paid thereafter are not clearly shown by the record, but it is fair to assume from the testimony that the above amounts constitute the entire receipts and disbursements by it in Arizona during the primary and general election campaigns. The disbursements were for office expenses, including clerical and stenographic hire, postage, rent, and expenses of speakers.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before concluding this report the committee believes it should deal a little more specifically with the charges made by Senator Cameron which are herein referred to. The charges are contained in the telegram sent to Senator Reed and the prepared statement heretofore

set out.

During the hearing, Senator Cameron testified but did not refer to the charges which he had made and gave no testimony whatsoever in support of the same.

There is no evidence showing or tending to show that a "slush fund" or any sum whatever was thrown into Arizona during the last few days of the campaign, or at any time, to control the State or to elect any candidate or for any purpose. So far as the record shows, the only sums collected or expended in either the primary or the general election campaigns were such as herein before stated, and the only amounts collected from outside of Arizona are such as herein before set forth.

There is no evidence that eastern copper interests raised any fund to be expended in the primary or general election in Arizona, or that any sum or amount whatever was paid through a New Mexico bank, or any other bank, to control the election in Arizona or for any other purpose. This general statement is subject to the qualification that the "Ellinwood-for-Governor" campaign fund was paid through one or more Arizona banks, and the funds heretofore referred to, collected, and expended by the Republican campaign committee and by the Cameron campaign committee and by the Democratic State committee and Carl Hayden were, in part at least, paid through local banks.

There is no evidence that any person in California made any contribution to any fund used in the Arizona election, either primary or general, except $1,000 contributed by L. D. Ricketts to the Republican campaign committee; nor is there any evidence that any persons in California exhibited any interest in either the primary or general election in Arizona or were concerned in the election of any person.

Some of the persons called as witnesses in California were connected with power companies in that State, and were interested in the Colorado River, but they testified they had taken no interest whatever in the Arizona election; that they had collected no money whatever for use in the Arizona election, nor had they made any contribution whatever to any person, candidate, or party for campaign purposes.

There is no evidence whatever in support of the charges that money was collected by either the copper interests or those interests in the Colorado River, or by any other interest, for the purpose of controlling or to aid in controlling the State of Arizona or its Representatives in Congress.

There is no evidence whatever which supports or tends to support the charge that any combination was formed or exists between large capitalists or any other persons or corporations for the purpose of controlling Arizona or its Representatives, or for any other pur

pose.

There is no evidence whatever showing or tending to show that any group existed for the purpose of controlling the Colorado River or the power and water thereof, nor any evidence that there is or was a group interested in the mining of copper ore on an international basis.

There is no evidence showing or tending to show that international copper producers were interested in a protective tariff on copper, or that any copper interests were in any manner interested in the election in Arizona or of any persons who were candidates in the primary or general election.

Nor is there any evidence whatever that there was a combination entered into by any financial groups to control the election of candidates in Congress or to carry out any program or policy or for any purpose.

There is no evidence showing or tending to show that any organization effected during the primary campaign was continued into the general election, or that any funds contributed to any organization for or during the primary campaign, were carried over to or were used in the general election campaign.

There is no evidence proving or tending to prove that the alleged combination referred to in Senator Cameron's charges, or any combination, sought the nomination of Carl Hayden as United States Senator, or contributed in any way to his nomination or electica, or that during the primary or general election the alleged combination or any combination expended large sums or any sum of money for newspaper advertising or for paying the field workers of Carl Hayden or Lewis W. Douglas.

The facts as disclosed by the record, are that there are many small newspapers published in Arizona, most of them with a limited circulation. Both political parties availed themselves of the columns of these newspapers for advertising purposes, and the amounts paid both in the primary and general election for advertising by the candidates and both political parties approximated $45,000.

The evidence shows that these advertisements, the total of which has just been stated, were paid for by the Republican State Committee, Senator Cameron's campaign committee, the Democratic State Committee, and by the candidates themselves. There is some evidence, as above stated, in this report, that a number of advertisements were inserted in a few newspapers by friends of the candidates and were paid for by them. The number of advertisements, however, was limited and the cost was but a few hundred dollars.

There is evidence also that Mr. Towles contracted for some advertising in behalf of Senator Cameron and that Mr. Van Dyke.published a number of special editions in which there was considerable advertising in favor of Senator Cameron and Governor Hunt. There was also evidence of a limited amount of billboard advertising paid for by private persons, most of which was paid for by the committees and is reported in their disbursements.

O

Mr. REED of Missouri, from the Special Committee Investigating Expenditures in Senatorial Primary and General Elections, submitted the following

PARTIAL REPORT

[Pursuant to Senate Resolution 195]

Comes now said committee and further reports to the Senate that under the authority of said resolution it proceeded to take the testimony of various witnesses touching the matters covered by said resolution. That in view of the authority contained in said resolution and of the fact that the Senate possesses the inherent power, and that it is the right of the Senate to inquire into and ascertain the qualifications of its members; and that the Senate is also charged with the duty of enacting legislation to promote the interests of the United States Government, and especially in view of the fact that section 4 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States expressly empowers the Congress at any time by law to make, alter, or change the times and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, there would seem to be no doubt as to the power of Congress to ascertain all facts bearing upon any of the subject matters aforesaid.

Your committee accordingly sought within the limits of its just authority to pursue its inquiries and lay before the Senate the facts touching the nomination of candidates for the Senate, the relation of such nominations to the general election to be holden on the 2d day of November, 1926, together with such information growing out of said elections as might be of value to the Senate in framing future legislation.

All of the acts of the committee and all of the testimony by it taken are disclosed by the printed records of the hearings, which are hereby referred to and made a part of this report, as fully as though set forth herein. Likewise, said reports disclose all questions which were propounded to the witnesses, together with the refusal of certain witnesses herein named to answer the interrogatories propounded and the reasons alleged by said witnesses as grounds and reasons for such refusal; all of which appears in said printed records.

Your committee sets forth the following conclusions of fact which will be found to be sustained by said printed record:

ILLINOIS

On the 13th day of April, 1926, there was holden in the State of Illinois a primary election at which candidates for the United States Senate were to be nominated, and also certain National, State, and county officers, to wit: Representatives in Congress, State treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, State senators, State representatives, and other State officers; judges of county courts, county treasurer, sheriffs, county clerks, county commissioners, and other county officers.

The statutes of Illinois relating to primary and general elections I will be found in Revised Statutes, 1925 (Smith-Hurd) (ch. 46, secs. 1 to 495), which are hereby incorporated by reference.

For all practical purposes it may be said that no candidate for the Senate at the last election in the State of Illinois could have any reasonable hope of election unless nominated in the primary by one of the regular party organizations. The intimate relation of the primary and general election and the interdependency of the latter upon the former can not be subject to any serious dispute.

The evidence discloses that Frank L. Smith and Senator William B. McKinley were the leading candidates for nomination on the Republican ticket for the United States Senate. For the purposes of this report it is only necessary to briefly refer to Senator McKinley's organization. His campaign was directed by Henry I. Greene and was heavily financed by Senator McKinley himself, all of which appears more fully in the former report of your committee (S. 1197, pt. 1), which is herewith incorporated by reference.

The campaign of Frank L. Smith was in the direct charge of his manager, Representative Allan F. Moore. The facts relating to the collection of money and the contributors and the inability of the committee to secure a full list of the contributors, is set forth at page 5 of the committee's report (No. 1197, pt. 1).

The evidence clearly discloses that the so-called Crowe-Barrett organization, otherwise known as the Republican organization of Cook County, was a powerful political organization or combination exercising great and in many instances dominant control in the various wards and precincts of Chicago.

This organization, taken as a whole, was directly interested in the promotion of the nomination of Mr. Smith for the United States Senate. It was also interested in the nomination of a county and State ticket. There were a few defections from the general course and policy of the organization, but the evidence discloses that the Crowe-Barrett organization in general exercised its powerful influence and its machinery for the purpose of promoting the nomination of Mr. Smith.

It is fair to say that without the support of that organization, Mr. Smith would probably have been defeated at the primary. The evidence sufficiently discloses that this organization expended considerable sums of money, and that the whole effect of the money received by it went, with the exceptions of the negligible defections as above stated, to promote Mr. Smith's nomination.

bift

Prof. J.K Palinck

2-18-1938

SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

3

3

The foregoing facts make it manifest that it was impossible for your committee to ascertain to what extent money was used to influence the nomination of Mr. Smith, unless it could learn the amount of money expended by the Crowe-Barrett combination in conducting its general fight for the nomination of the county and State ticket-Mr. Smith being clearly a direct beneficiary of all of the influence of that organization and of all of the money by it expended.

Accordingly, your committee sought to ascertain how much moneys had been contributed to the Crowe-Barrett combination and the method of expenditure of such moneys and the benefits accruing to Mr. Smith from the work of such organization and moneys expended. At that point, the committee was confronted by the refusals of the witnesses hereinafter named to answer interrogatories put to them. The committee again refers to the entire testimony and proceedings before it and makes such testimony and proceedings a part of this report, but for convenience of the Senate, your committee herein sets forth in some detail the facts relating to the conduct of the following witnesses:

SAMUEL INSULL

Samuel Insull appeared before your committee and was sworn on July 26, 1926. He reappeared on August 4. His testimony on both

dates is here reproduced:

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL INSULL

(The witness had been previously sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you have been sworn, Mr. Insull?

Mr. INSULL. I have; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Please state your full name.

Mr. INSULL. Samuel Insull.

The CHAIRMAN. Your place of residence?

Mr. INSULL. No. 1100 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago.

The CHAIRMAN. Your business?

Mr. INSULL. Utility executive; and farmer, incidentally.

The CHAIRMAN. You are about the same kind of a farmer that Ike Stephenson was, are you not?

Mr. INSULL. Not quite as bad as that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ike, I mean. I remember that at a time when he had one cow and about 20 banks, I think, he described himself as a farmer. Well, Mr. Insull, we all know who you are, and that is a mere pleasantry, or an attempt at pleasantry.

You have heard the testimony that has been given here to-day, I believe. You have been present?

Mr. INSULL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How much money did you contribute to Colonel Smith's campaign?

Mr. INSULL. $125,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us the dates when you made the payments? Mr. INSULL. No; I have not got the dates. I paid the money in three payments. One was toward the end of last year, $50,000. I made another subscription-it may have been in February or March, I do not remember which— of $50,000; and then I made a further subscription of $25,000. I have spent some more money in connection with the matter, but that represents the money I subscribed to Colonel Smith's campaign.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you spent some more money?

Mr. INSULL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In connection with Colonel Smith's campaign?