715 papers have declared their opinion that the election was procured by corruption. Copies of these extracts are appended. What is the effect upon an election of Senator of bribery of voters in a caucus of the legislators who are to make the choice is a question upon which we prefer not to form an opinion until the evidence is before us. The members of a caucus ordinarily deem themselves bound in honor to vote in the election for the person whom it nominates, by the vote of a majority, on condition that such person belong to their party, and is fit for the office in point of character and ability. Bribery, therefore, which changes the result in the caucus, would ordinarily determine the election. If B, C, and D have promised to vote as A shall vote, if A be corrupted four votes are gained by the process, although B, C, and D be innocent. In looking, therefore, to see whether an election by the legislature was procured or effected by bribery, it may be very important to discover whether that bribery procured the nomination of a caucus whose action a majority of the legislature were bound in honor to support. Seventy-nine persons attended the Senatorial caucus and voted on the first ballot. Of these Mr. Payne had the votes of 46, Ward 17, Pendleton 15, Booth 1. If 6 only of Mr. Payne's votes in the caucus were procured by bribery, the result of the election of Senator was clearly brought about by that means. Now, Messrs. Little and Butterworth tender specific proof, part of which was before the Ohio committee and part here offered for the first time, directly and very strongly tending to create the belief as to each of 10 of the members of the Ohio legislature that his vote for Mr. Payne was purchased, and that proper process and inquiry will establish the fact by competent and sufficient evidence. One member, after the caucus, deposited $2,500 in two amounts, and being charged that it was the price of his vote, did not persist in a denial. Another, who changed to Payne, just before the caucus stated to a colleague that he was offered $5,000 to vote for Payne, and intended to accept it, and tried to That person's wife just afterwards deposited induce his colleague to do the same. $2,500 in a bank in Toledo, took a certificate therefor, which she transferred to her husband. Another who is claimed to have changed suddenly from Pendleton to Payne is found making, soon after, expenditures amounting to $1,600 with his own money on land, the title to which was taken in the name of his father, who paid $2,000 for it about the same time. The father and son lived together in the same house. The son testified that he did not know where the father got the money to pay the $2,000. The father refused to state where he got his $2,000, and said he did not know where the son got the $1,600, and if he did he would not tell. The same member also made other large payments of money about the same time. Another, who had to borrow money when he went to Columbus, and changed suddenly from Pendleton to Payne, was shown just after the election to be in possession of money to purchase property, refurnish his house, etc. He was denounced by another member as having sold his vote. He turned exceedingly sick, made no denial, and was taken away. Two others, elected as antimonopolists, became supporters of Mr. Payne and were heard discussing together the amount of money each had received. Another, who had before been for another candidate, but voted for Mr. Payne, received from Oliver B. Payne $3,500, which he said was a loan. Another, according to affidavits produced by Mr. Little, was declared by a fellow member to be claiming $3,500 for his vote. Another, who had been very earnest in support of Pendleton, visited the room of Mr. Payne's managers, where the large sums of money are alleged to have been seen, and immediately afterwards voted for Mr. Payne. The committee received this communication from Messrs. Little and Butterworth in addition to the statements made by them at the hearing: "Hon. GEORGE F. Hoar, "Chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, United States Senate: "DEAR SIR: Since our appearance before your committee the last time, we have received information, deemed by us important, bearing upon the question of investigation, and desire to indicate its general character. "First. We have information, regarded as trustworthy, that a member of the sixty-sixth general assembly, one of the sudden converts to Payne, with meager means and without financial credit prior to January, 1884, was able to and did deposit in bank to his own credit shortly after the election, to wit, February 13, 1884, $1,350, besides showing other signs of prosperity not accountable for in ordinary ways. "Second. We can show by witnesses, whose credibility will not be questioned, that just prior to the meeting of the caucus at which Mr. Payne was nominated he (witness) was, in the interest of Payne, summoned by telegraph to Columbus. He went, and was asked by Payne's managers what sum of money would be required to withdraw the vote of the representative of his (witness's) county from Pendle ton and give it to Payne. The question was squarely and seriously addressed to witness: How much money does he (the representative) want?' "Third. We have from reliable sources additional information of a convincing nature pointing to bribery, consisting of conversation, statements, and admissions of implicated members and others, which we are not at liberty to state more explicitly in this communication, owing to the conditions under which the information is imparted, but which, with the other matters referred to, we can verbally commanicate to you in more particular form if desired. "In the line of matter heretofore submitted we deem it worth while to give this additional instance: "Fourth. We quote from a letter in our possession from a reponsible person in Ohio, omitting names: "Our representative, had been elected as a Pendleton man, and had agreed to support Pendleton. A few days before the caucus it was whispered that had been seen,' and that he would vote for Payne. A telegram was at once sent from here to (the member) by leading Democrats, warning him against and others at once went to Columbus and saw the member. He hooted at the idea that he would vote for Payne. assured Pendleton that the member would support him. then came home feeling confident that the member would not disappoint him." such a course, and "This member was interviewed in the presence of a friend of Mr. Pendleton, and asserted his devotion to him, but was suspected and watched. As the hour of the caucus approached it was noticed that he was not present. The friend of Mr. Pendleton went to his room for him. We quote further: "He found him in company with one of the men who handled the 'boodle,' and he was much embarrassed by· -'s presence. But he went to the caucus with , and on the way again asserted his allegiance to Pendleton. If I remember correctly, - said they had printed ballots for both candidates, and that he gave (the member) a Pendleton ticket. But when the vote was taken, — (Pendleton's friend) observed that (the member) wrote something on a piece of legal cap and then tore it off. He afterwards discovered that (the member) put in the hat the same piece of paper; and then (Pendleton's friend) went to -'s (the member's) desk and tore off a piece of the legal cap large enough to include the small piece torn off by (the member). I think (Pendleton's friend) was one of the tellers. At any rate, he got the ballot which fitted the piece of legal cap, and which had voted, and found that Payne's name was on the ballot." "This member was thereupon charged by the Democratic county paper of his county with betrayal, etc. "We do not question that the facts can be shown substantially as indicated with repect to the member referred to. "Should this information not be used, names and means of identity placed on record would or might lead to annoyances for no purpose. They are, therefore, not here given. "Your committee, we will venture to add in conclusion, will not overlook the fact that our showing, made in the face of a most persistent and powerful opposition, of unlimited means and expedients, has been one for an investigation, and not final action following an investigation. "Very respectfully, "JOHN LITTLE, It is said that much of this is hearsay and that taken together it is insufficient to establish a case which will overcome the presumption arising from the certificate of election. We are not now dealing with that question. The Senate is to determine whether there is probable cause for an inquiry. Any man who lays a claim to any property, real or personal, may institute his process at pleasure, and compel the courts to hear and try the cause. Even a criminal accusation requires only the oath of the accuser, who is justified, if he have probable cause. It will not be questioned that in every one of these cases there is abundant prob able cause which would justify a complaint and compel a grand jury or magistrate to issue process and make an investigation. Is the Senate to deny to the people of a great State, speaking through their legislature and their representative citizens, the only opportunity for a hearing of this momentous case which can exist under the Constitution? We have not prejudged the case, nor do we mean to prejudge it. We sincerely trust that the investigation, which is as much demanded for the honor of the sitting member as for that of the Senate or the State of Ohio, may result in vindicating his title to his seat and the good name of the legislature that elected him. But we can not consent to be accomplices in denying justice to either. We do not believe the American people will be satisfied that the Senate should refuse to hear this case either on the ground that some other tribunal has tried some other case, or on the ground that it has already been decided without hearing or evidence, or on the ground that a bribe paid for a vote in a legislative caucus is not understood by both parties to include a vote in the legislature for the candidate of that caucus. How can a question of bribery ever be raised or ever be investigated if the arguments against this investigation prevail? You do not suppose that the men who bribe or the men who are bribed will volunteer to furnish evidence against themselves? You do not expect that impartial and unimpeachable witnesses will be present at the transaction. Ordinarily, of course, if a claim like this be brought to the attention of the Senate from a respectable quarter that a title to a seat here was obtained by corrupt means the Senator concerned will hasten to demand an investigation. But that is wholly within his own discretion, and does not affect the due mode of procedure by the Senate. From the nature of the case the process of the Senate must compel the persons who conducted the canvass and the persons who made the election to appear and disclose what they know; and until that process issue you must act upon such information only as is enough to cause inquiry in the ordinary affairs of life. The question now is not whether the case is proved-it is only whether it shall be inquired into. That has never yet been done. It can not be done until the Senate issues its process. No unwilling witness has ever yet been compelled to testify; no process has gone out which could cross State lines. The Senate is now to determine, as the law of the present case and as the precedent for all future cases, as to the great crime of bribery-a crime which poisons the waters of republican liberty in the fountain-that the circumstances which here appear are not enough to demand its attention. It will hardly be doubted that cases of purchase of seats in the Senate will multiply rapidly under the decision proposed by the majority of the committee. The first great precedent to constitute the rule under this branch of law is to be this: Held, by the Senate of the United States, that a charge made by the legislature o a State, and by the committee of the political party to which the larger number of its citizens belong, and by ten of its representatives in Congress, that an election of Senator was procured by bribery, accompanied by the offer to prove the fact, does not deserve the attention of the Senate, and this, although it also appear That there is a general and widespread public belief in the truth of the charge; that there was a sudden and unexpected and unaccounted-for change to the sitting member from another candidate, to whom a majority of the electing body had been previously pledged; that large sums of money were brought to the place of election just before the choice by the managers of the canvass for the person elected; that there is evidence tending to show the bribery of several members, and the acquisition by others, who so changed their support, of considerable sums of money, immediately after such change, affect at least 10 members of said legislature; that a change by corrupt means of the votes of 6 persons would have changed the result in a legislative caucus, and thereby bound and committed the vote in the legislature of 82 persons, who were a large majority of such legislature; Provided it also appear that one branch of a subsequent legislature of the same State have, in investigating charges against four of their members, incidentally inquired into charges against other persons, so far as they could without compelling unwilling witnesses to answer, without use of process extending beyond their State, and "without following out many clews, which they did not follow because they were convinced that they would lead only to points of which further pursuit would become necessary." We recommend the adoption of the accompanying resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized to investigate the charges affecting the title to the seat of the Hon. Henry B. Payne, and to send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and employ a clerk and stenographer, and to sit during the recess of the Senate; and that the expenses of the investigation be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate. GEORGE F. HOAR. [Appended to the report of Messrs. Hoar and Frye were the statements of Messrs. Little and Butterworth before the committee, as well as certain comments of Democratic newspapers and leading Democrats on this case. They are omitted here, but may be found in Senate Reports, 1st sess., 49th Cong., vol. 11, Rep. 1490, pp. 40-48.] WEDNESDAY, July 21, 1886. The President pro tempore laid before the Senate resolutions of the Franklin County, Ohio, Republican central committee, praying an investigation into the charges in relation to the election of Henry B. Payne to the United States Senate. Ordered, That they lie on the table. On motion of Mr. Pugh, The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the memorials asking an investigation into the charges affecting the election of Henry B. Payne to the Senate. [The debate will be found on pp. 7251 to 7272, Cong. Record, 1st. sess., 49th Cong.] THURSDAY, July 22, 1886. On motion of Mr. Pugh, The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the memorials asking an investigation into the charges affecting the election of Henry B. Payne to the Senate. [For the debate see pp. 7308 to 7329, Cong. Record, 1st sess. 49th Cong.] FRIDAY, July 23, 1886. On motion of Mr. Pugh, the Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the memorials asking an investigation into the charges affecting the election of Henry B. Payne to the Senate; and the question being on agreeing to the resolution submitted by Mr. Hoar as a substitute for the recommendations of the committee, viz: Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized to investigate the charges affecting the title to the seat of the Hon. Henry B. Payne, and to send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and employ a clerk and stenographer, and to sit during the recess of the Senate; and that the expenses of the investigation be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate, Yeas... It was determined in the negative, Nays On motion of Mr. Harris, The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, 17 44 Messrs. Blair, Conger, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Harrison, Hawley, Hoar, McMillan, Mahone, Manderson, Mitchell of Oregon, Palmer, Platt, Sherman, Wilson of Iowa. Those who voted in the negative are, Messrs. Beck, Berry, Blackburn, Brown, Butler, Call, Camden, Cameron, Chace, Cockrell, Coke, Colquitt, Cullom, Eustis, Evarts, Gibson, Gorman, Gray, Hampton, Harris, Hearst, Ingalls, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, Logan, Maxey, Miller, Plumb, Pugh, Ransom, Riddleberger, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Sewell, Stanford, Teller, Vance, Van Wyck, Vest, Voorhees, Walthall, Whitthorne, Wilson of Maryland. So the resolution was not agreed to. On the question to agree to the recommendations of the committee in its report that the Senate make no further investigation of the charge involving the right of Henry B. Payne to his seat; that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the matters referred to them; and that the whole subject be indefinitely postponed, Yeas It was determined in the affirmative, {Nays On motion of Mr. Hoar, The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, 44 17 Messrs. Beck, Berry, Blackburn, Brown, Butler, Call, Camden, Cameron, Chace, Cockrell, Coke, Colquitt, Cullom, Eustis, Evarts, Gibson, Gorman, Gray, Hampton. Harris, Hearst, Ingalls, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Nevada, Kenna, Logan, Maxey, Miller, Plumb, Pugh, Ransom, Riddleberger, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Sewell, Stanford, Teller, Vance, Van Wyck, Vest, Voorhees, Walthall, Whitthorne, Wilson of Mary land. Those who voted in the negative are. Messrs. Blair, Conger, Dawes, Edmunds, Frye, Hale, Harrison, Hawley, Hoar, McMillan, Mahone, Manderson, Mitchell of Oregon, Palmer, Platt, Sherman, Wilson of Iowa. So the recommendations in the report were agreed to, and the subject postponed indefinitely. [See pp. 7350 to 7361, Cong. Record, 1st sess., 49th Cong.] [Forty-ninth Congress-second session. Fiftieth Congress-first session.] DAVID TURPIE, of Indiana. February 10, 1887, the Vice-President presented a memorial of the legislature of Indiana contesting the validity of the election of David Turpie as Senator, and on the 16th Mr. Turpie's credentials for the term beginning March 3, 1887, were presented. Both papers were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which, on May 14 was discharged from further consideration of them. December 5, 1887, Mr. Turpie appeared and was sworn and took his seat in the Senate. On the same day Mr. Turpie's credentials, together with a memorial from a committee appointed by the joint convention of the legislature of Indiana and the papers in relation to the matter on the files of the Senate, were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. May 14, 1888, the committee reported that the remonstrants offered to show that Alonzo G. Smith usurped the office of presiding officer of the senate of Indiana, and was supported in the usurpation by the majority of that body; that after this usurpation the senate, without debate or hearing, declared two duly-elected members not entitled to their seats, and seated in their stead two other persons not duly elected; and that the senate, under this presiding officer and with these two members in joint convention with the house, elected Mr. Turpie, and the votes of the two members wrongfully seated were necessary for his election. The committee held that these facts, if proved, would not justify a declaration that the sitting member was not entitled to his seat; that the presiding officer was recognized as such by the senate, and the senate recognized as the lawful senate by the house and by the governor, and that these facts required the Senate of the United States to consider it the lawful senate so far as concerned its right to take part in the election of a United States Senator; that as to the two members seated by the senate so organized, the judg ment of the senate of Indiana was conclusive on the Senate of the United States, and that the latter body could not inquire into the motive of the former. The committee therefore asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the case. May 15 the committee were discharged in accordance with their recommendation. The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings in relation to it from the Journal of the Senate, 2d sess., 49th Cong. and 1st sess., 50th Cong., together with the report of the committee, Sen. Rep. No. 1291, 1st sess., 50th Cong. [Second session, Forty-ninth Congress.] THURSDAY, February 10, 1887. Petitions, memorials, etc., were presented and referred as follows: By the President pro tempore: Resolutions of a joint convention of the legislature of Indiana, contesting the validity of the election of David Turpie as United States Senator from that State-to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed. [The resolutions are printed in full on p. 1564, Cong. Record, 2d sess., 49th Cong.] WEDNESDAY, February 16, 1887. The president pro tempore laid before the Senate a paper purporting to be the credentials of David Turpie, certifying to his election as a senator by the legislature of Indiana for the term of six years commencing March 4, 1887; which was read. On motion by Mr. Hoar, Ordered, That it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. TUESDAY, March 1, 1887. On motion by Mr. Hoar, Ordered, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections be discharged from the further consideration of the credentials of Francis B. Stockbridge, a paper purporting to be the credentials of David Turpie, and a resolution of the joint convention of the legislature of Indiana contesting the validity of the election of David Turpie, as United States Senator from that State. In response to a question from Mr. Platt as to the effect of the foregoing order, Mr. Hoar made the following statement: Mr. HOAR. Under the rules of the Senate all papers committed to any committee are to be returned to the files of the Senate at the expiration of the Congress, and the function of the committee itself expires with the Congress. If the credentials of Mr. Turpie had been retained by the Committee on Privileges and Elections without action until noon on the 4th day of March, under the operation of that general rule precisely the thing would have happened then that has happened this morning; that is, the paper would have gone back to the files of the Senate and the committee would have been discharged from its consideration. The only alternative to that course would have been an assumption by the committee or by the Senate at the present session to deal with the credentials of a gentleman claiming to be a Senator |