'COLUMBUS. Yes; if he signs it.

"BOYCE. Well, I will tell you. One of the inducements you know as thoroughly— but that was not enough. He wants to be protected, etc. I told him he should be. I did not write any papers, because I did not want him to have any paper. He has not told anybody up to this time that he has been talking with me. He is afraid of Mason. Mason is going to give him some choice committee position, and, of course, he is shy of Mason. I suppose there is no hope for him.

"COLUMBUS. I do not know.

"BOYCE. When Otis comes up there and goes to Mason and says, 'The thing is all up, I am going with the others,' won't that help? Of course, if Mason knew that they were all going to break away, he would not be left in the lurch, would he? "COLUMBUS. No; I do not think so.

"BOYCE. The whole atmosphere is in our favor.

"COLUMBUS. About this telegram; will you let me know when it is sent, just as soon as you can?

"BOYCE. I want to get your judgment. Both of us want to be judicious. We do not want to expose him to fight. You will see that he is taken care of in Washington. "COLUMBUS. I can arrange at that end so there is no leak there. About that dispatch; if you send it, send it through the Postal and let me know as quickly as it goes.

"BOYCE. He is coming back here about 9 o'clock or so, and we will have another talk about these matters. Droste is a silver man and would have voted for Gray, but Otis would not have voted for Gray anyhow. In his mind was Kurtz and Bushnell when I opened the campaign.

"COLUMBUS. As soon as you come I would like to see you and have a conference with you. Supposing we meet at 10 o'clock, unless I notify you to the contrary, at 263 East Broad street at 10 o'clock.

"BOYCE. Will be at the Great Southern. We expect to leave here on the Pennsylvania line about 4 o'clock, but we are going to settle definitely to-night or to-morrow. Good-bye.

"(And the telephone rang off.)"

The telephone books in Cincinnati show that at 6.52 p. m. on January 8 Boyce, from telephone 548, talked to Rathbone about thirteen minutes; and the telephone books at Columbus show that at 6.50 p. m. on January 8 telephone 548, at Cincinnati, called telephone 1092 in Columbus. According to Campbell and Otis, Boyce's first interview with Campbell was on Saturday night, January 8. Other interviews followed on Sunday, and it was in these interviews that the terms for the purchase of Otis's vote were finally agreed upon between Boyce and Campbell. Campbell says in these conversations Boyce wanted to know if they could not arrange for the votes of Droste and Lane, and other members of the legislature, mentioning the sums that he could get for these votes, and stating that there would be a large amount to divide between them.

Now, Miss Jacobs testifies further that on January 9, at about 11.35 o'clock a. m., she took down another conversation between Boyce and Columbus, which was in the following words:

"SUNDAY MORNING, January 9, 1898-about 11.35.

"BOYCE. Hello! Is this the Major?

"MAJOR. Yes; wait a minute. [After a moment's pause.] Hello! "BOYCE. How are you, Major?

"MAJOR. I recognize you.

"BOYCE. Well, I wanted to ask if you have any direct connection with either Droste or Lane? These men were all elected here on a pledge, and our little friend, who is interested, would like to have the others come, and he brought to me a lawyer, who wants to make a deal. They would not do it unless they received a consideration for it. He says that under no circumstances does he think Droste will vote for the Senator unless for these reasons. Do you think I can put any emphasis upon Lane coming our way?

"MAJOR. I do not know; we are catching them as fast as we can bring them. "BOYCE. Do you put much faith in Jones?

"MAJOR. He can not get away.

"BOYCE. I said in the first place we did not need either Droste or Lane, only for their strength. Now, you know there is going to be a conference to-night with the other fellows. Isn't it wise for us to keep away and not come?

"MAJOR. I don't know, General.

"BOYCE. You know when a man is safe he is safe; that is all there is about it. "MAJOR. They telegraphed them all to come down.

"BOYCE. If anything should occur between now and 2 o'clock, will you ring me up, please?

"MAJOR. Yes; I will.

"BOYCE. The young lawyer is coming to see me again. You understand these men were elected on a pledge saying that they would not vote for Senator Hanna? "MAJOR. I know that.

"BOYCE. It was a peculiar thing to get this man off Jones or Manuel. This man had pledged himself. This man had pledged himself to become elected. He has been afraid all the time, and is now afraid, of the Enquirer.

"MAJOR. I do not think they will have much to say. During the heat of the discussion the whole thing would be wiped out. I think we are in good shape. We have got the men with us.

"BOYCE. We want a clear majority for our side without any question. There is no doubt but what we will have 17 of the senators.

"MAJOR. There ought to be 18. I don't see why Burke should not come in. "BOYCE. My man would like to have Mason for Hanna very much. You see Mason votes before he does. He couldn't raise a question then about it. If I will not come up there I will notify you. I shall see in an hour or two whether Lane or Droste are both here or one of them. No one seemed to know last night and I couldn't find out. I shall know in an hour or two. The latest information is that Droste would nominate Gerrard.

"MAJOR. I am to have a conference a little later and then we will see what is to be done. I will let you know. Good-bye."

(Telephone rings off.)

The telephone books in Cincinnati show that on January 9, at 11.18 a. m., Boyce, from telephone 548, talked to Rathbone in Columbus for ten minutes, at a cost of $2.50, while the books in Columbus show that on said day telephone 1092 at 11.15 a. m. called telephone 548 at Cincinnati, at a cost of $2.50.

There was other evidence before the State senate committee tending to show the intimate relations between Boyce and Mr. Hanna's managers, but it would carry this report to unnecessary length to quote it.

We think that the evidence to which we have already referred, standing as it does uncontradicted and unexplained, shows that certain of Mr. Hanna's managers at Columbus not only knew the purposes which Boyce had in view in Cincinnati, but also that they aided, abetted, and advised him in carrying out these purposes, and that this state of affairs existed while Mr. Hanna was present at his headquarters. This view is strengthened by two facts disclosed in the report of the State senate committee:

First. That many of the witnesses, whose testimony apparently would have thrown much light upon the subject under inquiry, denied the jurisdiction of the committee and refused to testify under the advice of counsel, who stated that they represented the interests of Majors Rathbone and Dick and Senator Hanna; and,

Second. That Mr. Hanna and his representatives had subpoenas sent them by mail, which seem to have reached them, calling upon them to appear before the State senate committee, to which they made no response.

The report of the majority says they "do not doubt that if facts appeared from the report of the committee of the State senate requiring the United States Senate, out of a proper regard for its own reputation, to take further testimony concerning Mr. Hanna's election, it would be the duty of the Senate to proceed without waiting for further prosecution of the case coming from residents of the State of Ohio.” We think such facts do appear from the report of the committee of the State senate, and that this body should direct further inquiry and investigation to be made.

THOS. B. TURLEY.
E. W. PETTUS.
D. CAFFERY.

Mr. ALLEN, from the minority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following views on the charges of bribery in the election of Hon. M. A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States:

In view of the fact that this Congress will expire within the next three days and that the term of service of Mr. Hanna will expire with it, it is apparent that there is not time within which to consider the case, and it will perforce of circumstances fall with the close of the session. My term of office expires with this Congress, and

I do not, under such circumstances, deem it wise to express an opinion as to what a future Congress should do, to which Mr. Hanna has been elected. Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM V. ALLEN.

[The certified copy of the report of the committee appointed by the senate of Ohio to investigate the charges of bribery in the election of Hon. Marcus A. Hanna to the Senate of the United States, and the minority report of that committee are omitted. These documents may be found in Senate Report No. 1859, Fifty-fifth Congress, third session, and also in the Congressional Record, vol. 33, pp. 6585-6635.]

TUESDAY, June 5, 1900.

Mr. Pettigrew, during the progress of debate on antitrust legislation, read from the foregoing report of the minority of the committee and commented thereon. After further discussion the entire report of the committee was ordered to be printed in the Record.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, pp. 6585 to 6635.)

[Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.]

NATHAN B. SCOTT,

Senator from West Virginia..

Nathan B. Scott was elected a Senator from the State of West Virginia for the term beginning March 4, 1899, in place of Charles J. Faulkner, whose term expired March 3, 1899. Before Mr. Sent. appeared to claim his seat certain memorials were presented to the Senate remonstrating against the seating of Mr. Scott. At the beginning of the first session of the Fifty-sixth Congress Mr. Scott was duly seated as a Senator from the State of West Virginia, without objection at the time. Afterwards a résolution was introduced in the Senate declaring that Mr. Scott was not entitled to a seat in the Senate; which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, with the memorials referred to.

March 20, 1900, the committee submitted a report with an accompanying resolution that Mr. Scott was entitled to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of West Virginia. A minority of the committee submitted a report which was adverse to the right of Mr. Scott to the seat held by him in the Senate. The objections to the title of Mr. Scott to a seat in the Senate, the conclusions of the committee thereon, and the views of the minority of the committee in relation thereto are fully stated in the report of the committee, with the views of the minority, submitted and printed in the ease and hereinafter appearing.

The matter was debated in the Senate April 25 and 26, 1900, and the resolution reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections was adopted April 27, 1900, by a vote of 52 yeas to 3 nays.

The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate relating thereto, as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the dissenting report of the minority of the committee, a statement of the days on which these reports were debated in the Senate with a reference to the record of the same, extracts from the remarks of Mr. McComas and Mr. Pettus in such debate, and the vote on the resolution submitted by the committee.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

THURSDAY, February 23, 1899.

The

Mr. Faulkner presented the memorial of John T. McGraw, of Grafton, W. Va.. remonstrating against the seating of Hon Nathan B. Scott as a Senator of the United States from the State of West Virginia for the term beginning March 4, 1899. memorial was ordered to be printed as a document. (Cong. Rec., vol. 32, pp. 2205, 2206.)

THURSDAY, March 2, 1899.

Mr. Faulkner presented a memorial signed by 45 members of the legislature of West Virginia, remonstrating against the seating of Hon. Nathan B. Scott, a Senator ⚫ of the United States from that State for the term of six years beginning March 4, 1899.

The memorial was ordered to be printed as a document. (Cong. Rec., vol. 32, pp. 2691, 2692.)

WEDNESDAY, December 6, 1899.

The President pro tempore presented the depositions of R. W. Morrow and sundry other citizens of West Virginia, witnesses in behalf of John T. McGraw against the title of Hon. Nathan B. Scott to a seat in the United States Senate; which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 79.)

Mr. Jones of Arkansas submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections:

"Resolved, That Nathan B. Scott, now occupying a seat as a Senator from West Virginia, is not entitled to a seat in the Senate."

The memorial of John T. McGraw, which was presented to the Senate during the last Congress by Senator Faulkner, was ordered taken from the files and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections in connection with the foregoing resolution.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 98.)

THURSDAY, December 7, 1899.

Mr. Chandler, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate the right and title of Nathan B. Scott to a seat as Senator from the State of West Virginia, and said committee is authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths, and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee."

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 132.)

TUESDAY, December 12, 1899.

Mr. Gallinger, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the resolution reported by Mr. Chandler from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, on the 7th instant, in reference to the investigation of the title of Nathan B. Scott to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of West Virginia, reported it without amendment; and it was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 231.)

TUESDAY, March 20, 1900.

Mr. McComas, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted a report in relation to certain memorials protesting against the seating of Mr. Scott as a Senator from the State of West Virginia. The report was accompanied by the following resolution:

66 'Resolved, That Nathan B. Scott has been duly elected a Senator from the State of West Virginia for the term of six years commencing on the 4th day of March, 1899, and that he is entitled to a seat in the Senate as such Senator."

Mr. Pettus submitted the views of a minority of the committee; which were ordered printed with the report of the committee.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 33, p. 3072.)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Chandler (chairman), Hoar, Burrows, Pritchard, McComas, Caffery, Pettus, Turley, and Harris.]

PROTEST AGAINST THE SEATING OF HON. NATHAN B. SCOTT.

MARCH 20, 1900.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. McComas, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following report and views of the minority (to accompany Senate Res. No. 213): The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred a certain memorial of John T. McGraw, a citizen of West Virginia, and a certain memorial of John J. Cornwell and others, members of the senate and house of delegates of West Virginia, each memorial protesting against the seating of Hon. Nathan B. Scott as a Senator from that State, have considered the same and respectfully report:

The certificate of the governor of West Virginia, in due form, of the election of Mr. Scott by the legislature constituted a prima facie title in Mr. Scott to a seat in the Senate, and thereupon he was admitted to take the oath of office. The remonstrants insist that he is not entitled to a seat in this body.

The matter was submitted to the committee upon the memorials, the journals of each house, an agreed statement of facts, and certain oral arguments and admissions of counsel at the hearing. The remonstrants offered to prove certain declarations of several State officials, of members of the general assembly, and of attorneys in argument before legislative committees; also certain acts of persons, detailed in certain alleged depositions, submitted in printed form, but the committee was of opinion that there was no proffer of sufficient evidence of fraud or intimidation affecting the election to warrant such investigation by the committee.

On January 24, 1899, the two houses of the legislature of West Virginia each balloted, but failed to concur in the appointment of a Senator, and on the next day both houses met in a joint assembly, and upon the first ballot the whole number of votes cast was 95, of which Mr. Scott received 48, Mr. McGraw 46, and Mr. Goff 1.