New-York tribune., 1875-02-06

being by profession man who month by uoutn, anu
week by week. introduced new ventures TO the 5tock
Exchange. We need Say no more.
The final Judgment on its late associate leaves
nothing to be desired in explicitness: 1:
Whether Baron Grant hoped for anything and whether
be cot any thing. we not inquire. But this much We
do feel at liberty and indeed under the necessity TO
say, that in allowing himself to enter into such
OF obligation to financial agent Mr. Simpson petraSea h
the unbOunded trust that had been reposed III nun,
and that had any knowledge Of these
reached Us. there would have been long since cnne0
IN the authorship Of the money articles oi INC 1"e
Less than this The Times could not say. but IL
might say more. will not dwell on the TACT thal
its conductors so long closed their ears to the scan
dals which dittod about Mr.. SIMPSONS name. lwiii
not say that inquiry would long ago have proved 10
them that whether Mr.. Sampson were or were ho'
guilty of makOg wrong use of the vast power no
welded, he was at least suspected OF DONG 50.
Will not ask why they did not act on the maxim 'hcS
now avow that the honor and independence OF this
paper must ever be above suspicion" Beyond douD'
they are sincere IN saying that the humiliation they
ho,o on },,red ia hard 70 bear But what of others
who have suffered What of ourselveSI what OF
the English publicf We and they have lost millions
bv the reproach which The Times cast on our credt'
The man through whom our credit was impaired
The TimCSs trusted servant for twenty years Is at
last denounced in its own c0umnsas having betrayed
the unbounded trust reposed in him. Does 1t then
owe others whom he betrayed no expression OF re-
cret don't say reparation, for rcparation Is out
of ,ts mower but think that when it has had time
10 recover from its first emotion 1t might spare q
word for these whc through the same means which
have brought humiliation upon itself, may have
been deluded and defrauded. Are we never to know
the secret history of the influences which hoated the
bonds of the COnfederacy aud depressed those OF
the United States
The extreme timidity-or caution if they prefer
.I,o I in 1aalinU
journalistic matters is shown in the comments Of
some of them on this trial and shown still more
plainly in some instances in the want of comments
The Daily NeVS writes column and half on the
trial quotes part of tho evidence touching the
payments by Grant to Sampson, and says:
For the avowed purposes OF this trial evidence OF this
kind could be OF little value to the plaintiff AT most II
The two defendants were made possible that
the articles complained OF were written upon an under
standing between them Bnt u was quite unnecessary
to assume anything OF the Kind
Only that, and nothing more. Not word of pro-
test even against Baron Grants laudable custom
of bribing financial editors. The Daily Telegraph is
far moro outspoken. Justly observing that the
editorial conduct of The Times q whole remains
above suspicion it says
That IL has been deceived II not in this particular
IN tter vet IN any in Others Is sufficiently evident
II impossible. indeed, not to notice the significant
fact that Mr. Sampson, although the most serious M
duty come forward ana deny them IN Ie Witness
box.
And its concluding paragraph leaves nothing to
be desired in clearness and energy
For the general public the moral Of this long and
eniaDgled lies Ia tne concluding words OF the so
cltOrGenerdPs speech, and In the ABLE impartial ana
exhaustive summing up OF the Lord Chief Baron. Mr
Sampson in mis- attack upon Eubcry, may or nay not
have been actuated bY the purest motives ana the hS
est spirit OF public duty. UoiOr unately, MS CONDUCT
renders it difficult to credit him with them. Mr.
Albert Grant. ny his own admissions In the witness
for the City l. litOr OF leading daily paper to re-
ceivo al otments Of shares in new companies and
il the stock rise a premium, 10 pocket the differ
ence II IL a to look to the private generosity OF tne
promoters TO recoup him for his loss More than TINS
he sees harm in " the custom. We need not follow
Sir John HOker into bis vigorous and eloquent denunci
alton OF avOWal so cynical; nor need we point out
that the City columns Of paper which even pretends
TO any influence ought to be above Suspicion For our
selves We repudlate with Indignation Mr.. Grant s
opiaon that gentleman Of distinguished ability being
Ciy iitor, may properly accept. by right ana IN
In aud speculative schemes at the hands OF ther
promoters. Equally false IS the theory which seems
widely dilsed that it is impossible TO prevent corup-
ton in this department of powerful newspaper from
the very origin OF The Da,'y IeegrGoh rled ana inva,
ence Mr. Grants Opinon that to sal" the money ar
ticle daily paper by ong the palm OF the CITY Ed
that sncb n custom EXISTS and has existed for many
years. the eloquent admissions OF Mr. Grant and tho
still more eloquent retcence OF ME- sampson aDuhd
The metropolis should at any cost purge itself from
uuclcaD tain' and wash of from its hands the pOllu
tOn OF the wedge Achau. If 1t was important TO MI
Rubery to have it declared that he no guilty party
TO the mOnstrous fraud with which Mr.. Sampson
charged him, 1T was tea times more important 70 our
contemporary it should be proved clear ana inno-
cent Ot the laudable practices, which, according 10
Mr. Grants testimony would unhappiy appear to be
among the vicious fashions of the day
The Standard is less explicit but there can be no
doubt what opinion of Sampson it holds:
We accept the finding OF the jury, and congratulate
Mr. Rubery on having horne If spOlS and hOnOrs O
the FRAY Mr. Simpsons Intimacy wi his cOiefeBdant
and his rrceIpt OF several cdecks for large amounts
drawn by the latter doubtless contributed 10 this result
A contributor TO Influential journal should, ike
Ca.ar wife, be above suspicion, ana when transactions
capable OF an ugly Interpretation come INTO court 1nries
are wont their own construction on the absence
from the witnesshOX Of those whose discharge OF duty
shopld be free from the fanes shadow OF reproach.
The Morning Post is silent SO is The Pau Nall
Gdzette this evening The Echo treats the verdict
from a much too narrowly professional point of
view. deporng the ill-luck of The Times in being
made to pay for a careless sentence about Rubery,
while it was dischargng great public duty. No
doubt it is hard. And it would have been harder for
Rubery to have no redress against carelessness of
that sort The Echo far forgets its usual discre-
ton as to speak of the transactions between Grant
and Sampson as trivial circumstances" They
struck at the root of all honor and honesty in jour-
nalism, and am sure 4he EcbO in its sober second
thought, would not pronounce them trivial.
-----------~----------~~-~