, 1876-04-21

In these hmes Of frequent exposure md
general suspicion Of public oflcia1s, every
suggestion Of corruption is cagerly seized
upon as new scandal, and accepted as true
without waiting to hear both sides Of the
case. There should DO m exception to this
rulo in the case Of the President OF tho
United States at least, If the American sense
Of justice does not prompt tho Acaring OF all
tho evidence in the charges against other
officials. Ths occasion for suspension
of judgment Is furnished by tho story rcla-
tive to the disbursement Of 1876, 600 or moro
for the preparation Of special registry liata in
Now York City during tho Presidential CAM
paign Of 1872. Tho testimony before the
Congressional Committee on Expenditures in
tho Department Of Justice to establish this
has beon furnished by WHITLEY, formerly
Chief Of the Government Secret Service,
and ex-Astorney.G General WILLIAMS. The
money was received by JOHN L DAvENponr,
United States Commissioner of New
York, who actod as Chief Supervisor OF
Elections at the election Of 1879, and was
disbursed by him. rs It is claimed, for the
Lists Of voters prepared as q check upon the
4fAlAa kt tu6 AAA0t"u0Ae AAG u1NuGf WIS
paid out Of the Secretservice fund, and, as
ex-Attosney- General WILLIAMS tcstiacs, on
tho express orders of the President This is
tho story in brief, It has furnished certain
newspapers with an opportunity for announc-
ing tint the nation haa beon disgraccd by tho
corruption Of its Clief Executive, md to
suggest by indirection, II not outright, that
Gen. GRANT bo impcached. Before going to
this 1ongth, 1t will be well to await full ex.
position Of all tho facts and tho law. Tha
present aspect Of tho caso does not soem to
warrant more than tie conclusion TINT money
of certain fund-the Becret-Seryice fund
was applied to Government usos for which ii
Ind not beon appropriated; but the indlca-
tons aro that the Beryice to which 1t was ar-
piled was in keeping With the law and in the
interest OF On honest election.
To understand tho merits Of the case, 1t Is
necessary to 60 back to the election Of 1868.
Tho frauds on the balloLbox in New York
City in that election woro tho grosseat ind
most shameless ever perpetratcl up 10 that
time, md only cqualed by tho bold attempt
at robhing and atuiling by tho thieves in tho
recent town election in South Chicago. The
/ consequence Of this system Of frauds was
that Mr.. SEYMOUR, tho Democratic candidate
for President, received majority in New
| York City which wns 10000 in excess of any
previous or honest majority, and 10000
in excess Of TlLnzA's majority in the "tidal
! wave election Of 1874. Tha votos for these
yeara wore as followa:
1865.
osSnt. 47,7Ja
Dtm0eF.ts' majority iii; sos7s
9retlsy. ..+...'.'..''..''.'....." 716l4
Grant. 81 tt7
Democratic majority; n.''7
mldsn ak s5.n s,sas s,ss
Democratic majority. fa.6?t
Thus, after growth Of six years and In
one Of tho most exciting elections that evel
occurred, the Democratic majority Of New
York City fell sLort OF that Of 1868 by nearly
1000, and GaEEIEY'a majority was nearly
0,000 less. No better eyidsnco Of the frauds
Of 1868 could be desired. Indeed, the robbiug
and stufang Of the bal!ot-bo1ea were practi,
cal]y admitted, and tho outrage was 40 great
as to fastan the attention Of Congress. It
was mainly On account Of the frauds In New
York City that Congress passed tho act ire.
yfsed Statutes, Sec. 2.o1l) providing for tho
appointment by the United Etatss Judges Of
Supervisors Of Election (two for each voting
precinct) in citiss and towns Of over 20, 0o0
tnhab!tanta, whenever Representatives in
Congress arc voted for. 1t was In tho gen.
sral election Of 1879 that this law was first
applisd to prevent and 1educ~ the frauds OF
Nav York City, with ths result already notsd.
Tia JonN I. DAVENPORT who In aaid Ia
hnys hsap pAtd t6b,DOq fqr ths t,,su.ratln,,