Tacoma's Bribery Probe Ends With a Censure, Not a Conviction

Tacoma, June 22.—Special.—The 'Lexow' committee of the city council has concluded its labors and the results are—nil. Today it presented its report to the city council. In brief, this report is that the charges against Councilman Thompson—namely, that he accepted a bribe of $125 to vote for S. J. Smyth as city clerk, and that he attempted to bribe City Attorney Wickersham to let gambling run at the Haymarket—have not been proven. As to the charge against City Clerk S. J. Smyth that he bribed Councilman Thompson, the committee finds that there is not sufficient evidence to show he did so, but that he brought the council into disgrace by stating he had. The report states that the evidence given shows the charges have been made and repeated by the mayor and city attorney; that they have been repeated by numerous other people; that on the charge that Thompson tried to bribe Wickersham, enough evidence to prove he did has not been adduced; that the charge that Smyth said he bribed Thompson has been proven, but that no testimony has been presented to show he actually did bribe Thompson, and that Smyth swears he did not and that he made no such statements. The committee recommended that no further action be taken as regards the alleged attempt of Thompson to bribe Wickersham, but that some action should be taken as regards Smyth, as his statements have brought into 'discredit the good name of your honorable body.' Accordingly, a resolution censuring Smyth was passed. President Harris gravely notified Smyth, who was sitting two feet in front of him during the whole proceedings, and proceeded to administer the censure. Smyth then made another and a flat-footed denial that he ever bribed any one, or ever said he did. He then said he would be compelled to accept the censure of the council. This was an assertion no one disputed and he sat down. City Attorney Wickersham, who was requested last week to present a legal opinion as to whether or not he was the legal city attorney of Tacoma, presented an opinion to the effect that he was city attorney de facto, whether he was attorney de jure or not, and that he believed he was attorney de jure also. He backed it up with an opinion sustaining this view of the matter by the firm of Crowley, Sullivan & Grosscup. Both opinions stated actions are binding on the city and that he is city attorney until his successor is appointed. He has held over since April, though his term expired then.