office as Senator elect has been referred would consider my case first and suggesting Friday of this week or an early convenient date thereafter. It will not be possible for me to make appearance the 16th as time is too short. It is generally understood that Congress will recess early next week for the holidays and with this in view may I suggest a day be fixed agreeable to your committee for my appearance immediately after the holiday recess. Your advice as to the day appointed with these suggestions in mind will be appreciated. Please answer Dwight, Ill.

Upon receipt of Mr. Smith's telegram, the committee again held a meeting and in accordance with the instructions of the committee, a telegram dated December 17, 1927, was sent by the chairman of the committee to Mr. Smith, which reads as follows:

In accordance with the decision of the special committee, I hereby notify you that in accordance with your request that a date be fixed after the holidays a hearing will be held at 10 o'clock, January 7, 1928, in order that you may be heard in the manner stated to you in committee telegram dated December 13.

Accordingly, on January 7, 1928, at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m., the committee assembled to conduct the said hearings, at which time proceedings were had and evidence taken, all of which is set out in extenso in the document hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A" and made a part of your committee's report.

At said hearing of your committee the following appearances were

made:

Mr. Frank L. Smith appeared in person and by his attorney, Hon. C. J. Doyle.

Attorney General Oscar E. Carlstrom appeared for the State of Illinois.

A delegation on the constitutional rights of Illinois also appeared, and was represented by State Senator John Dailey as chairman. The president of the Illinois Senate, Hon. Richard T. Barr; Hon. Robert Scholes, speaker of the House of Representatives of Illinois; Representatives Reed F. Cutler and Gus J. Johnson of the House of Representatives of Illinois, members.

These gentlemen were also accompanied by United States Senator Charles S. Deneen.

Hon. C. J. Doyle stated to the committee the order of procedure which it was desired should be followed, and, in accordance with his suggestion, the proceedings were so conducted.

Mr. Samuel Insull and his counsel, Mr. Daniel J. Schuyler, appeared and gave testimony which in general was confined to those phases of their former examination in which they had declined to answer the questions of the committee. The testimony of these witnesses will be detailed more fully in a separate report. For the present it is thought sufficient to state that their evidence, so far as directly pertinent to this report, was to the effect that Mr. Insull had by the hand of Mr. Schuyler delivered to Mr. Charles F. Francis for the Small-Lundin organization $20,000 in cash; that Francis had charge of the publicity work of the Small-Lundin faction. That faction was understood to be supporting Senator Smith, but that they also had a candidate for sheriff and that the candidate for sheriff was running with a group of other men that the same organization was supporting.

Mr. Insull also contributed $20,000 to Mr. George F. Harding for the so-called Harding organization. This was paid in cash by hand of Mr. Schuyler; that Harding was an important man in certain wards

2-18-1932

SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

3

in Chicago, particularly the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh wards; that he was understood to be supporting Smith and a group of candidates, and that the money was turned over to Harding to help him in his fight for his group of candidates; that the reason the witnesses had refused in their previous examinations before the committee to disclose the persons to whom these moneys were paid was because Francis and Harding had told Schuyler that they did not want him to mention their names and did not want Mr. Insull to mention their names because they were not in the senatorial campaign and had not been interested in it and did not want to be mixed up in it. Nevertheless, Witness Schuyler stated that he understood that they were supporting a group or groups of candidates which embraced Mr. Smith as a candidate for nomination to the Senate.

At the conclusion of the testimony of Mr. Schuyler, the attorney general of Illinois, the representatives of the general assembly, Senator John Dailey, and Mr. Smith in person addressed the committee. No evidence whatever was furnished. The protest of the General Assembly of Illinois which has already received the attention of the Senate and been printed in the record, was formally presented to the committee.

The attorney general of Illinois, State Senator Dailey, and Mr. Smith all took the position that until and unless Mr. Smith was sworn in as a United States Senator, neither the special committee nor any regular committee of the Senate, nor the Senate itself, had the power or jurisdiction to pass upon the qualifications of Mr. Smith, or to take any action whatsoever in relation to his claim to

a seat.

The arguments presented by these gentlemen all appear in the transcript of the proceedings, which is herewith filed.

It will be observed that nothing was presented by Mr. Smith or on his behalf which has not in substance been heretofore presented upon the floor of the Senate. He offered no new evidence; he presented no new argument; he simply stood upon the claim that the committee and the Senate were alike without jurisdiction to consider and pass upon his right to a seat in the Senate until it shall have first seated him as a Senator.

Your committee, having complied with the instructions contained in Senate Resolution 1, Seventieth Congress, first session, respectfully presents and recommends the passage of the attached resolution, being in substance and effect the resolution offered by the senior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Norris, on the 5th day of December, 1927, and incorporated in and being a part of Senate Resolution 1, which said resolution was by the Senate approved on the 7th day of December, 1927. There is omitted from said resolution the clause instructing this committee to grant further hearings, and there is added to the resolution a further clause relating to the right of the said Frank L. Smith to membership in the Senate, all of which appears from the text of said resolution which is by your committee respectfully recommended for passage:

RESOLUTION

Whereas on the 17th day of May, 1926, the Senate passed a resolution creating a special committee to investigate and determine the improper use of money

to promote the nomination or election of persons to the United States Senate and the employment of certain other corrupt and unlawful means to secure such nomination or election.

Whereas said committee in the discharge of its duties notified Frank L. Smith, of Illinois, then a candidate for the United States Senate from that State, of its proceeding, and the said Frank L. Smith appeared in person and was permitted to counsel with and be represented by his attorneys and agents.

Whereas the said committee has reported

That the evidence without substantial dispute shows that there was expended directly or indirectly for and on behalf of the candidacy of the said Frank L. Smith for the United States the sum of $458,782; that all of the above sum except $171,500 was contributed directly to and received by the personal agent and representative of the said Frank L. Smith with his full knowledge and consent; and that of the total sum aforesaid there was contributed by officers of large public-service institutions doing business in the State of Illinois or by said institutions the sum of $203,000, a substantial part of which sum was contributed by men who were nonresidents of Illinois, but who were officers of Illinois publicservice corporations.

That at all of the times aforesaid the said Frank L. Smith was chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, and that said public-service corporations commonly and generally had business before said commission, and said commission was, among other things, empowered to regulate the rates, charges, and business of said corporations.

That by the statutes of Illinois it is made a misdemeanor for any officer or agent of such public-service corporations to contribute any money to any member of said commission, or for any member of said commission to accept such moneys upon penalty of removal from office.

That said Smith has in no manner controverted the truth of the foregoing facts, although full and complete opportunity was given to him, not only to present evidence but arguments in his behalf; and

Whereas the said official report of said committee and the sworn evidence is now and for many months has been on file with the Senate, and all of the said facts appear without substantial dispute: Now therefore be it

Resolved, That the acceptance and expenditure of the various sums of money aforesaid in behalf of the candidacy of the said Frank L. Smith is contrary to sound public policy, harmful to the dignity and honor of the Senate, dangerous to the perpetuity of free government, and taints with fraud and corruption the credentials for a seat in the Senate presented by the said Frank L. Smith; and be it further

Resolved, That the said Frank L. Smith is not entitled to take the oath of office and is not entitled to membership in the Senate of the United States, and that a vacancy exists in the representation of the State of Illinois in the United States Senate.

о

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

SPECIAL REPORT

[Pursuant to S. Res. 195, 227, 258 and 324 of the Sixty-ninth Congress, and also S. Res. 10 of the Seventieth Congress, first session]

On the 17th day of May, 1926, the Senate of the United States passed the following resolution:

Resolved, That a special committee of five, consisting of three members selected from the majority political party, of whom one shall be a progressive Republican, and of two members from the minority political party, shall be forthwith appointed by the President of the Senate; and said committee is hereby authorized and instructed immediately to investigate what moneys, emoluments, rewards, or things of value, including agreements or understandings of support for appointment or election to office have been promised, contributed, made, or expended, or shall hereafter be promised, contributed, expended, or made by any person, firm, corporation, or committee, organization, or association, to influence the nomination of any person as a candidate of any political party or organization for membership in the United States Senate, or to contribute to or promote the election of any person as a member of the United States Senate at the general election to be held in November, 1926. Said committee shall report the names of the persons, firms, or corporations, or committees, organizations, or associations that have made or shall hereafter make such promises, subscriptions, advancements, or payments and the amount by them severally contributed or promised as aforesaid; including the method of expenditure of said sums or the method of performance of said agreements, together with all facts in relation thereto.

Said committee is hereby empowered to sit and act at such time or times and at such place or places as it may deem necessary; to require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of witnesses, the production of books, papers, and documents, and to do such other acts as may be necessary in the matter of said investigation.

The chairman of the committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses. Every person who, having been summoned as a witness by authority of said committee, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the investigation heretofore authorized, shall be held to the penalties provided by section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Said committee shall promptly report to the Senate the facts by it ascertained.

Thereafter the following committee was appointed under the above resolution, to wit: James A. Reed, chairman; Charles L. McNary, Guy D. Goff, William H. King, Robert M. La Follette, jr.

On the 12th day of December, 1927, the Senate of the United States agreed to the following resolution:

Resolved, That a resolution of the United States Senate agreed to on May 19, 1926, numbered Senate Resolution 195 of the Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, creating a special committee to investigate expenditures in senatorial primary and general elections, and all subsequent resolutions dealing with the said special committee and agreed to by the United States Senate during the Sixtyninth Congress, to wit: Senate Resolution 227, Senate Resolution 258, and Senate Resolution 324, have continued in full force and operation since the dates of their respective enactment by the Senate, and do now, as then, express the will of this body.

And that the said special committee appointed pursuant to said Senate Resolution 195 of the Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, shall continue to execute the directions of the said several resolutions relating to the said committee until the Senate accepts or rejects the final report of the said special committee or otherwise orders.

Pursuant to said resolutions your committee within the limits of its authority sought to make the investigation called for therein and accordingly called before it various witnesses who were examined touching the matters and questions pertinent to said investigation. Among the persons appearing before your committee was one Thomas W. Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham who was clerk of the court of quarter sessions of Philadelphia, and treasurer of the State Republican committee, claims to have contributed $50,000 to the Vare campaign fund. A subpoena was issued for his appearance early in June. A diligent search failed to locate him. Finally, Representative Golder, of the fourth district of Pennsylvania, communicated with the committee, stating that Cunningham would accept service. His whereabouts was disclosed and he was served. He appeared before your committee in its session in the Federal Building in the city of Chicago on July 29, 1926. With him appeared Representative Benjamin M. Golder, who stated that Mr. Cunningham had requested that he be permitted to attend as his attorney. Mr. Cunningham, both for himself and through his attorney, protested the jurisdiction of your committee and refused to answer questions put to him and denied the committee any information beyond the following facts of his name, residence, and occupation as clerk of the quarter sessions court; that he contributed $25,000 to the Vare campaign fund through Thomas F. Watson on April 10, 1926, and $25,000 on April 13. The testimony of Mr. Cunningham, given at Chicago on the 29th day of July, 1926, appears in Part 2 of the hearings of said committe on pages 1706 to 1715, inclusive, and is here reproduced in full and made part of this report.

The CHAIRMAN. Will Mr. Cunningham please come forward?

(Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Benjamin M. Golder came to the committee table.)

Mr. GOLDER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Benjamin M. Golder. I am an attorney of Philadelphia. Mr. Cunningham requested that I be permitted to attend as his attorney.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.