, 1876-04-30
MIR. eTOREY'8 GRAND JURY.

MIR. sTOREY'S GRAND JURY.
The late Grand Jury, which gave up the
ghost yesterday, seems TO have been family
divided against itself. Mr. WILBUR +.
STOREY led the majority faction, and signs his
name as foreman to the majority report. In
the course of that report he refers significant
ly to the circumstance that the parties who
we're being investigated and the witnesses e1-
pected to testify were informed from day to
day Of the proceedings Of the Grand Jury.
Per contra, two Of the jurors, IN minority
report, say to the Court that there was evi-
dence that their foreman (none other than
Mr.. SroREY) had been engaged in an attempt
to bribe Aldermen in 1869, and, while the
case is debarred from presentment by the
statute of limitations, they regard it as highly
1eprehensible.
It may be concluded from Mr. SToREY's
lengthy and learned report that, if he had
not been embarrassed by couple Of recalci-
trant jurors, he would not have failed to H.
dict the County Board and the town bum
mers who attempted to seize Office by stuff
ing ballots. But We may infer from the
minority report that. if two of the Grand
Jurors had not been embarrassed by Mr..
SroRE4's presence and the statute Of Gmita-
tions, they would have indicted their own
foreman. But as Mr.. STOREY, with twenty
other "good men and true" was arrayed
against the small minority, and the minority
of two were arrayed against Mr.. STOREY, the
public welfare falls between two stools, and
no indictments are reported against the
county rasca1s who take bribes, nor against
the foreman who was said to offer them.
There is little doubt that there is great
deal of truth concealed in the copious flow of
elegant diction which distinguishes the ma
iority report. The substance of it is that,
while the Grand Jury have not been able to
get sufficient evidence on which to found
indictments, there is enough to create moral
certainty of systematic corruption. There
are three instances cited. One is the letting
of the contract for the Courthouse fQunda-
'tions to man, not an expert in this work,
at price exceeding another bid by $780, 900.
Another is contract for additions to the
County Hospital, which was let in bulk to q
man named SEXTON at price many thousand
dollars in advance of other responsible bids,
who subsequently sub-1et portion Of the
work at figure for which the sub-contrsctor
had offered to do it for the county.
A third was in the contract for light
ning-rods on the County Hospital
the higher bid was accepted, though
there was no choice IS to the RESPONSE
bility of the bidders. The inference of the
Grand Jurv is entirely warranted that the
Board is subject to corrupt influences, and it
is q pity that dissension in the Jury itself de-
feated the purpose Of indicting the corrup-
tionists. The report singles out one JOSEPH
HOGAN md G. F. PER1o1Ar as controlling the
only doors that open to the County Board,
and as forcing every man who passes them
to pay heavy admission. OF PER1o1Ar him.
self the report says that he Is ga persistent
b1ackmailer of most persistent type" and
that the Board, if honest, would rid itself of
his guardianship. We fear that he can only
be put down in the one way which the Grand
Jury have failed to provide, viz. E: by his in
dictment.
We shall hope for salutary moral effect
from this report, which we print else
where in full, and which sets forth
some interesting and significant e1-
tracts from the testimony taken. These
extracts fully warrant the conclusions
which the Grand Jury have reached. Yet
the jury are at q loss to recommend any fur
ther procedure than the continued investi-
cation of the official 6coundrels by tho next
Grand Jury, which meets tomorrow.