Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-02-24

Uestlned that Roberts was appointed by
him Claim Commissioner on the 18th Sep
TENDER, 1869; that he refused to date back
the commission when Roberts wanted him
to, and that he knew nothing of Roberts
serving as Claim Commissioner prior TO
the date of his appointment. Capt. Hy-
berger gave evidence that Roberts came
into the capitol as Chairman of the Senter
Executive Committee in 1859, and used
the desk of the Claim Commissioners, but
that he knew nothing of Roberts perform
ing the duties of Commissioner, except
from his own statements to that effect.
The Committee giving the Treasurer, as we
are informed, insufficient time to produce
his proof, closed this partof the testimony,
saying they would simply recitc the proof
and said they expressed no, opinion but
left the House to Judge for stenaselves. The
late Comptroller would have sworn, as we
are advised, that he paid Roberts upon the
Commission, and that IL bore date different
from the dale ,ohen itteas actually issued.
promptly closed the case.
The second charge was that Roberts had
t,Cice drawn an allowance Of fve dollars for
postage. Roberts claimed he drew for the
first and second sessions, but, unfortunate
ly, the evidence showed he WAS not an Off
Ger the first session. The Committee was,
therefore, compelled to report guilty" on
this charge.
The third charge and proof hereunder
was the richest we have ever heard. The
Assembly passed an act allowing the Comp
troller clerk. Roberts, thereupon, goes
to Pennebaker and says that it cost him
two hundred and eighteen dollars, in the
acay Of presents to members, to get the
law passed, and, therefore, demanded of
the Comptroller, pay for at least onc-haIf
of that amount. He said he did not buy
any votes, but simply by presents, &C., &C.,
induced members to vote for the act.
Roberts services were recognized by the
Comptroller and he acas paid. Upon this
charge the Committee give proof, bit left
conclusions to the members.
The fourth charge was, that Roberts had
announced the vote, on resolution to
adjourn, different to what it really was.
The only proof on this point was that
Roberts had himself told Senter so, but it
turned out it was not so, though the Gov
ernor had told others that Roberts claimed
it was done. Notwithstanding this charge
failed for proof, it is alleged that Roberts
has on more than one measure called
names as voting who We're not present at
all, and in one case that it was done at the
request and instigation of members.
But all this evidence was of no avail.
Roberts had been one of the instruments
under Senter of restoring the Democracy
to power, and it would be ungrateful to
convict and depose him for such small Of
fences. Like other offenders he was white.
washed, and is now, as he always was, as
good as most of them. This is one of the
chapters in the history of the defunct AS
sembly, and fair example of their integri-
ty and disposition to guard the people
against corruption. We do not wonder
they are a stencil in the nostrils of the
people.
They were elected under pledges to re-
form alleged abuses. They went into pow
er shouting Justify about Radical corrup-
ton and proclaiming their own virtues.
And yet, SO weak and imbecile has been
their course, SO high-handed and reckless
their abuses of trusts, that they are de-
nounced by their political sympathizers as
corrupt and incompetent. In the case re-
ferred to there was no doubt of the guilt of
the accused, and yet they were too coward
~ or corrupt to make such a report as the
case demanded. After such exposures
what honest man can have any confidence
in any of their Investigations or reports.
They find no defenders save a few blind,
bitter partisan newspapers, who are so de-
pendent upon that class of men for public
printing and official patronage that they
have not the manliness or courage to ex-
pose them, even to guard the people from