Year: 1876

The exposure made by the NATIONAL
REPUBLICAN of yesterday regarding Mr..


Tilden's notions of the duty of legal coun-
sci to clients created quite sensation in
political circles. 1t was the theme of dis
cussion in the Departments, the courts and
in the counting -roon,s. The Jackson


Democrats were at first inclined to pooh
pooh the matter as unworthy of credit, but
when they were reminded that the inves-
tigation alluded to was of public nature,
an official inquiry by the judiciary com


mittee of the Assembly of which Mr.. Til
den was me nber, they reflected that the
statement was susceptible of immediate
verifcation or refutation. In this view
they at once conceded that there could be
no possible object in the publication of
such allegations unless they were authen-
tic, for the reaction which would be GER
tain to follow the exposure of their falsity
would inevitably ipjure the party guilty
of their fabrication. Added to this, the
very general knowledge that Tilden had
been the advisory counsel of Oakes Ames
and the Union Pacific Railway Company,


(for which he had received single little
fee of $25, ,0O0,) and in that capacity that
he had virtually advised Oakes Ames to
bribe Congressman by placing Credit
Mobilier bonds "where they would do the
most good, tended to inspire confidence
that his advice in regard to the attempt
upon Judge Barnard was no mythical ro-
nance. In short, those who knew Mr..
Tilden in his favorite role of railway
lawyer needed but little reflection upon his
antecedents to confirm them in the belief
that it was the most natural thing
in the world for lawyer, who was Ca


pable of advising the corruption Of legisla-
tors with money, to advise the same thing
to be attempted upon the Judiciary. Be-
sides this it was well known that he had


personal spite against both Fisk and Bar
nard, which he was well pleased to vent at
each and every favorable opportunity. IT.
then, he could compass the ruin of both by
fixing bribery upon one and the acceptance
of q bribe upon the other, and land them
in the penitentiary together, his vengeance
would be fully gratiied. Although he
failed in this infamous attempt it has been
seen that he brazenly, shamelessly and un-
blushingly confessed, in the presence of his
colleagues of the subcommittee and Of the
opposing counsel, that he made the effort,
and would like to have the opportunity to
repeat it. He gloried in his infamy, and
declared that his conduct accorded with his
ideas of the duty of counsel to client. Or
dinsry mortals would have shrunk in
horror, disgust and dismay from such a
course. Honorable counsel would have
deserted clients who would have acted
upon such advice in their jealousy of the
purity of their profession. But here is a
man who not only proclaims his own in
fanny in the presence of his fellows. but
brazenly defends it as proper. And now
he wants to be elected to the highest Ex-
ecutive Office. He aspires to become the
creator OF judges. He demands to be
made the dispenser ofthe public patronage
with which he may buy and sell legislation
at will. Shall his demand be complied
with2 This question the American people
, will answer next Tuesday. l.li Tfrz3