New-York tribune., 1872-10-16
cFy BARLOWS 4ESgER.

Attorney General Barlow, in reply 70 the let
ters which we published on Saturday, writes
to the Board of Directors OF the Erie Railway
ComDany and requests them To correct their
books Gen. Sickles, in December last, offered
Gen. Barlow fee from the BischOifsheim g.
Goldschmidt party of English stockholders to
assist them in Ousting the Gould Ring from
the control of the road. Gen. Barlow replied
that he had not yet determined whether he
"could properly accept retainers from private
"personsn for doing his official duty, but ne
would consider the matter and give his an
swer later Subsequently we find on the books
of the Company this entry, under the head OF
Disbursements to the several individuals
"named below for their services end expenses
&" in the contest to wrest from the recent man
1" ayers the control in the interest of the stock
"holders of the road" to wit " Francis Z.
"Barlow. Attorney General, services, $4,000"
Mr. Barlow now declares that he took
No penny for his services, and that
the entry above quoted IL an erro-
neous one. He received from Gen. Sickles or
the Company at no time the precise sum OF
$40 900, but he received $500 at one time,
a 500 at another, and $4,000 at another.
making $4,000 in all and of this amount he
spent SS,692 ST. and returned the balance to
Gen. Sckles. 1t is remarkable that the books
of the Company should tell such diliereht
story; but we accept Gen. Barlows statement
as correct. and we heartily approve his de-
mand upon the President of the road for an
amendment Of the record.
So much for one point of the case, and the
least important one. The imputatiOn upon
Gen. Barlow remains that he was instrumental
in corrupting the Speaker of the House by
having the Hon. Henry Smith 1900 to secure
his services and influence IN behalf OF party
of the Erie stockholders who were petitiOnlDg
for the passing of a certain bill. This grave
imputation Gen. Barlow does nothing to re-
move. His excuses are aggravations of his
of1epse. He says the bill was a good one; so
it was, but ought good bills to be passed by
corrupt inhuencesi He says if he had not re-
tanned Mr.. Smith the other side would have
done so that we dare say is true, Judging
from what we know of other railroad scandals
at Albany; but how does it alter the complex
ion of the bribe? He says he had re-
solved to secure Mr.. Smith as counsel as
long ago as last December; what he may have
| had in his mind at some remote period, or
| what he would have done under circumstances
which have not come to pass, we neither
know nor care; the fact is that he retained
Mr. Smith three days after that gentleman
had been formally agreed upon as the Custom
house candidate for the Speakership; one day
after the caucus of the dominant party, whose
choice was equivalent to an election, had
ratified this nomination and on the very day
of the election by the House. He says The $500
was not a bribe, but legitimate fee; we believe
money paid to secure a vote never is bribe; /;
| it ia always present, or testimonial, or a
! counsel fee, or a commission, OI tritc for
| the poor, or something of that sort. He says
! Mr.. Smith would have expected further COM
pensation had he been retained for legis-
lative services" :" that is a curious statement,
TO say the least but the fact is that Mr.. Smith
took the money, rendered legislative services,
| and was never asked to render any other /;
whether he expected or got further cOmpensa-
| ton of course we do not know
If Gen. Barlow is thus convicted of de-
bauching the Speaker of the Assembly in the
interest of certain railroad stockholders, what
shall we say of Mr.. Smith, This gentleman
was elected as q reformer. He was chosen
Speaker by the Custom-honse Republicans
with marvellous Darades Of integrity and up