The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1876-09-22
THE HEAD OF THE DFMOCRar


Several weeks ago + ..'> CHARGED
thar Hon. VIM. Bell, Democratic ear
d,iate for Secretary OF State, was char.
ged with receiving hribe. Tor using
ais Official influence, with Commission
ers OF Licking County. while Auditor
OF that County, III order TO have Z,
bridge condemned. niil &. nrw one
buii'. Tie charge was direct. and
The evidence palpable, but II denial
was put in, when the parties interested
where named, AID the time and places
specified, in such manner that there
seemed no way, for hin cat of the iii
lemma. Still more recently, ALI arli
Gle was republi>hed from the Newark
American of 1871, giving the charges
in full, as made at that time. We give
il below:
Edi oTi.i in the Newark American of AC-
gus; llth. ISL.
I'VE have very nice Iro.I bridge over
the north fork Of the Licking. OH East
Main street, built jointly, as we are
informed, by the city OF Newark and
the county of Licking. At the time
the wooden bridge was condemned,
some two years ago, to give place to
this new structure, very many of our
tax paying population denounced
those i'll authority for their action, on
the ground that the wooden bridge
was good for twenty or thirty years
service, and that the people of city
and county out not to be taxed for The
benefit of few owners of property i'll
East Newark, who, it was claimed,
were r ssing this matter for their own
personal benefit. Against those pro
tes3, however, the old bridge was con
demned, and !. new one built, and the
controversy had /; eE well nigh forgot
ten, udtil it Was revived by the testi
mOny OF Waldo Taylor, Esq, u lawyer
of this place, in a trial before L. ].
Anderson, II Justice of the Peace,
few days ago. At tie time, however,
the old bridge was condemned and the
appropriation made for the new one,
it was frequently intimatcd that i'm
proper means must have been used to
secure that result, but there was moth
ing come to iisiIt az that time, So lar
as we know, to warrant any charge OF
that kind. But now, after tlic expi
rLtion oi nearly or quite two years,
the questionc ONES up before Il Jus
tice's Court here in this city, as to how
a certain fund to which certain parties
had contributed, had been expended,
and MIR, Taylor, maiI whose tesiilno
ny will not be questioned, under the
solemnity of an oath. we are credibly
Informed, testifies that he paid DIR.
Bell, AuditOr Of Licking county, $50
TO get him to use his Influence with
the Commissioners 10 induce them to
favor the new bridge scheme; that af-
terward Mr. Bell represented 10 him
that Bill, one of the commissioners,
wouldn't vote for it unless he had $50,
and that thereupon lie pGid OCer the
$50 additional TO ur. Bell 20 be used
for that purpose.
This is a serious charg against men
set out to guard the peoples interest,
and it is no pleasant duty which We
perform in giving it greater publicity,
but We should be worthy CT severe cen
sure ii We sought to hide from the pub
lie testimony given in al open court
upon a question about which they
have a right TO know all the material
facts. Having performed that duty
We leave them to draw their owa in
ferences and make their own com
merits.