New-York tribune., 1872-02-02


"exaction, of two per cent of Custom house
salaries for political purposes. That Is estaD-
lished on Mr.. Cornell's own admissions.
We have not, therefore, since these questions
of false swearing were raised, made haste I'd
press them to issue. They were without ma
teral bearing on the Custom-hOuse inyestiga-
ton. wherein the General Order swlndle anu
the political assessments were already aDun-
dantly proved and the Grand jury whose
clear duty it was to take cognizance at leaS1
of prina facie Perjury was still cstOpped from
ony inouiries, by legal obstacles. Even yet we
doubt whether it can find time from the
larger cases, still forced upon il by the legal
tricks of Mr.. Thomas Murphy's partners, Tor
these fresh offcnses of tho same persons
other allies. But delay on our part may DO
misunderstood, and we therefore proceed 10
say
/. That until the testimony of Allen N. Leet
ia successfully impeached, that of George X.
I,cet is worthless and that, unless the proper
| tribunal be duly called on to decide which OF
these men shall go to Sing Sing for Perjury
| we can conceive of no case III which any law
against Perjury may not be regarded dead
letter. We do not forget that men may swear
falsely without intending to perure tneh-
selves. But this is a case of directly contra
dictory evidence, on points on when each man
must know the exact facts Allen Leet swears
that Col. Iect called on him in Philadelphia,
! nroducod q register of the Leet family, ana
| claimed TO be his cousin. Col. Leet swears
| that he was not in Philadelphia at the time,
never called on Allen Leet, never claimed 10
he his cousin, and never saw him. Allen iIeet
swears that he called on Col. Lect at the zen
| oral Order store few months ago, IN company
| with his brother-in-l law, cOnversed about en-
ployment for the Latter and about the charges
Of extortion made by merchants The brother
in-,ow makes affidavit to the same
facts. Col. I.eet swears that no such
convcrsotion took place, and that he
meyer saw either of them. Allen Lect sits at
Col. Leet's elbow, while the Colonel Is nrSc Oh
| tbc stand. takes down his evidence, and tre-
ouently cOnvcrses with HIM, IN the eyeS VI
! the Committee the Reporters, and the Whoh
room-f of spectators, about points IN Dis
| evidence not clearly stated. few days iater'
| Allen Leet having just left the stand, COL
Lcet is put on it again, and his first state
mcnt is that never till that hour dld ne lay
| ewes OIL Allen Leet.
| We do not preiudge the case. Here Is nat
Perjury by somebody. Let Grand jury anu
a Court decide. But the Public reaches rapld
and pretty exact conclusions. 1t has already
noted that Col. Leet has great interest IN
swearing falsely; Allen Leet, not the slightest
| Il has observed that Col. Lcet was confused,
contradictory and to the last degree eVasiVo
! in his replies; TINT somo OF tneh
were palpably false, and that through
out his testimony was precisely such
"a might be expected from man trying
I 70 hide the truth while Allen Leet was clear
| as n bell. prompt, straightforward, and con-
| sistcnt. We do not say Col. Lect is the per
iurcr; that is for the Court. We do say that
the general and disintercstcd public judgment
il that, until Court clears him on that charge
and sends Allen Leet to sing Slng iii9toau'
Col. Leet cannot be believed.
| As to Allen Leet, we know little, but it IL
| all favorable. He is man of far better pres
enco and education than his reputed cousin;
has been most reputably though unfortunately
engaged in extensive business, and has for
few months found partial or entire employ
ment, not on the regular City Staff of The
| TRIBUNE, but in it's corps of frequently en-
| gagged Especial Service Reporters" He has
| there shown such capacity and exactitude that
he could doubtless any day get as much If
| not more money Oh any other leading news
papcr, by seeking q regular engagement. He
n,ov have sworn falsely, but we see no shadow
of reason yet to suspect it, and we do think
n proper tribunal should settle the matter
III. Concerning Mcssrs. Cornell and Sheehan
we have to say that Perjury does not clearly
| lie between them; but that Mr. Sheehan has
l r. Ill Of hot a
| said he could prove, and that Mr.. Cornell
| has, wholly irrespective OF Sheehan, sworn as
nearly OF the truth as he dared. Mr.. Sheehan
produced an order, exacting two per cent OF
| the salaries, which he swore was signed by
| Thomas Murphy and posted in n public place
| in tho Custom house. Mr.. Murphy swears that
| he never signed or authorized such an order,
Mr. Cornell that no such order was posted,
several witnesses Called by Sheehan himselD
that they never saw it, not one other person that
he did. This, it is true, is not absolutely con-
elusive. A thousand men have probably entered
the Library of The tribune without seeing
the framed copy of Franklin's Pennsylvania
hanging there III O conspicuous place, and
might truly swear that they never saw it,
without at all invalidating the word of the
present writer that he knows it has been 80
hanging there for years. But this was q case
where the matter said to be posted was NOR
ally sure to be seen and much talked of. Mr..
| Sheehans failure to produce n single man, out
of the hundreds concerned, who did see it, is
fatal to his cause, and morally conclusive
| against him. He may not have sworn falsely,
but in that case It is his misfortune that, until
he can establish his statement, now apparently
| incredible, he cannot be believed.
Mr.. COrnel's case is worse. Here is a man.