, 1874-09-06
CIR O!2n O!]if2aDn Wriln41t.
Sunday Morning, September 8. 1874.


The Grand Jury yesterday closed their deh5~
>s-a:iona. They found no indictments IN the
bribery csscs, for the reason, given in tho re-
port, that the evidence throughout WAS redolent
of perjury. Tho jury declare that they we're
convinced that there was corruption in tho org
inal purchase of tho Matthews lot, and in tho
SUBSEQUENT purchase Of the Baldwin lot; but the
character Of tho testimony was so tainted with
false swearing that they were unable to see the
ya7 to conviction, and therefore found no in
aictmcnts. The allegation Of perjury is not
made by Implication, but with distinctnesa. The
language used by the Grand Jury admits of no
mistake 1t IS this:
These witnesses were critically and thoroughly ex-
h.,ncd Tho 1canne= Of their dcnials and their pre-
tented want Of recollection matters Of vital ipor-
taucc their manner Of giving their evidence and their
appearance ct tho time, satisfied us that they gave
false testimony knowingly md willfuly.
They explain why they could not indict these
Witnesses for perjury. Whlc, however, they
wero net able to indict the principals for bribery
OF tie Witnesses for perjury, they close their re-
ror: with moral Indictment, which will bo tried
bT jury OF the whole people. The charge they
1cakc il thus ect forth:
Although i! is OILY province to hear evidence
tic part oi The prosecution. get We could not, upon
tAo c;:lcncc before ra. find any indictment; and,
nn the request ct certain persons, permitted those
PERSONS to before us and make their Own state
to thtiF connection 1rt The transactions TN
Gey iarct.iJatttn-
We heard Ill :hey had 10 say upon the subject, and
1ccn it Sufficient to remark that opinion remained
unchanged, and that cloud raised by tho evidence
We l4-d heard waa ds=irated b. the explanation
The meaning Of tlis is obvious. Mr.. Matthews
charged that he had entered into corrupt rela-
ticns and negotiations with certain Of tho Coun-
t- Commissioners, whom he named, and before
le would testify demanded aud obtained, under
the law. an exemption from prosecution. The
Grand jury declare that they wero satisfied that
there were corrupt proceedings in relation to the
Matthews eale. Several Of the Commissioners.
e"d others implicated in the Matthew'S accusa-
ton, appeared before the Grand Jury to explain
their connection With the transaction, but the
jAr; declare that such explanations did
~. in auY way change tue opinion
that corruption had been practiced. This
distinct allegation that tho explanations OF the
@e~|A"~- P-AsAeo AA@A al Ac
dic:m3at for bribery and perjury amounts to
suc!l al accusation that the persons it covers
cannot avoid meeting it. Though the jury men
tiof1 no names, every citizen knows to whom
this paragraph in the report refers. Tho duty
OF 30 many OF those persons as are County Com
m;sslonc1s is = plain ono- Their usefulneeB
in that Board is destroyed SO long as this
rcro.1 ia matter Of record. The Commissioners
tf.ls accused can bo CT no further service to
tho paLlic natil that distinct allegation
OF untruthfulpc5s under oath is refuted.
Though not indicted in Legal form, they stand
indicted morally with bribery End fa1seEood.
Ti.ai charge Nl1l adhere to them for all timo.
There is Int WY to escape it, and that is to
reign :hclr Office, and offer themselves as can
dia1t2s 10: re- c.e::i@u in November. II the peo-
F!o rc-el2ct tl5:n, taey cen call themselves
'yinde1ted.' Now, if the Implicated Commits
e:oncrss have confidence in their OWL purity and
il.noce:ce: let them go before tho people With
tho Ee.so explanations which tho Grand Jury re-
jcct us uatE1ihful, and take the popular verdict
l.t;tEiug less than acquittnl by the popnlar
y;:::c ca:l eyer relieve then from this crushing
=:S$;:eation OF corruption and lying and 1t is
doubtful II crc1 that will.