Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-03-04

Preparations for the Morrow.
WASHINGTON, March 3.-The avenues
are crowded with strangers. The weather
is beautiful. Pennsylvania avenue, along
"A which the grand inaugural parade will
move, is already decorated along its entire
length. Numerous military organizations
ara already representa-. The West Point
adets are conspicuous. The Executive
s Mansion and the public departments are
thronged by strangers. A holiday appear
ance Is presented. -
Pemeroy's Escapade.
The committee appointed to investigate
the charges of bribery in the recsnt Senate
rial election in Kansas preferred against
Senator Pomeroy by A. NJ. York and B. X.
Simpson, made their report this afternoon
through the chairman, Senator Frelinghuy-
san. The report first calls attention to the
charges of Simpson, and after quoting the
testimony of several witnesses, says ma
jority of the committee are of opinion that
none Of the charges preferred BY Simpson,
consisting of q number of alleged specific
acts of bribery or attempts to bribe, have
Deen sustained.
-.r The report next considers the specific
single en- srge Of bribery proffsred by Mr..
A. NJ. York, whose statement is that
fE Pomeroy gave him on Monday, Jan. 2S,
i a.
q bribe to vote for him in the Joint Com
mittee on Wednesday. Mr.. Pom eroy's
statement is that he did give Mr.. York the
money at the times and the amounts stated
not IS bribe, bat to carry to Mr.. Page rs q
loan from Mr.. Pomeroy to aid Mr.. Page in
the purchase of thirty bonds of the United
States, of the denomination Of 81 600, Mr..
PAGE having $4,000 in currency.
The committee says the question for them
2F Fafe6 ~
these two statements, painfully irreconcil-
able, is in all its details true, but, whether,
taking all the testimony together and
weighing It, York has sustained his charge.
The committee then quote from the testi-
many, including that of Y ork, to show that
there circ umstances that legitimately
affect tie credibi lity of York in this tran.
saction, and say 1t appears that York's plan
was kept secret until "Wednesday at the
joint convention, when an excited exposure
was sprung upon that body aud money was
exhibited by York, and he made state
ment that members of the Legisl2-
ture had Pomeroy's money burn
ing IN their pockets, Ct which
fact we not only have no proof, but it sp-
pears that York had no such knowledge.
1t appears that an effort was made by the
members to adjourn and also to have re
cess for an hour or two, that the truth o.
the allegations made might be ascertained,
and that York resisted these efforts, fol
fear, be says, that POmeroy might be ablC
TO appoint his own successor. Thus even
If York's statement, and certainly fPome-
rows statement be taken as true, York wa
the principal actor in any effort not only to
betray and defeat Pomeroy, but to deprive
the State of Kansas of its free and delibeF-
ate choice of Senators.
These circumstances do not prove that
Pomeroy did not bribe York, but they dC
impair the eredibility of York as a witness
when line of deception has been entered
upon, no one can say when 1t is dropped
and the golden thread of truth adopted.
The truth which the committee sought wa
rs to what occurred in the room Monday
and Tuesday, when Poneroy delivered the
money to York. They were alone, anC
contradict each other.
They say there is however evidence re
lating TO York's purpose in going to Pom
crows rooms, which evidence they review
st length and say they are at a loss to dis
cover from whence York derived his alleged
assurance that he was to be bribed anC
knew that it was to bs that night, and to b
IN large sum, from any fact consistent
with his statement. If it be true rs Pag
testified that be had that afternoon told hin
that Pomeroy would probably give him
package of money to bring to him, We cal
more readily understand this confidence
that he was to receive money; but that be
had any such notice York denies. Il
York was acting on the information Pag
gave him. there is no evidence that he com
municated it to his associates.
The committee point out what they deer
another improbabifty in York's statement
namely that Pomeroy on Monday nigh
agreed to give him $4,000 for his vote M
der stipulation that be might vote aSains
him in the Senate on Tuesday when hi
vote might be as desirable as on Wednes
day, and that he was at liberty even to re
consider his conclusion as to voting Tor bin
on Wednesday, and that on such an under
standing he paid him Monday SZ,Ooo an
Tuesday, after he had that day vote
against him, 5000 more; and romero
didfthis while it appears in the evidenc
beyond question that be was either hopoi
ably refrainiDg from all corrupt influence
TO promote his election, or that he wa
carefully on his guard against being Ell
trapped in the use of money, and Will
1t appears that York was attending al
anti-Pomeroy caucus, acting as its S secretary
and known by Pomeroy to be oppose d
him.
In considering the statement of Pomero
that be gave York the s., 200 to take {
Page TO enable him to purchase Unite
States bonds to aid in establishing Nation
al Bank, the committee say that Pomero
L. entitled TO the extent that other me
are, to the presumption of Innocence
presumph lion which they say is somewh
strengthened by the fact that his accuse
have failed to sustain their other charges
bribery against him in the same elec'io
After further review OF the testimony u
Committee say:
There are several questions that arises
this transaction which are not satlsisc ctorl
explained, among which are the following
Why did Pomeroy not deliver the Si,oO
to Page himself when be called on NO
day. He then had the money. -,
Why did not Pomeroy give YORK u
money he was to take to Page In seal
package? Pomeroy may have desired,
view of the coming election, to conclila
York by showing him that he was assist
his friend Page, by showing him that he "
aiding him In establishing bank in
town, and by reposing confdence in hll
But even the suggestion of tliS improE
r. 80 ho