Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-12
THE BRIBERY SCANDAL.
Disinterested Sp. ctafor Tells what
He Knows About the Matter.
From an Appeal Correspondent..

From an Appeal CorreSpondentJ
NASHVILLE, January 9-The bribery in
Yestigation committee have been all the excite
ment here for some time. Many thought some
startling developments would be made, because OF
Chaneery Court TO enjOin the flnding OF the bonds
The proof was made public and propose TO give
exposed, matter whom it might affect and
therefore watched the investigation with deep
smith or Morgan. Smith did some foolish talking
whilst perhaps under the influence of whisky, and
ciesf that be intended 10 vote for the biii if he
could not get some other settlement. When he
vote for the bill, and 80 told all his friends Nor
gan voted against the bill, and there is not the
shadow of proof against him. admitted by Nc
Whfrter. when asked the direct question by Nor
gan himself
Barrett, a Republican senator, acted very fool
is6ly, but there Is no proof that he received Iut
$50 which he got from Btansford and others be
longing to the short or low-tax ring, and this
not Intended as bribe. bat he spent il with them
in a debauch. He was advised By John II. Flee
the propositions of this low-tax ring and repore 10
him what they said Barrett may have acted i'm
this advice, but it did no: show. bribery. A man
by the name OF Chapman, one OF the same snort
paid Barrett 5000 to vote a ainst the bill, but that
he rsturned it, saying that he could get
OF the stand He said that he did not
know of money being paid Barrett as a bribe.
No witness Proves that Barrett received anything
for his vote. As General Neely said: Barrett
very poor man; had not seen any pecuniary
change in Bafretts condition recently he is looked
upon as an honest man; he was regarded n
truthful. upright man, except by some who were
continually bounding him, and he was much bet
ter than them" These men Brausford, New hirter
and Lambeth thought they could manage Barrett
but failing in that, they attempted to poison him,
and also have done what Lambeth said he would
do. Freeman testified: Il overheard conversa-
tion between Barrett and Lambeth the next day at
the Maxwell House; Lambeth carried Barrett back
near the water-coset, and went inside the closet
AND stood fifteen minutes listening; Lambeth's
back was toward me, and Barrett's face; Barrett
was looking at me in frightened way Lambeth
said, You've lost me thousands of dollars by your
vote on this bill' Barrett replied that he
bound not to vote against his principles; Lambeth
against reconsideration, and said, Ii you don't
do it, will go home and swair TO the people that
you got big money to vote the other way; Barrett
said, III you do that you will be id liar "
The corruption has been shown TO be entirely
the part OF the short ring, IN whose interest, as
was proved, the injunction bill was ed. The
complainants in the bill may not have known what
being DONE but the proof clearly shows that il
was a speculative movement
Let any one read the testimony given by Nc
Whirter and Lambeth and then say whether he at
taches any importance to il. McWhrter proc"res
a dose of poison to give Barrett. Lambeth threat
to cowhide him ii he votes against the bill and
also to tell on him that he was bribed which Bar
rett told him would be a id lie
There may have been corrupt means Used to
cure the passage of the bill, but there ias icen no
lsrSOf OF it Yet all the attempts 1T bffbery that
EaTe been proted come from the other side. ihave
no prejud.ees in favor OF either SIDE this matter
a1d, i'll TACT, know very few OF the parties, but
have given an Impartial account OF the testimony
as il was given. The general almost the universal
opinion here is that the investigation, so far as
proving bribery, is farce. Better objections than
these must be found against the 1908 settlement
DISINTERESTED SPECTATOR