New-York daily tribune., 1863-10-27
THE JUDGEsHIP RAFFLE.

We have received an affidavit from Messrs
Cornell and Tweed, in relation to the supposed
gambling for the nomination of Judge Of the
Superior Court, and in reply to the direct alle-
cations of Tho Day Book and atlas, both
Democratic papers, which we copied yesterday.
1t is as follows:
sCitv and County Of Nec York-Charles @. Cornell and
william M Tweed being duly severay swon, each dsposss
and says ths. he has read In The TRIBUNE Of this day
tracts from The Day Book and Aas pretending give state
men Of alleged drawings lotteries other chance In refer
ence to the nominations for Justice Of the Superior Court
with which their conncced and that such state
mens are and untrue and without the slightest founds
ton In fact, directly or indirectly remote contingent
That having been called upon by District Attorney Hall In
reference said statements this affidavit made at his re-
quest. CHAs. O. CORNELL,
WILLIAM NJ. TWEED.
Sworn to before me this 26ih day OF October, 1862
THEODORE FkoxEsT. Com'r of Deeds
This contradiction is positive and, so far as
Messrs Cornell and Tweed are concerned, will
probably be accepted by the journals referred
to, though we know nothing Of the evidence on
which they felt authorized to make the direct
change against those gentlemen. The careful
reader however, will observe that the AFFIDAVIT
is very cautiously worded, and may have been
intended to contradict only the statement that
Messrs. Cornell and Tweed drew lots for the
chance Of nomination, and that one oi them
hing his hat over the keyhOlc, while
the main fact, that game OF chance
was played by somebody at the meeting
the holding Of rhich is not denied-is left
untouched. The parties present ON that
occasion were greater bunglcrS than anybody
presumes to believe them, if they were so III
cautious az to render the production Of positive
evidence possible as to precisely what they did
in tina, council. Knowing this, we, for our part,
have been careful a. 10 the charge We made
We noted the fact that prcyiou,
to the meeting in question Mr.. Jones was
very much the stronger candidate, and It was
generally supposed that he would receive the
nominations; that NJ a stated time, and at a
stated place. the next friends of the two candi-
dates met in secret cOnclgvc; that after that
meeting it was understood that Mr.. Gar
vim was to receive the nomination, which
he did without any opposition on
the part OF Mr.. Jones's more numerous
friends; and that the prcsump,iye and moral
evidence was that this result Was brought ab pni
by resort to some sor, Of game Of chance, IN
asmuch as such methods Ia settle conhiot ting
claims to nominations in the Democratic party
had been resoried to on previous occasions, a"d
inasmuoh as one OF the parties on his way to
this meeting had declared To friend
that such was bis errand. We doubt
if any Of tho pcrons whose names
are involved in this affair will ever permit Us TO
call witnesses before a Jury to show the grounds
on which We u ought, and st!ll think, ourselves
justified in bringing the matter before tho pub
lie. 1t viii probably be thought more prudent
TO depend upon contradictions which can be
safely made without touching she main point At
issue. In the meanwhile the public will come
to very decided opinion upon the nature If a
transaction upon which much wcll-iounded
suspicion can be fastened, and will seek for
some method 10 brand ~ IL deserves such hor.
rible tampering with the purity Of Judicial
nominations.