Year: 1877

| Iweeds testimony ON bnturday was
more serious blow at regulations than any,
thing he told in his previous examinations
The men to whom his previous testimony
related were men whose character was past
help or injury by anything Tweed might
say about them. Himself his associates in
the Ring. the colluding tradesmen' and me-
chanics who made tho fraudulent bills are
set whose guilt and whose modes of
operation were SO well known that the
public had little further curiosity about
them. But the wholesale bribery of
the Legislature of 1870 was matter on
which the curtain had never been lifted,
although nobody doubted that the city
charter of that year was passed by bribery.
If Tweed has told the truth on that subject
his testimony, if believed, will wreck the
regulations of several important public
men.


But is Tweed's story credible? This is
difficult and perplexing question, which
cannot be lightly answered. Tweed is
better qualified than anybody else to tell
the truth about those dark transactions
in which he was the moving and
managing spirit Nobody can doubt
his knowledge, although it maybe easy to
impeach his motives. The publicshas no
doubt that that Legislature was bribed, nor
is there anything improbable in the idea
that great criminal who has gone through
Tweeds bitter experience should at last
when broken with suffering, make clean
breast and disclose his accomplices. II the
exact truth is ever known in its details it
will be known only from him, since his
confederates at Albany could not be ex-
pected to criminate themselves. All the
persons implicated will, of course, make
denials. They would deny with equal
stoutness whether Tweed dealt in facts
or fctions. Legislators who were not
restrained by conscience or honor from
accepting heavy bribes would not be-
That Legislators were bribed by Tweed on
that notorious occasion the public has long
been convinced. Even if Tweed has not
accused the right individuals it is certain
that he could designate the actual culprits
if he chose, and that they would equally
protest their innocence. While therefore
the accused have an ineligible motive for
DENIAL Tweed has no motive which
is SO obviously ineligible for making
false accusations. And yet as Tweed
committed fragrant perjury when he
testified rs witness in his own
trial his unsupported testimony can convict
nobody legally, and ought not to convict
L. ~,
for perjury at the time Of his trial was pre-
cisely the same as tho motive for denial by
persons (if there be any) whom he has
justly accused of taking his bribes.


Tweeds testimony on Saturday reopens
some questions which have been judicially
or mi-judicially decided The State Sen
ate last spring, acting in semi-judicial
capacity, made a formal investiga-
ton of the charge against Senator
Woodin when it was q mere rumor founded
on the supposed contents of Tweed's
written confession, and the result was a
unanimous acquittal. But Tweed declined
to testify to the facts on that occasion, and
t.csnnot be known whether the vindication
of Senator Woodin would have been as tri-
umphant if Tweed had told them all he has
told now. It was O strong point in Mr..
Woodin's defence that nobody could trace
what he had done with so much money if he
received it. The moderation of his circum-
seemed inconsistent with the charge.
Forty thousand dollars, tho amount of the
alleged bribe, is twice or thrice as much
property as he was ever known to possess.


Another question reopened by this testi-
mony is the settlement which was made
with Peter B. Sweeny. It seemed ridicu-
lous enough at the time, especially when
accompanied with an Endorsement from
the Bench OF Sweeny's character If any
part of Tweeds story is credited it will be
that in which he testities that James M.
Sweeny merely acted as Peters agent, and
that Peter B. received his regular percent
age in pursuance of q previous agreement to
which he had been party.


1t is difficult to see how Tweeds charges
against the five Senators to whom he states
that he paid bribe of $500, 900 can be in
vestigated in such manner as to satisfy the
public either of their truth or falsehood.
The transaction rs described was a secret
between six men, and these are the only
persons who know the real facts. Tweed is
self-confessed swindler and perjurer, and
the other parties are in such position that
they will equally contradict him whether
they are guilty or innocent. We cannot see,
therefore, what useful purpose is served
by parading this old mans statements be-
fore the public when there are no possible
means of knowing whether they are true
OF false.


How Secretary Robson Did 1t.


Secretary Thompson says it was not Mr..
Rohesons a fnult but the fnult of the svstem