New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-06-29

posed to do, according to the Attorney-Gen-
eral, i'm the way of surrendering information
of property he proposed to surrender " almost
nothingr These were the two great tests.
But there was a third. that of Tweeds SIN
cerity. How doubtful this was Mr.. Farciild
seeks to show in various ways. He declares that
he detected Tweed in the suppression OF a
number of checks and of considerable inforlna-
ton after he had pretended to surrender every
check and every fact in his possession; ana
that he detected him in an oral contradiction
of an important point in his written statemen''
which was explained by his counsel us all
attempt to give the kind of evidence
respecting some one which Mr.. fair'
child was supposed TO want, regardless OF us
truth. This is a series of reasons which no
one can question, il they are well founded ia
fact; and no one but the Attorney General
and his advisers can decide whether they are
so founded or not. On this point the pupiic
will hardly accept the assertions OF I"een
himself and Tweed's lawyers, and when Mr'
Fairchild challenges Tweed to publish MS
statement, they will be likely to conclude that
the Acknowledgement is not afraid to stand 10y
his decision.
But it is the Fairchd case which Mr.. Fair
chds letter was meant to explain. The one
damaging charge against him was that ne
had allowed statement, placed In his
hands for State purposes and of the high
est confidence, to he used and divuiged
for partisan ends. Mr.. Fairchild names
Gov. Robinson, Messrs. Tiden, Kelly, Bige-
low. Peckham. Whitney, and Nash, and
his CMr. Fairchild's) father as those to whom
Fln NR
about it, The Governor, the Controller Oh 'he
City, the Corporation Counsel, MI. fecRhaih'
and Mr. Nash saw it, or were consulted apou'
il. he SAYS only officially. Mr.. lllden gave 10
advice with respect to it except that Mr. OCohor
be called in, and Mr.. Fairchid, the elder, saw
il, as Dir. Tilden did, as one OF his chosen au-
yisers 1t is noticeable that Mr.. F"lrchIiu uses
Townsend to confute Townsend III THIS part Oh
the case. He shows from Mr.. Townsend's own
testimony before the WOodin Committee that
the Attorney General was to exhibit the con-
fession to such gentlemen as he tounG IL
necessary to consult with in relation 10 IT, alu
that therefore Mr. TOwnsends indignation as
TO the number of persons to whom IT was SHOWN
is somewhat Inconsistent. But the Auor-
Dey-G General makes much more mi
portant point in showing by Mr. l0wnsends
own testimony and that of Sir. Kelly before the
Woodin Committee and by striking COM
parison of dates, that it WIS probably Mr..
Townsend himself who furnished the
bulk of the confession as published. The
full confession did not reach Mr.. Far
child in Albany until April II, the very
day on which, a few hours before, it had been
Dubljshed IN New-York. Now the testimony
md hafn
the Woodn Committee states without any
attempt at concealmcnt, that three days
before this MI. Townsend waited upon lr.
Kelly and read him much or the whole
of the statement. One point more, however,
needs to be made clear. .tr. Fa,Tchlld
lad conversation with Mr.. Kelly as to tine
case, after receiving Tweeds first statement,
aud he evidently feels that the Controller VIC
lated his confidence III some respect III
the disclosure made to the press. But
the first statement was only partial
one. Slr Townsend in his letter to
Mr.. Fanchild speaks of il az giving The names
of members of the Legislature land OF Jer
others who had benefited by tho Ring prac-
"tices. and was intended only ~ "A summary
" of what he (Tweed) could DO, and TO show
CHS good faith" While, therefore, some
portion of the statements which Nh. Kelly
made public, such as that respecting Mr..
Woodin, may have been derived ftom MIR.
Fairchild, it is evident that Mr. Kelly did not
rush into tie newspapers until he got the
whole story rom Mr.. Townsend.
Mr.. FaIrclild was evidently NOT respon-
sible then for the full publication of the
Tweed confession. Whether he departed
from the line OF upright action in put
ting any facts at all in such a ease into
the possession of the head of the Tammany Hall
organization is perhaps an open question, but
he had an apparent reason in the fact that the
head OF that organization was the chief iinan-
cial officer of the city that had been robbed.
At all events, in . question between Tweed
and Fairchd, the presumption is strongly iii
favor of the AttOrney-General.