Knoxville Daily Chronicle

The Daily Chronicle.
Entered at the Post-Office at Knoxville, Tennessee, as Second-class matter.

THURSDAY, FEB. 17, 1881.

THE TENNESSEE BRIBERY CASE.
The man who comes out of the investigation, recently commenced by a committee of the Tennessee legislature, with the least credit perhaps, is the man who instigated it. Mr. Littleton procured the publication of a card in the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which he made certain specific charges, which he doubtless believed true. But he made the charges upon hearsay, and when the witnesses upon whose evidence he expected to prove them took the stand, they did not swear as he expected them. And their character appears now to be such that even had they sworn to what he stated, their statements would have to be corroborated in some way before they would have seriously inculpated any man, with anything like a good character, before the bar of public opinion. Mr. Littleton evidently talked with a good deal of looseness about matters of which he knew nothing, except upon the hearsay of parties who, to say the least, were unreliable. He is young and perhaps not posted as to the ways of the world. He was evidently thrown into bad company while at Nashville, and hence his trouble. He will probably be more careful about his associates in the future, and when he hears an ugly story from a McGlothlin he will weigh it well before he puts it in shape for the newspapers and puts his name to it.
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat makes the following pertinent suggestion in connection with the alleged bribery in Tennessee:
It is pleasant to note that the committee of the Tennessee legislature which is investigating a charge of bribery against certain of its members is not unearthing any testimony tending to substantiate the charge. Two or three Democratic members did the State the service of voting for Republicans to fill certain State offices, and their Democratic colleagues at once assumed that they must have been paid for it. There was a strong prima facie case against them, it is true; but still it is possible for a Democrat to do right without pecuniary compensation, however unusual such an occurrence may have been of late years. Thus far it does not appear that the suspected members were influenced by sinister motives, and there is reason to believe that they did a good deed through purely conscientious considerations. It is hard that a Democrat cannot obey his conscience without encountering the animosity of his party, especially when all good Democrats recognize the necessity of a more rigid code of party morals.