il follows
that whoever held ont Inducements to members
of the Legislature 10 vote for the La Crosse
Land Grant Bill, is guilty Of crime and sub
jet 10 Imprisonment OF course, then. some
body was guilty Of a crime. Here the bride
or gratuity vas offered and accepted, and
byron kilbourn in his testimony. says:
caused il to be understood through the me
dinm OF persons not connected with the legIs-
lat4.re. TIA. IN the event of the La Crosse Com
pany obtaining the grant the company would
aaknn~ ledge the favor BY liberal do,leesr OF
grarstg to such members IS should favor IT.
passage
Now the question arises again. Who offered
the bride Byron Kilhourn acknowledges it
above. Masses ". Strong claims that he was
Tie father Of the La Crosse Road and was Al
tarnev h,r the Company ut the time of this bri-
bsnE or course. he knew all about their OPP
cations. IL docs not deny but admits that be
delivered many # the packages " containing
these Bonds. to members OF the Legislature
And was he luaoeeat ia the matter Dad not
his own conscience convict him What does
lie say IN his own testimony forced out Of hIru
by the Legislature? We got, IS follows, Ii,
answer to ques'i,n %. page +:
cannot. and 10 not pretend 10 anv peyfec.
recollection 81 the nale- OF the persons To who's
delivered tlc packages" l preserved no
memorandum Of the matter and have nothing
With which 10 refresh my recollection. Il has
ten the habit II ny flie to mako and preserve
written memoranda 81 al events or circfirlStau-
ces that desired - remember 6li 10 desire
70 REMINDER argttiag about Ee J.-trcry II these
packages
Why did he have no desire To remember an Y
thing sbout il Dee, innocence ever trv To-
cover up IL tracks? Is virtue ever ashamed to
hold ~ lis head aud let Il. acts be knows p
i ;hfs operations wss al right why ware such
tremsa ious efforts made - coseeal Them, Aaa
Y Moses a. Strong was actuats4 al through by
thc pUss motives DC claims. Why should he Be
- ami rs - forge, Why did he remove TO
Ali~ae-ec. aaa Sc: elected % The succeeding
ies.s.s'ure Was il not that lie mi -ht be o,.
hand 4 prevent any explosion and an inves.i-
g='ion And when the rrattsr came finally
before Inc Legislature. aEd he VS. called upon
u state what ho ksew. the same - o.hs- Wit
nesses who did testify. WAY did lie refuse -
Was be better thaa they. Were his ri,h,,,7or,.
sacred than theirs. ~ his ac.. shove review 81
examination
We think these are pertinent questions, and
vc tasas satisfactory answer woalI he that
he Vls gail.s Ike The rest, and feared ex2os.-s
lie had done what he kne~ to BE- w7a.-. te
bad rendered himself liable to the penalty ~
the laws, he, had assisted IN buying CT the r.a-
rosenta'ires oftl-s people. lie was afraid OF the
'.ieet u a. eNaoss7e among She people and he
refused 70 testify upon ihs pretcxs that lie had
: 'ishi e g before thc Legislature :.ed make a
speed : 7ishl winch n1aa has ever before
eaimd vho VS. 40; member
TIE next qus,Aa rests with the peopIs.-wiI
they endorse b. then sasFssos. one OF tie prom,
inent aefors IL this de-, r44Ing farce VIA the
Ds;necEstss party sho.>.deg tae responsibility ?
lave they not siHs enough 70 answer for. with
ct; endorsing tais Is 10, " Barstow and the
t.!anoe heavy enough load Do they ex-
rect e make sac people believe that thcv are
sae'1ies p corruption, when they sustain the
rnsieaders n Us practice And Will Iowa
County ba tic fsst county which shall have the
h'aor anu the esedil Of repudisi ing homes. psin-
efPies' -sld shdoTsns ise buying an.i seIIi.C Fl