William J. Youngs and George Wallace

New York, 1895

Why Did William J. Youngs Tell on George Wallace? — Why Did George Wallace Tell an Untruth to the Board of Supervisors?

William J. Youngs and George Wallace have always been political cronies. They were in the Birdsall crusade to down Governor McCormick and Senator Childs, but both the Governor and the Senator have survived the intrigue in an honorable and pre-eminent manner. When Mr. Youngs had any peculiar work to do he always found Mr. Wallace a ready helper, so that it was not surprising to find them linked together in the Commissioner of Jurors job. The real iniquity of that job has only recently come to light, and credit is due Mr. Youngs for some part of the exposure, albeit his motive was to win sympathy and make others equally guilty with himself bear their right share of the responsibility. Mr. Youngs was so hard pressed by adverse public censure that he had to appeal to Governor McCormick to calm the storm in his behalf. The Governor's letter but increased the fury of the storm and then Mr. Youngs dragged George Wallace into the wet. Mr. Youngs said to Governor McCormick in substance: "You and I were both in favor of the bill." Mr. McCormick replied in substance: "I was not in favor of the bill. I told Mr. Vacheron it was a bad bill. I advised Mr. Childs to defeat it." Mr. McCormick threw in a flash of lightning, by way of increasing Mr. Youngs' terror, by saying: "And Mr. Vacheron was to fill the office." Up to this time Mr. Wallace's position had been kept a profound secret. Mr. McCormick's death dealing letter drove Mr. Youngs to an inculpation of Mr. Wallace. That letter puts the stamp of corruption on the bill, and every act relating to it, for to proceed to enact legislation to provide a public office for a legislator is on a par with bribery or any other form of corruption. Governor McCormick has made the public his debtor by his bold declaration that the office was intended for Mr. Vacheron, for that declaration removes forever any doubt about the motive for seeking to create the office, and puts the seal of condemnation on every man who had a part in the job. It must be quite clear to everybody now why Mr. Youngs broke a caucus secret and exposed Mr. Wallace's connection with the job.

Why did George Wallace misrepresent matters to the board of Supervisors? As counsel to the board, expected by the board to carefully guard the public interests, and the servant of the people who pay his salary, he was in duty bound to render them the most loyal service. He did not do it. He was in caucus at Albany on April 3 or thereabouts with Assemblyman Vacheron, Assemblyman Higbie, William J. Youngs and some others, about this very bill. At that caucus it was agreed to pass the bill, and George Wallace then and there advised Mr. Vacheron "not to make the office too expensive." The bill passed the Assembly on April 10. On April 16, at Barnum Island, Mr. Wallace told the Supervisors, and the fact appears in the record of the proceedings, that the first he knew about the bill was when Mr. Vacheron told him, in Albany, April 10th, that the bill had that day passed the Assembly. We say that in this Mr. Wallace stated what was not true, and his dismissal from the position of Counsel to the board would not be too severe a punishment for his deception. His offence in this regard is magnified when it is seen that later he accepted the commission of the board to appear at Albany in opposition to the bill. The commission was given to him by the Supervisors in good faith, for they did not know that he had been in a caucus and favored the bill, and that he had told them an untruth about the bill. A conscientious lawyer would have declined such a commission under the circumstances. He was not to be trusted.

There are other things affecting Mr. Wallace which should not be overlooked in considering this pernicious job. He received a copy of the bill as early as April 10th at least, on his own showing, and on April 16th he left it at home when he went to a meeting of the Supervisors at Barnum Island. There is no record that he did a single thing to retard the passage of the bill between April 10th and 16th, and this confirms the belief that the bill was kept a profound secret from the people in the hope that it could be rushed through both houses of the legislature before the Supervisors got time to antagonize it, and it would have been done, too, but for Senator Childs's opposition, and no credit is due to Mr. Wallace for arraying the Senator against the bill, for the fact is that on the day the bill passed the Assembly Mr. Wallace saw the Senator for fully an hour and said never a word to the Senator about it. That was most surprising, and full of suspicion, too, and goes to show that Mr. Wallace was perfectly willing to have the bill pass in accordance with the caucus command. The position of Mr. Youngs is infinitely better than the position of Mr. Wallace. Mr. Youngs was open and above board in his support of the bill. Mr. Wallace was tricky and untruthful and inconsistent. We do not see how he can consistently continue as Counsel to the Supervisors, if they are willing to retain his services, or how they or the people can put confidence in him at all.

—The Long Island Farmer, Jamaica, NY, May 31, 1895, p. 4.