and the notorious Small administration, and with that backing and that of the Anti-Saloon League he could be elected. That was the reason he was supporting Frank L. Smith; and he asked me to withdraw and join with him in doing that. I told Mr. Safford, as I have said, that I could not stultify my conscience to do such a thing; and besides that I was convinced that Frank L. Smith never could be seated in the United States Senate; that his shameless public acts as revealed by the Senate investigating committee had so shocked the conscience of the Nation that if he went to the United States Senate, sent there by the voters of Illinois, he would be put out, so outraged was the conscience of the people of the Nation regarding these acts. Mr. Safford did not seem to be at all disturbed by that. He said, "Well, maybe he won't be seated. Suppose he is not seated, for the reasons that you have stated. In that case there will be vacancy, and in that case Governor Small can appoint a Senator until the next election, in 1928. Now, Senator "-calling me that; speaking to me "if you will withdraw in favor of Frank L. Smith and help throw your interests with ours to get the dry vote of Illinois to support Frank L. Smith, we will agree to support you for United States Senator in 1928, in case Smith is elected and is expelled by the Senate." Of course, I resented that as an even more flagrant action on his part. I told him I was not dealing in futures and that I did not propose and I could not, conscientiously-to put my influence back of the election of a Senator who he had virtually acknowledged had so outraged the people of the United States that he could not expect to retain his seat in the United States Senate. And again Mr. Safford argued practical politics as the essential element, absolutely disregarding public decency and public honesty in the interests of what he said was winning the dry cause. Mr. Safford and I had quite an argument about what is the paramount issue. He said it was the dry question. I said that honesty and decency transcend the wet-and-dry issue; that if we can not have men in public office-or, no; that the putting into public office of men who will keep their oaths, who will faithfully represent the people, is more important than the wet-and-dry issue. He did not think so. He thought the dry issue was the transcendent issue in this case. Then he said that he had heard that I had-or that there was being raised a fund of three or four hundred thousand dollars. That is the first time I had ever heard of it, Mr. Chairman, when he spoke about it. I had never heard of it before. And he went on The CHAIRMAN. Three or four hundred thousand dollars for what? Mr. MAGILL. Three or four hundred thousand dollars to support my candidacy for United States Senator. I told him I had never heard of it, and I absolutely disavowed it; that there was no such fund: that there had been no such fund; that there would be no such fund. Now, I got that over perfectly clearly with him, and he understood that. But he went right out then from that office and went to Smith's headquarters and peddled this thing, and it has been peddled ever since, although I understand he acknowledged before this committee that he knew it to be a falsehood when he told it-that I had told him it was a falsehood. The CHAIRMAN. I do not think he made that acknowledgment. Mr. MAGILL. Maybe he didn't, but he acknowledged that I had told him that it was a falsehood. The CHAIRMAN. I think he did; maybe you are right. Mr. MAGILL. The evidence shows that Safford said that Magill told him that it was a falsehood. The CHAIRMAN. It was after this conversation with you that Safford took to the newspapers this statement to the effect that a fund of three hundred or four hundred thousand dollars was being raised? Mr. MAGILL. It was all after this conversation with me, when I denied it and disavowed it definitely. Now, Senator, I have come to feel, as we all feel, I think, that morality, sound morals, is the very essence of character. When a man has no moral sense so that he can not see the terrible corruption of the chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Illinois accepting over $170,000 from the utilities who come before that commission and who are under the supervision of that commission with respect to capitalization, the issuance of stocks and bonds and the fixing of rates on these great public utility necessities-I say when a man is so blind in conscience that he can not see how morally corrupt that is, I would expect such a man as that to have no regard for the other issue of going out and bearing false witness against his neighbor. I would like to say that since Mr. Safford presumes to lead the moral forces of Illinois and has undertaken to deliver the church vote of Illinois to Frank L. Smith, I would like to call his attention. to two commandments, in their broadest application, of the decalogue. First, "Thou shalt not steal," and, second, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Abraham Lincoln said, "I will stand with anyone while he is right; I will stand with him as long as he stays right; but I will part with him when he is wrong." It is known that I am a dry; personally dry, politically dry. I am not a dry down State and wet in Chicago. I am dry as a matter of conviction. I shall approach all the questions with an open mind and I shall follow my very best judgment and the honest dictates of my conscience. But I will never take dictation from Wayne Wheeler or Scott McBride or George Safford, because by their actions in this case they have demonstrated to the Nation that they are absolutely unfit to advise, much less, dictate to the decent people of Illinois and the Nation. The CHAIRMAN. I believe I have no questions to ask. (Prolonged laughter.) Thank you. Mr. MAGILL. Just a minute, Senator. I would like to submit a letter which I wrote to Mr. Safford, referring to the opening of my books, and his reply. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Magill, a moment ago I thought you had concluded. You now call my attention to the fact that there is some correspondence in existence. Will you produce it? Mr. MAGILL. I would like to present as a part of the record a letter which I wrote to Rev. George B. Safford under date of October 8. Shall I read the letter? The CHAIRMAN. You may read it; yes, sir. (The letter was marked "Exhibit No. 273." It is as follows:) Rev. GEORGE B. SAFFORD, EXHIBIT No. 273 OCTOBER 8, 1926. Superintendent Illinois Anti-Saloon Leagle, Chicago, Ill. DEAR SIR: You have reiterated your charge that a campaign fund of $400,000 has been contributed in support of my candidacy for United States Senator. This, of course, is a grotesque falsehood, and was known by you to be such when you peddled it to Frank L. Smith and gave it to the press. The people of Illinois are entitled to know the full truth with respect to all moneys contributed and expended in this campaign. I suggest that the Anti-Saloon League appoint a representative, to whom we will afford continuous and unhampered access to all our financial records, with authority to make public, at his discretion, all our receipts and expenditures. We, of course, expect the same privilege of making daily examinations of your financial transactions so that we may make public the sources and amounts of your receipts, and the sums that you are using to supplement Mr. Insull's generous contributions in behalf of Mr. Smith. As you have assumed to vouch for Mr. Smith's political morality, I suggest that you persuade him to enter into a similar arrangement with us. Very truly yours, HUGH S. MAGILL. P. S. In view of the public interest in this matter, I am handing copies of this letter to the press. Mr. MAGILL. Now, on October 9 Mr. Safford replied to that letter. The CHAIRMAN. Is this a carbon copy? Mr. MAGILL. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That may be marked as an exhibit. (The letter above referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 274." It is as follows:) Hon. HUGH S. MAGILL, EXHIBIT No. 274 Congress Hotel, Chicago, Ill. DEAR SENATOR MAGILL: In reply to your communication of October 8, permit me to say that, following its custom of carefully complying with the law, the Anti-Saloon League is reporting its campaign expenditures to the proper authorities at Washington. We have no doubt that you will do the same. These are official records and are accessible to the public. In regard to the big fund of $400.000 gathered in advance of your announcement, I only quoted the exact language of one of the leading promoters of your campaign. May I assure you again the Anti-Saloon League is fighting Mr. Brennan and not yourself. We are convinced the only way to do this successfully is to support the opposing party candidate, Colonel Smith, who is dry. No independent candidate coming in at the eleventh hour, as you have done, can possibly succeed in defeating the other two candidates supported as they are by their respective powerful political party machines. If you become a real factor at all, which I doubt, you can only succeed in splitting the dry vote and helping to elect Mr. Brennan. In this connection may I call your attention to a sentence which occurs in the same column that your letter appears in this morning, "Meanwhile George E. Brennan, Democratic nominee, continued to receive letters from Republicans pledging support on account of the issue of Volsteadism." This shows that the wets of both parties are concentrating behind Mr. Brennan. If he is to be defeated the drys of both parties must concentrate behind Colonel Smith. Very truly yours, GEORGE B. SAFFORD, State Superintendent. Of course, the argument of his letter is that all other considerations should be absolutely disregarded, but the one issue, wet or dry; and I might say in that connection I think the most fortunate situation prevails at the present time, in that those who represent these questionable political methods in both of the old party organizations are divided. On the one hand is the Democratic organization with a candidate, Mr. Brennan, who can not receive the support of hundreds of thousands of Democrats in the State of Illinois who have fought him and his organization for years; and on the other hand is the Republican organization, terribly embarrassed by the notorious character of its candidate, and torn by dissension among itself. Here is a chance for the good people of Illinois of all political parties to clean up both of the old parties and establish political honesty and decency in Illinois. I think it is a wonderful opportunity that may not come again for a long while. The CHAIRMAN. The Republican Party has been somewhat embarrassed by a man named Small, in the past, too, has it not? Mr. MAGILL. Yes, I rather think so. I was over at Indianapolis at a banquet not long ago. The president of the University of Indiana presided, and I was the guest. He remarked that they could not understand Illinois. He said: "We had a governor here in Indiana who stole a few hundred thousand dollars from individuals, and we sent him to the penitentiary. You have a governor in Illinois who, the Supreme Court says, has not accounted for more than a million dollars belonging to the State, which he took as State treasurer five years ago, and he is still in the governor's mansion." That is rather embarrassing, I think. The CHAIRMAN. This is a little aside from our investigation, and while I do not want to go outside of the proper scope here perhaps you would be willing to answer; I only speak of it because the subject was introduced by yourself and to clarify what you have said. Do you understand that large numbers of dry Democrats are sup porting your candidacy? Mr. MAGILL. I do. A large number of dry Democrats have declared to me that they are supporting my candidacy. The CHAIRMAN. And you hold to the theory, I take it, that about the worst crime that can be committed against the Republic is for public officers to use public position so as to establish a corruption fund to poison the very source of the law-the vote of the people? Mr. MAGILL. I do. The CHAIRMAN. You hold that is a greater issue than wet or dry? Mr. MAGILL. I think that President Cleveland was right when he said that a public office is a public trust; and I might add that it certainly should not be a public opportunity for private graft. I think to so subvert a public office is the most traitorous thing that a man in public life could do. I only know of one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I think might be worse, and that would be an attempt to lead the moral and religious forces of Illinois to condone such a crime. I think that is poisoning the very fountains of decency. It is striking at the very foundations of free government; and that is what The CHAIRMAN. Is that all? Mr. MAGILL. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. I think you have the same failing that I have been accused of-saying what you mean. Is Mr. Plamondon here? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. TESTIMONY OF A. D. PLAMONDON (The witness was sworn by the chairman.) The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation? The CHAIRMAN. Contractor, you say? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. What kind? Mr. PLAMONDON. Painting and decorating contractor. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any connection with any organization that is taking any part in the present senatorial campaign? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is that organization? Mr. PLAMONDON. Association Opposed to Prohibition. The CHAIRMAN. What is your connection with that organization? Mr. PLAMONDON. President of Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The Illinois branch? Mr. PLAMONDON. We have a charter of our own in Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. Is your jurisdiction general throughout the State? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Who is your secretary? Mr. PLAMONDON. Mr. Thiele. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thiele? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Who is your treasurer? Mr. PLAMONDON. Mr. Thiele is handling the finances. The CHAIRMAN. Both secretary and treasurer? Mr. Fisher is the nominal treasurer, but Mr. Thiele handles all of the funds, the receipts, and disbursements. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thiele, then, can tell us about the amount of money that has been collected and expended? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you branches throughout the State of Illinois? Mr. PLAMONDON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. State what the organization is throughout the State. Mr. PLAMONDON. You mean the different branches, what they are? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. PLAMONDON. We have a branch in Streator. We have branches in several of the different towns throughout the State, which conduct themselves more or less. They are self-conducting. The CHAIRMAN. What is the object of this organization? |