The New York herald., 1870-05-20
THE GEORGIA CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION.
Report Of the Senate Judiciary Committee
An Insight Into Georgia RadicaIisni-At-
tempt 10 influence Senators Governor Bull
locks Course Condemned.

An Insight Into Georgia RailicaIism-At-
tempt 10 influence Senators Governor Bull
locks Course Condemned.
WASHINGTON May TO- 1870.
The Committee on the Judiciary, who were IN
structed TO inquire ana report whether any corrupt
and improper means have been nscd or attempted
to influence Senators on the Georgia question, made
a report this afternoon. They experienced muc
difficulty in ascertaining the facts, ana the examna
tion was protracted by the unwingness OF wit
nes.eses who were In position TO know the truth.
The first examined was Mr.. James Hughes. from
Indiana who testified that q gentleman named Por-
ter called on him on the evening OF the 2lst OF March
last, but he was not positive about the date. Mr..
Porter asked him whether he could control the vot
Of Senator Carpenter. Mr.. Hughes replied he did
not think lie could, but he had no doubt he could
ascertain how he was going TO vote upon any ques
ton OF importance. Mr.. Porter said that S10,0UO IN
railroad bonds. endorsed by the State OF Georgia,
could he put up to secure his vote against the Blng
ham amendment. Mr. Hughes told Mr.. Porter he
could not approach senator Carpenter with any pro-
position or that sort; but he satisfied IN his
mind he wonld vote for the amendment Before
Mr. Porter lett the room he made some re-
mark TO the effect that the $4,000 was to
be divided between Mr.. Porter and himself IN
| OF Its being done. Mr.. Hughes told him he could
have nothing to do with such o transaction. Mr.
| Hughes subsequently met Senator Carpenter, who
| SAID he would vote for the amendment and against
| the bill. Mr.. Hughes then mentioned 70 him the
matter ana % %sagsest,ead mat perhaps 1t was due 70
| the Senate. He laughed. and replied he had done
nothing in the matter, and did not So propose; that
| In the present state OF public feeling he did nol
desire the nOtorety OF having it known that even
| any person mad held him so cheap 10 suppose that
his vote could be bought lie afterwards td Porter
| that Carpenter said he would vote for the amend
ment and against the bill. This was the end OF The
matter Ihe name Is Lewis Porter. He Is the imam
| cia clerk of The city Post Office.
| The committee next examined Mr.. Porter, who
denied on oath having knowledge Of an attempt on
the part or any one 10 influence vote The Georgia
question or that he had talked with any except
Ing Judge Hughes. II was not untl protraced ex-
animation that he testified he had con yersations with
| different persons on the Georgia question and had
| asked Judge Hughes Us to Senator Carpenters VOTE
| He then asked to he allowed 10 take legal advice
| He wanted to employ Hughes as an attorney IN the
matter. He tod Hughes he could do good. He
talked about $4,000. but there was no positive ar
rangement Tor this $4,000. Hughes was to look the
question over and ascert tn the situation and render
SUCH aid as he could. Mr.. Avery. connected with a
witness ana had $4,000 worth of bonds. Avery
| was q director In the Brunswick and Albany Rail
road Company. and admitted having gone ~ see
Porter, who was an active politician In the repubi
| can party. Avery admitted that he went to New
| YorK TO obtain people TO write letters 10 Senators
| and had asked twenty men TO write 10 Senators
| Conkling and Fenton and that had cost money.
II appears from the testimony OF Henry M. Atkin-
son. sOn-n-aw or Senator Upton, that he was aI-
preached by !. b. Gibbs, all old citizen OF Nebraska,
| ana Gibbs said he would rather give $1,000 or
a"ans rda%er tne am wsS pon %eu es
said he construed as an offer OF $1,000
to induce Upton to vote against the amendment.
II also appears from AtklnsOn's testimony that
| Gibbs manifested great anxiety 10 how TptOn
would vote. Isaac L. Gibbs, in his testimony, de-
II was only figure of speech. The committee think
wili be matter q surprise to the reader OF the
| testimony that the man Gibbs, who pre- ended to
know SO little about Georgia should have so deep
| interest in the question.
e bank SsG caShed s drawn oIk NV oyeno Gl
lock in favor OF Sykes, Chadwick Co. on the
Georgia Og; National -, Bank, amounting 70 between
hotel kept by Sykes, Chadwick Co., testified that
after paying Bullocks hotel blu $500 was placed In
| the Governors hands. WIS. Huntington, cashier OF
| the First National Bank, testified that between
March Is and April 2l, 1870, they paid ss5os 20
order OF said Forney and endorsed by him.
D. 9. Forney, publisher Of the Daily Morning
Bullock were purely OF business character, and ex-
hiblted his books, showing the transactions between
fishing Speeches and other atters copies OF papers Sa
&C. $4,22s OF the above amount was pad to
the publisher during the present session Of
question. Whether theN charges are reasonable or
| whether another consideration than the printing
not have induced Mr.. Bullock to nay such prices It
will not be difficult for The impartial reader Of the
George A. Bailey, one Of the publishers OF the Con.
gresstomot Gtooe, r. o. Potkinhorn, practical
printer Of twenty years standing, and W. J. Muir.
testified as to the very liberal prices paid to d. c.
Forney, from which the committee draw the cenclu.
Dey by Bullock Ostensibly for printing and coples of
| the paper would have been liberal compensation
it important for the colored members OF the Georgia
sion Of their wishes with with regard regard sopfiS, to ne
| Bingham amendment and come TO Washington
for that purpose, and he telcgraphed them
accordingly Eleven Of the thirty three or thirty.
4 four members came to Washington as the represen.
tatives or the whole Of them, and two came who
| were notmembers OF the Legislature. He sent them
a small portion of the money was refunded The
| amount OF money made use Of by him from the 5th
Of March TO the 2lst OF Apr was $14, $780, and of this
amount $4, 800 was paid to Forney and S5O5 to the
Globe. 1t appears from Governor Bullock's iesti-
m0ny that there was no special agreement with the
publisher OF the CtTOpcie for the work done. He
| sent the matter TO himior publication without fix
| ing on the price.
a man named George d. Chapman said he
| could influence the vote Of Senator Pomeroy.
The Committee had not thought it advisable to delay
their report by sending tor Chapman who from the
| testimony before 1t assumed he could control q
Senator's vote by corrupt means; but having called
the attention OF Senator Pomeroy to his converse
| ton as testified TO by Governor Bullock, Senator
Pomeroy came before the committee and showed
Chapman to be unknown to him, save by an intre-
dnciion and net exceeding ten minutes converse
| ton, and that he was not in any connected
| with Gny Of tho matters through when Chapman
assumed he could control HIS VOTE and that the pro-
| text U Chapman's being able To influence him
| dation.
I
evidence before them, tnat such means had been
used snd attempted, however unwilling some OF the
witnesses implicated In the transaction had shown
themselves to disclose the whole truth. Enough has
come out to satisfy the committee that p J. Avery
both attempted and used improper means TO in
duence Senators to vote against the Bingham amend.
nent, and Rat Lewis Porter, officer OF the gov
ernment, acted Improperly In undertaking. for pay
10 aiu MIN "a ms purpose. X. b. Bullock, In pairing
u. y. Fornex publisher Of the Chronicle, h9vng the
patronage o. the government triple prices for print
ing pamphlets, and inserting in his paper articles
anu speecnes on the Georgia question, ana the said
d. q. Forncy: In publishing tile said articles and
speecnes Win editorials concealing the fact that he
was PAID lor the same double and triple prices did
use Improper means to influence the votes OF Sena-
tors on the Georgia question. There is no evidence
that any senator was Influenced, but 1t Is not
reasonable to suppose that newspaper In the posi.
ton or the Chronicle, enjoying to some extent the
confidence OF tho administration and of the
dominant marty in Congress- would have an intia.
ence with senators while assuming to act inds.
pendently and from sense OF duty, which It would
not possess II 1t were known that the insertion OF
many many Of tne N..s articles IL published bearing
pending question were paid for at ex-
travagant prices by persnn having an