Year: 1879

The Daily Gazette of last Satur- day gave quotation from our com meats on the bribery investigations committees report, "as an evidence of the unfairness, injustice and big oted prejudice" of the newspapers which differ with that paper on this subject.

 We do not see why there is any more "unfairness, injustice and big oted prejudice" in us weighing tue testimony and stating our conclu- sions, than there is in the Gazette or anybody else doing so. The Gazette has considered the testimony and expressed ITS opinion. The HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE did likewise. And now WE have done the same thing. In doing so, we have done nothing more than everybody has q right to do, and because we happen to differ with the Gazette, we do not conceive that we have been guilty of anything so awful, or merit the judg ment pronounced upon us by the Gazette, of being influenced by "par- tIsan spleen and prejudice" It is simply difference of opinion. The Gazette has it's opinion, which right we would not deny to it; and we have our opinion and don't see why we should be denied the privilege of expressing it.

 We really care very little about the matter and are not disposed to discuss it, but we don't care about our position being wrongly stated, and hence we must notice one or two of the comments made by the Gazette.

 Referring to this paragraph in our article: "The mere fact that there was not testimony sufficient to con vict, did not justify the committee in setting aside the sworn statements of Holifield, Furbush and Dawson, as naught, and declaring that no sat isfactory evidence was offered to show that any member was offered a bribe. The testimony will con vince all who read it that the evi- dence of the witness, Lee, who tired to implicate Senator Walker, is a base fabrication from beginning to end" that paper says:

 "The position here broadly taken is, that Furbush and Dawson must be believed, because they swore to their testimony; but that Lee is not to be believed, although he likewise swore to his testimony" Such is not at all our position. It is NOT the mere fact of Furbush and Dawson HAVING SWORN TO THEIR TESTIMONY" which should entitle them to credence. We accept their testimony as the truth because it is corroborated, because it IS not con troverted by sufficient rebutting tes timony to render it doubtful and he cause they defied Mir. Roots to ap- pear before the committee to i'm peach or rebut their testimony, and he failed to do so.

 And we say that Lees testimony IS not to be believed because it is totally unsupported, but is flatly and squarely contradicted by several other witnesses of unprecedented ve- racity. This is why we give ere. dence to the testimony of furbush and Dawson, and do not believe Lees. The mere fact of Lee being a member of the House, does not en- title his testimony to respect, when 

 his charges are disproved by other good testimony, and when, further more, he states, himself, THAT HE WAS DRUNK AND COULD NOT REMEM- BIER WELL.

 Speaking further of our position, or rather of the position in which that paper tries to put us, the Ga zette says:

 "It is too patent to any candid, just and impartial mind, that such a Judgment is dictated only by parti. san spleen and prejudice and that Furbush, Dawson and Holifield are to be believed simply because their testimony was injurious to Col. Johnson, &c."

 In reply to that, and in justice to Col. Johnson, we state that we do not consider the testimony of Fur bush, Dawson and Holifield the

 injurious to Col. Johnsor

 not at all implicated, and

 ticle of testimony was eli

 show that he had any knowleda whatever of the attempted bribery. As before stated the difference be.