The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-02-21

-a=--~--.E-zz---.--z--s----~--
The evidence taken in the CITY Passenger
Railway controversy, has satisfied the public
and we presume, the Legislature Also that
no injustice has been done to Mr.. Brock
and his colleagues, even by the biterest of their
assailants. The case, as it now stands. turns
fortunately upon no abstruse legal technicalities,
and until this community is wholly deprived of
the faculty called common sense, its verdict NAV
be readily anticipated When it is remembered
that these grantees or assignees or some of them,
could have furnished on the instant the fullest and
clearest explanation of every fact about which the
Committee might have chosen to inquire, their
refusal to do so is ample Justification for any dis.
paraging opinion which may be expressed regard
ing them. The grantees wrote TO the City Council,
in June last, the very evening when they knew
that body had determined to adjourn, requesting
it to continue in session and give them the oppor-
tunity Of disproving the charges which had been
preferred against them. The Council did
not accede 10 this request, but it appointed a
Committee to sit during the recess, and examine
into the complaints Of these aggrieved spectators
To the establishment of the whole town they one
GARDNER declined also TO defend themselves on
this OCCASION but from that hour 10 the present all
these parties have never ceased to denounce
the press and public for circulating reports
injurious 10 their priceless regulations Bat the
long desired moment at length arrived
when they could present themselves before an
impartial tribunal! and offer it such convinc-
ing proof of their integrity that none should
dare thereafter TO asperse their characters. The
inquiries they affected so ardent wish to answer
have been put to them, and the vague and evasive
replies which have been elected have effectually
sealed their condemnation, as would the adverse
evidence Of q hundred opposing witnesses. If the
transaction in which they have been engaged was
an honest one, the fact could have been demon
srated, by the identical individuals who rendered
to the Legislature the confused and improbable
accounts now before us. Out Of their own
mouths they stand convicted. Let any unpreiu-
diced man read carefully the testimony of two or
three Of TIE witnesses, and compare the number
less contradictions of their statements, and form,
if he can, favorable opinion of them or their case
We find Mr.. GARDNER denying that he had any in
terest in the TRAvERs Bill at the time of its pass
aSej d4thougu lie expected afterwards he Salu, 10
obtain an interest in the railroad grant, but to
what extent he did not know But Mr. Brock
testified that he had paid Mr.. GARDNER 81, 800 for
assisting in ''gettng the assignment and securing
''the passage of the TRAvERs' bnl," and GARDNER
was forced to admit what he had until then con-
ceaed MeSsrs. TRAvERs and BRowNGSG dis
tinctly say they received no compensation for the
assignment of the franchise, the one averrng that
he received $500 for his legal services after the
assignment and the other that he was paid the
same amount for his trouble and expenses. Both
deny all knowledge of the fact that their partners
received similar sums. At another stage of the
proceedings Governor PRATT, the counsel of the
grantees, admits that each of them had received
Sooo lot signing their rights TO BROCK. Mr..
CAIHoANl never dreamed of an assignment be-
fore the bill was passed" and Mr. TR.vrps
states that II was made on account of difficulties
that arose subsequently to the passage of the ordi
nance; but Mr.. BROWNING s.fully understood Il
twas to be assigned to those who had Tho 49,
'sto carry tue Dill out" They deny that tbev
were connected with BROCK while the ordinonca
was before the Council, or that they had entered
into any contract to transfer him their rights.