Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1875-10-20
MORE FACTS.
The Bribery charge against Taylor
Fully Substantiated

| fully SuDStantiated.
Our article last week, relative to the ex.
hibition the Governor of the State of Wis.
consin made of himself on the occasion oi
his electioneering visit here last week, has
caused considerable squirming among bis
faithful followers in our midst, and great
incense is manifested because we dared to
make such an open and direct personal at
tack on his reform majesty, William R.
Taylor. Our only defense is that in every
statement made we told the truth. Some
felgn surprise that any stock should
be taken in the reports of bribery and cor
ruptlon about Governor Taylor. Let 200
democrats of Madison, who intend to vote
for Ludngton, and support the balance of
the Reform State ticket, answer whether or
not they believe Taylor has committed
frauds and is polluted with dshon esty and
corruption? The same is true all over the
state, and Taylor is being openly repud-
lated by the more respectable portion
OF the reform party. Every charge against
Taylor is well sustained. For instance.
take the Brereton bribery case, and see how
damnlng the testimony is against Taylor.
Here we have the case of a man, seeking a
reelection to the highest position ia tie
disposal OF the people of the State, that is
proved to be an attempted briber. When
such man as Hon. Willard Il. Chandler,
one of the oldest and most respected citi.
zens OF Dane County, comes forward to sub
stantlate charge of this kind even against
reform Go7ernor, it will be pretty gen
orally believed
The following correspondence which ap-
pears in the Madison journal of the 9Th INST.
on the Slo Brereton ribery case, will ex-
plain itself and satisfy every candid man,
that William R. Taylor's character is not
being blackened without the proper evi.
dence:
MADISON, Oct. IL. 1875.
Hon. Willard II. Chandler:
DEAR SIR: The Democrat of Madison hat
charged that the affidavit of H. Fl. Brereton,
relative to the $40 bribe, relating to a
bridge in Cottage Grove, is spurchased
and false statement" You are referred to
as having been consulted by Brereton at the
time, and as having seen the contents of
the envelope received from Tay lor'' by
Brereton. Will you state what you know
about the matter, and the nature of the
conversation with Mr.. Brereton on this
subject?
Yours respeetfu]lx.
To the above note, Mr.. Chandler responds
as follows:
Messrs. AtaOood & Cul0er, Editors State Jour-
nal:
Yours, asking me to state what | know
about the matter of Mr.. Brereton's affidavit,
and the nature of the conversation between
Mr.. B. and myself on the subject, is re-
ceived.
In justice to Mr. Brereton, it seems pro-
per for me to say that at the time and in
the manner mentioned by him, Mr.. Brere-
ton did come D my room, handed me let
ter from Mr.. Taylor, directed to him, con-
tanning Currency (slo), and asked me to
read it, substant TALLY as he states. The
ietter oe1ng upon mater tnen oe1Ore me
County Board for action, Mr.. Brereton ask
ed me what he ought to do about the mat
ter. advised him to return the money
Immediately.
Mr. B. afterwards informed NE that he
had done as advised.
Permit me to add that during long and
somewhat intimate acquaintance in public
life with Mr.. Brereton, | have never heard
or seen evidence of any thing but strict in
tegrity and uprightness of character.
Respectfully yours,
W. H. CHANDLER.
Sun Prairie, Oct. l3, 1875