The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-05-06
Tammany Under a Cloud.

The impression of the leading newspapers
of New York appears to be that Mayor
Grant Of that city has not satisfactorily re-
futed the charges which Patrick McCann
made against him and Richard Croker. He
has denied that the charges are true, but he
has admitted that there is a slight founda-
tion for one of them.
McCann testified that Richard Croker
collected $3.50, 900 with which to bride the
aldermen Of New York city TO confirm Mr.,
Grant as commissioner Of public work, if
he should be nominated for that Office. and
that Mr.. Grant, when he was sheriff, gave
the 3-year-old daughter Of Richard Croker,
on five different occasions, an envelope con-
tanning 5000, making in all $25, 900. Of
course the inference from these charges is
that Mr.. Croker and Mr.. Grant intended to
make q great deal Of money out of the Office
OF commissioner of public works, and that
Mr.. Grant, when he became sheriff, divided
the income Of the sherif's Office with Mr..
Croker.
In his testimony Eon Saturday Mayor
Grant said that he never heard of the
Doodle fund of $4,000 until McCann men,
toned it. His testimony is supported by
Mr.. Edson, who was mayor at the time
when, it is alleged, Mr.. Grant was to have
been appointed commissioner of public
works. E1-Mayor Edson declared that he
never heard that Mr. Grant was a candi-
date for that Office, and Mr.. Grant himself
said he was not 1t is hardly probable,
therefore, that fund of $3.50, 900 was COL
lectsd to help make him comnl ssioner of
public works. Indeed, nobody except
McCann seems to have heard that Mr..
Grant was a candidate for that office. 1t is
quite fair to assume, therefore, that the
part of the testimony of Mccain which re-
fers to the alleged $4,000 bribery fund is
not true.
Mayor Grant in his testimony admitted
that he had given Mr.. Crokers daughter
$4,000. He gave the money to her on two
occasions, the amount being 5000 on each
occasion. He asserted, however, that there
was no previous understanding with the
child's parents with respect to the gifts;
that he was the chiid's godfather, and that
he gave her the money for no other reason
than that he loved the child. and being her
godfather felt under obligations to do soma
thing for her,
Could not Mayor Grant have gone little
further and said that he also felt that he
was under great obligations to Mr.. Croker,
and knowing that that Tamm any chieftain
would not accept money from those whom
he had befriended, he had given the money
to the child with the view of showing bis
appreciation of what Mr.. Croker had done
for himl Ir Mayor Grant could have said
that the transaction would have been
robbed Of Its ugly look. The fact that he
gave Mr.. Croker's child $4,000 does
not necessarily prove that there was cor
rupt understanding between him and Mr..
Croker. If, however, he gave tho money
to the child in pursuance of bargain to
divide the profits of the sheriff's Office, he
would have acted with better Judgment if
he had not gone on the witness stand at all.
The charitable view of the $4,000 trans
| action is permissible one. All the facts
| are in harmony with it. If it is the true
| one Mayor Grant made a mistake in not
giving the facts to the public Immediately
after Patrick McCann testified before the
investigating committee. 1t is apparent
how revengeful and unprincipled man
such as Mccain is reported to be, could
make a transaction of this kind, ever
though it was straightforward and al
of a corrupt bargain.