New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-06-24

ga perfectly fair and correct abstract OF lay
"jor,s sworn testimony ; he gave ii as Taylor's
testimony and he drew no differences from
=" il and made no assumptions from it,"
This was The Posts editorial comment yester-
day. We hardly know how to account for IT,
Smiths dispatch appeared in The Post OF June
6. 1t was headed Important Disclosures
" Bribery in Washington" and it says Your
correspondent has come into possession OF
" facts of an official character and THESE
establish beyond doubt that there
"has been large and powerful loDDy
at work for the purpose of bribing Senators
and Members, and to induce the President
" and his Cabinet to recognize the belilger-
"ency of the Cuban republic" Then we have
a long narrative of the operations OF Taylor,
Latham. Mr.. Ruiz, Gen. Pickett, Dr. Bliss,
Mr. Lemus. and other persons, but there is not
a word TO intimate that the story came from
Taylor; on the contrary, the correspondent
insiDuated that it came from "Oficial" sources,
and the editor commented upon IL the same
day "a an authentic history. Mr.. Smith more
over did "make an assumption from IT," ior
he assumed that it was true, and most I'M
warrantable assumption that seems to have
been. II was not until an indignant denial
had been made in Congress that, pressed Tor
his authority, he gave the name OF N. b. lay
Tor. The Posts statement yesterday must
therefore be attributed to an extraordinary
failure of memory.
But suppose Mr.. Smith had done no more
than transmit the testimony of Taylor; would
even that have been fair? There are reasons,
well understood by every Journalist in Wash
ington, why the testimony of Mr.. N. Is. lay
lor in an affair of this kind ought to be ac-
cepted with the utmost caution. If Mr.. w.
Scott Smith is not acquainted with those
r asons, he is clearly unfit for his present re-
sponsible position. And whether Mr.. Taylor
is, on general principles, o valuable witness or
not we submit that nothing could justify the
publication of the particular portion of his
story which caused the indignation in Con-
gress and led to the investigation just finished.
That portion stated that Taylor ap-
preached many members with bride in
his hand, "and among Others GOlladay
"of Kentucky, Butler of Tennessee, Deweese
"of North Carolina, Fitch of Nevada, and Me-
"Cormick of Missouri, but it is not knoWn posi-
| "tiUely ,CkO accepted brides and WhO did not"
| The Post defends this most cOwardly and vii
famous form of attack on the plea that the
| four gentlemen mentioned were not directly
written down as rascals, but only as men
suspected of rascality. In so many words the
dispatch does not accuse them of fraud, but
it conveys the impression to all the world that
there is reason to think them guilty, while the
correspondent refuses to take the response
bility of becoming their accuser. Of course in
this way there is not much danger in assail-
ing the brightest of regulations. Character can
he ruined by innuendo and impertnent
question as well as by formal charges. I'VE
understand that Messrs. Smith, Brown, Jones,
"and Robinson have been solicited TO join n
"well known gang of burglars, but it is not
"knOwn positively whether they have accepted
"the invitation or not" "1here are rumOrs
con the street that Mr. Fisk has made a
| " fraudulent assignment and murdered Mr.. Jay
could, but we have not been able to learn
positively that it is true" {" The inquiry is
made in certain quarters whether Mr.. ALI
"spice the well-knOwn grocer, was not once
" in jail for ilogging his grandmother and sand
" ing the sugar. We ask for information"
| Suppose The Epening Post tries that sort of
journalism in its city department as well as its
| Washington column. 1t might get some light
on the public view of the privileges OF the
profession.