, 1881-05-15


and all its degrading accompanimerts.
AN OLD STORY.
4 committee Of the County Board, supple
mented by committee of the Citizens Asso
citation, are seeking evidence in regard tt
the corrupt practices Of the CourEuoust
Ring which died some three or four years
ago rather violent death at the hands ol
the people. Experience has shown that, as
rule, the only remedy against official corrup
tlon lies in defeat Mt a popular election. 4
number of those who were supposed to be
| identified with this particular ring were In.
dictctl. Some OF them were brought to trial.
but there was the usual failure to convict
| The head devil in the conspiracy was not
even brought to trial. The county was
| placed at considerable expense to prosecute
| these cases, with no other result, perhaps,
than further decentralization OF public SEN
timcnt rs TO official corruption. 1t was not
until tile proper efforts to oust the ring OIL
! cials from office by vote Of the people had
been successful that any punishment was
meted out to the guilty or any protection as
sured against a continuation Of plunder by
the same set Of rstscals.
Now that criminal prosecutions are barred
by the statute Of limitations, another inyes-
tisation has been Instituted which can
hardly have any practical result. In the
first place, 1t seems to be instigated By Perio-
1at's desire for reYcngo on account Of his
failure to obtain as full share of the cor
rupt profits and commissions rs he expected.
Probably the exposure made several years
ago interrupted the division of spoils. In
the second place, the line Of investigation so
far has been partial, irregular, and jerky, ami
seems calculated to admit only such evidence
or charges rs Perlolat's malice desires, and
to exclude material facts rs to the tlistribl1-
ton Of corrupt funds among the officials
whom he pretend5 to have bribed. This Is 4
sort Of Investigation which may arouse ull-
fair suspicious and do great deal of fntus-
tice without fastening blame upon any one,
or aflording any opportunity for Furnishing
the guilty. At all events, nothing new is
promised by the present inquiry, and the ex-
posure of old corruption initseIf can scarcely
be approved as sanitary measure.
The man Periolat, VINO now comes to the
front as partial informer, confessedly to
crafty grudge. and ayowing himself 4 liar
by the contradictions of former sworn testi-
mony, is, of course, entitled to no credit in
statements that blacken the character of
other men. At the same time it seems to be
clear that Egan: the architect, entered into
all agreement with this man, engineered
mainly by Armstrong, Egan's former part
ner, whereby Pcriolat was to receive one
third Of the profits or commissions which
the architect should acquire upon the build
lug OF the present Contributing on tile
North Side, and also the Courthouse, which
is now approaching completion. 1t also ap-
pears that Pcriolat received some money on
the basis of that contract, and claims that
he ought to have received about S30, 600 more
The consideration which Periolat gave for the
promised participation i'll the architects
profits is alleged to have been in the "intlu-
ence" he possessed over the County Board
at that time and over the Aldermen at sub
sequent period, the money he paid out for
the purchase Of County Commissioners and
City Conncllmen, the exaction of blacknail ]
from some Of the contractors, and the manip- |
ulation Of change III plans which added |
$4,000 to the architects fees. 1t appears t
also that other architects entered into par I
tlal or completed agreements either with |
Perioiat Or Ed" Walker, Which were aban-
done1 III favor Of the Egnn contract
The defense made by Mr.. Egan in hissrate-
ment before the Investigating Committee is
that " he went into The contract believing it
10 be a legitimate business transaction, and
believing that Periolat possessed great intl11-
ence, without which nothing could be done"
The other architects who made or were pre-
pared to make siInilar agreements would
urge the same defense.
1t is in just such 4 defense as this, no !
1oubt honestly set up, that the moving
:ause of official corruption can be found.
Agreements Of much the same nature are
common in business transactions, and
hough not openly avowed, they are regarded
IS regular enough, and certainly not con-
tem1ed as criminal. Men pay commissions
or obtaining trade. bribe people to use per-
onal or social influences to bring them Gus
ON. divide commissions on real estate and
ther transactions, parcel out stock in new
to persons who are supposed to
ave Influence to induce others to buy /!
nd pay for stock, and in manifold other ways
nter into compacts not essentially different
rom that tripartite agreement made by
gan, Armstrong, and Periolat. Contracts, |
'ritten and verbal, are made by the hun
reds, large and small, in business transac-
ons and BY men who would resent
ny inputation upon their integrity.
tut they are regarded properly as
orrupt when they affect official |
fe. There is difference. Such agree 1
tents, when applied to public work, involve 1
[most necessarily bribery, or at least i'm ;
roper influence over the men who have I