Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

The question is on the motion of the Senator from Delaware. to postpone the administration of the oath to Mr. Spencer until tomorrow.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

I ask pardon of the Chair. but. as it was my motion. I think the Chair misapprehends it. It was to postpone the consideration of the case. not the administration of the oath.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The Chair will put it in that form if that is the precise mtion. The question is on the motion to postpone.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

I call for the yeas and nays.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I cannot forbear to state to the Senate again that it is understood. it having been stated by the clerk at the desk. that the papers originally laid before the Senate. and sent by its order to the hands of the printer. have not yet been returned. but will be here tomorrow morning.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

It is also understood by me that every element that enters into this judgment is before us. and has been for two days at least.

S

Mr. CONKILNG

Unknown

CONKILNG

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

That is the understanding of the Senator from New York. I beg leave to disclaim that as being mine. or that of many others around rue.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

When I speak of my understanding. I speak for myself. and not for my honorable friend from Delaware. and therefore I said that my understanding was. and is. that every element of which our judgment can be composed is before us. and. I repeat. I speak only for myself The question being taken by yeas and nays. resultedyeas 24. iays 32 . as follows: YEAtSMesrs. Bayard. Bogy. Casserly. Cooper. Cragin. Davis. Dennis. Fenton. Ferry of Connecticut. Goldthw.aita. Hamilton of Maryland. Hamilton of Texas. Kollb. McCrecry. Merrimon. Nforwood. Ransom. Smlsbury. Schuaz. Scott. Stevensei. Stoctn. Thuraen. and Tit ton24. NAYSMeesrs. Alern. Ames. Browulow. Buelingham. Caldwell. Cameron. Chandler. Clayton. Conkling. Conover. Dorsey. Ferry of Michigan. Flanagan. Frelinghyse. Gilbert. Hamlin. Howe. 1galIs. Lewis. Logan. Mitche l. Merrill of ftaino. Merrill of Vermont. Morton. Oglesby. Pratt Ramsey. Sargent. Stewart. Wadlig. West. and Wisdom32. ABSENTMessrs. Allison. Anthony. Boreman. Carpenter. Edmunds. Hitchcock. Johnson. Jones. Patteron. Roerteoa. Sherman. Sprague. Sumner. and Wright--14. So the motion was not agreed to.

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I now move that the credentials of Mr. Spencer. is Senator from Alabama. and those of Mr. Sykes. claiming also a seat in this body as Senator from the same State. be referred to a committee of the Senateand there being as yet no standing committees appointed by this body. I move that it be a special committeewho shall consider and report to the Senate upon the title of each of thoes contestants.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The Senator from Delaware moves that the ease--

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

Before that question is taken I desire to submit some remarks.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The Chair will state the question. The Senator from Delaware moves that the cases of Mr. Spencer and Mr. Sykes be referred to a special committee of this body.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

A special committee of five members.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

Mr. President. the last voto which was announced signified the intention of the Senate not to postpone the consideration of this question until the papers should come in. but I still trust that they will see the necessity of submitting these varied claims for the same seat to the scrtiny and consieration usually given to measures before they are reported for the action of tho entire body. I do not propose to reiterate at any length the propositions which I yesterday submitted to the Senate. but merely to roter to some of the propositions wihieh were submitted by time honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. MOltTONJ yesterday. and to which. owing to the late stage of the debate. I did not then reply. and yet which I think it important should be corrected . and I trust that I may even have from him a reconsideration of his opinion in regard to the act of Congress under which legislatures elect Senators to this body. It was itated by the honorable Senator. that in the joint assembly contemplated by the act of Congress. which ineansthe assembly of the two houses of the legislature. to use his words. "There may not be a single senator present. and yet the joint. convention is good. provided the number of members of the house is groat enough to be a majority of both houses." He stated that proposition very distinctly. and I dissented from it at the time. Upon reflection I continue my dissent. and I sobmit to the honorable Senator that he entirely destroysthe essential meaning of the plain words of the act when lie declares that a joint assembly can be composed of members of one house alone. The word "joint" in itself. has an express. emphatic meaning. signifying the union ot two or more bodies. or parts. It could not be joint if there was only a simple integer. it must be the union of integers. Therefore when the honorable Senator declares that there can he a meeting of alogislature. to be called a joint assembly of both houses. with no member of one of the houses present. it seems to me. with all doe respect to him. I will not term it an absurdity. but I say it is a flat contradiction of the natural and essential meaning of the words of the statute. He was driven to such a construction in order to overcome the teani. fct defects of the certificate presented here on behalf of Mr. Spencer. I stated yesterday that this certificate nowhere declares that tile houses voted together. or that they voted separately. it nowhere delares that there was a quorum of either branch of the legislature present at the time of the vote. and having the paper before me. I reiterate the statement. • It is here declared that "1both houses of the general assembly voted for a Senator from the State of Alabama to represent thu said State of Alabama in the Congress of the United States." That is the statement. that "both houses" voted. fow did they vote? Did they vote according to the act of Cofigresseach house openly by a iravoes vote of each memlerfor a person who. to be chosen. must have a majority of the whole number of votes east in the house Sir. that does not appear . it cannot be implied . aid yet it is essential where the election took place by eachhousein the absence of the other. We are left entirely in the dark whether. when it says both houses voted. it meaus that they respectively voted in their respective chambers. nor does it give you any information as to whether a quorum was present. There being no statemnt. ant no justifiable presumption in a ease of this kind. because here the law is mandatory. what are we to do ? I say the law of 1866 is not simply a declaratory act. there is a mandatory process prescribed by the law which must be followed. or no election can ensue. Here. under the mandatory provisions of this act. calling for an election by each house. each member voting viva voce. a majority of each being required to be present. there is no allegation upon the part of this certificate that such an election was ever held by each house separately. No statement appearing that the houses voted separately and elected. we come to what is thei required by the actthat they shall meet ln joint assembly for the parpose of electing by a joint ballot. and there. as I pointed out yesterday. the certificate is fatally defective. stopping short at the very point of the essence of this election. The certificate states that "George E. Spoucer. having received a stnjority of all the votes in both houses. was duly elected Senator." That is not the act of Congress. That is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of this law. because it requires that he should receive the votes of a majority of all the members elected. bothhouses being present and voting. There is nothing on the face of this paper to show that a majority of either house or of both houses was ever present and voted. Are we to be forced to the construction of the honorable Senator from Indiana. that one house alone. having within itself a numerical majority of the umembership of both houses. may elect a Senator? Let me give you his language: The legislature of Indiana consists of one hundred and fifty members--one hue. sdreSt members of the hoas and ity nombera of the senate. Now if. on the see. snd day. there are sventysix iembfers of the hiouse present. and not ao single sea. ter. that Is a good joint convention. and they can proceed to elect a Senator. Sir. to call such an assemblage a joint convention is an abase of terms. I know that this act was intended to prevent the effect of a factions majority in one branch of the assembly refusing to meet in joint convention. but to say that a joint assembly can consist of members of one house alone is simply to destroy the necessary meantug of words and the intent which the law of Congress was framed to efIbectuate. So much for that proposition. which I deny. that you can turn a meeting of a single house into ajout meeting of two houses by simply giving notice to one house. if they do not choose to attend. There must be a majority of the eaire legislature. and that majority must be composed. in part. of members of each house. otberwise it is s simple abuse of language. a denial of the just force of words. to say that a joint assembly can consist of the members of a single house. But. Mr. President. as I said. the Senator from Nevada yesterday very positively questioned the accuracy of the statements I made in regard to the composition of the bodies. each claiming to be the legislature. g1iat elected these two contestants. I said then. and I now repeat. upon what I believe to be accurate information. that in the legislature which voted for and elected Mr. Spencer to a seat in this body there was not a constitutional majority of members having certificates. and therefore there was not a constittional quorum of members. but that. in the case of Mr. Sykes. the legislature which elected him had a quoram. under the constitution of Alabama. of members. who all held certificates of election. Those facts. I understood yesterday. were qyestioied by the Senator from Nevada. As they were not my own tacts. lit stated on information. I repaired for confirmation or correction to the source from which I originally received them. and I am authorized to state them again. Reference was made yesterday to the composition of the fusion legislature. as to what it was. as to how it was composed. and what its action had been. A knowledge of those facts ought to affect the action of the Senate in the present case. and therefore I ask to have read from the desk of the Clerk a letter directed to Hon. George Ii. Williams. AttorneyGeneral of the United States. signed by Mr. Hamilton. senator from Mobile. Mr. Erwin. senates from Wilcox. Mr. Anderson. representative from Mobile. Mr. Manning. representative from Mobile. Mr. Doster. senator from Antauga aid Elmore. and Mr. Doster is a wellknown member of tie republican party. I desire to have this letter read. in order that the Senate may apprehend the character and action of the true legislature formed. if I may so call ihet. of the capitol legislature and th eonrthouse legislature. which were fused into the present legislature of Alabama. I desire to have the letter read. The chief clerk read as follows: MOTxoMrnanm. Decembcr 23. 1872. Sic: Tha manner in which tme compromise suggstesd by yourself. with the appro.al of the Presidout. for the settlement of tleiputeo in relation to thogoneral assembly of Alabama. has booms ettespted to be carried out by the na ority of the court.houase party. inices this eond appeal to you and the Itresillent. fliis appeal. though at the roquest mainly of tle capitol assembly. is not confined to thes it is scads also at the restst of gentlcemen who are reisblican In polltics. and wio. prir to the pr=jesed sottleomnt. were members of the organization at the United Statee courthsese. Thin application is made heane. in the judgrsent of the applicants. the good faith they espected. ansi whicht they coisceive yess hail a right inoIsoot fort tn he earsyimig oust of the scheme. has nt boon exhibited by else omajonity of the ort. house party. Tiss nsersigned have been appointed a committee to pet yea is pesessin of the facts ittoniing the a tc rtsdsettlosneet of tire be legislative ificueis. This snip they new perform by ca lie. your aireonLion to the arceispanying statemenit ef facts. as they lava ecurcd an the two soessen e nd since Tosdy the 17th instant. TYea will observe that both parties sespied your tlan sod agrted te carry t itt sfer sac a full settimnem of rho dispute. a acesdiy. t 7t iranatst. was namod Iy commoi consont es the day on which the perses antherized to esavene as mesiers were to assiable in their respective seems in the cpitol trod carry lets offset the settlement. Yen Wilt observe iliac in the hoss of ropsssont.etivs is tonsperaty organization was made osi that day. and th po therein tasaot as moshers sere the persees isidicated in your plan. :In the sonate on that day Cue lisuteeanr.governor took the chair. and the perseas seated as senators were precisely those indicated in your plan. Inthe o se adjoarnmeuns were had till Friday. the t0th instant. en the plea that the evidence seeded to eks rheo ste as e as from Mtsengo County. hai nst arrived. of tee s dsate. tache iith instant. it was ennoanses by mambers freso asis political ponty that an ageeacnt bad been ceas to in relation to the dispted sears wserosey nthe colat by tellers would net au rhouired. but senators titns these dIstricts w(isdhl ta ke their00cmt is. aeeerdassee with wvhatit was admitted tha suss by tellers would sin t lases boon ti o aetui aos east ito carryrii aroinent into effect. ass aisotrt. of the sate was had ssil mae neat ay. ant the poerda t Sths istnt. this arrangesent was eartood su effect in he eato. Unser it ris opnlie sssator rosoe e is er go ws setesi iss place of rie dmo erabic tastor Frose that eoiy. who isod ths regnlar certhlicato i eleceeton tile d elsso ecrtser lil n ile tiesseatls itstrio t retained ise osiet. thi siti t coatest. nader te las. beiong Ocaoi by the retiring elaim. ants. reIectivoly.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Mr. President. my object in having this paper read was to exhibit to the Senate. by undeniable information. the an omaous and utterly confused condition of affairs that may be said even now to exist in the State of Alabama. I do not propose to recapitulate the history of these irregularities . it would be too long. it would be unnecessary. perhaps. but briefly let me refer to the fact that there were two rival bodies. each claiming to be the veritable legislature of the State of Alabama. that although Mr. Lewis received his own certification of election at the hands of one of those bodies that sat in the usual seat of legislation. the capitol at Montgomery. Alabama. yet lio instantly turned round and recognized the rival body. and acted with them until a suggestion emanating from the executive branch of this Government. through the AttorneyGeneral. proposed a settlement of the difference between the certificated and ucertifieatod members of the legislature. and a proposition was made in aceordance therewith for their fuAion. That fusion was carried out fairly and filly on the part ofthat legislature which sat in the capitol of the Sale ofAlabama. butwas not carried out or acted upon ingoodfaith by theother body which occupied the courthouse. ant whom the governor had recognized as the legislature . for it seems that after Mr. Parsons. the speaker of the house. had been reelected to his place by the fission hgislature. acknowledging the composition of that body tobo regular and receiving his authority and position under it. he and those who acted with him. being a part of the courthouse legislature. were in the habit. after sitting during the day in the performance of legislative duties in the capitol. of adjourning by night at an irregular time to the courthouse and there holding secret sessions. passing other bills. before what was really a more faction and not a legislative body. The value of Governor Lewiss certificate may be ascertained by the fact that lie has recognized and approved bills passed in secret by this factious fragment of 0 legislature. acting in direct bad faith to the agreement made under the suggestion of thoAtlorneyGeneral of the United States. that he has approved bills pessed by them increasing the taxes of the people of that State 100 per cent.. bills appropriating $2.CO.000 to be negotiated or hypothecated by the governor. and one other bill. the purport of which I do not at this instant remember. but a bill of an exceedingly important character. aud yet. approving the action of this factious fragment meeting in the courthouse. lie has since that time approved measures of the fusion legislature meeting at the capitol. Now. sir. when you have a governor who by his public action approves as acts of legislation measures passed by two legislatures while both are in session. after he has promised to recognize but one. what is to be the value of his certificate as to the election of a Senator to this body ? Why. sir. if he had done in regard to the senatorial certificate as ho has done in regard to the legislation of his State. we should have two certificates from the same governor of the election of two different persons to the same seat in the Senate! I say this. because the Senate cannot escape flom the fact that no longer do the certificates stand here as prima fade the truth of history in the recital of the acts of the legislature. but they show you that all has been confusion. and that when by a most anomalous proceeding on the part of the Executive of this country. acting through the AttorneyGeneral. a suggestion is made for the reconcilement of differences. when that has been acted upon so that these two bodies meet and fuso themselves into an acknowledged legislature which is in session today. the Senate cannot undertake to act upon a certifirate (I do not care whether it be of Mr. Sykes or of Mr. Spencer) of either one of two mere fragments of a legislature at one time proposing to act independently. but finally confessing the irregularity of their action and voluntarily fusing into a single body. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the rightfulness of Mr. Sykess claim to take a seat. or of Mr. Spencers right to take a seat. beyond this. to show to the Senate that there is no primafocic case. or if there was. that which might under other circuistances be considered a primafoie title to a seat. cannot. looking at the whole state of affairs before you. be considered entitled at all to such action upon your part as will place in this body. without oxamination and without question. a person xvh shall have the right to vote as for a State. not simply affecting that State. but affecting all ethers. the rights of the State that I represent as well as of every other State in this Union. Sir. the question is too grave for such treatment. I cannot understand hew the Senate can satisfy themselves to cut this tangled web of faction. of intrigue. of irregularly exercised power on the part of the General Government of the United States. by eayiug they will seat one of two men. when so much of irregularity. such an undeniable absence of regularity and aouthority. marks cxcry feature which preceded and neconpanied this socalled election. I do not mean to sav what shall be the result of the action of this fusiou legislature that is not the question . but Ido mean to say that you have no right to give greater weight to one of those fragments which now compose this legislature than to the action of the other. and yet that is the proposition. How Senators. in the face of such a rccord.of such a statement as is presented by this long communieation which has betn read to the Senate. can undertake to seat a man iu this body for one instant. and give him the powers and the privileges in the government of this country which a seat in this body implies and carries with ithow they can do that in the fLco of the history of affairs in the State of Alabama. as portrayed by the evidence now before them. is something that I cannot see. It is too dangerous. Senators. I know that we live in times abnormal. in times revolutionary. bat I appeal to Senators. do not add to the difficulties of legislation here by gravely putting upon the record year willingncss to decide without a hearing. to decide without knowledge. to decide in the face of such gross irregularities as certainly will not make your action legal. except so far as your more will may conduce to that effect.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Mr. President. the Senator from Delaware has had a long statemerit read. purporting to be a history of the compromise between the pretended legislature which elected Mr. Sykes and the legal legislature. as decided by the supreme court. which elected Mr. Spencer. I do not propose to go into the argument of the questions arising from that statement. nor to undertake to corrcet that statement at this time in its allegations of fact. All that would properly arise before a committee ad the Senator has moved that all these papers and credentials bo referred to a special committee. of which I should be very glad. if there is to be a reference at all. but I think it proper to give to the country a little history that goes behind that statement. and let us understand what are the merits of this claim. set up here with so much earnestness and with such elaborate statement on the part of Mr. Sykes. The State of Alabama at the last election voted for General Grant by about 10.000 majority. In regard to the genuineness of that majority there isno dispute. and has not been. Mr. Lewis. the republican candidate for governor and the other eandidates on the sanie ticket with him. were elected by average majorities of 9.000 . and. as we have been told. this pretended legislature. that elected Mr. Sykes. counted the vote and declared Mr. Lewis elected by about 9.000 nialority. In other words. "the State of Alabama was confessedly largely republican. as clearly so as Kentucky is democratic. But tho legislature was close betwoeen the parties. owing to the way in which the State was apportioned. the counties being divided off into representative and senatorial districts. and the political -complexion of th legislature depended upon the vote of two counties. Mlarengo and Barbour. If the republican candidates were elected in those two countics. the legislature would have a republican majority i each branch. If the democratic candidates wore elected in those two countties. there would be a democratic majority in each branch. and so there was a contest made after the election. more than before. to secure democratic representatives and senators from those two coitties. Those countes wore republican. I have the official vote here. certified to officially by the returningofficers of the county of Marunge. all of them doiecrats. showing that the total republican vote in that county was 3.122 andt tim rotal democratic voeo2.06 4. giving a republican majority o! 1.058. There was no sort of doubt that the republican candidates for the legislature. as well as for State officers and presidential electors. were elected in that county. but an attempt was made to secure the return of democratic representatives and senatorthree representatives and one senatorby a fraud that I will now describe. After the election was over a bill was filed in the county court. They have. I believe. a court of chancery. and a judge in that. called the chancellor. A bill was filed before the chancellor to restrain the returningboard from counting the votes in one precinct that gave a very large republican majority. As finally counted. the vote stood on in averagoe. for the republican candidates in thatprecinct. 750. and for the democratic candidates. 182. It appeared that the polls had been manipulated in other townships in that county in such a way that by throwing out that precinct the democratic candidate would be returned. A bill was filed. as I hav stated. to prevent the returningofficers front counting the vote in that precinct. and an injunction was granted by the chancellor. Then th returningofficers went on to count the votes in the other townships. and they returned the democratic candidates for the legislature as elected by a very small majority. They immediately certifed that return to the secretary of state. and ho at once issued certificates of election to the democratic candidates as having been elected. About a week afterward the chancellor dissolved the iuj unetion. and the returningofficers were required to count the votes of that township along with the rest. The result was that the republican candidates were eleeted by a considerable majority. and the returningofficers then certified a supplemental return to the secretary of state upon which he was called on to issue certificates of election to the republican candidates. but be refised to do so . he had already given the certificates to the others. and refused to e)3oguice the supplemental aind true returns. of which I have a certified copy nw before ate. In that way they secured four members of the legislature in the county of Barbour. Perhaps I have made one error in my statement. The majority that I have read. of 1.058. is in the county of Marengo. and this lawsuit took place in Barbour County. The republican majority in Barbeur is about 750 instead of being 1.058. but in all other respects my statement is correct. that when the supplemental return was sent to the secretary of state. certified to by a democratic returningboard. it showed all the republican candidates elected. and that they were entitled to the certificates. but the democratic candidates had got ther. and refused togive them up and held on to them. Now I cene to the county of Merengo. where the republican majoriby is 1.058. where a box was thrown out in a large republican Tirecinct by the returningofficers. and by throwing out that box they gave a small majority to the democratic candidates for the legislature. three representatives and one senator. making four members of the legislature in that county. and eight in the two counties. There was no question that the republican candidates were elected. The return of the others was made by throwing out a box on technical and insufficient grounds . and afterward when the two legislatures were merged. after the union had taken place under the advice of the AttorneyGbneral. every member of that body. every democrat and every republican. -oted to seat the republican candidates both from Mareugo and from Barbour. so that the supposed majority or apparent majority of the democratic candidates was absolutely a downright fraud. Nothing in Louisiana. that my friend from Delaware so eloquently denounced. was more wicked than this fraud. and while icy friend cannot brook even the appearance of fraud in Louisiana. he ought not inadvertently to give countenance to it in Alabama.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Why. Mr. President. the honorable Senator hasjust told us what I think is a very natural fact. that when the fraud ivas exposed the democrats are those that put their feet upon it. The very instant the legislature has faced and regularity is restored. the wrong is corrected. and I thank God that I do not know anywhere where the democracy approve of fraud committed in their behalf. I only wish that example would be followed by some other people.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The Senators congratulation of himself is a little too sudden. and I think I caln show to him that the foundation for it is not very good. They succeeded by getting an appareut majority ii that legislature. and they hoeld on to it just so long as they could. With a perfect knowledge that the republican candidates in those two counties were elected. they went on and attempted to organize the legislature with a democratic majority iu each branch. and did constituto what was called the capitol legislature. They retained those spurious members in that body until. I believe. sein time in the month of January. when. finding that the courthouse legislature was recognized by the governor. by the State officers. and by the courts. and that. their claims were gone. they then did give up their pretended organization. and went into the courthouse legislature. they merged their existence into the other body . and it was a part of that agreement that the votes shoul lie fairly counted. They did consent to it. fiually. but under great stress of weather. and after log delay. under the circumstances I have described. Mr. President. there was a third senator. from the district. I believe. of Conecub. the republican candidate being clearly cloeted. but the returningofficers threw out the votes from a new county called Escambia upon a technicality. If I ani correctly informed. the technicality was that the name of the senator was printed on the same ticket with those of the State offilers. Upon an insufficient ground the vote was thrown out. and the democratic candidate returned its elected. After this organization took place. or after the capitol legislature had given up the ghost. and its members had voluntarily gone into the courthouse legislature. there wis a contest made its regard to the senator from the district of Conecuh. and the republican candidate was put into the place to which lie was elected. and the other nmai was turned out as having no right there. Now. whon you come right down to the question of fact. Alabama was republican. a repiblican legislature was fairly and honestly elected. but cortain persons secured seats in the capitol legislature by means of fraudulent certificates and the fraudulent conduct of returningofficers. all of which was afterward confessed so far as the two counties of Marengo and Barbour were concerned. They did not make confession in regard to the senator from the district of Conecub. but that case was tried upou a contest and settled in favor of the republican candidate. Mr. President. I did not wish to refer to politics in this connection at all. These questions ought to be settled om considerations higher than party considerations. but when the Senator from Delaware talks about intrigue and faction and cabal and irregularity. I beg leave to call his attontion to the plain history of this case. that the democratic majority in the socalled capitol legislature was secured by the fraudulent means of which I have spoken. and that that fact has since been confessed upon therecord. that every member of both parties vobed to seat the republican candidates from these two counties. eight of them in all. giving a republican majority in each branch. and upon a fair contest the third senator was seated from the Conecub district.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Allow me to ask the honorable Senator whether his present proposition is not to go back into that condition of doubt and uncertainty. or. as he called it. of cabal and intrigue. in order to fid out what was then done. and allow that to become the basis of seating a man ill the Senate. or whether he does not now recoguizo that there is something in the shape of a respectable legislature in the State of Alabama. whose action should alone be considered by the Senate of the United States. in the selection of a member to this body.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I wish to say a single word on that point. as I do not want to detain the Senate. and I had no wish to say another word in this debate. When the capitol legislature first convened. while Governor Lindsay. the democratic governor. was still in office. before the iuanguration of Governor Lewis. the republican members. finding that they were to be overslaughed by the means I have referred to. refused to go into that lcgiature. and they organized what was called the courthouselegislature. and they received into (.hat legislature. as members of it the republican candidates from the counties of Marengo. and Barbour. and from the district of Coueuh. men who were afterward confessed and shown to have been elected. Receiving into that legislature the members from those three counties. they had a quorum in the senate and a quorum in the house. In other words. the members who were in the senate and in the house of the courthouse legislature. and who took part in the election at which Mr. Spencer was chosen. every one of them voting. now constitute the actual quorum in the legislature as at present organized. The Senator understands that proposition. that the men who voted for Spencer in the courthouse legislature. both senate and house. now constitute a lawful quorum in the senate and the house after the members of the capitol legislature have gone into the legal body.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

But at the tiiac of their action they had not certificates.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I confess that. I am stating the whole truth about it. At the time of their action the members from Barbour and from Marengo Counties had not certificates. They were held by the spurious nicimibers in the other legislature.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Do I understand the Senator to say that there were no others. except members from these counties. who were there without certificates ?

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Not that I know of.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The Senator has large information. apparently. on this subject. and as he is speaking with so much confidence. as he generally does. I think he should know it.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

There is no dispute about any other counties but these two and the Conecub district. The very agreement the Senator has read shows that the dispute arose in regard to those counties or those senatorial and representative districts.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The fact is an awkward one. and therefore the Senator passes it over.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I have no objectiou to the Senator from Delaware giving any facts. I amn sure lie cannot give any that will controvert the statement I have made. When the eupitol legislature first met. Governor Lindsay. the old governor. recognized it as being the lawful legislature. and it is true that the lientenatgovernor. the outgoiig licntenantgovernor. on the proper day. did count the votes for Governor Lewis and for LieutenantGovernor McKiustry. and declared them to be elected in the presence of what were called the senate and the house of the capitol legislature. Bnt it is equally true that immediately afterward Governor Lewis recognized the courthouse legislature as being the lawful one. as having a quoruns of men who were actually and truly elected. as it turns out upon the final showing. and the courts have recognized that legislature. For examiple. Mr. Speicer was elected on the 4th of Decensber . on the 10th of December that legislature proceeded to the election of a State printer. in accordance with law. the capitol legislature had done the same thing. they had elected such an ofcer. and the contest came up between these two State primfers as to which was the rightful officer. That contest. after litigation. found its way into the supreme court of the State. and they. within a few days. have decided the question. deciding that the State printer elected by what was called the courthouse legislature was the lawful officer. that he was elected by the legislature of Alabama. asd. mark you. they held that that was the legislature of Alabama before this fusion took place. That took place several weeks afterward. and yet the supreme court of the State held that the State printer elected by the courthouse legislature oin the 10th of December was the lawful officer. elected by the proper body. If the decision of the supreme court is entitled to any censidera ion . if the fact that the governor of the State recognized that bofly. the fact that it has gone on making laws. which have been accepted as valid all the time. and are iii operation today it. the State of Alabama. cud the fact that the capitol legislature afterward voluntarily gave up its cxistenco and merged itself into the courthouse legislatureif these considerations are entitled to aiy weight. it seems to me that my friend has a very slim foundation now to stand upon.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I wish to ask the Senator one question. When lie speaks of the governor recognizing the legislature. may I ak which one he recognized ? It seems he approved bills passed by the capitol legislature as well as bills passed by the faction in the courthouse.

S

Mr. BAYARD

Unknown

BAYARD

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Certainly. the identity of the courthouse legislature was preserved. It has never been chaiged. it hias the same officers todaty it had beforme Mr. Spencer was clectd. There was no change in its iduitity. This socalled capitol legislatusre simply gave u1) the ghost. the membcrs marched into the other. and certain mon-

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Mr. President. I am snder the impression that it has been the practice of this body to admit members who have brought testimonials which. upon their face. gave evidence that they were elected to seats hero. I know of only one instance in which an exception has been made to that rule. and it seems to me it would be very difficult for us to organize and continue this body unless we adopt that rule and are .overned by that priuciple. For instance. every second year twentyfour members of this body are reelected or twentyfour go out and their places are filled by other men. Now if any man is to be permitted to conie and present a petition for the places of these twentyfour men. and if we are1 in consequence of that petition. to delay action until we can settle all questions which are connected with them. we may be a long time organized with a body of only twothirds of the members which the law allows us to have. The Senator from Delaware. if I remember aright. came here with a certificate from the governor of that State which stated. in substance. that he was elected by the legislature of that State in accordauce with law. and there was nothing which interfered with that statement. It was prisafao evidence of his election. and upou that certificate he was admitted in the same manner and upon the same evidence that I was admitted. Mr. Spencer comes here with a certilicate from the governor of Alabama. and that certifieate states that the legislatnre oe that State was in session. a majority being present in convention of both houses. and there they gave a ballot in accordance with the laws of the United States and the State of Alabama. and Mr. Spencer was elected. Up to this point the certificate of the Senator from Delaware and the certificate of the Senator from Alabama are precisely alike. Now the question comes up. why should not Mr. Spencer be admitted to a seat as well as the Senator from Delaware ? The reason is that another gentleman presents a petition. and in that petition sets forth a declaration that he was elected by the legislature of the State. and that is fortified by a certificate signed by the presiding officers and the clerks of the two houses. I aubmiV that the certificates of those men are of no more importance to this case than the certilicato of a sheriff of a county of Alabama. or than the certificate of a judge of aiy ofthecourts ofAlabaina. They are not recognized in law as proper officers to furnish a certificate for men who are elected to this body. And so with all the declarations which are mado in connection with that petition of Mr. Sykes. But Mr. Sykes goes on at tio close of his mnmorial to say that if Mr. Spencer shall be admitted to a seat. le asks the privilege of being heard and contesting it. That is undoubtcdly the right ground. It appears to ice that we can yield only to that suggestion. and that we have no right today to bring in any evidence to prevent us fron admitting Mr. Spencer to the scat to which he is entitled upon primafacie evidence. aid the best thing we call do and the only thing is to receive Mr. Spencer with his tesbimonials. and then take up the question proposed by Mr. Sykes and see whether he is not entitled to it instead of Mr. Spencer.

S

Mr. BUCKINGIIAM

Unknown

BUCKINGIIAM

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

I rise only to say that what I have learned since the Senator from iudiaua addressed the Senate increases. in my mind. a conviction of the propriety. in fact the necessity. of referring these credentials to a committee and not seating Mr. Spencer at this time. The Sonator from Indiana asserted that the senators who now constitute the quorum of the legislature since the fusion has taken place are the sae. senators who constituted the quorum in what is called the courthouse legislature. and. if I uderstand him correctly. that a majority of the senators and members in the fusion legislature actually voted for Mr. Spencer for Senator at the United States courthouse. Now. sir. I am told that that is an error on the part of the Senator. and that if the journal of that courthouse legislature. which I understand has gone or is to go to the printingoffice to be printed. it being one of the matters laid before us by Mr. Sykes. were it before the Senate. it would show that the Senator was entirely mistaken in making that statement. But there was another thing upon which the Senator dwelt. and that was that. by the votes of both democrats and republicans. the republican members of the house from Marengo and Barbour Counties were seated. and he says that was a confession that those men. and not the democrats. were entitled to the seats. I do not think it is to be regarded in the light of a confession at all. I do not think it is any eouession -lwatever that they had not a right. because. upon another canvass of the votes than that which halt been officially made. the second board of canvassers provided for in this compromise. and. by the way. this extraconstitutional compromise suggested by the AttorneyGoueral of the United States. found that the republicaus were elected. But I wish to speak more particularly of the case of the senator from Conecuh. upon which the Senator remarked. II that casc Mr. Miller. the republican senator. was seated. ousting Mr. Martin. the democratic senator. and the Senator from Indiana takes that as another proof of fraudulent larotouse on the part of Mr. Martin by which he had a seat in that assembly. Now. sir. wliat were the facts ? I will state them as they were told to me. and as I an assured that the journal will show when it is printed and before us. According to the suggestion of the AttorneyGeneral. when those two bodies fused together they appointed a committee oi elctions. (whether by that name or not I do not kno. but a coiniittee oipose l of two republioans and two democrats.) to canvass the votes. Oiao mf teieiimbers of that coinnaittee (a republieau) died. That left the committee consisting of two democrats and one republican. They made two reports. The republican reported that Miller. the republican candidate. was entitled to the seat. and the two democrats reported that Martin. the sitting member. was entitled to the seat. The majority having reported a resolution that Martin. the sitting member. was entitled to a seat. a motion was made that the report of the minority be substituted for that of the majority. That was to strike out all of the majority resolution and insert that of the minority. Two mneibers of the senate paired with each other. a democrat and a republican. upon that vote. If they had both been there. the majority would have been democratic. and the motion to substitute the minority report would have failed. It would have been precisely the same thing if the pair was kept. but the fact was that while the democrat went home on the faith of that pair. the republican broke his pair and voted on that question. and by his vote substituted the report of the minority in place of that of the majority. That having been done. what next was necessaryl Next. it was necesary to put the question. shall the resolution us amended pass? But thelieutenautgovernor. the presidin7 officer of the senate. absolutely decided that merely substituting the resolution of the minority for that of the majority. although no action followed that and no other vote was taken. had the effect to oust the sitting momher. and to scat the contestant. Mr. Miller. It is by such means as those. which the journal will show when you geut to look at iti. that a najority was obtained by the republicans in that sonate. Now. sir. in view of these things. it will not do to talk as the Seuator from Indiana has done about there being a majority of republicans in that body siuce the fusion of the two rival bodies claiming to be the legislature. Everything that we hear about this case shows the necessity of referrig it. As to the peiiafacie ease made by the credentials of Mr. Spencer. enoegh has beeu said. Again and again has this body refused to seat a Senator although his credentials were perfectly regular. They did it in Mr. GOLnTIMN ITS case. they (lid it in Mr. RANsoAis case. and I affirm that where the case is one of two legislatures. and whore we must decide which is tme true legislature. and where we are not bound by any decision oi any State court ulmon that subject. in such a ease a that we are bound to send the ease to a committee for investigatiou. If there were but one legislature the case would be wholly different. Then. sib. we ought to admit (unless there were the strongest passible reason agaiust it) ol the certificate of the governor- but where there are two logislatures. or two bodies. each of which claims to be the legislature. thou in the nature of things we cannot be bound even pmlamefacie by that certilleate.

S

Mr. THURMAN

Unknown

THURMAN

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

Mr. President. as this matter now stands. it scenis to in that it is not wecll to go into the facts. They are not before us in a term sitieiently authentic to enable us so make up a judgileat upon the history of this transaction. and mere conecture will not answer. What is the case as it is presented to us? Agentleman presents his credentials in tie usual trm. certified by the governor. aid countersigned by the secretary of state. setting forth that he was duly elected a neimber of this body. Objection is made. not by any gentleman who it is pretended now. as I understand. was elected and claims the scat to which the gentlenu who has presented himself is aspiring. but simply a protest against his election. We have not the facts before us so as to go into the history of the caso and ascertain tihe details. but we have the documents which are usual in such cases. and which are authorized by law. Now what is our duty in the premises ? If the person presenting hi1self makes apri~mafeai case. it seems to me that our duty is clear. It is said that the practice of swearing in a member on a primafaci case has been departed from heretofore in some instances. That may be so. but in looking into them it will be found that they are not in accord with this case. The case of Senator RANSOM. to which reference has been made. we all know is not analogous to this ease. In that case there had been a preceding election. the facts were before the body and mnder investigation. Another gentleman had received. as we know. a majority of the votes of the legislature. but was ineligible. He had given up his claim. Than a man who was voted for at the same time. and who hal received a minority of tho votes. claimed. because of the ineligibility of the Nmajoity mean. that ho himself was legally chosen Senator. and that the legislature which elected Ni. Rassom had no right to proceed to an election at all. But here we have only the ordinary certificate under the sealof the State in the form prescribed by law. Now. what is our duty. as I asked beforeV It seems to me that it is so plain that there ought to be no difficulty about it. A more protest that the gentleman who presents himself is not elected is not to inhibit us from the discharge of our duty. The Coastitution confides to the State legislatures. in the absence of any action of Congress. the power to provide the time. place. and manner of the election of Senators to this body. The provision is: The times. piees. and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representative. slall b preeribteia eah State by the logislature theruof. but the Colrt. .imay. at eny time. tiy law mnke or alter such regulations. except as to the Place of choosing eaators. In 1866 the Congress undertook to and did pass a law in pursuance of the authority given in that clause. and prescribed the time and manner in which members of this holy should be elected. In the act of July 25. 1863. section 3. we find: That it shall be the duty of the governor of the State from which any Senator shall have been chosen as aforesaid. to certify his election. under the oral of the State. to the President of the Senate Qf the United States. which certificate shall be countersigned by the secretary of state of the State. Has Mr. Spencer produced here a document such as is contemplated by this act of Congress T It is admitted that he has. and that no other person has. The gentleman who enters this protest has presented no credentials from the proper authoriby. Then. prisasfacie. Mr. Spencer is elected. The usual evidence of an election is here. and we are uot permitted. at this stage. to go into the facts of the ease. Shall we then refer it to a committee to ascertain the facts before we swear him in I That is the point here. I understand. I think not. The practice of this body. and. if I may4!efer to it. I believe the practice in the other end of the Capitol. has been that when a gentleman presents himself with credentials in the usual form. with the proper certificate. with everything that goes to show that lie is properly elected. lie shall be sworn in. and then. if others want to contest lis election. they present their papers and the case is then referred to a committee for investigation. Bet in this instance.Mr. Spencer comes here with the proper document. properly authenticated. showing that he is properly elected. and it is our business to qualify him. and then he is a mesuber of this body until he is onstod by the report of a committee. and the judgment of the Senate upon the repot of that counittee. Why. sir. on the face of the petition which Mr. Sykes has presented bore he gives what he says is the law. not only of this country. but of England. and upon the law. as he gives it to us in the argument of another propositior. we are bound to admit Mr. Spencer to take the oath. He lays down certain propositions. Ho3 says: The principles of parliamentary law. of universal usage in this country and England. and in fores in Alabama. as to the rights of persons holding certificates of election to legislative assemblies. are as follows. Now he goes on to lay down the principle! 1. Thab every person duly returned is a member. weather legally alected or not. until his election is set aside. This is the law brought here by Mr. Sykes--" that every person duly returned is is member. whether legally elected or not. until his election is set aside." It seems to me if that is good lawand the friends of Mr. Sykes cannot gainsay it . I apprehend it is parliamentary lawour duty is to swear in Mr. Spencer first. and then if any gentleman sees fit to contest his seat. lot him present his papers as has been clone in this case. let theni ba referred to a committee. let the proper examination be made. and the facts reported to this body. and then let this body take the proper action upon it. This. it secns to me. is the course that we should pursue. I (to not intend now to commit myself as to what should be the ultimate actionaofthis body on the case. I am not aware of what the facts are. We have them stated on one side in one way. we have them on the other side stated in another way. It seems. however. from the admissions on both sides. that the body which elected Mr. Spencer is now acknowledged to have been a quorum of the legislature properly elected. If that ho so. it. is very singular that gentlemen are here protesting agaiast the admission of Mr. Spencer at this time. when they know. after thorough investigation. that their pretensions are groundless. and that he must ultimutely be qualified as a member of this body. We have been anuoyed very much for years past by these contests . hut I may say. so far as my experience goes. that in none of them was the precise case presented which we have here. The facts were differeut. other questions arose as to the reconstruction of States. whether States were in the Union. or other matters which are of a different character fron those that are developed in this case. but here we have not the facts before us authentically . we have not the facts before us on which to make up a proper jndgmest. we have here. however. papers which show. priinsfacie. that Mr. Spencer is elected to this body. and it seems to me we can do nothing loss than to qualify him. and let any contest that snay be made come up afterward.

S

Mr. BOREMAN

Unknown

BOREMAN

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The question is on the motion to refer to a special committee of five.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

I desire to say one single word for myself before the veto is taken. not in the way of argument or debate. but as a statement. I wish it understood for myself that in this vote which I give today to seat Mr. Spencer I do not express any opinion with regard to the merits of the controversy between him and Mr. Sykes. He has the credentials required by the act of Congress. he comes with a certificate authenticated by the great seal of the State of Alabama as having been elected. and 1. therefore. have discarded all these hearsay statements that do not rise even to the dignity of evidence in the case. let alone proof. I discard the whole of them. I have ao opinion. I purposely refraln from any opinion as to the ultimate merits. but admit Mr. Spencer by my vote upon the certificato which he holds in his band. whici certilieate is in due form of law.

S

Mr. ALCORN

Unknown

ALCORN

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The question is on the motion to refer the subject to a special eomnittee oi five Senators.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

I eall for the yeas aml nays.

S

Mr. COOPER

Unknown

COOPER

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The question now is on administering the oath to the Senatorelect from Alabama..

S

The MICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

The question now is. shall Mr. Spencer be sworn ? (" Yes.") Well. sir. I move to lay that question on the table until the regular committees are appointed. so that then there may be a motion made to refer these credentials to the proper committee. the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I move that the question of Mr. Spencers right to be sworn in be laid on the table.

S

Mr. TIURMAN

Unknown

TIURMAN

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The question is on the motion ofthe Senator from Ohio.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

The question recurs on adniinistering the oath to Mr. Spencer.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03071873.txt

I want to place myself on the record in regard to this question. which I understand to be whether Mr. Spescer has shown a case which entitles him. under the existing laws. to a seat upon this floor until the contest is deelied. In determining this question. Mr. President. we have first to look at the act of 1866 in relation to the requisitions which are demanded by law to entitle aSnator here to his seat in the firstinstance. What are those requisites? They are prescribed by that act. anad it reqnires simply the certificato of the governor certifying to lis election to enable him to take his seat upon the floor. On the 4th of March two years ago I presented my credentials. to which there was taken no exception. Fromi thattinse niatil sone day in theJanu aryfolo wing. upon pretexts. pretenses. and uci iorials. Alabaia was kept ou of her constitutional right to representatio o this floor. In that ease. as I have said. there was not the slightest objection taken to the credentials. The question arose simply upon a icemorial stating facts which were not attempted to he proved. and statingfacts of which the Senate could not take cognizance without proof. I have smarted from that day to this. not fur myself. but for the wrong that was done to the State of Alabama in refusing her. upon pretexts of the character I have adverted to. her constitutional rights on this floor. I concede to the fullest extent all the force that is claimed for the certificate of the governor. I concede. so fnr as that certificate is concerned. that it is in due form of law. and I ani willing to give it. as I thiuk should be given to it. full prioafai effect. Bat. Mr. President. what is the naanisg ofaprimafacie easel It is simply that it presents a case which is good at the first view. but whenever the presunlption arising front the certificate is overbalanced by other testimony of a higher character. ofa superior order. then it is hel in every legal and legislative trihunalthat the effect arisingfsom the certificate itself is dissipatedl by higher ansI better testimony. I should have greatly preferred that the cs should have gone to a committeep. in order that all the testimony which has been introduced in the memorial of Mr. Sykes should be before the Senate . but in consequence of the Public Printer not being able to lay it before them. I shall feel at liberty to assune every fact which is stated. and which would be supported by that testimony if it were before the Senate. as true. I assume that it is. constructively at least. before the Senate. and that upon examining it as I have done. the sole question will be for the Senate to determine as to its sufficiet weight to counteract the printafaecie presumption arising from the certificate which is now before the Senate. That testimony consists. in the first place. of the certificates of the presiding officers of each house and thejournals of each house. showing the organization of the house and the senate of the legislature of Alabama according to the laws of Alabama. The laws of Alabama deneand. in the first place. that the legislature shall be holden at a certain place. The Constitution of the United States requires that the legislatures of the States shall elect Senators to this body at a place to be fixed hy law. The general assembly that elected Mr. Sykes was held at the place emhich was fixed by the law of Alabanm. Of that legislature. in the house. consisting ill number of 100. there was. if I recollect aright. a quorum of 54 . in the senate. whih consists of 33 members. there was also a quorum present. There was. then. not only a quorum of each house. as the law demands. but it was at the place at which the law demanded it should be held. Under the constitution of Alabama the law requires that each house shall be organized by a particular officer. the president of the senate. who holds over for that purpose. organizes the senate. and the speaker of the preceding house organizes the house. Now. Mr. President. you will see that that requisition of the constitution amd laws of Alabama was complied with . that each house was not only organized at the place which was fixe(i hy law. but it was organized by the officers prescribed by law. that a fell quorun was present. and every one of the persons eonstittting that quorun

S

Mr. GOLDTHWAITE

Unknown

GOLDTHWAITE

Unknown

M

03071873.txt

The petitions will lie on the table for the present. "

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03101873.txt

I present the petition of S. J. Warren and others. praying for the passage of an act for the relief of William Rood. late private Thirtysixth Regiment. Wisconsin Volunteers. and also the petition of James W. Ogle and others. praying for the passdge of an act for the relief of Charles W. Berry. late a private of the Thirtysixth Regiment. Wisconsin Volunteers. I ask that these petitions lie on the table for the present. to be referred to the Committee on Military Affairs. when appointed. I desire also to present the petition of Antoine Sontag-

S

Mr. gENTON

Unknown

GENTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I olject to the presentation of any petitions of a legislative character at this session. We have no legislative functions whatever. That matter has been discussed and deliberately deterrtined by the Senate. and we may just as well begin precisely as we ought to go on. I object to any legislative business. and this is legislatiou.

S

Mr. HAMLIN

Unknown

HAMLIN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

The Senator from Maine objects to the reception of any petitions asking for legislation.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03101873.txt

I withdraw the petitions.

S

Mr. FENTON

Unknown

FENTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

They will be withdrawn. and those presented by the Senator from Michigan will also be regarded as withdrawn. the point having been raised.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03101873.txt

I ask leave to have the papers withdrawn of Benjamin H. Campbell. marshal of the United States for the district of Illinois. which relate to certain losses of his by the fire in Chicago. There was a favorable report on the case and a bill passed. and the papers are to be withdrawn to go to the Department.

S

Mr. EDMUNDS

Unknown

EDMUNDS

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Leave will be granted to withdraw the papers. if there be no objection. On motiou of Mr. WEST. it was Ordered. That Clarissa Dishop. of Louisiana. have leave to withdraw her memorial and papers from the files of the Senate. copies of the same being left with the Secretary of the Senate.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03101873.txt

I offer the following resolution. and ask for its present consideration: esoelverl. That the Coimnittee on Privileges and Electionts be instructed to ex. amineoand report. at the next session of Congress. upon the best ani most joranti cabe mode of electing th President and VicePreosident. nd providing a tribunil to adjust and decide all contested questions connected therewith. with leave to sit during vacation. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I offer a resolution which is in effect an order. and ask that it may be road. The chief clerk read as follows: toled. Tha t witnesses eunsoined to appear before the Senate or any of its coinmi ttis ishaI bo paid as follows. siz: for each day a witnes shall attend. tie sim of four doliars for leh mile he iiall travel in coining to or going from the place at examination. the sum .f flv cents. but nothing shall he paid for travelsng when tie witness has been summoned at the place of trial.

S

Mr. MORRILL. of Maine

Unknown

MORRILL

Maine

M

03101873.txt

I find that the practice between the two Houses is not uniform on this subject. On the House side. for example. they pay what is specified in this resolution . on the Senate side we pay twice that sum for travel. It is with the view of arranging the matter between the two branches that I offer this resoltitioi. Under it the Senate will pay precisely what has been paid for some time by the other House. I do not ask immediate action now. Let it lie on tle table for the present.

S

Mr. MORRILL. of Maine

Unknown

MORRILL

Maine

M

03101873.txt

The resolution will lie on the table.

S

The VICE-PRESIDENT

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

03101873.txt

I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

S

Mr. SHERMAN

Unknown

SHERMAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution in regard to the case of Mr. CALDWELL.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Mr. President. I will first ask the Secretary to read the report of the rousmittce in this case. The chief clerk read the following report. submitted on the 17th of February last. by Mr. MORTON. from the Committee os Privileges ani Elections: On the lit day of May. 1872. the Senate adopted IlIe following resolution "ctose ed. That the Commuites o. Piivileges nl Elections be cuthorized to investigate the election of Senitor S. C. PomnoY. by th legislaturo of Kansas. in 1867. and th election of Sonator ALXANEt CALDI LL in 17.t thatthe committee have poser to send for persons and papers. that the chairman. or acting chairman. of said committee. or any oubecommittee thereof. have power to administer oaths. and that tile committee be autorized to sit in Washington. or elsewhere. during the session of Congress and in vaeaton. In obedience to this resolution the Committee on Privileges and Elections have had under consideration the election of AnoxkXDEa OALDwELL to the Senate of the United States. In January. 1871. have taken testimony. and beg leave to submit the following report: It Is testified by Mr. Len. T. Smith. a former business partner of Mr. CALDWELL. his active friend at the time of his election and during this investigation. that he made an agreement with Thomas Gamey. of Leavenworth. by which. in coonsideration that IMr. Carney should not be a cnndidate for United States Senator before the legislature of Kansas. and should give his influence and .support for Mr. CAl..Ec t r. CA LDWoLL should pay him the sum of $15.005. for which amount notes were given. and afterward paid. at the same time taking froni Mi. Carney a written instrument. in which he pledged himself. hi the most solemn manner. not to be a candidate for the office of Senator in the approaching election. This instrument is in the words following: I hereby agros that I will not. under any condition of circnmstanea. be a candidate for theijoited States Senate in the year 1871. without the written consent of A. CALDWEu. and In case I do. to foifeic my word of honor hereby pledged. I frthlier areo and hind myself to forfeit the sum of $15.000. and authorize thie publication o this agreement.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Mr. Carey swears positively that i did not receive this $7.000. Or any part of it. but he isndorsed the chee. at the request of Mr. Smith. to enable him to proure the money from the bank. that the ioney was to lie seil in pro.ring votes for Mr. CALDWELL. and that a package containing this money. as lie believes. was placed by Mr. Andersn on % tabll in Mr Cnrnoys room schero it ould be sd swas ronveniently carried offby the parties for whem it wasintended. Tatting all the tostiioay tosehcr. the perhbahility is etea MYr. Carsicy slid not get the .oteo. os nii good rehsen a epresined ltv Mi. Smit tehy. wltea air. CAsl -" WELL wsas I oludieg Governor tarsry s swritten pm eutis not to bie a cardida. nd Mkr. Garotoy hstdiing noes tit it paid ty Ole. CALnesrco for O15O00t. a noew arrangemosit ehoold ha .oade by which Mr. Smi th should pay Mr. Garcoy 07.000 more. m whhsg . in all. Wce isiw soime to the consideration of the irassaction wills Mr. Sidney Clarke. Ho l id broa a mer of Congress. had beci a rantid ate for the United States Senae during tit preceding canvass hefore lt epe oald j. t1tny members of the legisl attre were elcted npen petsonl pleiges to vote for hint fo Senator. Whoa tle first veto was a co. ill til separate house. Mr. Clarke reacired twontyoven vOtes. tle argeob tnllhe. r given for auy antdidate hat one but tho votes satisfied hint anti his frirmnds that lie could not bo elceteeI. An t.ran.ge.ntto was tttolnltded[ between Mr CALDW"J. arll a Mr. Stevens. a friend of ir. Clarke. at a late hour its tills night before utIm t coniventio of the two houses. by which Sir. CALDWELL wOO to pay Sir. Clarkis Cxpenses its the canvass. estimated at from twelve to fiteen thouoand dollars. and Mr. Clarke was to withdraw in favor of Mr. CtuLwuLt. At a caacus of the iriends of Mr. Clarke. hold at nine oclock on the morning of the joint. convention what Mr. CALDWrLL was elseted. Mr. Clarke made a speech and urged them to vote for Mr. CALDWELL. and in joint convention hls name was withdrawn. and all his friends but one voted for Mr. CALDWEL. Subsequently in this city Mr. Clarke had several conferences with Mr. CALDWELL. in Wich tite latter promised to comply with his eegagtneut with Mr. Stevens and pay Mr. Clarkes expenses. estimoatee at from twelve to fifteen thousand dollars. but never did. Mr. Clarke was unwilling to admit that lIo had made an agreement to transfer his friends to Mr. CALDWELL in consideration of the latters pronie to pay this motley. bet taking all tite teetimony together. the comnoittee have no doubt fltat tile trans. action between him and Mr. Clarke was as has been stated. Mr. CAeDWELLS sub. seqoont refosal to piy tie money to Mr. Clarke does not relieve the character of the transaction. and very probably resulted in the exposure of Mt. CALoWELL and the institution of this eoaminatioe. There was nothing in the evidence to show that Mr. Clarkes expenses in the seltatorial canvass. or in the preceding canvass before the people. amountod to half the oUM which Mr. CALDWELL was to pay him. Mr. Carney mid Mr. Clarte both tetify tttt Mr. CALDWELL toll tllol afte cthe election. that his eletion had cost hi $6W.000. Mr. Anthony. the mayor of the CRy of. leavenworth. testified thst Mr CALDWELL adotitted to hil that tho election hal cot him over $60.003. Mr. Burke. editor of the Leavenworth Hrald. and a supportor of Mr. CuDwatL in his canvass. testifies that after the election Mr. CALDWELL told him that tite money he hall paid Mr. Carney was cot more than ten per ceat. of the whole amount which the election had cost him . and en another oocasion that the election had cost him more than twice his entire salary. The committee have had Msh difficulty it tracing the Money transactions. bat the evidence shows thttt variousi satns. aiountitg to over $50.00). were drawn on. der circumstances thatrake it protable they were used to procure Mr. CAiDWELt.S election. The sam of $15000 paid to Mr. Carney has already been slated. The second sum of $7.000. which Air. Len. T. Smith swears was paid to Sir. Carey. and which Mr. Carney dtnies receiving. and testifies to Circumstanes showing it was used for the bribery of lembers of the legiltaro. lig also been referred to. It is ftrther shown that three or ftour days beolc the election took place M. CALWELLS aqent went into tile ban killghouse of Scott & Co.. atLoavenwortb. and drew the sum of $tl.000 upon Mr. CxCnWELLS check. for the avowed purpose of taking the money toTopoka by thetrait that mrning. which was given ts the resteI for prsenting the check before bankhoar. Mr. Jacob Smith. bankeratTopcka. tetifed thatatlitle oclock in the evening before the election took place. Dr. lhtetvis. of Leavenworth. a very activo friend of Xir. Cei.wEt.L. drow$5.e00 from his bank. anti hnt Judge Cro ulet.. of ]Lovcnwttrtit. an influenttial supperter of Mr. CannWctL. at then at Topteta. labotlug for his election. drtw $1.200 from tih bank after baninginrs. at the request of Mr. Smith. which was handed over to Mr. Stoith. Tile testimony left tto doubt upon the mitds of t hecoitttee thatthe balnerv. who lnorod ttse ilifferot citeohs at Topeka after bankinghous. understood that the money was to be ustd fur political purpeses. Tie evidence further shows that Mt. 1 2. Anelrsos stb. sequentlyreceived from Mr. CALDWELL the mn of $5.000 for tie serricestit the rice. tio. A draft for 810.000. drawn by the solicitor of the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company upon the treasurer of that Company. was presented at tile Kansas Valley Baltk. of Tepekoa by Mr. T.. .Andersn. on tite WJd of January. the day before tile election. and the tosent drawn upon it. Under circustanes which. taeo in con. nection with other testimony. make it probable th t the money was se d for Mr. CALDWELLs elcotton. The committee iasve no reason to btlie vs that they have traced all the Money that wan tsed. and in the firegoing statottnt have tahott tt account of several oritll setms shown to have been paid by Mr. CALnWELL for tite expenses tf his friends while at Topeka. Mr. William Sprigge. a foriter treasurer of Kansas. testified in regard to a solfconstituted coetntttee of six of Mr. CALDwELLS leaditig friends W Is Mt friln tiise to time at Topohia. daring the doy and evening. for fivoor oix dayn iosforo tiho cletotin. to eOtt itt anttd t .spot ftleso in eleotinoeering fee Alt". CAnDLL btl dttt ing the mneetings of this coittee tit was reported by Mr. Smith what menibets of tile legislature had been sered to vots for Mr- CAtOWRt t. how tnlh was Offered to others. and how wsithlt ws asked by others. We quote from his tostintity: "We ustally met at ten oclock iin the morning. We iad a til of thl tnato uni of |tiehouse. and lept them. and a weould cotpare notes. atid then stito a nitti. br of the cottmittee wvottlt ho sett that day or at snch a time to See such tuetthers of lin house. nd stels atother o. to see somebody else. whoever wt thought would te the beat man ihr that particular place. and then we would meit auin at sach another hour. ant] report what we had done atd what ettacess we on1 hitati. and il seno quite a number of times. I do not know how tnny. In niaking th report and Comuing notes tiere was one moober of the committee wouhl eporlt. it callting over tile tames lie would come to sech and sech a mtn ati he woitsay. We had tetter not count that man yet. that is under negoalistion. atd he is a little too high . I thihh I as brilg hisi down oslme. Ihis witness testified to noveral interviews with Mr. CALDWELL. and we quote from tis testimony: 1I will just tell you what Mr. CALDWELL said to me about it. Ire asked me if I know any snombors of te logtolatsrc that could be infiunced bv tho ose of soney for their votes. toed i told him that I knsow two 1n1lNcr. I bclovesd. that had the reputation tf lbavig beet influenced in their vote oi former occasions." And fturther on t He said if I founi any members that wanted a little money for votes. to solid thn to him and to Lets. Smith.

S

Mr. CALDWRLL

Unknown

CALDWRLL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

said there was another class of hightoned gentlatuen there Il the legislaturo that would not selltheir votes. bit they pttit in this way : that they had been to a pretty heavy expenso in carrying their election. ald they would want their expenses paid. and if I met with any of that clans. to sona them to him or to ILn." The testimony of Mr. Spriggs is very full. and altows that the canvass of Mr. CALDWE L Was thoroughly corrupt. and that money wan the chief argument relied upon. Among many other things. he stated that i. J. Aodersoa told him that he had paid Mr. Crocker. a member of the house. $1.000 for hin vote. that Mr. Crocker afterward backed out. and handed the money over to a Mr. Carson to be returned to Mr. Anderassn. that Carson got on the ears. went home. anti kept the money. Carson was afterward called by the committee. and corroborated the statemetit. admitting that h e had received the $1.000 back from Mr. Crocker to be rtorned ta Mr. Anderson. bit that beliad kept the money htimeif for hi ia cee so Mr. CotuWEn. Mr. Carney testifies that. Ii an intervlow wfth Mr. CAthWELLtaftsr the eluc. tion. in which he was ttrgill him to procure an appointient for ott of Mr. Carsic8 friends who had voted for Itios Mr CALWIt took from his poket a .nosranlnn. book. anti appeared to run over a list of names. and. coiting to the aian reforrod to. said. "That man has boen paid." and S1r. Carney understood frm his manner that he hald in this momorandlhook a list of members with the attos paiti to cas . that Mr. CALWLLtold him Upon anotheroccasion that he hadpaid iMr. Bayers the ens of $2.500 fir his vote. and Mr. James F. Legate the sum of $ t00 for his vote. Mr. Atithony aln wears thsltitt a onvoroariotttwitt Mr. CAineve. .. thtt gettltnat admitted tWlim that lie hatd paid e2.500 for the vote of Mr. taers. Thero i tunlich testimony showing that Len. T. Stotth. lFrank Drstting. James L. McDowell. Getrg A. Somith. od T 3. Atiersnong the sost active fients of Mr. Cati svatt. durisgltc ano. edinittei ottiiffcronttites thiataltey had offered money to nttmbesr of it. ttgisltoo teto for NIT. CALDWELL. ii Rost Cts ste ifying tle memhers to whion t was offeret atd ptid. ant is ether cases ttat offers had bteen siado that had not been aeceitted and that negotiations were ott hand with others which had not been eompletod. Thse men have donied before the cosimittee all conveirsatio atil tdsnuisissls tf this olaotacer. and all paymett of tooney to moat hers. or offers to pay them. anti several memhets of the eislature who wor impli. rated have exprBsly denied that they received the money or that offers wore made them.

S

Mr. CAnLDWELL

Unknown

CANLDWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

testimony allowing that Mir. Carney had made threats to tavo hi outed from the Senate. thtat Mr. Anthony was hostile to him. that Mr. Barko had a lawaait with him. growing out of money furnished to Mr. Burke about tite time of th election. and to contradifct several statements of Mr. Clarke. The must important contradictions of the testimony produced against Mr. CALDWE L are made by mesmhers of the legislature. who were themselves impicated. or by the tgentsof Mr. CAL.DWEL. who wore directly charged with taking a part in thuse cerrupt practices. and there are some contracltions made by witnesses against whom there is no causo of suspicion. But taking the testimony altgether. the committee cannot douht that money was paid to some members of the legislature for their votes. and money promised to others which was not paid. and offered to others who did s(t accept it. By the 0osstitution. each Hose of Congress is made the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its members. If a person elected to the Seatoe has not the constitutional qualiflationo. or if the election is invalid. by reason of fraud or corruption. tle jurisdicton io sxatnile and determine is erpresely vested in the Senaite. Another clause of the Constltntion anthoriza the Senate to expel a member by twothirds vote. Tise causes for wfhih a Senator may be expelled are not limited or defined. but rest its the soind discretion of the Senate. It has been a osluject of discnsion in the committee whether the offenses of whilh they believe Mr. CALsnWcTLt to have been guilty saood be puuished by expulslon or go to the validity of his eleetion. and a tnajurity are of the opinion that they go to the validity of his election and had the sffect to make it void. Wherefore the committee recommend to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution: Rfcolved. That ALEXANEiRt CALDWELL was ntt dtiy and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the legislature of the Stale of Kansas. In coctaion the committee remark that. while Mr. CALnWEL did things to pro. core his election which cantet be toleratedl by the Senate. they believe he was as inuei sinned against as sinnisg. Ho was a novice in politics. and evidently in the sands of tuen who encouraged him in the belief that senatorial elections in Laneas were carried by the sA of monttey.

S

aMr. CALDWEL. offered

Unknown

CALDWEL

fered

M

03101873.txt

Mr. President. this investigation originated in the legishetnre of Kansas. A comnittee was appointed there to exasnine into tie ciretnestances of Mr. CA.LDW:LLS election. The volume containing the tcstinauuy was trnsusitletd to the Senate of the United States by virtue of a joint resolution of the legislaturo of Kansas. which I will now ask the Secretary to read. Tise chief clerk read as follows: Resolved by ihc house of reprsentativa. (the senate concuerriUg.) That a printed certified copy of the rport and evidence of the investigating cotumittee apsponte to investigalo charges of bribery in the senatorial lections of 1857 and 5571 ho sett to cacti af litre StItttaOrs ist Cosngress. otitd tlat a otsy t1t sauitl repent ttttd evidence be placed in the hands of tite governor of this Stat. with tle request that lie forward the santo to the Vieo.t1rsid0tt of tit Uied States. asking him to lay the atne before the Senate of the United States for their information.

S

Mr. MOtTON

Unknown

MOTTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Will the Senator from Inliana tell me the date of that docunctt from the legislature of Kansas ?

S

Mr. CAMERON

Unknown

CAMERON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

That resolution. I think. was passed April 4. 1872. 1 now read an extract front the Gltbe of April 5. 1872. when this resolution Was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections of tle Senate The Senator front Kansas said: I desire to stare that I also have received the report of theiscvestigaion referred to. I had been expecting that report for some time. I believe it was iade up in Iebruary. and I have rcitsatedly inquired of the Chair swittlsos he hood received it or list. an glad to know tha it is here. and I desire that it be referred as tay colleugue lias suggested. so that we tnay have speedy action Oi it. I read that simply for the purpose of showing that Mr. CALDWELL submitted himself in this matter to the jurislieion of tile Senate.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Submitted a printed argument to the comnittee. which is published with the evidence and the report. in which he made a general denial of the existence of any satisfactory evidenco that he. or his friends with his knowledge. had bribed any netbers of the legislature of Kansas to vote for him for Senator. but entered into no discussion of the testimony. In tie argaument of the law li placed his defeuse upon the following grounds : First. that his admitted transaction with Mr. Carney was a private affair between citizens. and was not denounced as illegal by any stattite. State or Federal. and about which the Senate has no legal right to inquire. Secondly. that bribery of members of the legislature to vote for a candidate is net made a criminal offense by any statute of the United States. and that a member of the Senate cannot be uenseated for bribery. because he cannot be indicted and punished for it in a court. Thirdly. that tle question of bribery in the election of a Senator ean. under no circumstances. be inquired into by the Senate of the United States. bat that the right to make inveetigatiosns belongs only to the State. and that the Senate is cotcluded by his commission from the State from all inquiries. except as to whetlher he possesses the qualifications required by the Constitution of the United States. Fourthly. that the Senate has no power to expel n member for any cause arising before he becamo membcr of Iteh body. A summary of the evidence anid of the conclnsiono to be drawn from it is nade in 5he report. and an exauintiou of the whole volue of the testimony. wbieh is upon your tables. will show that the statetnets and conclusions in the report are not only fully sastaitted. but are iu a moderate form. and might have bees madt much stronger in mlaiiy respects. No impartial man cat read that evidence through withont conting to tho conclusion beyonid a reasonable doubt that the transactions with Clarke and Carney are of the precise character stated in the report. and that the charges df direct bribery of members of the legislature. and that Mr. CALDWELLS election was scoured by money. are completely sustained. On the first point in thelegal defense of Mr. CALDWELL. I quote the following extract from his argument: I am charged with having preered an election to the Senate by the use of money to induce opposing cantidates to retire. and by the use of money and other improper means to ice members of the legislature to vote for me. The firet of those charges. so tar as it relates to the retirement of Thomas Carney. stoods ad. mitted upon =e record. but I isist that that was a private traneat~ion between citizens neither of whoe. occupied any oticial position. and was not denounced as an illegal act by any statute. State or tFederal. and was one concersing which the Senate has no legal right or power to inquire. as shall seebisotu ntly endeavor to show. If the Senate cannot inquire into the circumstances attending the election of its members. whether Such election was procured by bribery. corruption. or other matter impairing the freedom of elections. such inquiry cannot be made anywhere. It is true the State may investigate these charges. as was (lone in this very case. but such iovestigatiot amounts to nothing unless it may b for the information of the Senate of the United States. The Constitution provides toat "each House shall be the judge of the elections. returns. and qualifications of its own members." The Senate is authorized to judge of three things in regard to its members. their qualifications. returns. and elections. First. It may inqaire in regard to his qualifications. whether the member was thirty years old. had been nine years a citizen of the United States. and was an inhabitant of the State. Secondly. Whether the returns of the election are in due form. and show an election by the lawful legislature of the State. certified as required by law. Thirdly. Whether the election was conducted accOrdiagtolaw. and was free. or attended by circumstances that would make it invalid. such as bribery. fraud. or intimidation. Tise Senate has no power to inquire whcther individual members of the legislature have been lawfully elected. because each house of the legislature is invested with like power to judge of the election and qualifications of its own members. It is contrary to the policy of the law to permit a court to inquire whether a statute properly cer tified was enacted through bribery. but such an inquiry bears no analogy to the question whether the Senate may inquire as to the election of itos moeibers. for which pnrpose it is vested with express power. The power of the State legislature is exhausted wthn it has elected a Senator. and it has no right at the same or at a subsequent session to annul its action from any canse and hold a new election. If the State legislature could afterward annul an election of Senator and hold a new one. membership in the Seoate would not be under the control of the Senate. but of the several States. and tie Senate would not be the judge of the election of its own members. And if there be no power either in the Senate or in the State legislature to inquire whether an election has been procured by bribery or fraud. then the evil would be irremediable. however gross and wicked the instance. and if seh be tho position of the Senate. it is perhaps the only legislative body in the civilized world in auh a helpless condition. In the case of Asher Robbins. from Rhode Island. referred to by

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

wILt. the only question was whether lie had been elected by the lawful legislature. and there was no question of bribery or ntisconduct in the ease. and the reference to bribery in the report of the committee was only by way of argument. To show in this eonnectio the real character of the transaction with Mr. Carney. which Mr. CALDwELLSays is "admitted upon the record." I quote the following extract from the repeort of the committee: It is testilled by Mr. Let. T. Smith. a former business partner of Mr. CALDWEL. his active friendat the time of his election and during this investigation. that he tads an agreement with liomas Carney. of Lcavenworth. by Which. in consider. ation that Mr. Carney should nt be a candidate fr Uniteci Stateo Senator before the legislature of Kansas. and should give Iis influenco ani suppcr1 for Mr. CAel)WELL. Mr. CALDWELL should pay him the sum of $15.000. for which aiount notes were given. and aftervard pai. at the same time taking from Mr. ame. a writ. ten instrument. in which he pledged himself. in the most solemn mianmur. not to he a candidate for the elce of Senator inl the approaching election. This instrumentlo isn the words followiag: I hereby agree that I will not under any condition of circumstances lie a can didate for the United States Senate in the year 1871. without the written consent of A. CaLnWEL. and in case I do. to forfeit my word of hoor hereby pledged. I furtler agree and bind myself to forfeit the sum of 15.0N. ant authorize thie publicatise of this agreement.

S

Mr. CALD

Unknown

CALD

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

"TOPEKA. Jranuary I. 1871.. Mr. Smiths testimony is fully corroborated by that of Mr. Carney. who admits the execatisn of the paper. the making of the arrangement. te taking of the notes. and the subseqoent receipt of the money. The notes for the money were signed by Mr. Smith. lit paid by ifr. CALWELL. anid ons of them it acr was made cotigentospnMr. CALWrL.Scleotio. The substaeo of the 0o wl.io agremet. only a part of which was expressed in the writing. was that Mr. arcy Should not be a candidate for the Senate against Mr. CALDWELL. tlat lie sheuli use his litaflaco for lMr. CALiWiLL. go to Topeka. meet the legsiallure. and do all he could to secure liis election. The committee have recommended to the Senate the adoption of the following resolution : 12eeloled. That LLEXANEa CALDWEno was not duly antdegally lected to a seat in tihe Sonat of the United State by the legislature of the Stas of Kansas. The ground upon which bribery and intimidation invalidate an election is that they impair "the freedom of elections." Rogers. i his Treatise on the Luw aud Practice of Elections. speaking of the action of the House of Commons says: Bribery. essontially sffecting the freedom of elections. they took cognizance of. and punished toth te electors and the elected offentding. Again : But immerous instances hve not been wanting in more modern times. in which the court ofhla beatch have. by the rigor of their pinishments. vindicated the freedom of elections. Informations and indictments at the common law. as well as indictments on the statute of 12d George II. chapter 24. have there been prosecuted. not only by private individuals. but by the attomncygcneral. by en er of thel los of doinnss. To bribe a voter ianot ouly ani intringenent of parliamentary privilee. i is iore. a high misdemeanor. and breech of t hocomnon law. The opioas of the wisest and mot honest statesmen embodied in the resolutions and stanling orders of the house had bees set at diaece and tho first and best principle of the constitution. the freedom of election. was daily fid eublish. ingly violated. Cushing. in his work on the Law of Legilative Assemblies. says: ale great principle which lies at the foundation of all elective governments. and is essential indeed to the very idecaof election. is. that the electors shall be free in the giving of their suffrages. This principle was declared by the inglish Parlimnont in regard to elections in genera. in a statote of EBdward I. and with regard te eleetions of nemnders of Parliament it the Declaratien of Bights. The same principle is asserted or implied in the ooistitutions of all the States of the Union. Freedom if electios is violated hy external violence. by whileh tt electors ore constrained. or by bribery. by which their will is corrupted inl iu all cases whore the electors are prevented is either of these ways frem the free exercise of their right. th cleetion will be void. without reference to the number of votes therby affected. Again: The freedom of election may also be violated by corrupting the will of the electors by means of bribery. as well as by imtimoialtiag or preventing them by external violence from exereising the tight of suffrage. Again. speaking of bribery. he said: It is an offense of so heinous a character. and so utterly subversive of the freedom of election. that when proved to iave been piacticed. though in omic instance only. and though a majority of unbribed voters remain. the election will be absolutely void. Whatever impairs the freedom of elections is illegal end against public policy. and makes the election void. Intimidation and bribery arc not the only practices that impair the freedom of elections. They are only instances. perhaps the most common heretofore. but may not be hereafter. There is no difference in principle between buying votes and hoying influence. To employ persuasion and argument to secure vos is legitimate . but buying offopposing candidates goes much fuirther. That is not only the purchase of inflnence. but of that power which a maie. has over his particular friends. springing from political and social relations. We know from observation what power a political leader has over his friends and followers who have been for years devoted to his political fortunes--how they enter into his resentments and attachments. and when he is fbiced off the stage. how bitterly they feel toward those who have firced him off. and hov naturally they go with him to the sipport of another who is represented as his friend. It is a inatter.of frequent occurrence that the resolt of senatorill and other elections is determined by the withdrawal of a candidate and casting his influence in favor of another. thus transferring a body of friends sufficient to securo his election. This is of more frequot occurrence than bribery. and generally far more effective. It is also far less troublesome and dangerous than the bribery of individual voters. The purchasing party has but on( man to deal with instead of many. and that man. to have friends who are worth buying. mast be a manln of scone character. and equally interested in keeping the secret. While such an operation is more effective and dangerous than the bribery of individual voters. it also involves more tnrpituode. The vendor of his friends and influence is betraying and making merchandise of those sentiments of attachment anddevotion to him which are honorable to humau nature. and serve to elevate and relieve political contests from sordid selfishness and ambition. and the purchaser knows he has obtained votes under false pretenses. and that he has bought them just as effectually as though he had paid the bribe io them. although the purchasemoney has been paid to another. Stioh a transaction is within the very deficitio of bribery as given by Sheperd in his Treatise on Elections. page 9d : Bribery at an election is the creation or thoattempt to create en antdas inflniue ver the dispesitlion of suffrages by a lucrative consideration. or a voluetary sobjeetion to such influence. It is an "undue influence" over suffrages obtained for a lucrative consideration paid to another. As stated in the report: Ifit were logitimato for Mr. CALlDWELL to by off Mr. Carney as a canlidato. it was eioually loitimat to buy offall the other candidaten. snd have the fild to hiuself. by whlielhe would exert a quasi coercion upon the members of the legislature to vote for him. having no other candidate to vote for. It is in the brondest sense "u udene influence" over suffrages. exerted for a "lucrative consideration." and none the less so because the persons upon whom exerted were ignorat of the character of the transaction. It is bribery in the wholesale. rather than retail. for the bribe is paid to a man who. from his peculiar relations to a number of voters. can in all probability control their action. This sort of" undue influence" was recogized in England as beig more extensive enl more dangerous to the frecdon of electious than the purchase ef individual votms. J quote again from Sheperd. on page 97. Besides the practice of purchasing individual votes. there sprung up asystem of corruption far more extensive. in which the commanding influence In a borough was transferred. eithrfrtor a sum of money paid down at ones. Or. with a more noc.: ate eolrulationof traffic. for an anina p.ysont during the cc artiumanie af Parliene snti tes itting m mb r thie purchaoing the return of him wio. had pro viousty purchasei aste Mie of icturling. To repress thi praletio the 49 deoign Itt. elnepter 115. was passed. by which it is made highly penal to ester lots acy pieuniary engagement fer procuring the return of a member of larlament. Tis is but another definition of a practice which impairs the freedom of elections. and iavalidates atn election upon the stane principle as bribery of the individual voters. The principles of the commoi law are applicable in all civil matters touching the validity of elections or the tenure of office. and it is a wellestablished principle of the comnton law that whatever impairs "the freedom of elections" is illegal. against public policy. and will make the election void. Particular forms in which this is done. such as bribery and intimidation. are punishable by statutes in England and nearly all the States. and in England the further form of purchasing the influence of persons who are not candidates themselves. for the return of members of Parliament. But the absence of a statute punishing these several practices impairing the freedom of elections in no wise affects the operation of the general principle touching the validify of elections. Sieperd. in his treatise. says: The bribery act. maes co mentiof any parliamentary din3isilifleattioi affecting a merllers sat . the effect. threflire. of an act ofi riberytnetwitl in theiwrisof tle treating act of 7 Willia. III. shapter 4. is in that respeet detersinod by the law of Parliament as follows. "leribory by a cadidete. thouh in Due ifstanco only. and thougih a majority of unbribed yotes reain in his favor. will avoid the particoIcr election."

S

TGS. CAINEY

Unknown

CAINEY

Unknown

Unknown

03101873.txt

If it will not annoy my friend. I should like to ask him at that point. whether lee has any commonlaw authorities laying down that doctrine which do not refer to and rest upon the statutes of England.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I hope ray friend will allow me to get through with this portion of ty speech without interruption.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I beg pardon. The Senator asserted that that was the commonlaw doctrine. and I simply wishd to know whether tie had found any cases.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I have quoted several very high commonlaw English authorities en he subject. It has never been hold in England or this country that the offct of bribery. in making an election void. depeided upon the existence of a statute punishing it as an offense. Oi the contrary. as stated by Sheperd. it invalidates an election by operation of tho anciet law of Parliament. Bit if the transaction I a cousidering was not technically bribery. yet that is imaterial. fir it is "undue influence." even more dangerous to the freedou of elections than the purchaso of individial votes. and partakes of the same geueral nature. for it is begotten by a corrupt money consideration. In England bribery was held to invalidate the election of a emuber of Parliament long before there was any statute p suishing bribery. upon the general principle that it impaired the freedem of elections. showing that its effect. il iuvalidating aun election. does not depend upon the fact that it has been made punishable by statute as a penal offense. and so a corrupt contract with an opposing candidate for the Senate. by which he is to withdraw from the canvass and east his influence for another. must be held to have the same effect in invalidating the election as though the transaction was made punishable as a criminal offenso. Bribery may be said to bear the same relation to an election that fraud does to a contract. but if there be a difference it is that it is more fatal. and that a smaller ingredient will have the effect to destroy the life of the election. because the purity and freedom of elections are vital to the existence of every elective form of government. Said the court of kings bench. in Rex vs. Pitt. (Burrows. 1338:) Bribery at elections of members of Parliameut must always have betn a crime at common law and punishable by indictment or inforlation. There are. however. no traces of any prosecution for bribery at elections till after the legislature inflicted particular penalties upon it. Rogers. in the treatisee referred to. says . iBribery. as we have seen. had always been a misdemeanor at common law. and a violatian of the privilege ef Parliame nt. but the above statute [the ibribery aet] armed courts of law with now nad extraordioary powers to attack the growing evil by attaehnitga penalty of" £500 oi every conviction of an Iteise against its proviisos. and by dioqualifying the offender from ever again voting in any election lot members of Parliatment. Sleperd. in his Treatise on Elections. says. speaking of bribery: Though it was always an offense t cousmon law. it is thought that no 1iroseeition for this species of bribery took place until the bribery act. frr which the jealousy of the Commons in regard to their privileges sufficiently accounts. As soon. liowever. as the Commeis began to rise in importance. and a seat was considered of suilcient political value to be purchased. they were not slow to discover and attempt themselves to repress the pernicioua consequences of such corruption. The general policy and provisions of the laws of England in regard to corroption ia elections are embodied in the constitution and laws of" all the States. and bribery made to invalidate every election into which it enters. The doctrine that the bribery of a single voter will vitiate an election. although the candidate may have a majority of unbribed votes. is a necessary consequence of the principles I have considered. and indispenrsable to the protection of the freedom of elections. If the candidate who has been fraudulently elected is orittled to maintain his seat. ITlcs it cale be shown hat his whole mnajority was corruptly procured. the operation of the principles I have considored will it most cases be defeated. for although he be shown to be guilty of corruption and unworthy of a seat in any legislative body. yet he has the chances largoly in his favor that it cannot be shown to have extended to him whole majority. Corruption in an electionumay. be compared to a drop of fttal poison injected into the human system. which circulates into every part and destroys every function. The man who has purchased one vote has shown himself willing to pirchase all. and that his corrupting inflnence has been limited only by his means or his necessities. The Constitution declares that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. punish its members for disorderly behavior. and. with the concurrence of twothirds. expel a member." The causes for which a Senator may be expelled are not limited or defined. but rest in the sound discretion of the Senate. The position taJken by Mr. CALDWELL. that a Senator can be expelled only for causes arising subsequent to his admission. is not sustained by the reading of the Constitution. by any rule of construction. or by authority. In this case. rho Senate would have the right to proceed either way. if it finds Mr. CALDWELL guilty of the charges preferred against him. or any of them: first. by declaring his election invalid. whyich woild require only a majority vote. or by a resolution of expulsion. which would require a twothirds vote. The power of expulsion is absolute. It has the dcfiuitioa of an absolute power. for it is not limited in the clause creating it. and there is no tribunal by which its oxercis. can be rviewed or reversed. It shouldho exercised with sound discretion. and the security against its abuse consists in the fact that it requires a twothirds vote. It should undoubtedly be exercised within certain limits and under certain moral restraints. but each case. perhaps. would depend upon its own peculiar character. As it is a power to be exercised within the sound discretion of the Senate. that exercise may be for causes arising before the election. as well as after. and for any cause which in thu sounddiscretioa of the Senate would make it improper for a man to continue to be a member of the body. It is admitted that the Senate may expel a member for a crime committed during his memhership. althongh it has no connection with his official duties or his position of Senator. upon the ground that his presence in the Senate degrades the body. and that he has shown himself unworthy of public trust and unfit to be associated with honorable men. But do not all these reasons exist with equal force for expulsion where the crime was committed before admission to the Senate. but was not discovered until afterward ? It has been argued that if the legislature of a State elect a known criminal to the Senate of the United States. it is their business. and the State bus a right to be represented by a criminal if she desires to be. and the Senate must receive whomever the State sends as Senator. I dis nrt from this doctrine. The Senate has a right to protect itself against the admission of a criminal. although the legislaturo blectiug him was indifferent upon the subject or chose him fbr that very reason. The propriety of exercising the power might be more doubtful if the criminality of the member were known at the time of his election. for it might be arued that the neciubors of tie legislaturo did not believe the charge to be true. or that the offense was mitigated or had since been condoned. The power to expel a member is incident to every legislative body. because it is necessary to its protection and character. and this power exists. although the constitution or law creating the body does not confer it in terms. The former constitution of Massachusebts contaied no clause authorizing either house of the legislature to expel a member for any cause. Bit it was hold by the supreme court of that State. Chief Justice Shaw. one of the ablest jurists who ever sat upon the bench in this country. delivering the opiuioa that the power of each house to expel at inember existed as a necessary and incidental power. and that each house must be the sole judge of the exigency which may justify and require its exercise. I quote from the decision. which will be found on page 473. in the third volume of Grays Massachusetts Reports: The power of expulsion is a necessary and incidental power to enable the housre to perform its high fanctions. and is necessary to the safety ef the state. It is el power of protectie. A member may he physically. mentally. or morally wholl unfit. ie may be afflicted with a contagieou disease or itassne or noisy. violent. and disorderly. or in the habit of rung profane. obscone. and absive language. If the .owor exists. the house must necessarily be the solojudge of the exigency. which may jCotify and require its cereise. As to tielaw ad custornof Parliament. the authorities cited clearly show that the iurisdiction tC commi. end also to expel. lias long been recogaized. not only 1n. Parliament. lit in the courts of law. tar the purpose of prote3tlon and punishment. Thero eonfine esyailF strictly to the law of personal privilege from arrest. Thors has bon much debato upon abuso of power and excess of clain of prvilege. but the power to commit or expel has beu unitfrmly adaiited. But the reasoning as to the propriety of expulsion for an offense committed before admission to the Senate. and wholly disconnected with the election. falls to the ground when you come to consider a ease where the offense has been committed in connection with admission to the Senate . where it is the very means by which admission is obtained . where tio offense is the steppingstono to the Senate. The distinction is radical between such a ease and that of an independent crime committed long bfore the election and having no connection with it whatever. In the latter case the offense goes only to the mnns character and his fitness to be a member of the Senate. but in the former it goes not only to his character and fitness. but to his title to the offic. and the power of the Senate to examine the matter and adopt the proper remedy is expressly given by that clause of the Costitition which authorizes the Senats to 4udg. " of the elsetin of its members." If this clause does rot confer this power. then it is nugatory. for all the other powers are given in the precediug clauses. which authorize the Senate to judgd of the qualifications and returns of its members. The Coustitution authorizes the Senate to judge of three things concerning its members . their qualifications. returns. and elections. but the doctrine contended for by Mr. CALDWIELL in effect strikes out the last. aud limits the Senate to the exercise of powers which come under the head of qualifications and returns. To say that the Senate cannot expel a member for a cause. arising before his election. when that cause was the very means of the elecionanrd brought it about. seems to be very unreasonable. and is to say in effect that. if the crime has a favorable result. and the perpetrator of it enters upon the enjoyment of its fruits. he is by that very fact exonerated from any inquiry into its character and protected in liis guilty possession. For example. suppose a man secretly procure the opposing canlidate to be poisoned. and thus secure his election. and afterward the crime become known . or suppose lie secretly procure his opponet to be kidnaped. and the sudden disappearause being uinaccouled for. lso thes obtain the election. or suppose le procure his opponent to be arrested upon false charges of crime. and thus for the time being disgrace him and break him down. and thus obtain his election. or suppose he iroeure his election by the most monstrous frands. by intimidation. by gross bribery. by.buying off the opposing candidates. or by other dishonorable and illegal means. and slip into the Senate before his offenses are discoveredshall it be said that the success of his crimes and their suecessfnl concealment for the time shall become their constitutional protection. and that ie may hold on to the scat which lie has thus illegally and fraudulently obtained 7 Mr. President. bribery is from its very nature hard to prove. Bribery in mutters of election by meibers of a legislature. who are tolie presumed to be men of some character and standing. who have at least some ambition to preserve a good nai ebribery ml on their part you miins sup)pose will be concealed by every means in their power. and we need not be surprised if men who receive bribes deny it under oath. The ervidece in this case. taken altagetherfr it is a large voltunein my opinion. establishes this as the most flagrant ease of bribery in the history of English or Amerietii politics.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

had no political status in Kansas whatever. He was nnknow as a politician. A man of large wealth. engaged in biisiness. having been a freighter across the plains. aind afterward engaged in the construction of one or more railroads. be was yet unknown entirely in the politics of the State. He had been concerned. perhaps. in souse local controversies in the city of Leavenworth. touching certain railroad questions in that city. but aside from that ho had no politieal status. and was wholly unknown to the people of Raiisfs. except so far as his business may have brought him into contact with them. The very fact that a man tinder sneh circumstances can step into the political arena. and distance all competitors who have been before the people for years. implies that there is some other influence at work than that of a political character.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

made a statemnt beibre the committee which is published with the evidLence. lut to which I have not referred. The Statement was not nadc under oath. It was pat in upon sis holer as a Senator. He was notified by the committee that he had a right to make his statement under oath. but that in that case he would be subjected to a crossexamination. Ho preferred to submit his statemont not under oath.

S

Mr. CU.DWELL

Unknown

CU.DWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

wr.eL lives in the city of Leavenworth. on the Missouri River. The city of Topeka. I believe. is eighty or ninety iniles diotant in the interior of the State. the capital of the State. The active friends of Mr. CALDWELL in this senatorial contest were Messrs. Len. T. Smith. T. J. Anderson. of Topeka. Dr. Morris. of Leavenworth. Mr. McDowell. of Leavenworth. Mr. George H. Siiith. of Leavenworth. and two or three ethers of almost equal prominence . but among them all Mr. Lea. T. Smith was rhe chief adviser and operator. Mr. Smith. it will be remembered. u ado the negotiation between Mr. CLDWSLI and Mr. Carney. by which Mr. Carney. in consideration of $15.000. signed a paper agree i to withdraw frnin the coteest. Theevidenco of Mr. Siiith and of fif. Carney shows that there was the further understanding between them that he should go to Topeka and work for Mr. CALDWLeLLS election. and use all his influence with his friends to got them to vote for Mr. CALDWELL. and as a security for his industry and zeal. one note for $5.000 was made contingent upon Mr. CALDWELLS election. Mr. Smith was rcognizid at Topeka throughout the contest as being the principal friend. and the responsible frienl. of Mr. CALkDWELL. THe was regarded as the ioneytuan in the concern. and the treasurer. and the evidence shows that on one or two occasions. perhaps three. Mr. Smith said be had exhausted all the currency there was in the banks at Topeka. and had to send elsewhere to get more. It seems. Mr. President. that from some cause there was an understanding ia Kansas that senatorial elections had been carried by money. and that there was such a demotalizatiou. not only of the legislatuire. but of the people assembleil at the capital. that this thing of cerrupion was not regarded as a very heinous thing. It was talked about almost as freely us the weather. almost as tamiliarly as the markets. tad members of the legislature. as is shown by this evidlene. spoke to their friends of how much they had been offered. what they had been premised. and several of them what they had received . others. how much they had asked. and that. the negotiation was not concluded. and this talk of corruption was so common and so free. it was so well understood by everybody. and was in all the public papers in the State. and it became so strong. so overwhelming just before the election took place. that a transaction occurred which was rather extraordinary in its character. to which I call the attention of the Senate very briefly. Mr. Fenlon. a representative from the city of Leavenwortb. a democrat. but a friend of Mr. GALDWeLL. and xwho appeared here upon the examination as one of his counsel. on the day when the first vote was taken in the two housesMr. Fenlon being. as he said. oppressed by this general conviction that that senatorial election was being carried by money. offered the following resolution: Whereas it is reported in the press of the State. and currently spoken of in the streets of time capital. and other principal cities of the State. that money is being Ued to buy the votes of members of this house in the senatorial eletion now pending iild Whcreas it is (ii to the characer of tie members ef this house. and duo to the gillat aind confiding people who have intrusted us with sacred powers. to he exercised only i their interests and for their benoilt. that sueh tumers should be proniil y and etlhctuaily eiloiced: ]Be it tierefro ltceseotd. TIhat imnmliately before the roll is cealled for the voec on the seas-. torial eandidates the speaker of this houso admlister to the members of this honso the fslloing oath: You. and each of you. do solemnly swear before Alighly fud. ile Searcher oft u sart. that you have not now received. and witl not receive. any money orc other valuable tling to influence or control your vote on the senatorial question. Strange to say. that resolution was tolerated. it was adopted . and. svbcn the time came for the vote the speaker called upon the mcin-. bers of the house to stand up and receive the oath. I believe a little. more thai half of them stood up and took the oath. ad the remainder refused. The mere flct that such a resolution was offered..that the hnse would tolerate it. so insulting and dishonoring. showed a consciousness of guilt and demoralization that would hardly be believed if it were not well attested by history. Mr. President. I do not intend to go through this testimony today. It has been upon your tables for sone weeks. and I suppose the mome-. bors of this body have geuerally read it. I will simply refer to an outline of the principal proof that has been made. Li. T. Smith. the particular lilend and agent of Mr. CALDWELL. has lolg heeni his partner iu business. I believethey have made large fortnes together. I believe he and Mr. CaLDWrIare regarded as the two wealthiest men in Kansas. Mr. Smith was put upon the stand ad examined as to his knowledge of this election. He denied all knowledge of any money. conusideration. or corruption except the som of $7.000. which ho said he had drawn from the bank and paid to Thomas Carney. io the city of Topeka. sens three orfoir days before the election. He said lie paid that mouey to Mr. Carney to pay his expenses. that Mr. Carucy asked it. and that Mr. Garney. in consideration of it. was not to be a candidate. but was to give his influence and his labor to secure Mr. GALosWELLS election. aid was to procure his friends. so dicc as lie could. to vote for Mr. CALDWELL. He denied all knowledge of any other transaction . and xve had examined him for more than two hours. and lie was abont going off the staid when he made an inadvertent remark that he coul not take back. and. upon being pressed in regard to it. he then adm itted the 15.000 transaetion. accompanied with the remark that he had not intended to tell that part of it if he could help it. He then went oi to detail the negotiation with Mr. Carney by which he was to receive $15.000 for not being a candidate and to aid in the election of Mr. CALDWELL. amid tlabt trauSetiomi. it is shown by the (tate. hati been made some week or more before he said he paid to Mr. Carney this other $7.000. According to the testimony of Mr. Smith. Mr. Carney received $22.000. but according to Mr. Carneys testimony. and I believe that he told the truth on this point. he received but the $15.000. and the $7.000 went elsewhere. The testimony of Mr. Smith himself was that the 57.000 wtas drawn foin the bank ofTopeka in the nighttime. There was no reason given for drawing it after bankhours except the desire to avoid publicity. The check was drawn by Mr. Smith upon the bank. mado payable to Mr. Carney. by him indorsed. and delivered to a man bv the name of T. J. Anderson. who. net to Mr. Smith. was Mr. CALIVELSs chiefageit and operator there in the work of corruption. Mr. Anderson went down to the bank and got the money. Anderson testifies he patid the moneyto Carney. Smith testifies that Carney got the money. but when Mr. Smith came after-. ward most reluctantly to admit the $15.000 transaction. he then re-. vea1ed a state of facts which in itselfcontradieted the statement that. Mr. Carney had got the $7.000. showing a total want of consideration ani of reason for paying to Mr. Carney the additional suni of $10.000. because Mr. CALDWEL at thattime had Mr. Carneys obligation in his pocket. and Mr. Carney had Mr. GALDWELLS or Mr. Smiths obligation for $15.000. which Mr. CALDWELL afterward paid.

S

Mr. CAaD

Unknown

CAAD

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Maby I interrupt the Senator for one moment ? The Senator says that I had Mr. Garneys obligation in my pocket. r think he is mistaken there. I suppose he does not intend to do ame any injustice. but there was no evidence of that kind. He probably referred to Mr. Sunills.

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Perhaps I am mistaken in saying that the Senator. bad it in his pocket at that time. for I presuusebe had not. but it was. in his possession. It had blen taken before that. with his knowledge and consent. A copy of it was produced upon the examination before the committee. and the obligation was never surrendered. and

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

paid the notes given by Mr. Smith. in consideration of. the signing of this paper. The mere fact that ir. CALDx)wEL did not have the paper inhis peeket at that time makes no difference. It was either in his possession or in that of his agent. Mr. Smith. Now. Mr. Carnsy comes upon the stand. and he gives a different version of the $7.000. The seven thousand dollar cheek from the bank is produced. drawn by Mr. Smith to Mr. Carney. and indorsed by Mir. Carney. subsequently indorsed by this man Anderson. who got the money out of the bank at night. Mr. Carney tells a story which is borne out by all the transaction as established by other witnesses. He says that about nine oclock in the evening. on the night. I think. of the 21st. (the election was held on the 24th.) Mr. Smith drew a check upon the bank in Topeka for $7.000. antd gave it to Anderson to go and get the money. Mr. Anderson went around aiid found the cashier of the bank somewhere. not in the bankt. but the cashier refused to let him have the money. stating that these were political times. Mr. Audemson brought the check back to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith tore it up with indignation. and. as they wanted the money. he then drew another check. made it payable to Mr. Cariy. and Mr. Carney indorsed it and gave it to Anderson. and Anderson was gone about half an hour and came back. appearing to be in an excellent humor. He had a package wrapped up fi a newspaper. apparently a large package of money. as it would come from a bank. and lee showed this to Mr. Carney and Mr. Smtith in Mr. Smiths room. The iy invitatiou. I believe. of Mr. Anderson. Carney got up end went to his room jest across the ball with Mr. Anderson. There was a door ope ning back from Mr. Carneys room. it having two doors in it. which led to a ball that went down to the floor below. The back door was left opet. There was a table standing in the middle of the room. and Mr. Anderson took this package of money. as it was supposed to be. from his coatpocket and put it upon this table. and then he and Carney went back. In a few minutes Mr. Anderson came in smiling and said to Smith and to Carney. "I believe somebotly has stolen that package." and Smith made the remark. "I guess we had better not nako any fuss about it. I guess we had better wait until after the election before we make any fuss about it ." time whole transaction. taken in connection. showing that the inoiey was pmced upon the table for certain parties to get it. and. taken in connection with other testimony. that it was to go for the votes of the Doniphan delegation. they being seven in number. and the amount of money placed on the table was $7.000.

S

Mir. CALD WELL

CALD

WELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Is there any other evidence that they got it ?

S

Mr. CONKLING

Unknown

CONKLING

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

No. I just give the transaction as it appears. There is other evilence. however. showing at what time the Doniphan delegation changed their support to Mr. CALDWELL. So much for the $7.000. It would take me a long time to read all the evidence in conlection with the $7.000. which goes to show that Mr. Carneys statement of the disposition of it is the true one. that Carney did not get. the money. but that it was gotten by Smith. and the package placed by Mr. Anderson upon this table where it could be carried off. The whole amount of money which we have traceit as being drawn oboes that time. and as being used. is about $77.000. A part of this mnoniy is not connected with this election in any wvay except by the time at which it seems. to have jcen drawn from the bank by Mr. CALDWELL. For exanple. his account in Scott & Co.s shows that between January 0. (and. by the by. that is about the time the camsvass commenced.) aid January 28. lie drew from that bank $2t.967. and from the First National Bank $1.043. that Len. T. Smith drew from Scott & Co.. froni January23 to February 11. $11.114. that Dr. Morris. to whose transaction I shall refer directly. drew from Jacob Smith. at Topeka. $5.000 . Robert Crozier. $1.%00. the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company. through Anderson. $10.000. Carney received. as admitted. $15.000. and Anderson himself. subsequently. $5.000. making over $77.000. Some of these Items we trace to this election. so that there can be little doubt as to what use was nado of the money. First. we have the item of $15.000 paid to Carney after the election. Then we have the item of $7.000 which Smith drew. and for which the cheek was produced. which Smith swears that Carney got. and Carney swears Smith got. and was disposed of in the manner I have described. Thon we have another itema of $5.000 drawn by Dr. Morris. a leading and active friend of Mr. CALDWELL. living in Leavenworth. who was up there for the purpose of promoting Mr. CALDWEL) election. On the night before the first vote was taken. at about nine oclock at night. he drew from the bank $5.000 upon his cheek. The evidence shows that the banker. Jacob Smith. understood that this money was used for political purposes. and all the circumstances surrounding it show that the money was drawn for the purpose of thnt canvass. and can leave no doubt that it was used in that election . and tptn this point there is no contradiction. It was in the power of Mr. CALDWELL to have shown by Dr. Morris what other disposition. if any. was made of this $5.000. but Mr. CALDWELL did not attempt to explain the use of this $5.000. Judge Crozier. who was also there as the acknowledlged friend of

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

and working for him. drew $1.200 on the night before the election. after bankinghours. from the bank. and passed it over to Len. T. Smith. Mr. Smith wanted the money. Mr. Smith was a man of large fortune at Leavenworth. whose cheek wal good perhaps for $100.000. but Mr. Smith did notwant to draw the muony himself. and ho got Judge Crozier to draw it. So. Crozier got the money after the bank had been closed. and handed it over to Mr. Len. T. Smith. Then there is the testimony in regard te $10.000 sent to Mr. CALDWELT from Leavenworth on the 22d. The testimony of Mr. Comstock is that on the morning of the 22d. Mr. Martin. the known agent of Mr. CALD\rE.. caine into Scott & Co.s bank tt Leavenworth and presmnted a cheek fromn Mr. CALDWELL for $10.000. giving as his reason why fie wanted to draw the money beforeT bankinghonrs. that it was to be taken to Topeka that morning by the first train. which was to go out shortly after the bank would open. I cannot detail all the cirenustatices strrounding that transaction. but everything goes to show that the money was to be taken that morning to Mr. CALDWELL at Topeka. and the money was taken. Then there is the further transaction of $10.000. paid by the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company. Mr. T. J. Auderson was the agent of that company. resident at Topeka. The road runs through that city. On the 22d1 of January. two days before the election took place. the assistant solicitor of that company drew a check for $10.000. which Mr. Anderson took to the bank in Topeka and got the money upon. but Mr. Anderson failed to state what he did with the money. He was asked what use the money was to be put to. Ho said he thought for the payment of taxes in the county due from the railroad. but upon further examination he took that back. and said he did not know what became of it . but the circumstances under which it was drawn showed that it was for the canvass. and the testimony after ward offered showed that Mr. Len. T. Smith admitted that be had got that money. $10.000. from the Kansas Pacific Raiload Company. He expressly told Governor Carney that. There are other eirennostancesgoiug to show what use was made of that money. Mr. OALI\WELL told Governor Carney after the election was over that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had agreed to bear half the expenses of that senatorial election. but that they had net complied with their contract. and that lie did not intend that they should have ay legislation here until they did comply with the coutfact. Mr. CALDWELL told Mr. Clarke in this city. giving it as a. reason why lie hal not complied with his contract to pay Mr. Clarkes expenses. estimated at front twelve to fifteen thonsaud dollars. that the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company had not complied with their contract . that they hal not paid what they promised to pay . and in the evidence taken before the legislature at Topeka. Mr. Joins P. Usher. formerly Secretary of the Interior hero nier Mr. LincolnI and now the solicitor of the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company. testified that in a conversation with Mr. John D. Perry. the presideut of the Kansas Pacific read. in regard to itsiness. Mr. Perry informed him that Mr. CADWLL had demanded frot the t ncoipany the samof $30.000as their part of the expenses of his election. Mr. CA1.DWELI himself told Mr. Carney that that compauy was to pay a part of the expenses. and made the same statement to Mr. Clarke. giving it as a reason why le had net paid to Mr. Clarke or to his friends $12.000. Ten thousand dollars were drawn by tlat company. which they failed to account for. just two days before the election. and Mr. Smith told Mr. Cariey on the evening before the clection. 111 was out of money. I had drawn all the currency in these banks here. bnt I got $10.000 from the Kansas Pacific Railrol Company today . I ant new in finds again. There are other matters in regard to the amount of money that I will pass ove. smaller sums. as I do not intend to go into a general discission of the evidence. Mr. CALDWErLL. in his conversation with Mr. Carney. who was up there working for him upon the terms already described. told Mr. Carney. after the election was over. that the election had cost him over $60.000 inl cash . and made the statement to Mr. Clarke in this city two or three tiotes. in explaining why he had nt complied with his promise to Clarke to pay $12.000 for his expenses. that the election had cost him fron $60.000 to $70.000. and that he was then very poor in ready money. ie made the statement to Mr. Anthony. the mayer of the city of Leavenworth. Mr. Anthony being iu ligoimuin with him Io purchase a newepaper in which Mr. C..DWrILr had ani interest. that that election had cost him over $60.000. He nuado a statmemeint to Mr. Burke. who was his debtor. he holding Mr. Burkos notes to the amount of $6.000. that had been advanced to enable Mr. Burke to carry on a newspaper in Leavenworth to support Mr. CaLDwELs election. that the election had cost him moro than twice the whole amount of his salary. which would be $60.000. if he got the salary for the term. and that the amount he had paid to Mr. Carney was not more than ten per cent. of the actual amount of his expenses. He told Mr. Anthony upon another occasion. in conversation. that he bad paid to Mr. Bayers. a member of the legislature. I believe. $2.500 for his vote. He made the same stateutent to Mr. Carney. It is not necessary to go into a detail of all the circumstanlces. or to allude to all these conversations. I simply give time substance. ITo also told Mr. Carney that he bad not only paid Mr. Bayers $2.500 for his vote. but that he paid James P. Legate $1.000 for his vote. I should remark that. in the previous negotiation between Mr. Carney and Mr. CALDWELL. in addition to paying this money to Mr. Carney. Mr. CALDWELL was to take care of Air. Carneys friends. if they voted for him. he was to provide for them as flly as he could.J Mr. Carney efterward wrote to hin several letters to get appointments for his friends in that legislature who hadvoted for Mr. CALD1 WELL. Upon one occasion lie came to Mr. CALDWELL with a letter from one of these ina asking for an appointment. Mr. CALDEvrcLT. took out from his pocket a rneinorandumbook. and seemed to look down one page as if he was looking over a list. and then he turned the leaf over and looked down another page part of the way. until Le MARlCH 10. came to this mans name. and said he. "That man has been paid . I paid him." And he said that Mr. CALDWELrs manner. that of a good business mn. was that he had a list of all the members of that legislaturo. and that lie looked over the list to see if that man had been paid. and lie feund he had been. and made that statement to him. Many admissions of Ic. CALDWELL I have not time now to refer to. I will. however. in the conclusion of this argument. refer to the evidence iiore in detail. if it becomes necessary. bat to any Senator who has read this volume it will not be necessary that I should say anything more about it. The evidence shows that Mr. Clarke was an opposing candidate for the Senate. IHo had been a member of the House of Representatives from Kansas for four years. I believe. and in making his speeches in the canvass the summer before. it was annonnced that lie was a candidate for tho Senate. A unniber of members of the legisliitnre wvero elected upon the promise that they would vote for 9r. Clarke. but there was soine opposition to him. and other members were elected simplyas antiClarke men. When the vot6 sirs took place Mr. Clarke had twentyeeven votes. the highest vote of any man but one. But he was satisfied that lie coul not be clected. That evening while he was at supper he received a note from Mr. CALDWELL asking him to come to his room. -io went to his room. and Mr. CALDWELL began to negotiate Wit him bfor his votes. He said to Mr. CALDWELL. "Personally I fel more kindly to you than I do tosoinc oftlise other lon who have been making war upon me. but. Mr. CALDWELL. everybody knows that your strength in this legislature depends entirely upon money. that yon are buying your way throagh iad if my fri ends went for you I shoul he coiepromised and they would be compronised.. Mr. CALDWELLb did not deny it. for it smns the demoralization was such there at that time that there was scarce any concealment about these operations. and Mr. CALDWELL said to him. " Success will take away the stigma . if I am successful. that Will make it all right."

S

Mr. CALDWELL

Unknown

CALDWELL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

then suggested to hint that he would pay his expenses. Mr. Clarke said that his expenses atd those of his friends had been twelveor lifteonthousand dollars. The evidesce shows that Mr. Clarke did not at that time agree to this. and Mr. Clarke showed a tenderness at all times in a(Iliitsing that lie had withdrawn and transferred his friends to CALDWELL upon the eonsideration of the payment of this $1 .000. anti yet all the evidence. even Clarkes testinony alone. omitting everything olse. leaves no room to doubt that in point of fact that was the distinct contract. that Clarke was to withdraw. was to ceast his influence for CALDWELL. aid that CALDWELL was to pay to a Mr. Stevens a sum of not less than $12.000. and perhaps $15.000. The evidence shows that this contract with Stevens was concluded about two oclock in the morning. The parties were up all ight engaged io thislnegotiation. Abonttwoo7clock in theinorni gMr.CALDWELLw ent to Mr. Stevenss room. and the arrangement was there finally nado that ir. CAxLDWELL should pay the expenses of Mr. Clarke and his frieonds. estimated at lie less than twelve nor nore thaiu fifteen thenseand dollars. The evidence does not show that their actual expenses were half the aiount. but that. perhaps. is wholly immaterial. In accordanen with that aranguciluit there was a caucs held on the next morning at nine oclock of Air. Clarkos friends. They were all present. Mr. Clarke went into that caucus. aid there said he was no longer a candidate. and urged his friends to vote far Mr. CALDWELL. and whei the elect ion cameo offat twelve oelecki in joint coavontion. Mr. Clarkes name was withdrawn. and all Mr. Clarkes friends but one voted for Mr. CALDWELL. Subseqnontly Mr. Clarke called upon Mr. CALDWELL in this city. after the election was over. aid after lie had taken his seat. as Mr. Clarke saysT. to Procure the appointmont of a postmaster in the town where he lived. but in which conversation the question of paying this money to Stevens came up. ir. CALDWELT said every tiiieand the last convers.tion took place omt here in the lobby-" I intend to pay Steveis." Mr. Clake se.ys that lie said to Mr. CALOWELL. "Whatever you have agreed to pay to Stevens you ought to pay to him." The money was not paid . and how this ecutroversy begtm is not very clearly shown . bat it imay have originated. and I think probably did. fron the very fact that the contract to pay this mloley to Clarkes friends was not complied with. There is another foatnrs of this ease. Mr. President. I have already spoken of the fact tht the testimony shows that several members of this legiiature admitted at the time that they had been bribed. that they had negotiations on hand. that they had been promised this. that. and theoether. Two said that they had asked so much. and had only been offered so much. There are roeated declarations proved that Mr. Len. T. Smith. Mr. CA LDWELLS principal agent. said that he could get a man for less than what had been offered or asked. and onc. when a man was presented to him to be sold. " Why." said he. "I have already bought that man. and I only gave $500 for him." Tie evidence is direct and positive that this man Anderson paid to Mr. Crocker. a member of the house. the sum of $1.000 for his vote. and Crocker afterward backed out. and did not veto for CALDWELL. ar.d he handed the money back to a Mr. Carson. to be delivered by him to Anderson. but Carson kept the money. He knew that Anderson could not very Well sue him for it. and so he held on to it. We had Mr. Carson before us. He admitted that he had received the noney and had kept it. giving as a reason that he had been working for Mr. CALDWELL there. and he thoaght he bad a right to hold on to themoney for his services. Then there is the testimony of Mr. William Spriggs. formerly treasurer of Kansas. I believe a man of as good hsaracter as was before the committee. and I think no member of the committee dobted a single word that Mr. Spriggs said. He was there as one of Mr. CALnWELLS friends. and he si there was a selfconstituted committee of some six persons. composed of Mr. Len. T. Smith. T. J. Anderson. Frank Dronning. McDowell. and perhaps another one. that they met in the morning and in the evening for the purpose of canivassing Mr. CALDWELLS prospects. They had a list of the nembers. They would ru over the list. and. as they would do so. remarks would be made by the different members of the committee. Len. T. Smith would say. "Now that nian is a. little too high. I shall not close with him yet. I think I shall got him lower." In regard to another he would say. "That is already fixed. I have closed with that Min."

S

Mr. CALDWxLL

Unknown

CALDWXLL

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a moment?

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Will the Senator add in that connection that every one of those six men. said to have been a committee. denied it on oath before our committee?

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I cannot state that. because it is not correct. but I will state how far it is correct. I said that Mr. Lou. T. Smith had denied all knjowledge of it.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

And all the rest of them that I beard testify.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Mr. McDowell denied it. he being one of the principal operators. and I do not think there was a man on the committee that believed Mr. MeDowelh

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Did not Drenuing deny it?

S

Mir. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Yes. Drsuning did deny it. hut made admissions which impaired the force of his testimony. and I do not believe my friend believed one word that McDowell said or that Anderson said. Anderson was on that committee. and I think we alt aced that he perjured himself from the very beginning to the end of its testinony. His statements conflict with each other. and they conflict with the whole body of the testimony. He denied what was proven by a nannber of men there. and his admissions as to his own seceipt of $5.000. There was conflicting testimony. but there was not any more than would be likely to happen in any lawsuit where there is a millionairo on one side. and where there are reputation and position at stake. aided by good counsel and large influence.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

I wish simply to call my friends attention on that particular point. What he is stating as the undoubted fet of the eso. he is stating on the testimony of one man. who is contradicted directly by three or four others.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Three others. and other evidence shows that those three men. every one of them. were engaged there in the purchase of votes. they were the corrupt manipulators of this transaction. If my friend wishes it. I will give him the testimony. I Will refer him to a scrap or two of testimony on this point. I will read friom the testimony of Mr. Spriggs. I think every member of the committee believed Mr. Spriggs. and I think we all. when he went off the stad felt that lie had told the truth.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Will the Senator allow me a word in reference to these statements about all of us believing so and so ? He will find in Mr. Spriggss testimony that lie testifies that he had a conversation with 0fr. CALDWELL On the Tuesday before the election. in ir. CALDWEL1s roem. at Topeka. Mr. CALDWELLS physician swore that he attended him in Lcaveanworth on that very same day. and gave him iediciie.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

There was just that contradiction. This man was mistaken in regard to the date.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

He fiad the day most particularly with referonce to the election. They all agreed about when the election was. and then he fixed the day positively. and now it turns out from the testimony of the physician that CALDWELL was in Leavenworth. sick abed om that day.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

There was a mistake of one day in the date. a most trivial mistako. and my friend now cannot. for his life. I venture to say. tell the day when this investigation began and when it eided. becanse NWe cannot. ay of ms. roeuier such things.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

That is not necessary. and that is io legitimate argimcnt in the case. I merely called attention to the fact. as the Senator was speaking of Mr. Spriggss testimony being so reliable. that it was of a character that was totally contradicted by every witness on the stand. Mr. CArDWe. Ws sick for several days. at Leavenworth. and Mr. Spriggs said he talked with. him oi the Tnsday before the election. in his own room. at Topeka. Mr. CALDWLias doctor and minister both testified that he was sick at home. at Leavenworth. at the very time this man said he had the conversation with him at Topeka.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

They did. by the physician. prove that on the tpartioular day he was at Leavenworth. but he took the cars there at night. or the next day.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

That was the evening of the election?

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

0. no.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

Well. it is immaterial.

S

Mr. LOGAN

Unknown

LOGAN

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

He went to Topeka the next day after the physician said lie was sick in bed. The physician undertolk to verify the date by reference to the charge lie made ogalist Mr. CALDWIiLL. blt I am not mistaken. I thick. in the fact that my distinguished friend from Illinois did at the time indorso Mr. Spriggss testimony. He did state. on this floor. (and if I do him injustice he will correct mc.) that he inclorsed the statements in the report.. all except the resolution as to what should be done. I think every member of the committee agreed in regard to the facts. unless it was my friend from Wisconsin.

S

Mr. MORTON

Unknown

MORTON

Unknown

M

03101873.txt

The Senator should state. in that connection. that I not only did not agree. but expressly disagreed and dissented. in the committee. to the findings of fact.

S

Mr. CARPENTER

Unknown

CARPENTER

Unknown

M

03101873.txt