1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1009 

clined to submit to cross-examination, and without the consideration 

of which it will hardly be contended by anybody that a case is made 

against the right of the contestee to his seat. · Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Is there any claim here tha.t Ur. Page was elected? 

Mr. ROWELL. No, sir. Hema~etheclaim, butthecommitteeabsolutely ignore that portion of his claim, and the purpose here is to declare the seat vacant. Further than that under 1he permission to introduce testimony in rebuttal, in utter disregard of all rules of law or ignorance of them, the same utter disregard which characterized the 

proceedings of this contestant from the time he commenced writing his 

notice of contest down through the taking of testimony and until the 

final argument and during the final argument before the committeein disregard of the rights conferred upon him by the resolution of the 

House and in disregard of the best settled rules of evidence known to 

the law books, the contestant proceeded again totaketestimonyin chief 

after the opportumty to meet such testimony had passed away under 

the resolution of the House, and that testimony so taken in chief is 

presented by the majorityof the committee to this House, and you are asked to follow their judgment based on testimony not cross-examined, 

where the witnesses refused to submit to cross-examination and testimony taken in 'chief. at the time when rebuttal testimony was only 

permissible. I am talking from the record. 

I am telling the facts ascertainable by every gentleman in this Hall, 

and I state these facts because I want to call the attention of this 

House to this proposition first. When determining whether a person 

is entitled to a seat here, although we under the Constitution have the 

JlOwer to disregard every rule of law, every right pertaining to honest 

and fairdealing-although we have the power to do it, yet as men and 

Representatives we have not the right to do so; and it is our duty to 

apply the well-known rules of law recognized in the courts to this case in our consideration of it. 

Therefore, while I admit you have the absolute power, I ask gentlemen, as Representatives engaged in a solemn duty, to refuse to con- sider any ex parte testimony presented here not cross-examined, where 

there was no opportunity to cross-examine it, and to refuse to consider 

any testimony which was properly testimony in chief which was illegally and unlawfully brought into this record as testimony in re- buttal. And why do I ask it? Because from time immemorial the 

the courts sitting among English-speaking people have been ascertainfig what sort of rules are necessary in regard to the admission of testimony designed to prove or mtended to prove any fact, and they have 

made for us a body of rules. 

And in that body of law, as the resultant of the best wisdom of all 

the courts, we have well-defined principles which tell us that certain 

kinds of testimony is competent and admissible to prove a fact, and 

that certain other kinds of testimony is neither competent nor admissible to even tend to prove any fact, and therefore ought not to be con- sidered in connection with the faet by any judicial tribunal. One of 

those rules is that whoever takes the affirmative of an issue must introduce all the testimony that bears upon his side of the issue before the 

other side is called on to answer, that he may not divide his testimony, 

mtroducing a part aud refusmg to introduce a part, and that the only 

varittion of this rule is a variation allowed in the discretion of the 

court when the :parties and witnesses and all who are to be affected are present and subject to its control, so that no injustice may be done. 

I shall therefore, in my argument, utterly and absolutely disregard any 

testimony which was properly testimony-in-chief sought to be introduced in rebuttal under the resolution of this body. 

.Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Let me ask you a question right there. 

What purpose did Page have in contesting this seat if he had no hope 

of getting it for himself? 

Mr. ROWELL. He did have hope. He argued very elaborately 

before the committee that he was entitled to the seat. I suppose his 

hope was based upon the idea that political neces..<ri.ty required a decision m his favor, and that, as his political friends were in the majority in 

this House, they would, in obedience to that political necessity, assign 

the seat to him. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That they would hold another election in 

the House. 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes; hold another election here; but inasmuch as the majority of the committee have ignored his claim and have lawful1y and properly 1·ejected his theory that an election held in accord- ance with law is an election which should he overthrown, I shall not 

stop to comment upon that further than to say that he claimed that 

all the ballots cast for Mr. Pirce should be thrown out because he 

[Page] didn't like the laws, and had often tried to get them re- pealed. 

Another thing in the testimony that I shall refuse to consider is this: 

Where .a witness was called in the original ex parte testimony and was 

afterward subprenaed by the contestee to come and submit to crossexamination and refused to submit bimselfto such cross-examination, 

I shall treat that testimony as not involved in this case in any shape 

or form, because it can-not lawfully be considered, and in doing so I 

8hall remember, as I can not fail to remember, the eloquent tribute of 

XVIfi-64 

the chairman of the Committee on Elections in a former case to the 

right of cross-examination, and his eloquent argument illustrating how 

dangerous it is to consider at all ex parte testimony. 

!1r. PETERS. Did these witnesses voluntarily refuse to testify? 

Mr. ROWELL. They voluntarily refused, and one of them voluntarily tried to get other witnesses to refrain from appearing in the case when summoned in rebuttal. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know bow difficult it is to get attention in this House, and I know that there are dozens 

of members-a good many dozens of them just now-considering this 

important question by engaging themselves with their correspondencegentlemen who are sitting here at their desks occupied with matters 

which necessarily involve their attention and draw it away from this ca-se; and I know also, that in a little while those same gentlemen, under 

their solemn oaths, will vote ay or no upon this case without knowing anything about it. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. You say that one of the witnesses refused 

to be cross-examined. Was the testimony which that witness had given 

of a character damaging to the contestee if it was true? 

1t1r. ROWELL. Yes, sir; it was, and of a very damaging charader 

to the witness also. 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It was a case, then, in which cross-exam- ination was peculiarly desirable? 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes. I wasjustcomingtothatbranchofthequestion. Because every criminative witness in this case is self-stultified; 

because nearly every criminative witness in this case who permitted 

himself to be cross-examined was obliged to admit that hewas guilty 

of willful perjury; bec:l.-use every criminative witness in this case ac- knowledges himself to be a cheat and a purchasable man-for all these reasons it becomes more important that we apply the well known rules 

of evidence to the consideration of this case. I challenge contradiction of the statement I now make, that every 

witness produced who gave testimony gomg to affect the right of the 

sitting member to his seat-every such witness by his testimony, w betber 

be was cross-examined or not-confessed himself to be not such a man as you would rely upon to prove any fact. I charge again that wherever any witness ventured into deep water and dared to mention any name in connection with his testimony, that witness was overwhelmmgly contramcted; and the only escape of any one of this class of wit- nesses so self-stultified from contradiction was an escape in the wellknown refuge, ''I do not know who the party was.'' 

Now, they start out in this case with the township in which the con- testee lives, and they brmg three witnesses, named respectively Powers, 

Wood, and Lawton, who undertake to prove that there was some cor- ruption about those polls. This was early in the taking of the testimony for the contestant; and caution had not become quite so lar~ely 

developed as it was afterward in that examination. Hence, those three 

witnesses who testified to a neat little conspiracy that they had gotten 

up were careless enough to mention quite a large number of 'respectable 

names, and every name that they were careless enough to mention is 

in the record here, and its owner is a witness to contradict in toto the 

testimony of those three witnesses. And we did not stop there; we impeached those three witnesses until, if they had been capable of it, 

they would have hidden their faces in shame. 

So that the mujority of the committee have ignored the whole question of that township of Johnston on that kind of testimony and have 

left it out of their report. The majority of the committee-and now I come down to an investigation of the facts-say in their report that 

the grand canvassmg board of the State of Rhode Island made a mistake in the figures. On this point my friend from Georgia, the chair- man of the committee, has certainly not exercised the care with which 

be usually investigates matters of this kind; and because he has not in 

this case exercised his usual care I call upon this House to investigate a little for themselves. He tells you that the grand canvassing board 

of the State of Rhode Island, the grand committee of the General Assembly of that State, made a mistake in footing up the figures, and got 

the opposition vote too small by 9, whereas the ~ntleman's supposed 

discovery grew out of the fact that the printer in Washington who 

printed one portion of the testimony had changed a cipher for a nine; 

and a single turning over a leaf in the printed testimony or a reference 

to the original testimony on file would have illustrated that misprint. 

Mr. TURNER. Let me ask the gentleman whether he can verify his 

statement? 

Mr. ROWELL. I can verify the statement by a certificate under 

the grand seal of the State of Rhode Island. · Mr. TURNER. Where did you get it? 

Mr. ROWELL. I have it here, and if you will--

Mr. TURNER. Where did you get it? 

Mr. ROWELL (banding a. paper to Mr. TuRNER). Here it is. 

Mr. TURNER. Where did you get it? 

Mr. ROWELL. I never had it in my possession until a little while 

ago, but if you will turn to the evidence--

Mr. PAYNE. On page 79. • 

Mr. ROWELL. If you will turn to page 79 you will find in the detailed report the same thing precisely. 

Mr. LONG. That question ought to be settled now. 

• 

' 

. ' 

' 
1: . lj. 

• 

JOIO . CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25, 

. Mr. ROWELL. I refer to the detailed report of the township of 

Hopkinton. 

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman has not answered my inquiry, where 

he got this paper. · Mr. ROWELL. That paper was handed to me by Mr. Pirce. 

Mr. TURNER. Then it is a private paper; it has not yet gone into 

the record. 

Mr. ROWELL. The paper is here officially authenticated. 

Mr. SPOONER. It is attested by the Sta.te seal and by the signature of the secretary of state. . Mr. TURNER. Allow me to save the gentleman from illinois [Mr. 

RowELL] a little trouble. The gentleman is now on his honor as a member of the House. · Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. If he says that this abstract of the evidence is true, 

then lam willing to assume that the majority of Mr. Pirce over all his 

competitors is as thus shown, 16, and to make the argument on that 

basis; but at the same time I assure the gentleman that in doing so I 

rely on his statement as to the correctness of this information. 

Mr. ROWELL. I assure the gentleman that I have not examined 

the original, but I have examined the printed evidence here. 

Mr. TURNER. · The paper which the gentleman now exhibits to me shows the correction which he has just insisted upon. If the gentleman 

gives his word that this is correct, I will stand upon the correctness of 

his word, and we will assume there is as shown in this way a majority 

for 1\Ir. Pirce of 16 over all his competitors. 

M:r. SPOONER. If the gentleman will acce:Pt my statement, I will 

say that this paper is signed by the secretary of state of Rhode Island, 

whose signature I well know, and the seal of the State is affixed. 

Mr. TURNER. The statement of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 

RoWELL] is sufficient; I know hewould not attempt anything wrong. 

(To Mr. ROWELL.) Go on with your argument; we \viii assume that 

the majorityis 16. 

Then that question is ended, and he was elected by 1(). Inasmuch as that question is out of the case, and it becomes a question whether 16 

is to be deducted from the sitting member so as to unseat him, we will 

go ahead and discuss that question. · Nearly all the testimony in this case, Mr. Speaker, is addressed to the 

town of Warwick. Nearly every witness whose testimony is quoted in 

the majority report refers to the town of Warwick. 

'J.'here is some testimony taken in rebuttal, but really testimony in chi~f with reference to the town of Foster. One witness, by the name of Marble, voting at the town of Foster, testifies that he received $3 for 

his vote. That testimony was taken in chief, but outside of that the 

testimony to bribery was confined to the town of Warwick. They are nine in number, and only nine outside of your so-called rebuttal that 

testified to the purchase of votes. Nine different witnesses C!tme upon 

the witness-stand when the testimony was taken ex parte., and test:ified, one for $2 and the balance for $3, that they voted for the contestee in 

consideration of $3 paid to them for that vote. 

Now let us have it fairly understood, nine witnesses at the town of 

Warwick testified to that state of facts. The first of these witnesses 

when cross-examined testified, as did three others. He said a man handed him a ticket-a yellow Pirce ticket-and said ''Vote that, and I 

will see you later." [Laughter.] Three of them used that exact language, and one added to the words ''I will see you later," the words 

''down at Atwood's barn." 

That was all there was of the testimony as to whether they had been 

corrupted and whether money had been agreed to be paid to them before they cast their votes. Put it legally, and if we have regard for 

the law, they say from the surroundings and from certain appearances 

they understood they would get pay. A good lawyer like my friend, 

the chairman of this committee, calls that testimony. He would not so call it anywhere except in a contestt:d election, I think. 

The first of these witnesses who testified said not only that he sold 

his vote for $3, thereby being self-stultified, but he swore that he had 

always been a Democrat. On cross-examination he swore he did not 

sell his vote for $3; that there was not any understanding he was to 

get money; that the money he did get was to pay him for his time in 

going to the polls and losing his pay by putting another man in his 

place. He further testified he bad not always been a Democrat; that 

for the last five preceding years he had voted the Republican ticket, 

..and that in ten years he had not voted the Democratic ticket but once or twice, or at most four times. He swore he had always been a Democrat under the direction of the agen~ of contestant, who was sent for 

him to come and testify, as he acknowledged on cross-examination. 

Now, I ask gentlemen, standing as judges and ceasing to be partisans, if upon the bench or in the jury box, a witness should come before 

yoti and testi(y upon examination-in-chief to one material fact, and on 

cross-examination be should testify to the opposite, acknowledging 

when he testified before- he knew it was true, and testified under the 

direction of the party calling him as a witness--

Mr. PERKINS. That he knew it was false! 

1\fr. ROWELL. Yes; that he knew it was false, would you believe 

that witness? _ Now, :Mr. Speaker, it may be said the balance of this c1a8s of witnesses corroborated this falsifier. Ay, but the rule of corroboration is 

not that half-a-dozen liars can corroborate another liar, but that testimony impeached ~1.n only be corroborated by unimpeached testimony. 

The next witness called was one William Bates; but before going to 

that, let me say--

Mr. BURROWS. You say three witnesses testified the Pirce vote was handed to them, and it was said, "We will see you later, down at the 

barn." Now, is there any evidence in the case they were seen later, 

and paid money for their votes? 

M:r. ROWELL. Those three witnesses, as they say, were seen later 

and paid for their votes. 

Mr. BURROWS. Which of them, and by whom? Is the evidence 

clear the vote was bought, and if so, by whom? 

Mr. ROWELL. No; theyrefused to state. Thiswitnesslhavejust 

spoken of was an old resident of the town, and he said he did not know 

who it was. Whether they were paid at all depends upon their uncorroborated 

testimony, impeached by self-contradiction or by refusal. to submit to 

cross-examination. In either case it is unworthy to be considered as evidence. 

The n~xt witness was one William Bates, who was examined on this 

question of bribery. He testi:fies as follows: · 

This person, whom I have mentioned, came to me and asked -me if I had 

voted. 1 told. him I had not. He gave me a yellow Pirce ticket, and said, "You vote that and I will see you later." I voted that ticket. I then came out, and as I was getting into my team he handed me $3. 

That witness refused to turn up for cross-examinn.tion at all. He 

declared that he did not know who had paid him. I rule his testimony out because he declined to appear for cross-examination and declined to allow a test to be made of his truthfulness. 

The next witness was Fr.ank D. Morse. In the course of his testimony, after stating that he was paid $3 for his vote, he goes on to say: 

He handed me a Pirce ticket and said, "I will see you later down at Atwood's 

Hotel." 

That witness also refused to appear for cross-examination. That 

witness declared he did not know who paid him. 

The next witness was Cyrus W. Eddy. He says he voted as he pleased; 

that there was no interference before he voted, and that he did not vote 

for money. He claims to have received $3, and ''that he always took 

it to be granted that they paid money to the working classes." He 

had lived in Warwick for thirteen years, and yet he did not know the man who paid him. On cross-examination he says he was not paid to 

vote .for Mr. Pirce, but that the money was paid ~or his lost time in 

going 5 miles to the voting place and losing a day. · Another witness was one F. W. Carpenter. He swears on his exam- ination-in-chief that he received $3 for voting for Pirce, and that he had 

always been a Democrat. He answered on cross-examination, and in 

that answered that for the last two or three years he had voted with 

the Collingwood party, which was the Republican party of Warwick, 

and had not during that time voted with the Democrats. He said also 

that he received this money for the loss of time, and not to induce him 

to vote for any body. · There are, Mr. Speaker, nine of these witnesses. Four of them toaned 

up on cross-examination and five did not appear. Now, then, two of 

the witnesses-and that is the meat and gist of this case-two of the 

witnesses swear on the original examination that there were one hundred or more at that place who were paid. 

They did not turn up on cross-examination; but after the cross-ex- amination had ceased and they had refused to answer the su bpoona., the 

contestant having control of them put them again on the stand as witnesses, and it turned out that they were testifying not from knowledge, 

but from hearsay in regard to anybody else than themselves, and this 

hear.say is the sole evidence in the record about anybody but the wit- nesses themselves being bribed. Another witness, of this same town of 

Warwick, who was not confessing to his self-stultification, who did not 

sell out his vote, and who was one of the Page managers, undertook to 

testify about the corruption at Warwick, and ventured upon mentioning the names of those connected with the purchasing of votes. 

The moment he mentioned the names of the persons whom he claimed 

did the purchasil!g, reputable names, three persons, the ones he 

named, appeared upon the witness stand, and declared that they neither 

used money themselves nor knew of its being used at the Warwick 

polls, and were there working in the interest of contestee, the sitting 

member in the case. So that under the rule, which is common in this 

case, that wherever a witness ventures to open the door to test his truthfulness, that moment his testimony. was open to question by credible 

testimony; this witness was thoroughly contradicted, and there is no 

variableness from beginning to end in the record. 

These two witnesses who testified originally that one hundred were .bought, declared they knew who paid them, but refused to answer whopaid them; andlcall again uponthelawyers ofthis House tosay, 

when a witness does not answer a material question, whether they 

will consider his testimony at all in the case. But admitting, if you 

please, the nine witnesses at Warwick and one at Foster, it makes but 

ten, and if you rule all out it le~ves Pirce then with a majority over 
1887. ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1011 

all of 6 and 1, 751 over the highest candidate voted for at the electionthe contestant in this case. 

I have occupied more time, ::M:r. Speaker, than I had intended and 

yet have not discussed a great many important questions that ought 

to be discussed as bearing upon this case. 

Mr. ADA111S, of New York. Before the gentleman sits down I 

would like to ask him a question. What is your opinion of a case where money is paid for a vote for a candidate without his knowledge 

orconsent-money paid in supportofhis caseofwhich he knows nothing? 

Mr. ROWELL. If money is paid for a vote that vote -should be 

counted out. 

Mr. LO-NG. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Do I understand you to say the .evidence shows that only ten of these men re- ceived pay for theJr votes? 

l'lfr. ROWELL. Only ten. 

Mr. LONG. Then if the charge of bribery is established at all it 

is established only as to t.en votes. Is that clear in the evidence? 

Mr. ROWELL. That is clear, with the exception of the two wit- nesses who first said that there were one hundred who were paid for 

their votes, but gave no names, and whose evidence was hearsay. 

Mr. LONG. And in regard to that they were evidently guessing? 

Mr. ROWEL.L. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TURNER. I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts will not assume by our silence that we assent to that statement. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Let me ask the gentleman from Illinois, do you hold that if I am innocent, as a candidate running for office, 

<>f the knowledge of the use of money, and an enemy pays for a vote 

for me which may decide the election, that that fact would destroy my 

right to the seat if elected? - Mr. ROWELL. I hold that a purchased vote-I do not care whether ·there is knowledge or not of it on the part of a candidate-if a man is 

purchased and votes against his political convictions, that vote should 

be thrown out. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I do not say whether he voted against 

his political convictions. 

Mr. ROWELL. If it turned out on evidence that an enemy of 

yours went and gave to one of your friends money to vote for you, designing to throw on t that vote, that would be a fraud on you. That is 

another question. • Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Is not the vote minted in the one case as well as in the other? 

Mr. ROWELL. That intrgduces another question into consideration-the question of fraud. 

Mr. LONG. The gentleman from Illinois says every vote purchased 

in the interest of a candidate should be thrown out. 

Mr. ROWELL. Certainly. 

Mr. LONG. And a vote purchased against his interest should not be. 

Mr. _ROWELL. How much time have I occupied? 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempO're (1\lr. EDE~). The gentleman has eleven 

minutes of his time remaining. 

Mr. ROWELL. I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. The majority of the committee claimed, 

I understand, that the sitting member was only elected by 3 majority? 

]')Ir. ROWELL. That was subsequently rectified, there having been 

a misprint of a 9 for a 0. · Mr. ADAMS, of New York. And the majority now concede that he 

was elected bv 16? 

Mr. ROWELL. Certainly. 

Mr. BOYLE. The gentleman from Illinois [1\Ir. RowELL], in pre- . senting this case on the part of the contestee, has discussed many matters which, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, are not 

material. This contest was set on foot by the contestant in the belief 

that he was not only entitled to oust the sitting member, but to have 

himself declared elected. After an investigation, which! know to have 

been thorough, and which I believe to be entire1y fair, the committee came to a different conclusion as to the contestant's right to the seat; 

and while a majority of the committee have found that the sitting member was not elected, they have also found that the contestant is not en- titled to the seat. In other words, the majority of the committee has 

reported that there was no election in the second district of Rhode . Island in 1884, and that the seat should be declared vacant. 

]')fuch has been said respecting the manner of taking this testimony. 

I submit, sir, to the House that the committee bas gone no further 

than the facts of the case and the justice of the case not only war- ranted, but absolutely required. I will refer to this matter briefly, 

although it does not touch the merits of the controversy. The notice 

of contest was given in due time; but in consequence of some arrangement between the contestant and the contestee, or their counsel, the 

testimony was not taken within the period required by the act of 

Congress. What that arrangement was I do not undertake to say, because the parties to it do not agree. 

The contestant and his counsel maintain under oath that the time 

within which the testimony was to be taken under this agreement was not limited; they claim that owing to the fact that counsel were engaged in court, and as it was not known when they could look after the 

contest, it was agreed that the testimony should be taken at a time to 

suit all parties, and that in effect the requirements of the statute in 

this respect were waived. In this they were supported by another witness. The contestee and his counsel, while denying that such was the 

arrangement, admit that an agreement of some kind was made relating 

to the. time for taking. the testimony. 

It was an oral agreement, and there was a misunderstanding between 

the parties as to what it was, but not as to the fact of an agreement 

having been made. 

After learning that there was a misunderstanding as to the agreement, the contestant proceeded to take his testimony. The proper no- tice was given to the contestee, but he refused to appear himself or by 

counsel. But some gentleman, a lawyer, who finally appeared as the 

counsel for the contestee, was on hand at every hearing, without, bowever, interfering in the taking of testimony, except upon one occasion. .. .Mr. SPOONER. He appeared, as he said, as a voter in that district, 

and in his own behalf. 

Mr. ELY. And he did not afterward appear for the contestee. 

Mr. BOYLE. I think he did. 

Mr. SPOONER. No, sir. You are mixing two men up. 

Mr. BOYLE. It is immaterial whether he afterward appeared as counsel for Ur. Pirce. This gentleman was present at every hearing; 

and on one occasion intervened on behalf of the contestee by objecting 

to certain testimony. 

Mr. SPOONER. That is a mistake. 

::M:r. BOYLE. It is certainly not a mistake. 

.Mr. SPOONER. I should like to have the gentleman refer to that 

part of the record which shows any such thing. 

Mr. BOYLE. I will not take the time to refer to it now. I state on my recollection that this gentleman who stated that he appeared on 

behalf of himself and other voters did on one occasion intervene to object to testimony. That the gentleman will find by referring to the 

testimony; and I do not propose to occupy my time further in discussing this matter. I simply allude to it. But even if! am wrong-and 

I am sure I am not-it does not affect the merits of this case. The testimony was taken on the part of the contestant, a_nd was presented to the committee. The contestee had the opportunity to be 

present. The committee found on an examination of it, such a state 

of facts connected with this election as in our judgment required a full 

investigation. We did not proceed upon the testimony before us, but 

we reported to the House :uesolution, and-the House adopted it, giving 

to the contestee a limited period, thirty days, I think, within which 

to recall the contestant's witnesses for cross-examination, and within 

which to take. his own testimony; and giving to the contestant ten 

days in which to take rebutting testimony. This was all the time it was practicable to give at the time the resolution was adopted. This 

order went out, and the contestee called his witnesses, and recalled the 

witnesses who had been examined for the contestant. I believe it is alleged some of them did not appear; but he spent a number of days, 

probably his full time, in taking his own testimony and in cross-ex- amining the witnesses who had been examined on behalf of the con- testant. 

That testimony was presented to the committee, and was considered 

fully; so that the fact that the contestee had failed to take part in the 

odginal examination was wholly immaterial, as he had opportunity to 

fully cross-e-xamine the witnesses afterward, 

Mr. SPOO~ER. But a number of them did not appear. 

Mr. BOYLE. I have no doubt that they could have been had by 

the use of the ordinary process. There was abundance of time to have 

them appear, as they lived in the neighborhood. 

Mr. SPOONER. · The attempt was made, but the magistrates decided that they had no authority to compel the attendance of those 

witnesses. 

Mr. BOYLE. There is no doubt that if the contestee had been desirous to have them appe.:'U' he could have done so. ]')fr. PIRCE. How? . Mr. BOYLE. I believe the contestee himself offered to bring ~hem 

upon certain reasonable conditions. Mr. ELY. But bad the magistrates power to bring them? 

Mr. BOYLE. I will not take time to consider that question. But 

the gentleman will not claim that the appearance of these witnesses 

could not have been compelled. It could have been done quickly and 

without difficulty. Indeed, some of those whose absence is complained 

of were afterward brought upon the stand by the contestee, and there was abundant opportunity to cross-examine them had it been desired. 

to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, as to this alleged irregularity in taking the testimony, I maintain that the committee was justified in reporting the res- olution, and the House was justified in passing the resolution, to extend 

the time for the taking of testimony, because of the dispute between 

the parties and the counsel as to what the original agreement between 

them was. The contestant claimed that the election should be declared in hiB 
1012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANU.AR17: 25, 

:favor because of the intimidation alleged to have been practiced by the 

manufacturers and employers of Rhode Island toward their employes. 

There is some evidence to support that allegation. ~Ir. PIRCE. Not a bit. 

Mr. BOYLE. It appears that the precincts attacked are places in 

which large factories exist, where quarries are worked, and other 

branches of industry are carried on, and it appears that many of the 

employers and their agents and clerks-were present at the election and 

remained all day. There is some evidence that "influeuce" at least was exercised by employers on their employes, with the view of inducing them to vote the Republican ticket. A particular arrangement of 

the polling-:room was made, so that the voter had to run a gauntlet of 

Republican politicians; and the ballot-box was placed above the level 

of the voter's head, so that his ticket, as large as my band, could be seen all over the room. The tickets used on that occasion were produced before the committee, and I have them here. lt seems that under the law of Rhode 

Island there is no requirement as to the shape, color, or size of the 

ticket; but it is provided that the voter may inclose his ticket in an envelope, that those envelopes shall be supplied by the State officers, 

and shall be uniform in appearance, &c. 

At the election in 1884 there were two tickets, one for President and 

the ticket for Congress. The Presidential tickets of both parties were on white paper. The Democratic ticket for Congress was also on white 

paper, but the Republican ticket was of this color [holding up a strawcolored piece of paper], which I have no doubt not only every gentle- man upon this floor but also every person in the gallery can distinguish 

from a ticket on white paper. 

Now, it is true that the voter might, if be had so desired, have placed 

this ticket in an envelope, but it was contended by the contestant before the committee that to have done that would have been equivalent 

to an admission on the part of the voter that he was not voting for the 

sitting member-that it would have been the concealment of a fact 

which the employer required the employe should not conceal, because 

he said to the employe, "If yon are voting for Pirce vote an open 

ticket, so that it can be seen that you are doing so." 

Mr. PIRCE. There is no such evidence at all. 

Mr. BOYLE. This ticket, I say, was used upon that occasion, and 

it appears from the evidence that that is a common practice in Rhode 

Island in that district at Congressional elections. I have one of the 

tickets used in the first Congressional district at another election [exhibiting it]. . ltlr. SPOONER. Yes; that is printed on blue-tinted paper. That 

is the color of the ticket on which I was elected. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania permit a question? 

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Was there any evidence before the committee that 

the employers instructed their employes in the manner yon have stated, 

namely, that theymust vote for Pirce, and must vote the yellow ticket 

openly, in order to bring the proof home to the employers that they did 

''ote for Mr. Pirce? 

Mr. BOYLE. No, sir. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. That is to be inferred from your remark. 

Mr. BOYLE. No, sir. If you had paid attention yon would have 

heard me say that it was contended by the contestant and by those who 

represented him that that was the effect of putting the ticket in an envelope; and it so appears very clearly. There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. PAYNE. What does the gentleman mean by stating that it appears very clearly? Does he mean from the evidence? 

Mr. BOYLE. I think it appears very clearly from conceded facts. 

Mr. PAYNE. What facts? 

Mr. BOYLE. From the use of this peculiar ticket. 

Mr. PAYNE. Is there any evidence of it except the use of the 

ticket? 

Mr. BOYLE. I have stated at least once that there is not. I state 

the conceded facts; and I say that from those facts it appears that the 

JDanner in which the voter vated would be apparent from his use or non- use of the envelope. 

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Was not tbevrhite ticket just as distinguishable as the other? - o Mr. BOYLE. If the tickets of both parties had been white it would 

have been hard to distinguish them. 

Mr. ADAMS, ofNew York. Of course; and if they had both been 

yellow it would also have been hard to distinguish them. 

Mr. BOYLE. But one ticket being white and the other yellow, 

there was no trouble in distinguishing them. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Were not the printers of the white ticketjustas 

much to blame for making this distinction of color as those who used 

tickets of the other color? 

Mr. BOYLE. Inasmuch as the yellow ticket was ordered by the - Republican State committee of Rhode Island, the printers did not have 

anything to do with determining the color. They printed what they were ordered to print. Mr. MILLIKEN. Was not the white ticket ordered by the State 

committee of the oth~r party? 

Mr. BOYLE. Possibly. It came out, however, in the testimony' 

that this was the practice-to print tickets for the Republican candidates for Congress in Rhode Island on colored paper; and it came out 

also that the color was changed at every election. Why was this done? 

Why print this ticket on paper differing in color from other tickets? 

And why change the color of the ticket at every election? The evident 

purpose was to enable bystanders to see how the voter voted, and the 

design in changing the color each year was to prevent the opposing can- didate from having similar tickets printed. Here is a Pirce ticket used 

at another election [holding one up], and it will be observed that there 

is a difference of color. 

ltlr. WILSON. Does the gentleman say that many of the employ- ers were at the polls during the whole day? 

Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Did they give any reason for being present? 

Mr. BOYLE. I know of none. 1tlr. MILLIKEN. Had they not the same right to go to the polls 

and vote as their employes? 

Mr. BOYLE. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. ELY. But did not thirty or forty witnesses testify that the 

statement in regard to the presence of employers at the poles was un- true? -

Mr. BOYLE. I know that a number of witnesses swore that they 

took no part in the election. I do not remember that the presence of 

employers, agents, &c., at the polls during the day was denied. 

Mr. ELY. And of those witnesses many were Democrats? 

Mr. BOYLE. Very likely. But I do not think any Democrats were there to coerce voters. I take it there were other manufacturers 

and employers in Rhode Island besides those to whom this testimony 

referred. ' 

Mr. ELY. But those witnesses testified generally to what occurred 

at the election, did they not? 

Mr. BOYLE. It is not denied that there were a number of manu- factuTers, and manufacturers' agents and clerks present at that election all day. · Ur. PERKINS. Have yon ever seen an election at which the people 

did not attend and participate? . Mr. BOYLE. I must confess I have not. I am afraid I shall not 

get to the real issues of this case if I am detained so long at the threshold. · Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, of Kentucky. If the gentleman will con- sent, I would like to ask one question. As I understand the matter was so arranged in this case that if an employer wanted to know how 

his employe voted he could know. · Mr. BOYLE. Why, that appears from the testimony of almost 

every witness, and from the facts which are not denied. 

Mr. PIRCE. Could not the voter inclose his ticket in an envelope 

if be wished to? 

Mr. BOYLE. He could; but his employer would have known that 

he did so. A MEMBER. And that would have been regarded as a suspicious 

circumstance? 

Mr. BOYLE. Very. It would have been confession under the circumstances. . But, Mr. Speaker, as the committee did not report in favor of the 

view of the contestant, it is not very material to discuss the grounds on which he based his claim. The committee did not throw out the 

vote cast for Mr. Pirce because ballots were printed on colored paper or because there was intimidation. They find against him for other 

reasons. Mr. Speaker, in Rhode Island the right of suffrage is very much re- stricted. The number of voters is small in proportion to the population. This is due to the fact that under the laws of that State naturalized citizens ru·e not allowed to vote unless they are the owners of real 

estate of a certain value. This restriction is placed upon no other 

class. As there is a large foreign population in Rhode Island thA result 

is a great disparity hetween voters and population. Now, sir, as the 

right of suffrage is thus limited-as so many American citizens are thus disfranchised-! maintain that the few who are by law entitled 

to vote ought to be allowed to do so without being compelled to use a ticket of any particular color and without being interfered with in 

any way. 

M:r. BAKER. Let me ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania a 

question. 

Mr. BOYLE. Certainly .. Mr. BAKER. Does it appear how many votes were placed in envelopes? 

Mr. BOYLE. Very few. I do not remember how many there were. Mr. BAKER. Which side; Democratic or Republican? 

Mr. BOYLE. I do not remember any evidence on that subject. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Is there any evidence from the voters themselves 

that they bad been intimidated or bulldozed? 

Mr. BOYLE. Not any. There was evidence that one man going to 

the polls was halted and called back by his employer, and that he had some conversation with him and departed without voting. But,' Mr. 

Speaker, I can not allow interruptions to take up my whole time. 

The committee has decided there was no election, and based their 
._, 

,, 

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1013 

finding on the fact that the evidence shows that enough votes were corl'npted, enough were paid money directly for their votes, to more than 

destroy the apparent majority of the sitting member. 

It seems that under the_ law of Rhode Island the successful candidate 

must have a majority of the whole vote, and it is claimed thatthe contestee had 16 over the combined vote of those who opposed him. The 

chairmau of the committee, depending on the evidence before us, thought 

there was a mist.1>ke in the certificate, and that the majority was only 

3 instead of 16. "Whether this be so or not is immaterial, because the 

evidence is sufficient to dispose of the 16 as well as the 3. 

There is evidence, by voters themselves, as is admitted by the gentlemen who have argued this case, that ten witnesses came forward and 

swore they received money for their votes. Afterward they qualified 

this statement, and said they received money for the time spent in going 

to the election. Well, it is a nice distinction, but not a substantial one. 

I call attention to the fact that the evidence shows it to be the common 

tactics of Republican candidates in Rhode Island to pay a class of voters 

for their vote.~, under pretense of paying them for going to the election. 

One witness swore that he had been a Democrat, but as the Republicans paid men for their time in going to the election and the Democrats 

did not he long ago joined the Republican party, and had since been paid. 

And it appears, and will not be denied, that it is the common practice 

in certain precincts in Rhode Island to so pay voters under pretense of 

paying them for their time. 

It is admitted that ten men were so paid, but I say the direct evidence is that a larger number are shown tohave been paid. Men who 

had been Democrats were paid, and some Republicans were paid. They 

vQted the Pirce ticket that was handed them, and were paid their 

money. They swore to it. Three dollars was the ruling rate. 

Mr. BURROWS. How many? 

Ur. BOYLE. I have not counted, but there were more than sixteen. 

I think the evidence shows there were two or three hundred paid. 

Bot I am speaking of those who admitted they received money. 

l'IIr. ADAMS, of New York. Read them. 

Mr. BOYLE. I will read them. Here is Charles Gardner; he got 

$2 only. He was not up to the prevailing price. 

Mr. ADAMS! of New York. Who paid him? 

Mr. BOYLE. It does not appear who paid in any instance, further 

than that the payments were made by persons working for Pirce. 

Some say they went to At. wood's Hotel and were paid, but do not say 

who paid them. In some cases the parties paying were unknown, and 

in others the parties receiving the money refused to give the name. 

But I will read further the names of those who received money. 

Amos J. Wells received $5; AlbertA.. Johnson got $3; William Bates, 

$3; Frank D. Morse got $3; Cyrus W. Eddy, $3; John G. Marble received only $1. He said he was promised more. Fayette W. Carpenter. $3; William WDcox, $3. 

I will take occasion here to read what Wilcox swore. He said: "I 

do not wish to give the name of the person who gave me the money at 

present. It was paid in the Atwood Hotel. There were p;robably a 

hundred men waiting for their money. It was paid in greenbacks." 

Wilcox understood that he was to receive some money soon after 

the polls were opened, probably within twenty minutes, and then 

goes on to say that there were from one hundred to one hundred and 

twenty-five men who received money. 

Jesse Jinks received $3; John F. Loche said that he received money. 

1\Ir. PHWE. No, sir ; not a dollar. 

Mr. BOYLE. Well, I am reading from the testimony. 

Mr. ROWELL. Loche did not testify to getting any money. He 

is the fellow who testified and mentioned the names of others who 

were paid money for voting. 

Mr. BOYLE. I think that is correct. 

Mr. ELY. But you said that you would give us the names of sixteen who said they received money. 

Mr. BOYLE. I ha.ve not stated that I would give the names ofsixteen who said they had got the money, bot that I would show by the 

proof that more than sixteen were paid. 

Mr. SPOONER. You said you would name them. 

Mr. BOYLE. Well, I am naming them. 

Mr. PAYNE. You have not named more than eight. 

Mr. BOYLE. I have named more than eight, and I am not through 

yet. Here is a man named Padien. 

Mr. PIRCE. Did be get money? 

Mr. BOYLE. No, it was Powers; I had the wrong name before me. 

He got $2. He is the man who claimed that Major Pirce paid him. 

Mr. SPOONER. Should not the gertleman in fairness say that the 

majority of the committee have thrown out all claim that Powers re- ceived any money? 

Mr. BOYLE. I am not conscious of any such action on the part of 

the committee. 

Mr. SPOONER. I understand the report indicates as much on the 

part of the chairman of the committee in his opening remarks. 

Mr. BOYLE. I know of no such action on the part of the committee. I am giving only the evidence as to the payment of money to 

these parties. 

Mr. SPOONER. You know that this man was impeached? 

l'r!r. BOYLE. Yes, I know that; a number of them were impeached, 

but they were also sustained. 

Mr. PIRCE. No, not one was sustained. 

Mr. BOYLE. That is a question. Evidence was given to sustain 

them. 

Mr. ELY. Whose evidence was given to sustain Powers? 

Mr. BOYLE. I do not remember; but one thing is certain, there 

was evidence to sustain his character. But two or three witnesses saw 

Powers go to the outside of the house and come back again with money. 

Mr. ROWELL. . Each of them was thoroughly impeached. 

1\Ir. BOYLE. Oh, yes, pretty much everybody who gave testimony 

against the sitting member was sought to be impeached, but in the 

judgment of the committee the effort was not successful. 

Mr. ELY. Let me ask the gentleman if there was one single witness who testified that he saw.this man go to Mr. Pirce, meet him, and 

come back with the money? If there is such testimony I ask him to 

read it. • 

Mr. BOYLE. I have not the testimony at· hand, but my recollection is that there were at least two witnesses who testified in that way. 

Mr. ROWELL. No, sir; that is a mistake. 

Mr. BOYLE. I believe that one gentleman testified that he sent 

Powers to Pirce, and sent him back the second time, and watched him 

go, and that he returned with the money, and Powers swore Pirce gave 

it to him. 

But, again, here is Michael F. Barry. He testified that he saw Pirce 

pay Powers. He also swore that he saw Frank Dnfty, Charles H. 

Gardner, AlbertA. Cole, John T. Nichols, and Thomas Eagan, all Democrats, go to the polls with Beane, a worker for Pirce, vote, and that 

they were then paid. 

Mr. ROWELL. This man Barry swears he did not. 

Mr. BOYLE. I think not. I read the evidence of Elijah F. Locke 

respecting the vote of Chal'les Gardner. It will be found on page 82 

of the new testimony, as follows: 

Ans. As I arrived at the town-house the 1·unners were on as usual a~ revious 

t{)wn meetings; I see them leading in men; with paper and penc;; taking 

down their names as they voted-that is, I supposed it was their names; I couldn't see them. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon Charles Gardner come to me while standing near the stove in the other room, and asked me to get him a Page ticket. I done so. At the time one of those runners, so called, stepped up and said to Charles H. Gardner: "We are paying two dollars to vote this 

ticket, aud if you will vot~ this ticket you will be all right." 1\Irt Gardner says to me, "What would you do?" He says," I have beeu out of work, am poor, and need the money." I says to Mr. Gardner," Do as you are a mind to; I will 

give no advice." 1.Ir. Gardner went and voted the ticket. That was all I see at that time till along in the afternoon, toward night. , Along at about the time 

the polls closed, either just before or just after, I couldn't say, Mr. Gardner 

showed me a two-dollar bill, which he said he took for his vote. 

Mr. PIRCE. Have you read his evidence? If so, I am satisfied you 

would not comment even on his testimony-a man who had been lying 

in jail. 

Mr. BOYLE. I think the gentleman is hardly warranted in making 

that statement in this connection. . Mr. PIRCE. It is a fact. 

Mr. ELY. And based on the record. 

Mr. BOYLE. It neither elects you nor defeats your election. I 

think it would be better not to comment on a witness in that way. 

Mr. ELY. It is a material pru·t of the record in this case. 

Mr. BOYLE. I do not remember it; but it is not becoming to assa.il 

a witness here by stating facts, which facts, whether true or uot, are 

not essential in the case. 

Here is again the evidence of Edward Sweeney, who says he got $5 

from Martin Evans. He had been a Democrat, but had turned over 

and was working for Pirce, and was buying Democratic votes for him. 

William Dougherty got $-l for his own vote and $1 for working to 

bring in another man. Bernard Allen and Harley Howard we1·e each 

offered $3 to vote for Pirce. Benjamin Pirce, a. near relative of the 

sitting member, paidJamesE. Cahoon$5 for his vote. HenryW. Hall 

was offered $5 by Beane, a Pirce worker, and James E. Bnshe was 

offered money by one Dougherty, a Pirce witness, for his vote. 

But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the most important part of the testimony in this case. It is proved that quite a large number of men who 

had been Democrats in the town called Warwick voted for Major Pirce. 

It is proved that the friends of Major Pirce were active at the polls in 

Warwick during the entire day. It is proved by a number of these 

witnesses that they were paid money-directly proved by some of them; 

while it is proved by others that everything around the polls and at 

the election indicated that money was being paid generally. 

It is proved that this money was paid at a. place called Atwood's 

Hotel, in that town. When this class of voters voted their names 

were put down on a list, and they were told to appear at Atwood's 

Hotel. They did appear there in the evening, and stood outside, between the barn and the house, and their names were called one by one, 

and as their names were called they went into the barn. This was 

proved by several witnesses. I do not say there is any direct evidence 

that money was paid in the barn. I do not recall the testimony of 

any witness to that effect. But these same men who were Democrats, 

who bad voted for Pirce, congregated at this place, and the list was 

called off in the evening between 4 and 5 o'clock, and these men went 

into the bam. 
1.' 

I 

1014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25, 

Mr. ROWELL. Are there more than three of those men who swore they were Democrats? 

Mr. BOYLE. There were one hundred or one hundred and twentyfive of those men who were not sworn at all. They were Democrats, as I understand from the evidence, but they were seen to vote with the 

Republican workers, and reported at Atwood's Hotel in the evening, 

and were called into the barn for some purpose. It was stated by some 

of thewitnesses-I"do not know with what degree of knowledge, but 

they stated it as if they knew it-that these men were paid money in 

the barn. -

In support of this let me read a part of the testimony ot" Oliver J. 

Chappelle, a Republican,' who voted for PmcE. (New testimony, 

page 74:) 

A. I saw no money paid, nor saw no money offered. The only thing that I saw was a. crowd of men congregated in the alley south of my shop, and I saw them pass in and out of the barn as they were called. That's the only thing that 

Isaw. • Q. Who called them? 

A. That I can't say, as I don't know. . Q. How, then, do you know that they were called at all ? 

A. I couJd hear the man call and see t-hem go in. 

Q. 'Vere these men so-cn.l.led voters in Apponaug? A. I don't know. 

Q. "\Vill you name any of those who were so called, if you knew any of 

them? . A. I do not remembel' the names that I heard called. 

The SPEAKER pt·o tempore [Ur. EDEN]. The gentleman from 

Pennsylvania [Mr. BOYLE] has occupied half an hour. 

Mr. TURNER. I ask that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for 

five minutes more. 

Mr. BOYLE. So it appears from this testimony of Republicans, as well as of Demom·ats, that this crowd of men appeared at Atwood's 

Hotel that evening, and were called into the barn, and it appears from 

the testimony of several of other witnesses that money was paid at Atwood's Hotel. That that was the paying place. 

Now, I submit we have shown direct payment to more than enough, as proved by the parties themselves and by those who saw money paid, 

to destroy the 16 majority which is claimed for Major Pirce. But 

in addition to that we have this other te..<rtimony, which to meisofthe 

most satisfactory character, when you take into aecount all the circumstances and facts, thab they were Democrats, that they voted for Pirce, 

that their names were put on the list, that they reported at Atwood's 

Hotel in the evening, that their names were called, that they went in, 

and that they came out one by one, and that it was generally understood they were there to be paid, it seems to me a good case has been 

made out . . That seems to me to be satisfactory proof in support of the 

general testimony that money was paid at the barn that evening. 

Mr. LONG. Are the names of those parties given? 

Mr. BOYLE. They are not. · · 

Mr. LONG. Ought there not to be a specification of names? 

Mr. BOYLE. I think not. I think it might be competent to prove a man was paid, even ifyou did not know who he was; and if you saw a crowd of one hundred and twenty-five gathered in a certain place un- der the circumstances I have named it might be difficult to give the names of any of them and impossible to name all. 

Mr. LONG. I think if that charge be true, there ought t{) be a specification of names. If no names are mentioned, does that fact not show 

that the charge is mere hearsay? 

?tlr. BOYLE. No, sir; the men say they saw it. Mr. Chappelle, who 

has a shop close by the barn, stood there and heard the names called 

and saw the men go in. He said he would not say the money was paid; he was not in the barn. Their names were called, they went in, 

and it is proved by some of the witnesses that some of the men said 

they were paid. 

Mr. LONG. That is mere hearsay. 

1\Ir. BOYLE. Yes. 

Mr. GALLINGER. How does the vote of t~t precinct compare 

with former votes relatively as between Democrats and Republicans? 

Mr. BOYLE. I do not know. That would not be material evidence 

in this case for this reason, that a large part of the Republican party 

in Mr. Pirce's district was opposed to him. It is a strong Republican 

district, and his nomination was unsatisfactory to the party in the district, and he encountered much opposition. . Mr. ROWELL. Is it not true that at this precinct Mr. Pirce ran 

ahead of his ticket? 

Mr. BOYLE. Probably it is. 

?!Ir. ROWELL. Is it not true the manufacturers of that district came and testified they did not favor Mr. Pirce's election? 

Mr. BOYLE. A. good many of the manufacturers did not favor Mr. 

Pirce. I have said that there was a large part of the Republican party 

that did not favor him, and, therefore, if he had not had this Democratic contingent, secured iri. some way, he would probably have been 

beaten in the election. · 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the committee founds its report upon the fact 

which I have last attempted to present to the Honse, namely, that the 

vote in that district was corrupted to a sufficient extent to overcome Pirce's apparent majority, nnd to vitiate the election; that more than 

sixteen men, and, as we think, several hundred, were induced to vote 

fo! 1\lr. Pirce by a money consideration: If these are the facts, and I 

believe they are, Ur. Pirce was not elected; and the least the committee 

could do was to so declare. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the question now before the House for consideration can not be over-estimated, and before 

noticing the arguments .adduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

[Mr. BOYLE] in support of the majority report of the Committee on Elections, I will call the attention of the Honse to some of the facts in 

the case which are undisputed. It is admitted by all, that, in the 

Congressional district in question, there were 15,476 Totes cast, of which 

number Mr. Pirce, the sitting member, received 7,746, and that 'Mr. 

Page, the contestant, received 5,995 votes, which was 1,751less than 

the number received by:contestee. It is also admitted that, under the 

laws of the State of Rhode Island, the contestee must secure his election 

by a majority of all the votes cast at the Congressional election. Besides the contestee, there was a temperance candidate, who received at 

that election something more than 1,500 votes; and, in addition, there were a number of scattering Totes cast. . · . 

It is admitted, however, that Mr. Pirce receiTed 16 votes more than 

the combined votes of all the other candidates. 111r. Page has made 

his contest upon two charges: first, intimidation; and, second, bribery. 

The intimidation was alleged upon the ground which has been stated 

by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BoYLE], namely, that Mr. 

Pirce or his supporters used a tinted or straw-colored ticket. 

So far as this Honse is concerned I maintain that that question is 1·es 

adjudicata. Contestee has admitted from the first the use of these colored tickets. He has not only admitted the use of these colored tickets, 

but has defended his right to use them and their legality under the 

laws oJ Rhode Island. A.t the time that the majority of the Committee on Elections reported to this Honse, during the last session, their res- olution holding jurisdiction ofthiscaseand recommending that time be 

given contestee t{) cross-examine the witnesses whose depositions had 

been taken in this cause, ex parte, by contestant this fact of the use of 

colored tickets was as well known to the committee and members of 

this House as it is now; and if the members of the committee had believed there was any force in the proposition which is now made by the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. [Mr. BOYLE] that the use of these colored tickets served to intimi<.!ate voters they would at that time have 

:recommended that the House· throw out the seven thousand and odd 

votes cast for Mr. Pirce, and to have then and there ended this contest. . The fact that, instead of insisting that the use of this colored ticket was sufficient to invalidate the vote for Pirce, they permitted this contest to go on is enough to esrop them now from rai&ing that question, 

and so far as I am concern~d I shall occupy no fnrther time in discussing that braneh of the case. 

It is admitted, that, under the constitution of ihe State of Rhode 

Island, the ticket is not required to be of any particular color, size, or form, but the option is left with the voter to vote the open ticket or to 

putit in an envelope, sealit, and then deposit it in the ballot-box. The 

point further raised by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [.l'tl1·. BoYLE], that men who employed. large numbers of operatives were around the polls to sec that their men voted as they desired, is, 

it seems to me, without force. Men have a right to use honorable 

argument to influence voters at election. 

A. man of standing and cllltracter in the community will be sure to 

have influence, and if that influence is used fairly no man has a right 

to complain. .I assert what will not be denied, that in no instance 

does the evidence show that any of these operatives were influenced 

by intimidation, or by coercion upon the part of an employer to vote 

against their political preferences or convictions. The only evidence 

that even looks that way is the testimony of a man by the name of 

Garland, who had a number of men in his employ upon the highway; 

yet that man, who appears a swift witness in the interest of the con- testant, states distinctly that the only influence he used was to·request 

the men under him to vote a certain way. He denies that he used 

money; he denies that he used any other influence than the influence 

of requesting these men to vote. 

Now, I maintain that if that is the kind of influence he used, it is not 

such influence as would j nstifY tpe Honse in throwing out any of the 

votes cast in any of these precincts. But even that evidence, we claim 

upon the part of the minority of the committee, is not of a character 

that should be considered by the Honse. When this case was before 

the Honse during the first session of this Congress, thirty days were given the contestee to cross-examine these witnesses upon whose evidence contestant predicated his claim, and ten days additional time was allowed for the contestant to put in his rebutting evidence. Instead 

of following the order of the House and taking the ten days that were 

allowed to rebut the testimony taken by Mr. Pirce, the contestant 

occupied that time in introducing original evidence upon new questions 

that were not presented in the first instance. 

The testimony of this man Garland, who had charge of the men on the highways, is of this character, and if the Honse will enforce the 

well-known rules of law that pertain to matters of this kind the evidence 

of that man will be entirely excluded. Take that evidence out of the 

case, and there is nothing left on the question of intimidation. But 

there is a. further point that I desire to call attention to, one which it seems to me completely rebuts the idea that ::my of the voters in this 
1887; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1015 

Congressional district were intimidrr;ted or compelled to vote against 

their political convictions. 

It appears from the proofs in the case that in the State of Rhode Island they vote for the Presidential electors upon one ticket and for member of Congress upon another. There is no claim that any undue in-

:fiuence was used in regard to the Presidential ticket. There is no claim 

that there was anything but a fair, free, and open ballot to every voter 

in that district, so far as the Presidential question was concerned. Now, 

when this notice of contest was served by Mr. Page upon the contestee, 

he selected six different >oting precincts where he claimed that intimidation had taken place; namely, the townships of Johnston, South 

Kingston, Westerly, Scituate, Pawtucket, Foster, Warwick, and Burrillville. In these townships :Mr. Pirce's vore was less, in almost every 

instance, than the vote cast for the Republican Presidential ticket. Take 

the township of Johnston. l\1r. Blaine received in that township, ac- cording to the tabulated statement of the vote I now have before me, 

486 votes; while Mr. Pirce, the Republican candidate for Congress, re- ceived only 450. Now if there were 486 Repn blican voters in that township, and l\1r. Pirce received only 450 Republican votes, it does not look as though many Democrats who were employed in these mills and factories located in that township were coerced into voting for him. In 

South Kingston Mr. Blaine received 476 votes, Mr. Pirce 467; in Westerly, l\1r. Blaine 569, Mr. Pirce 569; in Scituate, Mr. Blaine 328, Mr. 

Pirce 259; in Pawtucket, Mr. Blaine 1, 589, Mr. Pirce 1, 302; in Foster, 

Mr. Blaine 178, Mr. Pirce 161; in Warwick, Mr. Blaine 884, and :Mr. 

Pirce 434; in Burrillville, Mr. Blaine 355, Mr. Pirce 342. 

By this tabulated statement ofthevoteofthese towns, it appears that 

Mr. Pirceran behind his ticket867 votes. What kind of intimidation is 

that which causes the person in whose favor it is exercised to lose 867votes? 

In these same towns Mr. Page ran 31 votes ahead of Mr. Cleveland. 

Where, then, is the intimidation? There is no claim here that any 

intimidation was used to procure votes for the Republican Presidential 

ticket as against the Cle>eland ticket. I repeat, and I desire to en- force the matter upon the attention of the members of this House, that 

this contestant who claims that voters were intimidated from voting 

for him, ran 31 votes ahead of the Cleveland Presidential ticket. · But tl1e most of the intimidation that is claimed to have been used 

is charged to have occurred in the township of Warwick. In that 

township, as I have shown, Mr. Pirce ran 446 votes behind the Republican Presidential ticket; and to show that there is no force whatever 

in this charge of intimidation, I call attention to the fact that in this 

township P1·esident Cleveland received only 494 votes, while :Mr. Page 

received 510. In the township of Burrill ville, where it is claimed there was some intimidation, the evidence which was produced before the 

committee shows that if intimidation wa,s used, it was in favor of the 

contestant. 

Tbere is another question to which I desire to call the attention of 

members of the House. If intimidation was used here, and if men were 

kept from voting in accordance with their political convictions, why 

has not the majority of the Committee on Elections shown to the Honse 

by their report the number of voters that were intimidated? In all this 

vast array of votes, why have not the committee produced some wit- ness to say he voted against his political convictions because of a fea,r 

of offending the person in whose employ he was? Not a >oter of this 

kind has been produced; but, on the contrary, the contestee in this 

case, during the time limited under the rules of the Honse, produced 

witness after witness to show that in none of those voting precincts wa.s any intimidation whatever used, and that the men went to the ballot-bo~es and deposited their votes in accordance with their political convictions and personal preference,s. 

Now, as to bribery, which has already been referred to by my colleague on the committee, I desire still further to call attention t<> the 

character of the evidence on that subject. I think the majority ofthe 

Election Committee agree that so far as Mr. Pirce is personally concerned his course has been honorable. There is no evidence, as I un- derstand it, in which the majority of the committee place any credence 

which impugns the character or tbe conduct of contestee. The bribery, 

if there was any in ibis case, came from third parties entirely discon-· nected from the sitting member. Now, what is the character of that 

evidence? It is limited, as has been already stated, to ten persons 

whose testimony was taken. What is the character of their evidence? 

The first witness, whose evidence is incorporated in the report of the 

majority of the Committee on Elections, swears that he received two or three dollars for his vote. This is the testimony of a man who had 

lived in the voting precinct for a number of years, yet he claims he 

does not know from whom it was he _received the money; he can not 

-tell anything about it. Just so with each of these witnesses. 

They are evidently ignorant men and unreliable witnesses. They are made to say in their ex parte depositions, presented on behalf of 

contestant, that they received money for voting for Mr. Pirce. There 

is a similarity in their language on the question of t}le receipt of 

money which is a little remarkable if we assume that the language 

was taken down as expressed by them severally. But it is explained 

by one of these witnesses in his cross-examination where he says in 

substance that he made certain statements in his previous examination 

under the direction of a man in the interest of contestant. The 

members ofthe Honse will bear in mind the fact that~ll of these witnesses who swear to the fact of receiving money for voting for con- testee gave their evidence of such alleged bribery, not in the presence 

of contestee and his attorney, but purely ex jJarte. They did not 

understand the nature or character of their evidence, or, if they did, 

they are so utterly unreliable, as shown from their cross-examilli'l.tions 

taken several months after their examination-in-chief under the order 

of this Honse, that no man's rights should be imperiled by their evidence. With the exception of two witnesses, namely, Wilcox and 

Jenks, they state in their cross-examinations that they received no money whatever for voting for Mr. Pirce, but that the two or three 

dollars received by them ea~h was for payment for lost time. 

For example, this question was asked Cyrus W. Eddy, one of these 

alleged bribed witnesses: 

Q. Do you know of any person who voted at that election for l\lr. Pirce con- trary to his political convictions because of the use of money? 

A. No, sir. • 

Question by counsel for contestant: 

Do you now wish to be understood as swearing that the $3 you say you re- ceived on election day was paid you for your time as indicated by your answer to cross-question two? A. Yes, sir. 

Another alleged bribed witness, by the name of Johnson, testifies in 

substance the same as Eddy. And another, by the name of Carpenter, 

said: 

I received $3 for coming down to town-meeting, as they called it. I have always been in the habit of being paid for coming down to town-meeting. I have 

always had to get some one to take my place when I came down. 

And in answer toquestio~ propounded by counsel for contestant the 

following appears in the evidence of this man Carpenter: 

Q. If you bad voted for 1.\Ir, Page at that election instead of for Mr. Pirce, 

would you have expected any money for voting or going to town-meeting, as you call it? A. Yes, sir; I suppose tbey would have paid me for coming down. 

Q. When you use the term'' they," whom do you mean? Give the nam<:-. A. 1\Ir. Page, Democratic party. 

These men are, some fishermen, others sailors, and some, I was about 

to remark, stevedores. At any rate, they are n(Jt men who seem to 

appreciate the honor of American citizenship. There was no bargain 

and sale with any of them, u.s I understand their testimony, that they 

should vote for Ur. Pirce. Just after they had exercised their right 

of elective franchise and their personal preferences, they insisted that 

they should be paid for their time, or lost day, as is shown by the testimony of Carpenter, to which I have just called the attention of the 

House. They did not vote differently from their political convictions 

and pel'Sonal preferences. 

Now, without stopping to argue the 'morale of these voters, I maintain that Mr. Pirce should not lose his right to a seat in this House on such evidence. In every instance but one these men affirm that they 

do not know the person who paid them or who fur..1isbed the money. 

I claim that it was the duty of contestant, that if he relied upon these 

witnesses, or any one of them, to establish his charge of bribery, that 

he should have followed up the charge of the use of money to some tangible person. How could contestee dispute such evidence? No man is named (with the one exception which I will refer to later on) as the 

briber. All Mr. Pirce could do was what he in fact did do, and that was to take the witness stand in his own behalf and show that he 

neither personally nor by an agent used any money to secure Yoters for 

himself at the election. Now, I have just stated that there was one exception as to these bribe-taking witnesses. That was a man by the name of Locke. He claimed that he received $3 for his vote and named 

the person from whom he received the money, and also named three 

other men whom he claimed were using money to secure votes for 1\fr. 

Pirce. This man Locke was squarely and fully contradicted by these 

four men whom he named and was placed in such a light by their testimony as to show him to be not only an unreliable witness, but a con- summate scoundrel. 

This was the only man who swore to having received money, who 

put himself in a position where his truthfulness could be tested, and 

he was impeached by the testiiD.onyofa classofwitnesseswhosefrankness, candor, and intelligence commend them to the favorable consideration· of the members of this Honse. But if these alleged purchased 

votes should be thrown out Mr. Pirce would still have a majority of 

all the votes cast at the election. It is true that Wilcox: and Jinks 

tried to testifY that a hundred or more men formed in line down at 

Atwood's barn and were paid for their votes. There are two objections 

to the testimony of these men. They refused, as the record shows, to 

respond to snbpamas of contestee and submit themselves to a cross-ex- amination. That is enough, if the Honse is. inclined to enforce the law 

to exclude their testimony from consideration. If they were honest 

\vitnesses they would not refuse to have their credibility tested by a cross-examination of the testimony they gave on behalf of contestant. 

All lawyers know that the right of cross-examination is the safeguard of litigants' rights. It is regarded so sacred that the courts 

have uniformly held that a witness who refuses either on his own volition or under the direction of the party on whose behalf he testifies to 

submit to a cross-examination, shall have his testimony-in-chief ex- cluded from any consideration. Again their evidence comes in such 
1016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25, 

"questionable shape" that any man should hesita.te to place any reliance upon their statements. They "think " and they "suppose" is 

about all there is to their evidence. If what they suppose were true a wealth of evidence could have been produced by contestant to substantiate it. The fact that contestant has left so important a matter 

to be established by such shadowy and unsatisfactory suppositions is 

evidence to my mind that there is no truth in his charge whatever. 

These so-called bribed witnesses are a "beggarly lot" at best-fit followers and associates of Sir John Falstaff. 

I see the time allotted to me in the consideration of this case, by the 

House,:ha-s expired. If I believed that there was any truth in the 

charge of contestant of intimidation and bribery in this case I should 

vote to linseat the sitting member. But a careful examination of the 

evidence satisfies me that there is no truth in these charges and that 

this contest, so far as Mr. Page, the contestant, is concerned, is frivolous. Over 7,000 voters in this Congressional district in Rhode Island 

have expressed a preference for Mr. Pirce to represent them in this Congress. They constitute a majority of the voters at the election in question. We have no right to disregard their choice or to disfranchise 

them by depriving Mr. Pirce of his seat on the :floor of this Honse, and I 

appeal to the members upon the other side of this Honse to lay aside 

party prejudice and sustain Mr. Pirce in his right to his seat by voting 

for the substitute resolution offered by the Republican members of the 

Election Committee. 

Mr. PETTIBONE. Ur. Speaker, this case from the beginning seems 

to have embraced within itself a comedy of errors. In the first place we have seen that the party making the contest did not summon a witness until after the lapse of the ninety day.s within which he could take 

his testimony under the law of the land, which expresslydeclaresthat 

the testimony shall be taken within ninety days from the filing of the 

contestee's answer to the notice of contest. 

Upon that subject one word and that will settle it. Mr. Page swears there was an arrangement made by which the taking of testimony 

should not be confined to the ninety days only which the law allows. 

The attorney for Mr. Pirce, under oath, states as follows: 

I was fully aware of the limitation of time upon each party. 

He knew as a lawyer that the testimony must be taken within ninety 

days. He knew Mr. Page was a lawyer. What did be do? He said, 

"I agreed, if it should happen during the taking of the testimony an 

engagement of either one of us in court should interfere with the day 

:fixed for taking testimony in said contest, we would mutually accommodate each other." Then be swears ''we never had but one conversation and that was the whole of it." 

Now, sir, think of two lawyers, knowing the law was impemtive 

that they must take the testimony in ninety days, of one going to the 

other in this way! Underthose circumstances is it a likelystOiy? Is 

it likely one said to the other "I agree, if we have engagements in 

court we will fix on other days without reg.tl'd to the ninety days?" 

Is it likely he said that, when he knew at the same time they must 

take this testimony in ninety days? So they stand, the two stories 

face to face, both of the witnesses lawyers, neither impeached unless he 

impeaches theother, and I put it tothe lawyers of this House that this man Page did not expect to figure up his election to Congress. · 

What next did the contestant do? We find Mr. Page, within that 

ninety days, running for the position of state senator in Rhode Island. 

He was elected to that position and took his seat. Then, when thesession was over, and whenbereturnedagain to private life, he served notice 

to take testimony, after the ninety days had run out, on his notice of 

contest. 

Will any gentleman d"eny this proposition? 

Now Mr. Pirce, knowing he could not be summoned under those circmn~tances knowing that if this man was a member of the Legislature of Rhod~ Island be could not bold a seat upon this :floor, he disregarded, as he had a right to do, this summons or notice to take testimony. 

Then, the testimony having been taken-mere ex parte affidavits, I 

insist, as I did in committee-we should, if the majority of the com- mittee insisted this case should be looked into, send a commission down 

to Rhode Island to take this testimony and bring the witnesses and 

parties face to face. But instead of that, Mr. Pirc~ was simp~y given 

the privilege to go to Rhode Island and cross-exalllllle, as he d1d, such 

of contestant's witnesses as he could find. · 

Now, upon this subject of intim~dation, before I proceed further, 

allow me to say that the majority of the committee in their report 

pushed that matter out from under the discussion. What do they say? 

The ma:iority of the committee say in their report: "While it was 

likely that voters under the domination of Republican employers were 

deterred from voting for Mr. Page, there was no evidence before the 

committee defining the measure of this influence or estimating its 

effect.'' Ancl so, sir, if there was no evidence, but mere suspicion, I 

take it we can clismiss that matter from this discussion. 

Then what next do we have? The next point in this comedy of er- l'ors is this: A manifest error in printing, changing 9 into a cipher, 

deprived Mr. Pirce of his majority of 16. The majority of the com- mittee say instead of 16 he only had a majority of 3 on the face of theretorn. Bot there was evidence before the committee which would have 

shown that mistake in the printing. What is it? The certificate is as follows: 

I, Joshua A . .Addeman, secretary of the State aforesaid, hereby certify. 

And then it goes on to give the table upon which the maj9rity in 

their repod rely. What further does he say? "I certify." What? 

This is a true copy of so much of the tabulated statement of votes 

cast as relates to the second Congressional district of Rhode Island. 

He certifies it is a copy of the tabulated statement of the votes cast for 

Representative in the Forty-ninth Congress. 

When we come to that tabulated statement, which is presented to us 

here in the testimony taken by Mr. Page, we find the figures are 70 instead of 79 for this town of Hopkinton. And this shows that Pirce's 

true majority was 16, as the grand committee in the tabulated statement declared and as is now admitted. And since the majority report 

shows the charge of intimidation is absurd, then the case is narrowed 

down to votes that can be thrown out by means of proof showing they 

had been bribed. If more than 16 votes can be shown to have been 

bribed votes, Mr. Pirce can rightfully be unseated; otherwise he can not 

be. 

And that leads me to the next consideration. The majol'ity of the 

committee have presented in their reports the names of ten persons, 

Charles C. Gardner, Alfred Johnson, Cyrus W. Eddy, Fayette W. 

Carpenter, William Wilcox, Jesse Jinks, William Bates, James E. 

Cahoone, John Garland, and H. S. Curtiss. · Their testimony is set out in h.rec verba. But admit that all these 

were bribed-yet there are only ten. And six more will be required; 

and the names of those six are not forthcoming. 

Let us examine some of these and see what they have to say and the 

character of their testimony. I take up the case first of this man John- son. Johnson in his first examination, when he swears to that statement, which was really an ex parte affidavit, made this statement: 

I voted for 1\Ir. Pirce. I myself received $3 for voting for him; but I do not know the name of the person who paid me the money. I know him sim:p1y by sight. He said he belonged to the Republican party and was working m the 

interest of Mr. Pirce. 

At another point in his testimony he says that this person, not named, 

at Atwood's Hotel gave him $3 for voting for Mr. Pirce. This same 

man, although he had lived for years and years in that town, was not 

able to tell who it was who gave it t.o him. Then this question was 

asked him: 

To what political party do you belo:1g? 

He responds: 

To the Democratic party. 

Now, on cr~examination this same witness-and it shows what the 

result would have been if Mr. Pirce had had the privilege of going 

with a committee of this House to examine these men for the purpose 

of letting the light into the testimony which they had given theretofore on that cross-examination-says, in response to this question: 

What did you say about this question of bribery in your testimony in July, 1885? A ns. I said that I did not understand that I got the~ for voting for Mr. Pil·cc, 

but for going down there. 

Now we find that this man swears himself down. But let us go an- other step forward. The question is asked him if at any time within 

the last five years he ever voted the Democratic ticket in that town, and 

he answers: 

I think not. 

The intention was to make it appear that he had always been aDemocrat, had not voted any other than the Democratic ticket within the 

last five years, bti.t he was told when he went on the stand by someone to make that e.1: parte affidavit, that he must understand then that he 

had always been a Democrat, and when questioned he was to swear that he had been. But a little further the question is asked him: 

What is the man's name t}lat said this to you? 

· He answered: 

James Brown. 

Now another step. He was asked this question: 

.And you have voted for William .A. Pirce, Republican candidate for Cotigres9 at that election, and only recei>ed that money for going to the election ? 

.Ans. Yes. sir. 

This man is one of a number who swore that if not a single one had 

been paid, they would have voted as they did. This is the man who was told that he must say that he had been always a Democrat, and 

yet it turned out that he had not voted that ticket in five years. 

But now, Mr. Speaker, when we come to this man's testimony taken 

finally, we find the names of the persons who were really at Atwood's 

Hotel to have been William C. Jenkins, William Kinnecome, and 

Thomas Aldrich, men who are not impeached. These men came. upon 

the stand and positively swore that they did not use any persuasiOn on that day, and did not pay any one to vote for anybody. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. EDEN in the chair). The time of 

the gentleman from Tennessee has expired. 

Mr. PETTIBONE. I should like to have had an opportunity of 

going a little further into this testimony. 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1017 

Mr. HOPKINS. I yield twenty minutes to t.he gentleman from 

:Uassachnsetts [Mr. ELY]. 

Mr. ELY. Mr. Speaker, I presume it would be no secret for me to 

sa.y that I, more than any other member of the Committee on Elections, am responsible for the fact that a. majority report adverse to the sitting 

member in this case has come into this House. I desire, therefore, in 

the few moments given tome to state the reason why in the first place 

I conceded that this case deserved a further consideration, and, secondly, 

why it is that I am now heartily, sincerely, honestly, and conscientiously 

with the minority of the committee. 

I believe, without a. shadow of doubt, that Mr. Pirce ought to retain 

the seat which he has occupied during the greater part of this Congress with credit to himself. The ex parte evidence which was originally filed in this case, and to which reference has been so often made, 

brought to the attention of the Committee on Elections these facts-it 

did not prove them, it was largely hearsay, it was ex parte at the best. 

It was extorted from witnesses by direct questions which would disgrace any lawyer in the land. 

But it did bring to the attention of the committee these allegations, 

that in ten individual cases men had been pais! for voting at the election at which Mr. Pirce was elected a member of Congress. That, by 

hearsay testimony, from one hundred to one hundred and twenty-five 

men were marched into line at a barn and received money; that the sitting member paid a voter some time after he voted $2; th~t a manufact- urer in one of these towns employing a large number of men stood behind the moderator at the town meeting and carefully watched and 

· scriltinized the votes that every one of his men east. These allegations, 

it is true, came to the Committee on Elections in e.1: parte affidavits. But, 

although not established by legal evidence, they charged, under the 

sanction of an oath, bribery and intimidation. No election procured 

by either can ever receive my countenance or support. Both are despicable. I know not which is the most so. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, Ifavoredameasure by which these charges 

might be thoroughly investigated within the provisions of law. That measure was, after a fair debate, overruled by the Honse. With that 

decision I have no fault to find, and I submit with cheerfulness to the 

wisdom of the House. But the -effect which I anticipated from that 

action of the House has transpired, and it is, I believe, because the majority report at that time was received and accepted, and the minority 

report rejected, that there is any doubtwbatsoeverconcerningthis case 

at the present time. 

We begged for forty days for Mr. Pirce to take his testimony and 

only thirty were granted. With diligence and with activity he availed 

himself of the time that was given him and occupied it all to the very 

last dav. What did he do? A.nd I beg the attention of the Honse to 

these facts, because they bear very materially upon the question which 

you are to decide. He did what you or any me~er of this House 

would have done. He first took in hand this testimony in his own town and against him personally, in which he was charged with bribery; and I shall show you, if I have the time, that he refuted it and 

proved the witness to be one of the worst perjurers that ever walked 

the face of God's earth by an amount of testimony that was perfectly 

overwhelming. He then began to go around the district as rapidly as he could, and every witness that Mr. Page bad produced, and on whose 

testimony be rested his case, fell before him, as the liar always must 

fall before the honest man when his testimony is scrutinized and exposed to the light of day. 

Now, why was it that he did not refute the rest? Why was there one of these perjured witnesses that hJls not been proved to be perjured? It was simply and' solely, I believe-! speak of material witnesses now, and not of the few in this record who testified to nothing 

except the color of lliese ballots and their opinion of its influence on the voters-it was simply and solely, I believe, because Mr. Pirce had 

not time within the order of the Honse to produce and examine the 

requisite witnesses. 

This is an important consideration, and can not be lost sight of by 

any man who would decide this case impartially. 

This result I clearly foresaw, and called to the attention of the House 

when the resolution authorizing Mr. Pirce to take testimony was before 

the House on the 4th of May last. In some remarks I then had the 

honor to make I saidYr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House to the resolution offered 

by the majority of the committee. The objections to it are patent and grave. I claim that it is utterly unfair and unjust toward l\Ir. Pirce, the sitting member, 

and, in my judgment, it will, if adopted, defeat the ends of justice. 

First, as to time. Under the law on the statute·book, a law which we have 

sanctioned this year by the adoption of an amendment to it, a law which has 

been on the statute-book for many ye.a.rs and is known to a.ll the people of the 

land, a law which is just and reasonable and which provides an orderly method 

of conducting these contests, the contestee cross-examines the contestant's wit- nesst>s in contestant's forty days and then has forty days for taking his own tes- timony The resolution requires him t-o resubprenaandcross-examinecontestant's witnesses and take any testimony he may desire in thirty days from the passage of the resolution. Suppose the resolution passes t-o-day, certainly Mr. Pirce acting with great diligence could not be expected to return to Rhode Island, secure a proper officer to take testimony, procure a subprena. and have it served on one of the witnesses before day after to-morrow. The witness mnst be served 

with the subprena five days before the day on which his attendance is required 

Thus at the ea.rliest;seven days of the thirty are exhausted before a word of cross- examination can be taken. And this leaves no margin for any of the inevitable 

accidents and delays necessarily incident to legal proceedings. Of the twentythree days remaining three at least are Sundays. He then has twenty days to cross-examine how many witnes'!Cs? Forty-six. And in the same time also to examine in chief his own witnesses and submit them to the cross-examination 

of Mr. Page. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the members on the other sideot'thisHouse 

desire to deal justly with Mr. Pirce. You bold it practically in your hands t-o do with him as you will, but I believe you desire all the more on that account to be just to him. I desire to inquire if there is a lawyer in this House who says that this is a reasonable time for this great work. Now, what is the action of our friends of the majority of the committee when they come to deal with the 

contestant? I maintain and ask you, with all the emphasis of which I am capa- ble to aid me in maintaining that in this contest the contestant and contestee shS:n be placed on a par, although the one is in the minority and in your hands to do with as you like, while the other is in the majority. I nsk, what is your action when you come to deal with the contestant? Do you restrict him at all? 

Ob no. He is given the full statute time of ten days within which to put in his 

reb'uttal. It is not fair, is it? 

The sequel proves the correctness of the position I then took. A 

great wrong was done to Mr. Pirce. Unintentionally, I am sure, but 

nevertheless a great wrong. I then said that the resolution then pending would, if adopted, defeat the ends of justice. And now it is written. on every page of this record in characters so plain that he who runs may read. It has defeated the ends of justice. 

Again, the conduct of this case by the contestant must not be lost 

sight of by him w bo candidly desires to find the truth. Since the answer of the contestee was filed, every provision of law has been trampled 

down by Mr. Page. No one has escaped. Every statute of the United 

States has been set at naught by him. In the taking of his testimony 

he ignored all rules of evidence, rules so well established that every intelligent citizen is familiar with them, whether he be a lawyer or not. 

Indeed, the majority of the Committee on Elections admit it in their re- port. It is, indeed, true, as they say, "the illegal test.imony is easily 

detect-ed." They might with equal truth have added that it covers 

most of the testimony relied on by Mr. Page. 

Mr. Speaker, it is not too much to say that the manner in which 1\.fr. 

Page or his lawyer asked.questions, and the form of his questions (all 

done in the absence of Mr. Pirce), led the witnesses to give wrong an- swers and frequently false answers. Let me give a single illustration- one of many that I might cite. :Mr. Page attempts to prove intimidation in the town10f Westerly, by showing, by oral testimony, the con- tents of a circularsigned by the Rhode Island Granite Works and the 

Smith Granite Works and by somebody passed around to the employes 

of those corporations. He does not prove that; he can not produce one 

of the circulars. But be asked Mr. John J. Carney, one of his witnesses, this question: "Do you recollect whether these circulars con- tained lan,guage conveying the idea to the voters that it would be to 

the interest of the voter to vote in accordance with the request contained in the circular?" Mr. Carney answers, "Yes, sir; I believe it 

did." Mr. Thomas W. Legar, a leading man and prominent Democrat 

who has twice been the Democratic candidate for governor of Rhode 

Island, a witness called by Mr. Page, evidently referring to the same circular, says: "I saw a hand-bill which they said was circulated about 

the quarries, asking the voters to vote against the Democratic candidate 

for Congress, as it was for their (the owners') interest for them so to 

vote." Thus Mr. Carney was made, unintentionally, as I hope, by Mr. 

Page's leading question to give a false answer. But, Mr. Speaker, these objections to the credibility of Mr. Page's 

witnesses, weighty as they are, are insignificant when compared with 

the serious and wicked proceeding to which it now becomes my duty 

to invite the attention of the House. In one instance, at least, one of 

Mr. Page's witnesses, a witness on whom the majority of the Committee on Elections rely, was instructed what he must swear to in order 

to make a case for Mr. Page, and be does swear to it; months aft~rward, though, he admits that it was false, and says, "I did, for a guy; 

I was led into it in the first place to swear to it.'' Who led the wit- ness into telling a lie under oath? It was the man who came after him 

to give his testimony for Mr. Page. Now, I think comment is unnecessary, but I will say that when such corrupt practices as this are detected, and when the witnesses on whom the contestant relies to prove 

his case are men confessedly of corrupt character, I can not believe any one of them. 

It is not safe, it is not reasonable, to place any reliance on their testimony. Let me make this point as clear as I can. It is both admitted 

and proved that the witnesses who testify to bribery are shamelessly 

corrupt and worthless. It is also clear that they are in intimate 

league, both offensive and defensive, with Mr. Page. He conjures with 

them at his own sweet will and pleasure. They come at his call. 

They remain away at his pleasure. They answer to suit his questions. 

They refuse to answer when the answer will injure his case or when 

the answer will disclose the ineans of refuting their testimony. At 

least one of them is instructed what he must testify in order to maintain Page's case; and he does swe.'ll' to it, aJtbough it is false. A.ll 

these wit.nesses were subject to the same influences. There is every reason to believe that they yielded to it. . 

Now, it is to be observed that it is the evidence given by such witnesses that is cited in the report of the majority of the Committee on 

Elections. All other testimony is rejected. Why was this done? I 

decline to answer this question; but I assert that it makes that report unreliable. A.ll the evidence in a cause must be considered in 

order to find the truth. All the evidence must be weighed together. 
1018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25, 

As a fair !Statement of the whole case I will annex to my remarks 

the report submitted by the minority of the Committee on Elections. 

But I desire to call the attention of the House to the whole testimony 

in detail and from the record to determine the worth of each witness separately. 

The charges, Mr. Spea,ker, ru·e bribery and intimidation. I will begin with bribery, and in reviewing the testimony I will take first this 

John H. Powers, who says that Mr. Pirce paid him $2. He says he 

went to him three times. He told him he had already voted for him. 

The first time Mr. Pirce refused to give him any money. He went 

again. Mr. Pirce again refused. He went a third time and followed 

him out of doors, and after all that solicitation he said that Mr. Pirce 

gave him $2. Was that bribery? No, sir; but for the purposes of this 

arp;ument admit that it was; we will not quibble about terms. If money was paid before or after voting or for the vote or for lost time, I will 

consent to the most unfavorable construction that can be put upon it. But who-was this John H. Powers? .In the first pla<;:e his testimony 

is contradicted by ?t!artin Padien, a loom operator, not a manufacturer, 

but a laboring man; by Martin Winsor, a Democrat, but a Pirce man, a man who had been elected a member of the General Assembly ofRhode 

Island on the Democratic ticket; had also been an assessm· of taxes, 

been appointed justice of the peace, and elected surveyor of highways, 

and to many other offices; all by Democratic votes, and he comes l1ere 

and denies emphatically what this man Powers says. 

Now, what is the ch.:·uaeterof this man Powers, as testified to by everybody in his neighborhood, men of the highest repute and of all occu- pations? It is declaredthathischaracterfortruth is bad-someofthem 

say the worst. That is the testimony of the following witnesses, all of 

them having known him for a series of _years: By William A. Phillips, 

trial justice of the town; by Charles E. Lincoln, journalist, correspondent of the Providence Journal and Boston Herald; by William A. Carroll, Frank W. Moseley, and James ?tloan, policemen; by James Crowley, ln.mp-lighter; by Alfred Lake, who keeps a grocery store in the 

village; also by Thomas Owens, who keeps a grocery store; by Harlan 

A. Page, a real-estate broker and uncle of the contestant, and John 

Meadowcraft, foreman of the Providence Steam Engine Company. 

Then, take another, Herbert B. Wood, who is anotherofPage'switnesses, and who is contradicted by Joseph H. Davis, by Walter S. 

Brownell, by Martin Padien, by William H. Arnold, by George F. A. 

Beane, by Frederick J. Walsh, and by William A. Pirce, the .sitting 

member. 

There are seven witnesses who contradict this man, and if they are to be believed then he has perjured himself: ' 

Take Benjamin F. Evans, another one of these witnesses, who has 

been convicted of crime in the State of Rhode Island, and, as I understand from the conversation this morning, is now in jail either awaiting or serving out his sentence. He is contradicted by Frederick 

J. Walsh, Martin Winsor, and many other witnesses. Everything 

he swears to is contradicted by several witnesses, and his reputa.tion 

for truth is declared to be bad by eight witnesses, reputable men, who 

have known him for years. 

Michael F. Barry, to whom my friend from Pennsylvania. alluded, 

is contradicted by four witnesses, and his reputation for truth and ver- aeity is sworn to be bad-by how many witnesses do yon think? By 

sixteen witnesses. Amos J. Wells is contradicted by three witnesses, 

William H. Taylor, Benjamin H. Pirce, and James M. Wright. 

John F. Locke is contradicted by three witnesses on every point, and .would have been contradicted by another only that the witness was sick. His reputation was not assailed by Mr. Pirce; but Mr. Page, in 

his rebuttal, seeing the necessity of bolstering up this readily-perceived and easily-detected liar, called witnesses to sustain his character, and every one of them admitted that it was questionable. One swore that it was bad, and not one of them was willing to come np to 

the mark and say that it was good. 

Now, I ask gentlemen what we are to think of a case where there is 

such an array of witnesses whose reputation for truth is bad and who 

are contradicted upon every material point. 

As to those witnessss who say they received money, their testimony 

has been discussed a good deal already, and my time is too limited to permit me to go over it in detail; but it is a fact that every one ofthem except 

one, or possibly two, declines to tell who gave him the money. They 

stab Mr. Pirce in the back and in the dark, and he is perfectly helpless 

to protect himself against them. In every instance where a party does 

give the name of the person who he says was paying out money, the 

person so accused was called, and every one swore that he never paid 

any money or saw any paid. 

'These witnesses were corrupt enough, if they are to be believed, to 

receive a bribe for their votes and shameless enough to confess it. 

They were, beyond doubt, under the control of the contestant and his 

friends. One of them was proved to be so far under this control as to 

give false testimony at the dictation of the man who summoned him 

to testify. Four of them refused to appear for cross-examination. 

Others refused to answer proper and reasonable:questions on cross- examination. Another forgot his story between his direct and cross- examination. It ought to have been furnished to him in writing in the 

first instance. It is important also to remember, and, therefore, Irepeat, that in every instance where the testimony of -the contestant's 

witnesses made it possible it is contradicted and .denied by Pirce's 

witness, and usually by more than one witness. 

Now, who and what are Pirce's witnesses? They are honest, reputable men. Mr. Page does not deny or attempt to deny it. They testify 

fairly, intelligently. Their testimony bears the impress of truth. 

Some of them are Democrats and some Republicans. 

Such, Mr. Speaker, is the testimony concerning bribery. I have 

striven to state it plainly and fairly. I challenge contradiction of the 

statement that I have made. 

Mr. Speaker, I will now pass to the consideration of the charge of intimidation. 

It was claimed by 1\Ir. Page before the Committee on Elections that, 

the Republican ticket for Congressman being printed on a tinted paper, a shade off from white, and the other tickets used at the election being 

printed on white paper, all the votes cast for Ur. Pirce should be 

rejected as illegal, and that Mr. Pa.ge, although he was in an actual 

minority of 3,486 votes, should be declared elected by a majority of 

4, 260 votes. When I listened to the statement of this proposition and 

the elaborate argnme1,1t of Mr. Page in support of it I thougilt that 

Shakespearemusthaveliad a photograph ofJitir.Page before him when 

he wrote: 

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable I in action, how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! 

To the ordinary mind this proposition would seem to be too absurd 

to deserve a moment's consideration. But it appears to have given my 

Democratic friends on the committee an infinite deal of trouble. They 

could not quite see their way clear t-o report that Page, who received 

5,995 outofapoll ofl5,476votes, was elected. But they wrestled with 

this magnificent proposition for many months, even as Jacob wrestled 

with the angel, and at length it gave them its blessing. True enough, 

it was what may be called in the language of the majority report a "not improbable" blessing, but in the deplorable condition of t.he contestant's case anything was comforting. When there is no evidence to 

support a case, the "not improbable'' is the last resort of the ingenious 

lawyer. Soberly, however, the majority of the committee admit that 

these tinted ballots are no violation of the law and that no decision of 

this case can be predicated on their use. The only wonder is that the 

majority of the committee found so much difficulty in reaching this 

conclusion. As a matter of faet, tinted ballots have been used for a long 

series of years in both the Rhode Island Congressional districts, and in 

this election the Republican committee only followed a well-established 

custom. Such tint-ed ballots were used to distinguish the representative from the electoral tickets and to- avoid confusion, the voters in 

Rhode Island voting on separate ballots for Congressmen and for Presidential electors. • Having said thus much about the tinted tickets, Mr. Speaker, I will 

briefly discuss ea~h case where anybocfy is claimed by the contestant to 

have been intimidated. First, it is claimed that one George Smith 

did notvote for Mr. Page because his employer, one William H. Poole, 

told him not to vote that ticket. This is testified to by Byron W. 

Wells, Raymond A. Rathbun, and George N. Colville, jr. It is denied by 

George Smith and William H. Poole. All these witnesses stand equally 

well. Smith was still, when the testimony-was taken, in the employ 

of Poole. I donot:find that the contestant's witnesses were summoned 

for cross-examination. If the case turned on the failure of Smith to 

cast his vote, I should be of the opinion that it ought to be decided 

against Mr. Pirce. It is true that what occurred, as testified by contestant's witnesses, would not seein to be intimidation as intimidation is 

defined in the decisions of contested-election cases. 

It is, indeed, only what one man might naturally say to another. 

Nevertheless, if these witnesses are to be believed, it had the effect of 

preventing the man's casting his vote as he intended to do. The em- ployer should be extremely careful not to interfere with his employes 

at the polls, even in the slightest dep;ree, and I am happy to know that 

in the section of the country where I reside, and I believe through the 

North, such is the case. No matter how poor or how dependent a man may be, he ought to be allowed to cast his vote without the slightest 

influence or interference from any person on whom he depends for his wages. On his continued employment depends the comfort, it may be, 

of a wife and children, and thoughts of them might change his vote at 

the nod of his employer, when he would act independently were he 

alone concerned. Entertaining these views, my judgment in a case of 

alleged intimidation would be governed by the effect of what the em- ployer said rather than by any nicely drawn distinction of what is and 

what is not intimidation. 

The next specific charge of intimidation is founded on the circulars 

in the town of Westerly, of which I have already spoken. These were 

simply hand-bills circulated before election day, asking the voters not 

to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, because it was for the 

interest of the owners of the granite works. I am sure that no member of this House would claim for a moment that this was intimidation. In Burrelle, Lawrence Pendergast and Edward V. Granger 

testify to specific acts of intimidation. Among other things Pendergast testifies that one Addison Sayles, a prominent manufacturer, 
188-7 . . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1019 

mounted the platform directly behind the moderator, in order to obtain a position where he could distincly see every ballot that was cast. 

Granger testifies that a strict count of the ballots, as they were deposited in the ballot-box, were kept by a prominent Republican, who was stationed on the platform with the moderator and town clerk. .The testimony of these witneses is contradicted and absolutely re- futed by Oliver A. Inman, the moderator of the town meeting, A. L. 

Sayles, James 0. Inman, and George F. Whitford. 

Addison Sayles was not on the platform at all on election day. 

No Republican kept a count of the ballots, but a prominent Democrat, John Q. Darling, was on the platform and kept a tally of the 

Democrats and Republicans as they voted. And I will say it was a perfectly proper thing to do, and ~1r. Darling acted with entire fairness! 

and gave information to Republicans and Democrats alike as they inquired. 

I am surprised to observe that the majority of the committee cite the 

testimony of John Garland, of Pawtucket, in their report. It is beyond 

all possible question incompetent, and ought to be stricken from the 

record. It is the last act of the many acts of injustice and wrong 

which Mr. Pirce has suffered in the contest. It was taken in rebuttal, 

but is in no sense rebuttal testimony. It was taken near the close of 

the rebutting testimony. :Mr. Pirce bad no opportunity to reply to it. 

' Under the order of the House his time was exhausted. These facts are sufficient to show that Garland's testimony should not be considered. 

In addition to the testimony to which I have called attention refuting 

every acb of alleged intimidation, Mr. Pirce called forty-five witnesses, 

belonging to both political parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, men of high standing in their towns, all of whom swear that there was 

no intimidation. The testimony of these witnesses covered every town 

where any intimidation was claimed. Five of them testified as to Warwick, three as to Coventry, seven as to LincoJn, four as to Scituate, four as to Foster, four as to Pawtucket, four as to Burrill ville, ele)en as to 

Johnson, and three as to Westerly. 

1\Ir. Speaker, I desire to repeat here and emphasize my statement, 

that while Mr. Page's material witnesses are proved to be men of 

corrupt habits and of bad reputation for truth in nearly every instanCe, 

Mr. Pirce's witnesses are men of good character and good repute. The 

record shows it. It bas not and will not be disputed. And I desire 

also to emphasize the importance of this fact in the decision of this 

case. 1\Ir. Speaker, I have made this ·plain statement of the evidence because the question before us is a. judicial one, and should be decided 

on the evidence presented and the rules of law applicable to the case. If I be asked how could the majority of the Committee on Elections, 

if I have fairly stated the evidence, find that Mr. Pirce was not elected a. member of the House, I reply that I do not know. I question no man's motives; Idenynoman's judgment. I have a higbrespectforand 

appreciation of the honor and love of justice of the gentlemen of the 

committee who differ.from me in this case. I can not, however, fail 

to remember with regret the shamefully partisan appeals that were 

made to the Demorratic members of our committee by Mr. Page and 

his counsel. In my brief experience these appeals were as unprecedented as they were unbecoming. Mr. Page related, soberly and mourn- fully, almost tearfully, the story of the hardships and sufferings and 

trials of patience of the Democratic party of Rhode Island under the 

long continuance in power of the Republicans in that State, especially 

in the matter of the representation in Congress. He said he saw little reason to hope that any Rhode Island Democrat would occupy a. seat in 

this House in the near future unless the committee would kindly report 

that he was elected. 

But it at lengbh became evident that Mr. Page had fuiled to comprehend the far-reaching consequences of the report which he sought 

with so much diligence. . That was reserved for the learned oounsel 

who made the closing argument in his behalf. That argument was ingenious and able, and, had it not been so foreign to the issue before 

the committee, would have been worbhy of serious consideration. It 

dealt little with the charges of bribery and intimidation. Indeed it 

seemed to me to be largely in harmony with my views of those 

charges and of the characw and weight of the contestant's evidence 

adduced in support of them. It was mainly devoted to a consideration of the effect which a decision in favor of Mr. Page would have in a certain contingency on the Presidential election of 1888. 

The learned counsel claimed that the relative strength of the Democratic and Republican parties in this House in the Fiftieth Congress 

was such that in case no Presidential candidate received a majority of 

the votes of the electors appointed, Rhode Island, if her two Congress- men were Republicans, would control the choice of President in the 

House of Representatives; and he further claimed that a decision of 

the committee in favor of Mr. Page woUld do much to secure the choice 

of a Democrat in the Fiftieth Congress at the election yet to be held in 

the second district of Rhode Island, and thus neutralize the vote of 

that State in the Honse of Representatives. I have not verified the 

gentleman's facts. If they are true, they might properly be addressed 

to the voters of the second Rhode Island district, but certainly can have no weight in the decision of this contest. We are not here and 

now electing Presidents or Representatives, but determining whom the 

people elected in the district in controversy. 

And now, Mr. Speaker, a few words in conclusion and I have done. 

If the resolution reported by a majority of the committee is adopted 

what will be its effect? Mr. Pirce, who has represented the second 

Rhode Island district during nearly the entire term of this Congress 

with credit and honor, who is respected, and deservedly respected, by 

his associates on this floor, will be deprived of his seat and the district 

be unrepresented probably during the remainder of the session. It 

will wound the sensibilities of a worthy man. Will that be all? If 

it be, it is of little moment. But it will be something more. It will 

add another to the long list of partisan contested-election decisions; 

and of all such decisions it will be the most pernicious in its influence on future cases of any that I now recollect. It will be a precedenb for 

overriding every provision of the election laws, for trampling down 

every rule of evidence, for justifying every irregularity of proceeding, 

however gross or however flagrant. It will be cited by every wrongdoer, and grevious must be his wrong-doing if he does not find au- thority for it in this case. 

'Twill be recorded for a. precedent, 

And many a.n error, by the same example, Will rush into the state. 

But I trust that this resolution will not be adopted, but that the 

resolution of the minority of the committee will be substibuted for it. 

Then will our action this day be a warning to all parties in future cases that the laws of the land must be obeyed; that the well-recognized rules of evidence must be observed; that a. stable and impartial 

course of procedure in contested elections must be maintained; and 

that he who would have the confidence of this Honse must deserve it. 

Appended is the minority report. 

1\Ir. RoWELL, from the Committee on Elections, submitted the following ns the 

views of the minority: The minority of the Committee on Elections not being able to agree with the 

report ot the committee, submit the following as t-heir views jn the above case: At the election held in the second Congressional district of Rhode Island, 

November 4,1884, according to the canvass of the vote by the General Assembly, 

the total number of electors voting was 15,476, of which number William A. 

Pirce received 7,746, Charles H. Page, 5,995; and all others, including scatter- ing, 1,735, Pirce receiving 1,751 o>er contestant and 16 majority of all votes polled. 

This result was obtained after assigning to Page 15 vot-es cast for him as Pres- idential elector and counting as scattering all votes where no one was voted for 

for Representative to Congress, and 3 votes cast for Slocum for Presidential 

elector. 

By a. mi."J)rint in one part of the printed evidence Page is credited with 79 

instead of 70 votes in the town of Hopkinton, which, without noting the misprint, would make it appear that Page had not been credited with a.s many votes as he received. By examining the returns as shown in the evidence the 

mispcint is shown a.nd the footings ar.e correct·. February 5,1885, contestant served ftbtice of contest, which was duly ;mswered 

by contestee. 

Contestant bases his contest either upon a. misconception of the law of Rhode 

Island, or upon a. belief, which unfortunately prevails to a very wide extent, 

that a partisan majority only needs a. plausible excuse to seat one of its friends. He charges that all the ballots cast for Mr. Pirce were illegal because the 

tickets were not of plain white paper, without any distinguishing marks, and 

that therefore they are not to be counted either for Mr. Pirce or as having been cast at all; that they a.re to be considered as if never in the ballot-box, a.nd this 

in the absence of any law of the State requiring any particular description of paper, or forbidding distinguishing marks. 

Inasmuch as the committee have, without dissent, agreed that this claim is 

without foundation in law, we shall not further refer to it in this place. 

The material allegations in the notice of contest were to the effect that con· testee's majority was obtained by intimidation and bribery. For a. proper consideration of these charges, and the evidence relied upon to sustain them, it is necessary to state something of the history of the contest as it appears in the record. 

After notice of contest and answer contestant allowed the time for taking 

testimony, as provided by statute, to expire without any movement to take tes· timony. 

In the mean tjme he became a. candidate for and was elected a. member of the 

General Assembly of Rhode Island, and entered upon the duties of that office, a. position which he could notlawfully hold in that State if he was at the same time a. member of Congress. He thus abandoned the contest and ceased to be in a. position to proceed in the case as a. claimant for the seat of contestee. Nevertheless, on the 12th day of June, 1885, after the time for taking testimony 

had eXpired, he served notice on contestee that on the 25th day of June he would commence taking the depositions of eight hundred and thirty-seven named wit- nesses, he alleging and contestee denying a. verbal agreement to waive time in 

the taking of such depositions. 

Contestee relying, as he had a. right, a.nd was bound to do, upon the statute governing the taking of such testimo11y, and the precedents established by the House in like cases, declined to have anything to do with the taking of depositions. Considering the nature of the testimony to be taken and the character of ma~y of the witnesses to be examined, contestant pursued the course, whether 

des1gnedly or not, best calculated to get wha.t he wanted, without the serious 

damage which might occur from cross-examination. Contestant, however, 

proceeded to take the depositions of 45 out of the 837 witnesses named, and the same depositions were brought before the committee a.s the evidence upon which we were to decide the case and make recommendation to the House. lt is hardly necessary to say that these so-called depositions were no more than ez parte affidavits, and could not therefore be considered as legal evidence 

in the case without disregarding and ignoring well-established a.nd undisputed 

rules of evidence. 

They were not taken in the presence of contestee or any one acting for him, or with the expectation of cross-examination, or by virtue of any law authorizing 

them to be taken; and inasmuch as they were not taken in pursuance of any law authorizing them, or in a. case then legally pending, it may well be doubted 

whether a. charge of perjury could be maintained against any one of the wit- nesses willfully testifying falsely. 

Instead of considering these ex parte affidavits as in the nature of informatjon which might justify the House in entering upon an investigation, and requiring 

the evidence t~ be taken de novo, so that it might be entitled to the cre<llt due 
1020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J .ANU.A.RY 25, -

to evidence lawfully taken, the Honse, upon the recommendation of the ma- jority of the Elections Committee, simply authorize contestee to cross-examine 

the witnesses whose ex parte depositions were on file, and to take testimony in his own behalf, giving hi.m thirty days in which to do so, and to contestant ten days. in which t<) offer testimony in rebuttal. 

When it is known thata.large pa.rtoftheso-called testimonywas in thenature 

of hearsay, or opinions in cases where opinions are not a.llowable as evidence, 

and that the method of examining the witnesses, the way of putting questions so as to shape the answer, would not be tolerated in a court of justice, the neces- sity of applying strict rules in considering the evidence is made apparent. Under permission of the Honse, given as above recit~d, contestee proceeded tO 

cross-examine such of contestant's witnesses as answered to his subprena and to examine witnesses in his own behalf . ... Several of contestant's witnesses did not appear for cross-examination at all, 

ruthough duly subprenaed, and it is upon the testimony of some of these that the 

decision of the case is made to turn by the majority of the committee. 

After contestee had occupied the full time allowed by the House-the resolution having passed May 4. and contestee closing his evidence June 3-contest- ant proceeded to take t~stimony, so-called, in rebuttal; but, instead of confining himself to the permission given, he proceeded to ofi"er testimony in chief, cu- mulative testimony, and the like, all of which, though illegally taken and not entitled to consideration by the Honse, is brought into service by the majority as a basis for their recommendation, and to which we prot~st as violative of 

law, of the rights of contestee, and of the constituency which he represents, and as establishing new and dangerous precedents in contested-election cases. And, as a further reason for this protest, we ca.ll attention to the fact that on nearly 

every issue made there is a sharp conflict in the evidence, and to the further 

fact that the witnesses upon which the majority of the committee rely are selfstultified and some of them thoroughly impeached. Under the laws of Rhode Island a majority, instead of plurality, is necessary t<) an election on first trial, and therefore, if under the evidence the House determines t,hat sixteen votes cast for contestee were so cast ille~lly, then it is our duty to declare that there was no election, and the res~lutwn offered by the 

maiority of the committee ought to be passed; but if any less number than six- teen should be deducted, the resolution ought not to~· as far as it affects con- testee, aud Mr. Pirce should be permitted to retain h1s seat. Under any possible viewoftbe testimony, if the laws in force in nearly all the 

States were applicable, he would be entitled to retain the seat which he now holds. 

We now propose to examine some of the testimony, it being that relied upon to unseat contestee. Nearly all of it applies to the elect.ion at the town of Warwick. 

Alfred A. Johnson, the first of the bribery witnesses, says, in his original ex- amination, according to the printed evidence (p. 26): 

"I myself got S3 for voting for William A. Pirce, but I don't know the name of the person who paid me the money. He handed me a. ticket, which was yel- ~ow in color, a Pirce ticket, and said: 'Vote that, and I will see you later.' I voted it, and after the polls were closed I saw him in the street, and he took me down to Atwood's hotel and gave me $3. He gave me those S3 for voting for 

Mr.Pirce." 

He also testified that he belonged to the Democratic party,and had lived ten years in Warwick. 

On cross-examination (page 6, Pirce's testimony) he says: "I don't consider that I received the money for voting for Mr. Pirce." He also testified that in his previous testimony he had said that he didn'tundersta.nd that he got the money for voting for Mr. Pirce, but for coming down. 

lle also testified that he would have voted for Mr. Pirce if be had got no money; that he had not voted the Democratic ticket for_ five years; that in ten years be had voted the Democratic ticket once or twice, perhaps four times, and 

that he had testified that he was a De moe t under instructions of the man who went after him as a. witness. We submit that a witness who on his examination in chief swears to one thing and on cross-examination to the opposite, and 

who acknowledges that he knowingly swore falsely to a material fad, under instructions given by the agent of Mr. Page, is not a reliable witness by which to prove any fact, and that his testimony illustrates the great danger of giving 

any force to ex parte testimony in a case like this. 

William Bates, the next Warwick bribery witness (p. 27), testifies that he was paid S3 to induce him to vote for William A. Pirce. He did not know the per- son who paid him. He was thirty-seven years old, and had always lived in 

Warwick. Did not know who the Democratic candidate for Congress was, and 

does not say to what political party he belonged or how he would have voted if 

no money had been paid. He said: 

"This person whom I have mentioned came to me aud asked me if I bad yoted. I told him I had not. He gave me a yellow Pirce ticket and said: 'You vote that and I will see you later.' I voted that ticket. I then came out, and, as I was getting into my team, he .handed me $3." 

This witness was subprenaed for cross-examination, but failed to answer, and 

therefore his testimony ought not to be considered. Even in his e:e parte state- ments, following so near the language of the former witness, "yellow Pirce 

ticket" and" I will see you later," he does not pretend that be was promised 

money before he voted, and he discloses that he did not expect to receive 

money; for, having Yoted, he started for his team to go home. 

The minority of the committee entirely disregard this testimony as not being 

properly in the case. Frank D. Morse is the next Warwick witness who parades his own infamy in 

the interest ofMr. Page and purity of elections. He says (page 28): 

''I do know that money was paid to me for voting for Mr. Puce. I don't 

know the person's name who paid me. I was paid S3 for my vote. He handed me a. Pirce ticket and said, • I will see you later, down at Atwood's Hotel.'" He had lived in 'Varwick since ltrl7; did not know who the Democratic can- didate for Congress was; don't say what political party be belonged to, nor does be claim that a~.ny money was promised him before voting or to induce him to vote contrary to his political affiliations-we hesitate to say convictions. He also refused to respond to subprena for cross-examination. 

We disregard his testimony, as not being properly evidence in the case, for 

the same reason as in the case of the previous wilness. 

Cyrus W. Eddy testifies (p. 29) as the next Warwick witness. He says that be voted as he pleased; that there was no interference before he 

voted, and that he did not cast his vote for money. He claims to have received S3. and that he always t{)ok it to be granted that 

they paid money to the working classes. He lived in Warwick thirteen years; did not know the man who paid him. He swears that he did not understand when he voted for Pirce that he would 

receive money for so voting which he would not receive if he voted for Mr. 

Page. ' 

On cross-examination he says he was not paid to vote for Mr. Pirce. Don't 

know anybody who was induced to vote for money; that the money paid was for his lost time in coming 5 miles to the voting place and losing his day. Taking his testimony as truth, and the vote should not be thrown out. Fayette W. Carpenter testifies (page 31) that he had lived in Warwick eight 

years; that be received S3 for voting for Mr. Pirce; that he bad always voted the 

Democratic ticket, and would have voted that ticket at this election if money bad not been used. All this when no one was present to cross-examine. 

Whlm calletl by contestee for cross-examination (pp. 5 and 6) be says that for 

the last two or three years be had voted with the Collingwood party, otherwise the Republican party, of the town of Warwick. He denies that he sold 

his vote, and swears that he was paid for his lost time, as he always had to get some one to take his place when he came down, and that he would have ex- pected payment for his lost time if he had voted for l\1r. Page. '!'be testimony of this witness again illustrates the unreliability of testimony taken without opportunity to cros~xa.mine. It also proves, if the testimony of such a. witness can prove anything, that his vote WilS not influenced by 

money, and that he simply voted, as had been his custom, the Republican ticket. In considering it at all we are called upon to believe a. self-confessed perjurer. 'Villia.m Wilcox (p. 37), a Warwick fisherman, states that after he voted hereceived$3 for voting the Pirce ticket. That at the time he voted be did not ex- pect to receive any money for voting the Pirce ticket which he would not have 

received had be voted the Page ticket·. He declines to tell who paid him, but 

says there were probably a. hundred voters waiting for money. He declines to appear for cross-examination upon the subprena of Mr. Pirce; 

but after contestee had closed his evidence and the time for taking testimony on his behalf had expired, contestant put him again upon the witness stand. To the question whether Kennecomb. paid any money, he declined to an- swer; declines to give the name of the man who paid him. He also declines to say that he knows of any other persons who received any money but says 

there were a hundred or more waiting round, and that be supposed tbey were waiting for money. 

The refusal of this witness to appear for cross-examination, and so prevent an examination into his credibility as a witness; his refusal to give the name of the 

person who paid him, as he alleged, and so furnish an opportunity for contra- diction; his refusal to say whether or not the man was Kinnecomb, after Kinnecomb had testified that be used no money, should in law rule out his whole 

testimony, and even if it is to be considered at all, it goes no further than that 

after he had voted he received money which had not been promised him and 

which was not an inducement which made him vote for Pirce. He was pre- sumably a Republican, and would have voted for Mr. Pirce in any event, unless 

the claim of contestant, that all the purchasable votes in that district were Demo- crats, is to be conceded. 

The next Warwick witness is another fisherman, named Jesse Jinks. lle 

testified (p. 87) on original examination that he was paid S3, but does not say whether it was paid as an inducement to vote for 1\lr. Pirce or in consideration 

of bid having so voted after the vote was cast. He says that he was a Demo- crat, and also says a. hundred people were paid the same as be was. He refused to appear for cross-examination and so prevented contestee from 

examining into his credibility as a witness. · He was ca.lled by contestant, in reblittal, at which time he again declined to disclose the name of the person who paid him; expressly refused to say that 

Kennecomb was the man; could not give the names of any of the hundred who 

received money, and so again shut himself out from a test. of his truthfulness; 

and, finally, declines to testify any further than that he himself received the 

money. These facts, in law, exclude this testimony from consideration, for tes- tiruony so taken is not considered as furnishing any evidence of the facts sought to be establlshed by it. 

John F. Lock, the last of the Warwick bribery witnesses, testifies (p. 88): 

"Samuel Jencks was paying S3 apiece to voters for voting the Pirce tacket; 

William Kennecomb was also paying $3 for the same purpose; Thomas Aldrich was paying $3 for the purpose; Henry Northup was paying $3 for the same purpose." 

This witness also declines to respond to subprena for cross-examination, and 

for tbat reason his testimony should not be considered. His reason for such re- fusal may be readily found in the testimony of Jencks, Kennecomb, and Aldrich. 

Of the nine Warwick bribery witnesses he alone ventures to name the bribers, 

he himself not being one of the bribed.._ and that venture shows him to be less 

discreet than the others. It also shows nim to be equally untruthful. 

It furnishes opportunity to show by unimpeached testimony how little reli- ance should be based upon any of t.he Warwick evidence, so called. 

Thomas Aldrich (p. 9), Samuel C. Jencks (10), and William Kennecomb (10), 

each directly and emphatically contradict Lock, deny that they used money at the election, or that they had any knowledge that money was so used. Eickness 

alone prevented Northop from adding his testimony. This effectively disposes of Lock {be had already discredited himself by ref us· ing to be cross-examined), and, if more were needed, disposes also of the other 

Warwick briberywitness. An attempt was made to sustain Lock by showing that his reJ?utation for truth was good, but the attempt was very lame. John E. Sherman (page 84 of rebuttal) testifies that he heard varioas persons express opinions against his reputa- tion for truth, showing that this chief witness for contestant had so conducted 

himself as to set people to talking about his unreliability as a witness. 

An attempt to impeach Kennecomb was ha-stily abandoned when the first 

witness called for that purpose spoke in his praise. Taking these Warwick witnesses at their own estimate or themselves, and 

who can say, as against unimpeached witnesses who do not sell their own votes or buy others, even if their testimony, so called, can be considered at all 

by the House, that he believes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any 

money was used to bribe voters at the Warwick polls? 

We can not believe that a seat in this Honse is held by such a slender tenure; 

that testimony of this character can destroy the right of 1\lr. Pirce to retain it. 

Even allowing that each of these eight witnesses were bribed, it leaves con- testee's majority at eight over all. 

The only other voter who claims to have been bribed is the witness Ma.rdle, 

who voted at Foster. · The attempt to show intimidation at Johnson, the home of contestee, and 

other polls, is so signally overthrown, and the charges so effectually disproved. that we shall make no comment upon the evidence in regard to it at this time. 

The claim that a. voter returned and voted for Congressman after be had voted 

for Presidential electors is thoroughly refuted, and the circumstances explained by the moderator and clerk. 

The claim that George Smith was intimidated, and so prevented from voting 

by his employer, is contradicted by Smith himself. 

The attempt to show that one Davis was bribed by the promise of half a barrel 

of flour, by hearsay testimony, was a signal failure and thoroughly disproved. The claim that a number of voters at Pawtucket were intimidated by their em- ployer, the overseer of highways, amounts only to a complaint that the voters allowed themselves to be influenced by the wishes of the overseer, expressed only by a simple request that the men should vote as be did. 

This claim would overthrow, if allowed, all labor to secure votes for one party or another. 

If one may not ask a voter to vote his ticket, he may not make a political 

speech, publish a political newspaper, or dare to express an opinion in the pres- ence of voters. We do not comment upon the so-called rebuttal testimony which sought to open anew the bribery issue at the Foster polls, and which went to the extent of showing attempts to bribe, which failed-testimony given after the opportu- nity to call the parties accused of having attempted the bribery bad passed-be- cause if there is any one question settled in the law of evidence it is that the 

party having the affirmative of an issue must put in all his affirmative testimonyl direct and cumulative, before calling upon the opposing part.y to answer. Ana we know of no honest reason why a different rule should apply in this ca.Se. · We are not without record evidence to sustain the views we here take of the 
• 

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1021 

bribe ry evidence, record evidence which is absolute verity, and not dependent upon the truthfulness of witnesses, and that evidence is to be found in the elec- tion returns. It will be noticed that the charged attempt at bribery and intimi- d a tion was in the interest of Mr. PirceJ and not in the interest of the Republica a :Presidential ticket. It wa s a claimea attempt to bribe Democrats to vote for .Mr. Pirce while they at the same time voted the Democratic Presidential ticket, and yet in the towns where bribery is charged Pirce ran behind and Page ahea d of h is ticket. In this very town of Warwick Mr. Pirce ran over 400 behind his ticket, the Prohibition candidate getting most of the vote, while Page runs 16 

ahead of his ticket .. In the town of Foster Pirce runs 17 behind and Page 4 ahead of his ticket, and in Burrill ville Mr. Pirce runs 13 behind and Mr. Page 1l ahead. These fads tend to show that if undue influence was used it was not on the side here charged with it. In conclusion, admitting as we do that there is some evidence proper to be consid ered in the case tending to show the alleged use of money at the election h eld in the second Rhode Island Congressional district, yet taking it for all it is worth as evidence, considered with the evidence in disproof, and throw out every vote that can by any fair testimony be said to have been improperly in- flue nced, and there is still a clear majority left for the sitting member for that district. 

W e th erefore can not concur in the report of the m ajority , and offer the fol- lowing us o. substitute for the second clause of the resolution offered by the committee : 

" Resolved, That William A. Pirce was elected a Representative to Congress for the second Congressional district of Rhode Island at the election held Nov- ember 4, 188! , and is entitled to retain his sea t." :J. H. ROWELL. SERENO E. PAYNE. A. J. HOPKINS. FREDERICK D. ELY. A. H. PETTIBONE. GEO. W. E. DORSEY. 

Mr. ROWELL. The residue of the time of my coll~oue [Mr. HoPKINs] and myself is yielded to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 

PAYNE]. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, what a supreme farce! We have an election law, a law ·regulating the proceedings in contested-election cases. The chairman of the Committee on Elections, after many years 

of service and experience on that committee, himself introduced, during 

the present Congress, a bill to enlarge the scope of that statute. That 

bill, having passed the House, has been returned from the Se.nate with 

amendments; and this morning, at an earlier stage of our proceedings, 

the Speaker appointed a committee of conference to further perfect that 

bil1. 

At the same time, members of the House sitting as judges and jurors are called upon to pass on a case in which every requirement of the 

law in regard to contested elections has been disregarded and violated 

by the House. Upon a question involving the right to a seat you are 

asked to rest your votes on evidence taken, so far as concerns every 

word of it bearing materially upon the case, in direct violation of the 

law upon your statute-book. . What is the use of the law, what is the use of perfecting it, if still, by reason of party exigency or on some 

other ground, the letter and the spirit of the law are to be disregaroed? 

In this caBe, after the expiration of the statutory time, and when the 

contestant had seemingly abandoned his contest, he is permitted to go on and take ex parte affidavits and depositions and to come into the 

House and ask for a contest upon them; and then the Honse, disregarding rules of law as ancient as the English language, receives these same depositions, refusing the contestee the privilege of confronting the witnesses-witnesses who make the charge of bribery, personal bribery, 

against himself. He is simply given the poor privilege of thirty days 

within which to go out and rake up the byways and hedges of his district, ay, to go into the :fishing-smacks upon his coast and find these 

witnesses, who, from the evidence, appear to be the very dregs and scum of the district, to bring them before a magistrate (without power to 

compel them to come) for the purpose of cross-examination. And when 

he is unable to find or produce some of the witnesses, our friends on the other side do not seem to be very anxious to strike these ex parte 

depositions from the evidence, but still insist, founding their case upon 

such evidence, that the sitting member shall be driven from this House. 

Still, Mr. Speaker, taking the case upon evidence brought here in 

this manner, I confidently maintain this Honse should vote that the 

contestee retain his seat. Remember, gentleman, that only four out of 

the three hundred and twenty-five members of this House come from 

States where it is required that the successful candidate for Congress 

shall have a majority of all the votes cast. Mr. Pirce comes herewith 

1, 700 plurality over the contestant, Mr. Page, but with 16 majority over all other candidates who were in the field. 

"Over all other candidates in the field," did I say? Yes; and over 

all the tickets that were cast with the heading " for Congress " on them, and the name of the candidate a blank-a majority of 16 over all these. In view of those facliS the evidence should be carefully 

weighed, and unless the proof is clear and incontrovertible this Honse 

ought not to disfranchise the second district of Rhode Island. 

Now, I know there are many men in this House who are disposed to 

follow the judgment of the distinguished chairman of this committee 

without examining into the facts and the law for themselves. I myself 

respect hisjudgment. I myself think that sometimes he is a safe man to 

follow. Bntnoman, when bytheConstitutionheiselevated tothedignified position of judge of the election or qualifications of a Representative 

of a State, should commit his conscience to the keeping of any other man, 

no matter how eminent. And thedangerofdoing so is illustrated in this 

very case; for it appears that after carefully drawing up this report, 

after carefully reviewing the evidence, the chairman of the committee came into the House with a report alleging that Mr. Pirce had but 

3 majority over all competitors, when, from the evidence in the case, 

and from the admission to-day of the chairman of the committee him~ 

self, it appears that Mr. Pirce had a majority of 16 over all opposing 

candidates; and this fact is now undisputed. Think of that as you 

shall listen to the eloquent chairman of the committee, and examine 

his sta.tements to see whether he is not honestly mistaken as to some of his facts; and in such a case as this, where a Representative is re- quired to have a majority of all the votes, do not vote to disfranchise 

that district and turn that man out of his seat unless the allegation of 

bribery and intimidation is supported by incontestable evidence, evidence which ~tablishes the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 

What is the evidence of intimidation? The only allegation of in· 

timidation which is contained in the notice of contest is that the Republicans used a different colored ticket, and that this was a menace to the voter. Not that any employer asked his employes improperly 

to vote the Republican ticket; not that there was any intimidation by 

any person in Rhode Island, but that the colored ticket was the intimidation. Members of the Honse have seen these tickets. There is a straw-colored ticket [exhibiting ticket] which is said to have frightened so many voters, or is supposed to have frightened so many, for no man swears that a single timid voter in Rhode Island was frightened by it. 

There is the straw-colored ticket. Here is the Democratic ticket. Why 

did they put the American eagle at the head of each Democratic ticket. 

Mr. BOYLE. Because it is a Democratic bird. 

Mr. PAYNE. Can it be possible that our Democratic friends wanted 

their tickets to stand out distinguished from theothers, so that all persons could see which ticket their men voted? Can it be possible that 

the Democrats in·Rhodelsland were guilty of "intimidation?" What· is the use of the eagle? The use of the straw-colored ticket is plainly 

shown by the evidence in this case; and it is this: 

Under the Rhode Island election laws there is but one ballot-box, 

and it is a large one, so large that standing on a table it stood up nearly 

6 feet high. In one of the balloting places it was the complaint they 

had to reach over that ballot-box to get their votes in. 

Another law requires the electoral ticket and Congressional ticket 

shall go into one box. The law is directory that the voters ·shall deposit the ballot in the box. The law also says the inspector of election shall examine the ballot sufficiently to see that two of a kind do 

not get into the box; or, in other words, that no voter shall be per- mitted to vote twice for member of Congress, waiving his right to vote 

the electoral ticket. 

Now tell me, with that provision ·oflaw, how any inspector performing his duty could .examine those two tickets sufficiently to see one was Congressional and one the electoral ticket without knowing that 

the man voted the Democratic ticket, both the electoral and the Congressional ticket? 

Will my friend claim there is any intimidation on the part of the 

Democrats about this? Why, they have'' wiped" it out of their re- port, because if they had gone to that extent they would have reversed 

the will of the people in the second Congressional district, and returned 

to the seat Mr. Page as well as turn Mr. Pirce out. 

Another provision of the law right there: The Secretary of State is 

required to furnish at each polling place a sufficient quantity of envelopes, uniform in size and color, in which the voter may place his 

two tickets, seal his envelope, and vote as secretly as any man can anywhere in this broad land. · And there is no complaint that envelopes were not furnished. The 

evidence is many voters used them and that there was no complaint. 

There is no evidence but that every voter could have used them and 

voted a secret ballot if he EO desired. 

What other evidence of intimidation is there? After the House had 

granted twenty days to Mr. Pirce to cross· examine witnesses and call 

his own, then it gave ten days to Mr. Page in rebuttal. On those ten 

days, and I think the last, he called some overseer of highways who 

said he was a Republican in 1884 and voted the Republican ticket. He 

said he had from thirty to .fifty men under him, that some were Democrats, he thinks the majority of them were. He asked them to vote 

the Republican ticket, and he thinks the most of them did. This is 

put into the majority report as evidence of intimidation. 

I heard some gentlemen ask in horror, '

1

Whywere these manufactur- ers at the polls? " Has it come to this, that a man who employs men has not the right to ask his employes to vote with him-that a father has 

not the right to ask his son to vote with him? Is that intimidation? 

Will that affect a seat in Congress? Well, when that time comes the 

electoral system will indeed prove a farce. 

This overseer asked them to vote the Republican ticket, and he 

thinks they did. Then he goes on to say he discharged some men. 

He denies it was for that cause.. He says he was himself discharged 

since 1884, and became a Democrat. That is about the measure of 

that man. I tried to get my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. BoYLE] to name the 

sixteen men whom lie said were guilty of taking bribes. If that were 
• 

1022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25, 

true it would turn the result of the electien; but it is not true. There 

were not sixteen men-there were but twelve that he could name; and 

of the voters who spoke of bribery one does not admit he was bribed. 

Mr. BoYLE rose. 

Mr. PAYNE. Icannotyieldatthistime. Outofthesetwelvemen 

who spqke directly about bribery, John H. Powers came in with the 

statement that he had received$2from the sitting member, Major Pirce. 

I understood the gentleman to say also that some witness swore he 

saw the money paid. There is no such evidence. There is a witness 

who swears that he put up a job on Mr. Pirce and got this man Pow- ers togo andget the money; that Powers went out ofthe building and 

returned with a two-dollar bill, which he said he gotfrom MajorPirce; 

but that evidence is so completely wiped out by contradictory testimony, by the ev~dence of witnesses, including Major Pirce, who denies that he paid Powers any money, and by a cloud of witnesses called 

into the case, all of which show that the man's character is such that 

he is not to be believed anywhere, as well as the man who seeks to sus- tain him by saying that he had gone out and returned with the twodollar bill. So completely is the evidence wiped out that the chair- man of the committee did not see fit to give it a place in his report. 

There are some other witnesses ofthe .eleven left who speak of bribery in connection with this election, and then say that they were paid 

money to vote, but afterward, that·they were not paid for voting. 

Their testimony is so contradictory as not to be worthy of credence. 

One swears that when he went on the stand some man suggested that 

he must swear he was a Democrat, andhedid so; and afterward, when 

he was called by Mr. Pirce, he said he was not a Democrat, but a Republican. 

He testified that he swore in his former evidence that he was a Democrat, as he says, for a "guy." From this eYidence the House is asked 

to send Mr. Pirce home again, to declare the seat vacant here, and leave 

that district of the State of Rhode Island unrepresented during theremainder of this Congress. But, Mr. Speaker, how about the one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five voters in Warwick who are said 

to have been paid? · Let me turn to the evidence in regard to them. Only two witnesses 

speak of it, if I have read the evidence correctly, and I think I have 

examined it carefully; that is to say, William Wilcox and Jesse Jinks. 

Mr. ROWELL. .A.nd they are the only two. 

Mr. PAYNE. They are the only two I can find. If any other gentleman can find others he has been more successful than myself. 

Wilcox testifies on page 37 of this testimony as follows: 

8 Q. State how and by whom the money was paid to you. Give the particulars. 

A. I don't wish to give the name of the gentleman who paid me the money at present. It was paid in Atwood's Hotel, in Warwick, Kent County, Rhode Island; there were probably a hundred vo~rs there wa.it,ing for money. This 

gentleman whom I have spoken of, and whose name I do not wish to give, paid the money in greenbacks right out of his own pocket. .. 9. Q. Do you know if there were any voters paid at Atwood's Hotel who had 

voted for Mr. Page? A. No sir; there was no money paidthereforl\Ir. Page; I do not know a man who got a. dollar there for voting for l\Ir. Page. 

10. Q. In whose interest and for whose election as Representative was the 

person who paid the money as you have stated working? A. In the interest of Mr. Pirce; John :a:. Collingwood was the managing man for Mr. Pirce at that election in Warwick. ll. Q. How came you to go down to Atwood's Hotel and join the crowd of vot- ers, as you have stated? 

A. I was called there to get my pay for voting. 

12. Q. When did you first understand that you would receive some money if 

you voted the Pirce ticket? A. Soon after the polls were open-probably twenty millutes. 

13. Q. From your knowledge and observation, about how many Yoters were paid for voting for William A. Pirce at that election in the town of Warwick? 

A. In our district, which is the first votlng district in the town of Warwick, 

there were probably from o. hundred to a hundred and twenty-five. 

Mr. Pirce tried to get him for cross-examination. He had not given 

the name of the man who gave the money; but not only that, not only 

did he not give the name, but he failed to give the name of one single 

person of the one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five that he 

said were probably-paid in the same way. What chance, then, was there to contradict a witness like this; what chance to meet such evidence as that? It was taken ex parte without the presence of Major 

Pirce, and the witness refused to come up for cross-examination. But 

he was under the control of Mr. Page in this case, and on page 75 of 

the new evidence this man was called again, and I wish I had time to 

read his testimony in full. He says : 

I saw a number, perhaps o. hundred or a hundred and twenty-five in all, then 

waiting in and about Atwood's Hotel for their $3, I supposed. 

Here he is not so definite; he "supposed" they were waiting. 

They talked to me, some of them did, in regard to ).heir pay for voting. 

That is his evidence, and you are asked to say a hundred men were 

paid for voting on such evidence as that. Why if such testimony were 

before a jury what weight would it have? If such a statement were 

true you would not have to go to any distance to get substantial men to verify it. It would be easy to get fifty men to swear to it. You 

could get the testimony of reputable, indignant citizens to say that a hundred men were bought up like chattels on election day at Warwick, 

instead of having to get such testimony as this on which to base the 

allegation. He does not undertake to name the man who paid the 

money, or any of the hundred who he "supposed" were waiting 

for it. 

Well, there is another witness, Jesse Jinks, and he also testified on ex parte examination; and I repeat that if it were trne that a hundred men had been bribed to vote in an election like that, it would not have 

been necessary to go out and get men off the fishing smacks to testify 

in support of such an allegation. What does J esso Jinks sa.y, the com- panion of William Wilcox? He says, in answer to a question on direct 

exami.J?.a tion: 

Q. How much did you receive, and where, when, and from whom? State the 

particulars. 

A. I got $3; I received it at the office in the barn of Atwood's Hotel that 

night after the polls closed. I am unwilling to state the name of the person who paid it. 

How happens it that these men are unwilling or unable to state who 

paid the money? Why do they not state who paid them? Who instructed them to say it? He goes on to say: 

A number of voters went up there with me. All these voters that went with me voted for Pirce. I probably saw a. hundred people paid the same amount that I got. This person I have spoken of had a. list of our names, called them 

off, and we answered them, and as we went up he paid us the money out of his ~~~ . 

And then he refused to come for cross-examination. He is ~rought 

in on the rebuttal by the contestant in this case; he is asked to repeat 

the evidence he gave a few months before, and all the evidence he 

could repeat was that he himself had sold his vote for $3. He bad forgotten the story about theonehundredoronehundred and twenty-five 

persons. Notwithstanding that, the question was asked him: 

What did you testify to? "Oh, I can not tell unleS3 you ask me the question; unless you suggest it to me I can not. tell." · 

He had forgotten this p:ut of the story. 

[Here the hammer fell.] . 

1\fr. TURNER. How much time remains to this side? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. One hour and twenty-five minutes. 

1\fr. TURNER. I now ask the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 

Pirce ], the sitting member, whether he desires to be heard in this caae. 

l'l!~. PIRCE. · I would like to have fifteen or twenty minutes. 

1\Ir. TURNER. I yield the gentleman that time out of the hour and 

twenty-five minutes. 

Mr. PIRCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of 

the committee, for the courtesy he has extended in yielding me time. I 

do not propose to enter into any general debate, as the minority members 

of the committee have submitted Yery effectually almost all of the 

facts which have been educed by the evidence. But being the contestee, and having lived in Rhode Island all my life, and having had a good deal to do with the politics of the State, I feel it my duty to vindicate the people of the second district of Rhode Ipland who elected 

me, by showing that the statements of those who oppose my election 

are not correct. I would not be true to the fame and good name of.the 

freemen of Rhode Island if I did not repel as untrue and unproved the 

charge that the honest voters of the second district had been guilty of 

bribery and intimidation as charged by the dominant party of the com- mittee. 

As long as I have been connected with the politics of Rhode Island 

and as familiar as I am with the leading men of both sides this is the 

first time I e•er had friend or foe in politics complaining of any wrong or unfair dealing on my part. The witnesses in this case on the other 

side in behalf of the contestant are men generally speaking, I am sorry 

to say, that would not stand the test of inspection for one moment. 

And I will say that the leaders of the Democratic party in Rhode Island are ashamed of this contest and ashamed of the contestant for pursuing 

it. For they are a gallant set of men as a rule, and when they get 

beaten they do not travel the State and country over, squealing it was done this way or that way or the other way; but they accept the re- sults, pick their flints, and are ready to try again at the next opportunity. 

Some of these witnesses are au abhorrence to the community. Gentlemen on the other side know it; it is in the evidence. And I was embarrassed this morning when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

BoYLE], who is instinctively fair and honest, attempted to warp the 

testimony as he did; but I attribute it to an error or misunderstanding, rather than to an intention to do anything wrong in this matter. 

I am snre he never saw the evidence, or he, as an honest man, 'COuld 

neve!' have made such statements. 

Now as to Evans. The testimony in the case shows he had been con- victed as a libeler, that he went to jail as a libeler, that he was a com- mon nuisance in that community. And so it is along the whole line. 

I have not time to submit here, although I have my pocket full of them., 

certificates as to the jail-birds that are in this contest on behalf of the 

contestant. They are in duress and jail for all kinds of offenses. It is 

shown by a court certificate that one of these men has been convicted 

of the crime of cheating the babies, of selling adulterated milk; another 

of wife-beating; and still another swears he w.as in jail and all that :tor 

five months for keeping a nuisance, and others for drunkenness and all 

that class of offenses. As the gentlemen of the committee know well, 

I was anxious to have this House take this investigation in charge and 

send a commission to inquire into this case to Rhode Island, where they 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1023 

could have an opportunity of seeing theparties and looking at the wit- nesses who would grace any rogues' gallery in this country to a greater 

extent than any I know to exist. 

Why, sir, if I could not conduct a political canvass fairly and 

squarely with all my experience I would retire from it, and I would 

retire from this seat voluntarily if I believed a single friend of mine 

had used anything but the best possible legal means to influence a vote 

in my favor. I was not, during the whole canvass, in the town of 

Warwick, nor since, except to take testimony. This is the town 

which has been so much spoken of by gentlemen on the other side, 

and I mean to say all the witnesses in the ~e that swear at all in respect to receiving money for anything, for votes, or hiring carriages to 

take voters to the polls, or for paying for their time while they were 

away from their work, only amount to twelve votes-all of them, of 

every kind, name, and nature. I challenge contradiction by the gentlem:m who is to follow me, when I assert that only twelve are con- nected in any way with money. And I state that not one of those 

witnesses, as you will see, alleges he was bribed or that his vote was influenced by money, with the exception of one single person, aud his 

testimony is of so ghastly a character that no man could take any 

stock in it. He swears that he was a Republican, had always voted the 

Republican ticket, but being very poor he would have voted for Page 

on that occasion if he had not received $2. 

Now you gentlemen coming from all parts of the country can judge 

the value ofthat kind of testimony, and if you can afford on such testimony to declare vacant a seat in this House which the General Assembly has declared I have obtained by 16 majority, if you think you can, 

you will and can do so of course. I say one thing more. If there is 

any member of this House who will get up here and saythat he never has expended one cent of money in his district for legitima.te purposes 

I would like to have that man rise. For in Rhode Island if a man would decline to contribute a dollar for legitimate purposes in politics 

I do not know of any party~ Democratic or Republican, that would desire 

to put such a man in nomination, or have any respect for him. 

Why, sir, our whole expenses in the Presidential election in 1884, 

every dollar that passed through the hands of the committee for all the 

purposes of the election, buying and distributing documents, purchasing flags, the general election expenses was less than $4,000 for the 

whole State of Rhode Island. 

Now, as to this charge of intimidation, I am assuming that some of 

the members of this House outside of the Committee on Elections have 

looked at the evidence in this case; but I confess it is a violent presumption, and I assert that they can not find any evidence which shows 

that a single person was intimidated in the State of Rhode Island. 

They did make out to declare, or to swear, that one man was intimidated; and that very individval himself was put on the stand, and he 

testified positively that he was not intimidated, and that he did not 

allow anybody to intimidate him. 

As to the manufacturers, I produced them from every village where 

it was said that there had been intimidation, members of both parties, 

Democrats and Republicans, the first men in the State of Rhode Island, 

and they declared, every one of thenurithout exception, that there was no intimidation. The idea that you can get voters by intimidation in 

Rhode Island is too preposterous for aN orthem man·to talk about ! If 

you are going to obtain votes you .must do it by persuasion and argument rather than by threats. The contrary has never been known to 

exist, and it is impossible to produce a single witness who will swear to any such thing if he swears to the truth. If this intimidation has 

existed in the mills or factories, as gentlemen allege, why do they not 

produce the employes and let them show that the employers did this, 

that, and the other thing as charged? You know, Mr. Speaker, because it has been spoken of here to-day, that our State stands alone with a single exception in this respect: that we are compelled by statute provision to elect our candidates by a majority of all the votes cast. Yon 

know also that I received 1, 751 votes more than were cast for Mr. Page, 

the contestant. Gentlemen all know, too, that at that time the prohibition question was disturbing parties a good deal, and that in that election the prohibition candidate received 1,500 vot-es, a larger number 

than such a candidate ever received before. 

Then there were four other distinct candidates who received votes, 

and in addition there were 32 scattering votes; yet I received 16 votes more th;:tn all the candidates and all the scattering votes, and no figp.res can be produced on the other side to show that that majority can be 

reduced to ·a minority. That is impossible, unless you take all the 

hearsays that are running rampant all over the country. The idea of a man getting up and s~earing that he thinks there were 100 or 125 

votes improperly obtained! It is like the boy in the old story, who 

told his mother that he bad seen a thousand crows, and when he was pressed, brought the number down to a hundred, and then came down 

-to fifty, and finally wound up -by saying that he certainly had seen 

something as black as a crow ! Gentlemen have heard the testimony 

read in detail, and they have heard the declarations of these men who 

allege bribery, that they did not know who purchased their votes; 

that they did not know the names of the persons, or that they would 

not repeat the names. The lawyers on this side of the House who have 

argued the case with so much ability, have clearly shown the danger 

and the injustice of regarding testimony of that kind. 

Now, as I have said, I wish to have gentlemen on the other side show 

by any evidence in this case that any voter has been intimidate~. We 

could not gather anything of that kind from the testimony they produced because it showed nothing of the kind. I do not care how much 

they say they were intimidated by the color of the ballot. The strength 

of that statement is brushed away when it is admitted here that the 

State of Rhode Island furnishes envelopes of a uniform size and color 

which any voter can use to inclose his ballot. That fact being admitted, it makes no difference whether the ticket itself is red, white, or blue. Our State is more liberal in that respect than any other State 

in the Union; it furnishes these envelopes, and the voter can take any 

ticket he pleases and put it in the envelope. 

Mr. WADS WORTH. Those envelopes are required to be furnished 

bylaw? 

Mr. PIRCE. Yes, sir, the State is obliged to furnish them, and 

they are furnished, any voter !l'ho desires them, and he can conceal 

his vote in that way by using the regular envelope. So far as £he 

ticket itself is concerned we are not- bound by law to use any particular size or color of ticket; we can use any that we see fit to use. There 

is not a man who swears that he was influenced by the color of the 

ticket; and if any man did swear to that his testimony would amount 

to nothing, because the State provides a way by which he could have 

avoided showing his ticket. But suppose a man wanted to vote on 

that yellow ticket, and wished to deceive his own side, could he not 

take the ticket, erase the contestee·s name, and write in the name of 

the contestant? But the idea is perfectly ridiculous that there was any intimidation in this case. The other branch of the case has been 

fairly, clearly, and ably put before the House by the gentlemen who 

have already spoken; so that every member can see what there is in 

this charge of bribery. . I do not know anything about bribery. I am not going into the details of these charges. I am obliged to the gentleman who has yielded 

his time to me, but I am not going to discuss this point further, because 

it has been gone over andoveragain and again. When you see acorn-· 

mittee evenly divided upon a question of this kind it is a pretty good 

indication of the character of the case. This committee stood upon 

this vote 6 to 6; but the chairman, of course-I might say necessarilyturned it in favor of his side of the House. [Laughter.] 

When the Hurd case was before this House last summer the gentle- man [Mr. TunNEli] argued with great ability that the parties had a right to hire men to distribute tickets anddothingsofthatkind; that 

that sort of work was proper and legitimate. Yet, in this case, all these 

matters are raked up about these men distributing tickets. Evidence 

is taken at the expense of the Government to show that there were ticket peddlers on my side. But the very witness who made oath to 

this acknowledged that he was distributing tickets on his side, was furnishing carriages to bring men in, and doing everything of that sort. 

But he seemed to assume it was a great sin on the part of the Repub- _ 

licans to do that which was a virtue when done on behalf of the Democratic party. 

Smith is the only man named as having been intimidated. Being 

the only man named, he was consequently the only one whom we could 

reach. When put upon the stand he swore that he was not intimidated; that no man had intimidated him. I could have gone much 

further in contradiction of that charge; and after that pretended re- butting testimony came I might have put in testimony which was at 

my command and which would have wiped out that charge com- pletely. But my lawyer advised me that I should not encroach upon 

the time specified in the resolution which ordered me home to take 

testimony. Consequently I had to let thatmatter go. But there was not perhaps in Rhode Island a man who did not see that the charge 

was completely exploded after the cross-exan:rination of those wit- nesses. It was no rebuttal at all. It was simply-the production of 

witnesses who repeated· what they had already said, and of others 

who made allegations of the same kind, and their statements ~re taken 

in the !eport as evidence. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Rhode 

Island bas expired. 

I fMr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on account of the condition -of my 

voice, I shall have to rely somewhat on the patience and forbearance 

of the House to-day. This circumstance may greatly abbreviate my remarks. · 

The gentleman who first spoke on the other side in this case inveighed, with somewhat of vehemence in his manner, againSt the ignorance of members of the Honse as to the character of the i&""'lles involved here. I may be allowed to say most respectfully that I think 

the argument of the gentleman, as well as the arguments of his associates, were based on that assumption. They evidently took it for 

granted that members of this House had not studied this case. 

The case, sir, is one which sweeps a very small circle. It is a. case 

within the easy grasp of the busiest member. It involves issues on 

questions offact which concern most intimately the character of the 

American peopl&. Its brevity, therefore, and the momentous impor-
1024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

tance of the issues involved, ought to have invited gentlemen to a careful scrutiny of the case. It is to me, sir, a revelation. But before 

I proceed to the discussion of the serious q oestions presented, I beg leave 

to dispose of some technical objections which have been urged against th~ report of the committee. 

There is an intimation that unfairness bas been practiced. I deny 

it. I say the facts in this case to which the gentleman from illinois 

[Mr. RoWELL] alluded in his opening remarks will show a case of 

unprecedented magnanimity on the part of the Democratic members 

of the Committee on Elections. Gentlemen say that we are trying 

this case upon ex parte testimony. Is that a fair statement of this 

question? Gentlemen know it is not. There was an agreement as to 

the time of taking testimony between the parties to this contest about 

the construction vf which it is true there was a difference of opinion. 

On the one hand it was claimed that it was not intended to extend 

the time within which testimony should be taken. On the other band, 

by a· fair inference, the contestant claimed that the effect of the agreement was to waive the requirement as to time and allow the testimony 

to be taken at the convenience of the parties. The time limited by the 

statute expired, and the contestant proceeded to take his testimony, 

first giving notice to the sitting member. The gravest issues ware 

raised. 

The sitting member was on notice that an agreement bad been made on which this contestant relied. He was on notice of the time and 

place at which these grave charges against him were to be investigated. 

Instead of going there and meeting, at theverythreshhold and at every 

stage, this charge of infamy against him whenever and wherever it presented itself, he simply said: "The time has expired; I will have 

nothing to do with the proceeding." The contestant went on, never- theless, and took his testimony. The depositions were returned under 

the act of Congress and were printed for the use of the committee in 

the usual way and under our rules of pradice. When the contention came up before the Committee on Elections, Mr. Pirce's counsel set 

up this technical objection to the testimony and undertook to have it 

~tricken from the record. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have approached in this discussion a point in 

the history of the casewhich is familiar to every member on this floor, 

and to go over it again would be thrashing old straw. But the Committee on Elections, i.ristead of following the precedents set by theRepublican Committees on Elections, and trying the case on testimony 

taken under these · circumstances, came to the House of Representatives with a resolution proposing to give the sitting member the opportunity to resummon and cross·examine the witnesses of the contestant 

and see them face to face. And we had then the remarkable spectacle 

of every Democrat on this floor extending to a gentleman on that side 

this extraordinary privilege, while every Republican member voted 

against it. It was a rare incident in the trial of election cases, and I 

wish to pay to my political associates on this floor the tribute due to 

their generosity. - Gentlemen may ask whether there are precedents allowing the use of testimony taken after the statutory period had expired? One of 

them is found in a report signed by the gentleman from Tennessee 

[Mr. PETTmONE],who has to-day denounced the testimony of the contestant as ex pm1.e. 

I refer to a case which came from the State of Florida, from a. district adjoining my own, in which was returned as elected my esteemed 

and honorable friend, General Finley. In that case Mr. Bisbee, the 

contestant, had gone on contrary to the statue and taken testimony in 

the time allowed by the statute to the sitting member. 

I have the case here before me. The report of the majority of the 

committee in that case states, although that testimony was taken beyond the contestant's forty days and within the forty days allotted to 

the sitting member, they would receive it, because, forsooth, they said 

there was a case, which they quoted and approved, t.o the effect that 

General Findlay could have gone on and taken his testimony beyond 

the limit fixed by the statute. And in the course ·of the opinion they 

italicised this single statement, which was signed by.the distinguished 

gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PETTmONE] himself, '' that no .statute 

<'.an bind the Committee on Elections or the House of Representatives;" 

and on that principle, and on that precedent, and on that testimony, 

taken without any opportunity offered to General Findlay by a resolution offered of the House, they excluded him from a seat on this floor, 

although in my opinion he was as much entitled to it as I was to my 

own. Now, we are told further that some of contestant's witnesses refused 

to appear when they were subprenaed by Mr. Pirce, that he might 

cross·examine them. If gentlemen had been fair t.bey would have 

stated that the witnesses whose names were given, and against whom 

this complaint has been made, appeared, but refused to be cross examined, because the sitting member refused to pay their expenses. They 

said if the gentlemen that summoned them would not pay their ex- penses, ns they were entitled to have them pa~d, they would not give 

their testimony. 

Mr. ROWELL. Does the gentleman refer to the statement of one lawyer to another as testimony? • • 

Mr. TURNER. That statement is in the record, and was not contra,.. 

dieted by the lawyer on the other side. 

Mr. RQWELL. Is it a part of the business of a lawyer to contradict 

the statement of the opposite lawyer, or else it will be taken as evidence? 

Mr. TURNER. When lawyers are engaged in the progress of a case, 

and a statement of counsel is made to go down as part of the record, it 

is the business of the other side to contradict it if it is not true. 

Mr. RANNEY. Did the lawyer swear to it? 

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman from :uassacbusetts has grown old 

in the trial of causes in court, and bas been my colleague in the Committee on Elections, with whom I have engaged on many a bard-fought 

field, but l. have never known a lawyer of his eminence to intimate 

that counsel should swear to their statements made in the conduct of a cause. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RANNEY. Pardon me. Mr. TURNER. The gentleman asks me whether the lawyer was sworn? I say lawyers engaged in the active conduct of a case have the 

right to rely, one on the other, without being sworn. l\lr. RANNEY . . Will the gentleman say, in taking testimony before a ~sachusetts court, every remark of a lawyer written down is 

to be contradicted by the other lawyer or it will stand in the colloquy? 

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman sees at a glance that his intimation 

is unjust and irrelevant to this ca.c;e. I do not believe the gentleman 

understands the issue I am now discussing, and I say it in deference to 

the gentleman's well known ability. 

It is doe also to the majority of this committee to say that some of 

the witnesses who did not appear for cross-examination because they were refused their expenses, were produced again by the contestant as his own witnesses in the limited time given to him, thus affording the 

opportunity of cross-examinatien. Let all this charge of unfairness go; 

it amounts to nothing. 

I have said already, Mr. Speaker, this case was full of interest. It comes from a State which was one of the last to give in her adhesion 

to the Federal Union. It was one of the very first States of the Union 

in which rebellion raised its head. [Laughter.] Traditions linger 

there about one Governor Dorr. The history of that rebellion is folly 

given in 7 Howard, in the case of Luther and Borden, with which 

gentlemen are familiar. 

Mr. SPOONER. I thought the Pennsylvania rebellion was first. 

:Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir; there was a little rebellion there on account of whisky, I believe. [Laughter.] Bot there was a regular 

rebellion in Rhode Island against the charter government, as I understand it, and I believe, I will say in justice to the gentlemen who now represent that State on this floor, that they sent the governor to the 

penitentiary for life. 

I refer to that, :M:r. Speaker, not as a matter of reproach to gentle- men representing Rhode Island on this floor, but for the purpose of 

showing that there was in Rhode Island friction, discontent, mutiny, 

against the system of restrictions which in that State trammeled the 

right of suffrage. 

I have heard it said that a gentleman who at one time was a distinguished Representative ofthat State, or some other, on this floor, and 

who had served most conspicuously in the last war, was, on account of 

having sold his real estate, thereafter deprived of the right to vote in 

Rhode Island. 

Now, sir, whether that was a mistake or not, H is entirely possible 

for it to have happened. There are property qualifications in Rhode 

Island against which I do not inveigh, against which I make no com- plaint, but I refer to them as showing the reason for the discontent 

which now and then crops out of these rebellious plantations. 

I intend to base the resolution proposed by the Committee on Elec~ 

tions upon bribery at Warwick and "bulldozing" (that is the word) 

at Pawtucket. Gentlemen have said here that all of the votes which we have shown should be excluded here from the sitting member's 

case are 10 or 12. I propose to show that there were 100 at least, and 

hence it makes nry little difference for the purpose of my argument 

whether the apparent majority on the face of the returns of Mr. Pirce 

over Page was 3 or 16. 

I will remark in passing that the calculation by which I reached the 

conclusion that the true majority was probably 3 instead of 16, was the 

reslllt of a careful investigation on my part of the original documents, 

but gentlemen on the other side have satisfied me that the fairest way 

in which to argue the case under all the circumstances is to assume that 

the declaration of what is called the grand committee in Rhode Island was correct, and that over all opponents and scattering votes he bad 

16 majority. · 

I remember that on a certain other occasion, when I had the honor 

o£ submitting to this House a report from the Committee on Elections 

on a celebrated case, I was criticised by gentlemen on the other side be- cause I assumed to give the conclusions of the committee rather than the 

facts on which the conclusions rested. In the report in this case I pre· 

ferred not to express our views or conclusions on the testimony (as the 

minority of the committee have attempted to do), but to set out the testimony n luec 'Verba so that every member of the House could draw his 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1025 

own conclusions. And now I am criticised because I did not synopsize 

the evidence. . 

What does this testimony show? Many witnesses swore that they 

were paid from two to three dollars each for voting for the sitting member, and some of them testified that they formed with others a procession of a hundred or a hundred and twenty-five and marched up to 

Atwood's Hotel, or barn, in a certain alley in the town of Warwick. 

Each of them states that he received two or three dollars, but most of 

them add that they can not give the names of those who paid the 

money. . In the study of t~is case, Mr. Speaker, it must be borne in mind that 

by the law of Rhode Island, which I commend, the crimeofb1iberyis 

confined entirely to the man who does the bribing, while the man who 

receives the bribe has no penalty put upon him. · There is a philosophical reason for this state of the law which will occur to every lawyer. 

Hence I have the indorsement of the Rhode Island system, which 

disfranchises the briber and puts no penalty whatever upon the men bribed. This consideration, Mr. Speaker, fully explains the state of 

the record here. The man who is bribed you could.not punish, while 

the man who furnished the" boodle" was liable to indictment, and, on conviction, to be disfranchised forever. . Knowing this thing, consideri.Iig the shrewdness that characterizes 

party management at this day, it was plain at a glance that it was necel:!Sary to so conduct this shame~ess system of b~ibery as to prevent detection by excluding every known man. It was probably managed 

through this man at one stage and that man at another, and the man who paid the cash might have been an utter stranger. 

The report of the minority of the committee cites a case where a man said that he had received $3-that he had received that money not for 

his vote but tor his time in going down to the polls. And the minority 

of the Committee on Elections follow that statement with the further 

remarks that if it were true, that vote should not be deducted from the 

sitting member. 

Mr. Speaker, there bas been bribery in all other countries and in all 

other ages of the world-bribery in every century of the world's history. And bribery, God knows, is bad enough; but when bribery can find apologists on this :floor in the ranks of a great party, I say it is 

time for the country to pause and reflect. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

. Mr. ROWELL. Will the gentleman permit me a question ? . Mr. TURNER. I will. 

Mr. ROWELL. Suppose a voter of your political party is in Washington, wonld it be bribery to pay his expenses home in order that be 

might vote? . . . Mr. TURNER. If a member of my party comes to me and cl;:Ums 

pay from me because be loses time in voting for me,_ I would say at 

once it was a piece of corruption be proposed to me and tor which I 

wou1d spurn him. 

Mr. ROWELL. That does not answer my quest_ion. 

Mr. TURNER. I know it bas not been uncommon for committees 

to provide facilities for voters to come to the polls. However questionable it may be, that is a practice which bas obtained both in England and in this country. But I defy the gentleman who has _interrupted me, or all of his ·associates on that side, to find a case where the 

Conduct of a man who receives pay for the time be loses in going to the 

polls has ever before been justified as a legal performance. 

Why, sir, it is against the highest public policy. The privilege of 

citizenship, the right to bear the name of an American, the privilege 

of enjoying our institutions and the participation in the nob Jest liberty 

that the world bas ever witnessed ought to be inducement enough for 

any man to vote as be pleases. But when in addition to these inducements he bas to receive money for the time be loses in the exercise of 

his franchise as a freeman from the party in whose interest he votes, 

call it by whatever name you please, I denounce it as bribery and corruption which no party can afford to justify. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

It would Qe just as honorable for a citizen of New England to ask 

compensation for the time he devotes to the celebration of the Fourth 

of July in full view of Bunker Hill monument! [Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLINGER. Did not a much larger portion of the people of 

New England vote than of Georgia at thelastelection, according totbe 

returns? . .:M:r. TURNER. What was the gentleman's question? 

Mr GALLINGER. Did not a muchlargerproportion.ofvoters go to 

the polls in New England than in Georgia, according to the last election returns? 

Mr. TURNER. 'l'he gentleman who bas interrupted me knows that 

his inteijection here has no relevancy at all to this issue. · , Mr. GALLINGER. I think it bas. 

Mr. BOUTELLE. Is it not as relevant as the gentleman's ·own remark about New England? 

_ .Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman from Maine will let me answer 

on(' gentleman at a time, I will endeavor to sho.w my friend from New :Hampshire [Mr. GALLINGER] that his interruption has no sortQfreleXVIII-65 

.. vancy to this case. I can not speak for my colleagl;les from the State of 

Georgia, but I can speak for myself--

Mr. ELY. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a 

moment? 

Mr. TURNER. If my friend from Aiassacbnsetts [Mr. ELY] will 

permit me to answer one New England gentleman at a time, I shall 

be obliged to him. [Laughter.] In the district w;bich I have tbe 

honor to represent (and of. which I shall be proud forever) there are two parties, Democrats and E,epublicans, but I want to tell the 

gentleman that the Democrats in that district are in the majority, as 

has been demonstrated in half-a-dozen contests. 

I want to tell the gentleman further, what perhaps be is not aware 

of, that before the last Congressional election in my State a revolution 

bad taken place here at Washington, and, instead of there being a President in the White House who would reward candidates of the gentleman's party for their devotion, there was no longer anyrewardforthose 

who might fight the battles of the Republican party. 

The result is, Mr. Speaker, that there are no longer any leaders of 

tb'a.t party in my State. It should also be stated that the Republican 

party of Georgia, consisting chiefly of colored men, have, since Mr. 

Cleveland's election, ceased to fear Democratic supremacy. I beg to 

add that a very reputable Northern gentleman, I believe a New England man, and a distinguished Republican in my district, did me the 

honor to assure me that his party would not resist my election. 

[Laughter and cheers on the Democratic side.] 

Mr. Speaker, in that district, as no doubt was the case in all the 

other districts of Georgia, the vote was a mere dress parade of the 

Democratic party, in which those who voted came out merely to show 

their respect for their candidates. 

Mr. GALLINGER. Will the gentleman permit me? 

Mr. TURNER. What more can I say to the gentleman from New 

Hampshire? 

Mr. GALLINGER. Will you permit me a word? 

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman impeached my constituents--

Mr. GALLINGER. As you did mine. 

Mr. TURNER. I did not. 

Mr. GALLINGER. You certainly did. 

Mr. TURNER. I alluded only to facts which appear of record in 

this case, and I defy any gentleman to contradict me. Mr. GALLINGER. The gentleman alluded to New England, and 

the record in this case does not bear him out. 

Mr. TU:RNER. Ab; does the gentleman identify himself with his 

colleague from New England, the sitting member in this case, and justify bribery in the payment of voters for the time which they lose in the 

performance of their duties as citizens? 

Mr. GALLINGER. I re~resent a New England district which cast 

nearly as many votes as were cast altogether in Georgia, and yet you 

impeach my districtMr. TURNER. I decline to be interrupted further. In the gentleman's district, as well as in that from which this contest comes, there 

is never any lack of candidates. Parties never fail there to struggle for 

power. 

Offices in that part of the country never go in that way, but when- ever r , opportunity for a contest is afforded in which honorable gentlemen can aspire to promotion there are sure to be at least two can- didates in the field, if not three or four, and the resnlt is that the 

canvass brings out every voter, and the vote represents war between all 

the factions; but where that state of things does not exist, does the 

gentleman expect every man to turn out to vote? 

Mr. GALLINGER. No; and neither do I expect the men who do 

vote to be accused of being bribed. 

Mr. ELY. Will the gentleman aUow me--

Mr. TURNER. And the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELY], 

knowing how my time has been occupied, and also howthetimeofthe 

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BOYLE] was consumed by interruptions, proposes now to follow in the wake of his New Eng1and colleague, and propound to me another catechism. [Laughter.] I beg 

the gentleman to spare . me. I have the highest respect for New England; I love her traditions; I believe that this country is immensely 

indebted to that section; I believe that her town government is the 

best in this Union; I believe that her commonwealths areas well governed as those of any other section of the country; but I want it distinctly understood that all the virtue, and all the grace, and all the 

purity of elections does not reside within the limits of those New Eng-· land States. 

Mr. BOUTELLE. I ask the gentleman from Georgia--

Mr. TURNER. I ask the gentleman from Maine to excuse me. The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The gentleman from Georgia declines 

to be.interrupted. 

Mr. BOUTELLE. I "excuse" the gentle~an, if he is very anxious 

to escape from a question. . Still, I sbonld like to ask--

Mr. TURNER. I can not refuse the gentleman from Maine when 

he puts me on my courage. · 

Mr. BOUTELLE. I thought you would not. 

Mr. TURNER. What will you have? 
I! 

': 

,I 

II 

I 

lr 

. 

1026 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J.ANU.ARY 25, J • 

1\{r. BOUTELLE. I simply wanted ro ask you whether, as a. matter of fairness, in view of your arraignment of New England here in 

regard to the suffrage, you are not willing to have the statement made, or to make it yourself-- • · 

1\Ir. TURNER. Now, my friend must not make a speech. 

1\Ir. BOUTELLE. Let me finish the question. 

Mr. TURNER. This only shows, Mr. Speaker, that New England 

always stands together in a controversy of this sort. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BOUTELLE. · I simply ask J;he gentleman as a matter of fair- ness--

Mr. TURNER. Let the gentleman ask his question, and not make 

aspeech. . Mr. BOUTELLE. I want to know whether the gentleman is not 

willing to state .here, when he is arraigning New England in reference 

to the manner in which Congressmen are elected, that while in the 

New England States it takes on an average more than 29,000 votes to 

send a Congressman here (though in Rhode Island, which is an exception, with her peculiar qualifications for suffrage, the average is brought 

down to lG,OOO), yet in the State of Georgia the average is 12,000, or 25 per cent. Jess than even the average of Rhode Island. 

1\!r. TURNER. I can answer the gentleman as I have already done, 

that a Congres..<Uonal election in New England is always disputed, 

while in the section from which I come there is very often no dispute ~ill • 

Mr. BOUTELLE. I understood the gentleman to say a few minutes 

ago that there were two parties in the State of Georgia. 

Mr. TUl{NER. I have so stated, and I repeat it. 

Mr. BOUTELLE. Why did they not appear in your district? 

1\Ir. TURNER. Because my opponents knew that they could not 

beat me. Mr. BOUTELLE. Ah! 

Mr. TURN"-ER. Have I answered the gentleman? 

Mr. BOUTELLE. The Democrats in my district are quite as sure that they can not beat me, yet they come to the polls. 

Mr. TURNER. I wish to say that if there is a Democrat in that 

gentleman's district who will not get up in the morning before day 

and pay his own expenses for the privilege of voting against the gentleman, I denounce him as a politicnl out~t. [Laughter and applause on the Democratic side.] • 

Mr. BOUTELLE. The troubl~ is that in the gentleman s district 

the Republican vote is not cast, morning, noon, or night. 

11\-Ir. TURNER. We have in this testimonythe evidence of witnesses 

who swore to being bribed, and gentlemen upon the other side turn 

upon us and say that these witnesses are not to be believed because 

they confessed their own infamy. 

It has always been permitted, sir, that persons who have participated 

in a crime should be allowed to go on the stand and testify, in order 

that the penalties of the law might be visited upon the other parties to 

the transaction. 

It has always been the law, and no fair-minded man on the other 

side of the hall will deny that is the case. Allow me to state that the 

crime of bribery is one to which there are two parties, the briber and 

the man bribed, and it is usually conducted in secret. When a man 

comes to pay money or take money as a bribe he does not call he best men around to bear testimony to the fact. But it is a secret crime, 

hidden away from the gaze of men, and unless one of the parties to the 

crime be allowed to proveits character, it amounts to this, that bribery 

shall go nnwhipped and unpunished. 

I decline, so 1ar as I am concerned, to extend the measure of immunity to criminals in New England anymorethan to criminals anywhere else in the country. 

The gen leman from Illinois [Mr. ROWELL] whowrotethisreportof 

the minority, and whohaspresented thecaseoftheminoritywithsnch 

force and ability, said when a Illtlon declines to tell all he knew, he was a corrupt witness and not to be believed. And the principle falsu.s in 

u1w, fa/sus in omnibus is also invoked. I deny that principle covers this case. The best authorities on evidence lay down the rule that when a 

man makes a confession the tribunal trying him may believe a part and 

reject a part if it please. And that is this case. We have a right to 

belie\"e a man who makes a confession.- althou~h a part of his confession may be fulse, and although he may be guilty of suppression. 

Now, sir, at Warwick a hundred or a hundred and twenty-five men stood in a line, man behind man, going up to the same hole in the 

wall at which those who recei\"ed the bribe were paid. I say it is but a fair inference that those who stood ~th them in this procession went 

there on the same business. 

If a Republican in New England is to be believed, the first witness 

called in rebuttal by the contestant states that while he did not know 

what was going on, he saw the procession, and he heard the names 

called out, man by man. Therefore, as a witness from the camp of 

the Republican party, he corroborated at least a material part of the 

statement made by these corrupt witnesses. 

I now pass to the subject of bull-dozing. I think, sir, I have shown 

that at least one hundred men were bribed at Warwick. I propose to 

show that from thirty to fifty were intimidated in the town of Pawtucket. On this branch of the case I rely on the testimony of a man by 

the name of Garland. But it is said his testimony is not competent, be- cause he was not a witnes:=; in rebuttal. The gentleman who made 

this charge if he had been familiar with the. record of the case would 

have known a part of the evidence was addressed to the denial of the 

very transaction to which this testimony of Garland related. And of course when his conduct was the matter in issue, put ·in issue by the 

very first testimony adduced by the contestant, denied by numbers of 

witnesses of the sitting member, will any lawyer say the testimony of 

the man himself whose conduct was under investigation was not in 

rebuttal? 

It is too ridiculous, 1\Ir. Speaker, to require furt}ler comment. This man was in the public service of Rhode Island. He was the foreman 

of high.ways in the town of Pawtucket, and employed for service on the public roads thirty to fifty men, and he said the most of them were Democrats. He said they all voted for Mr. Pirce, and if they had been 

uninfluenced·would have voted for the contestant and the Democratic 

ticket. 

He himself, this man Garland, voted for Pirce and the Republican 

ticket, and, therefore, I think he ought to be regarded as an unim · peachable witness. He stated that the employment of these men depended on their having voted the Republican ticket. He stated further 

that Goodwin, chairman of the Republican town committee in Pawtucket, employed hiin, Garland, to work for his party on the day of the 

election; that Goodwin had given him credit at a bar-room in that city 

at which he could take his men ro be treated, and adds further that 

every man in his service had the impression that his employment depended on the way he voted. What do you think ofa state of politics 

which will prostitute the public service to the debauching of voters, 

the bread and meat of wh():)e families depended on their subservience? 

I say, can gentlemen from any part of New England afford to justify 

intimidation of this character? 

1\fr. GALLINGER. It does not exist. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Let me ask the gentleman why make New England responsible for Rhode Island any more than he should make the 

entire Southern States responsible for some outrage in a parish in Louis- ~? . . 

Mr. TURNER. I am glad the gentleman from Maine gives me his 

support. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. WheLher Rhode Island be right or wrong, I do 

not see why any responsibility should rest upon New England for that. 

I beg to enter a disclaiJ:ner against applying ro New England anything that may be done in Rhode Island, whether it be right or wrong. 

Mr. LONG. Let me ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. 'fURNER. I do not mean to be provoked into an a'fraignment 

of all New England in the discussion ofthis question. Itisnotnecessary. 

Mr. LONG. Did I not understand correctly from the report of the 

majority of the committee that they withdrew their charge of intimidation and relied exclusively upon bribery? ·Is not that the statement of the report? 

Mr. TURNER. No, sir; the gentleman has been misled either by 

the gentlemen of his own party who have undertaken to discuss this 

question, or has misconceived the report. 

Mr. LONG. I have read the report with care, and that is my understanding of it. 

Mr. TU.IiNER. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. There is no part of this case based upon the question of color of the tickets; but 

the que'3tion as to whether men · in Rhode Island were intimidated 

from voting forms a very large part of the case; and if the gentleman 

has examined my report he will find it stated in the testimony cited 

by the committee. 

1\Ir. LONG. Will the gentleman allow me ro read a sentence from 

the report? 

1\Ir. TURNER. The gentleman does not certainly deny the accu- racy o.fmy statement? 

1\Ir. LONG. I am only asking the gentleman's attention to the 

language of his own report. 

1\Ir. TQ'RNER. I will not permit the gentleman to fritter away the 

small remnant of my time in disputing a fact as to which I now make a positive statement, and which is borne out by the report which the 

gentleman holds in his hand. 

1\Ir. LONG. I ask the gentleman to permit me to read one sentence. 

Mr. TURNER. Will the gentleman not permit me to proceed after 

making the statelllent I have made? 

1\Ir. LONG. I only ask an explanation ns to this point; and I read 

from the report: 

While it is likely that voters under the domination of Republican employers were deterred from voting for Mr. Page, there was no evidence before the com- mittee defining the measure of this influence or estimating its effect, 

1\Ir. TURNER. Now, the gentleman has taken a little extract from 

the report, which shows how heis willing to vote upon a garbled statement in the report. . Mr. LONG. I do not see bow that can be when I have quoted the 

language of the report. · Mr. TURNER. The gentleman knows, if he examines it, anathe 

gentleman from Michigan knows, if he examines it, that that relates tq 

. . 

. 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1027 

the intimidation ~hich was sought to be exerted by the use of colored 

tickets; but the intimidation which was practiced at Pawtucket by a public officer of the State of Rhode Island is insisted on. 

Mr. CRAIN. With the permission of the gentleman from Georgia 

I desire to ask a question for information. 

Mr. TURNER. I have but a few moments. 

Mr. CRAIN. Is it not true that the laws of Rhode Island provide 

that a foreign-born citizen can not vote within the limits of that State 

unless he owns a certain amount of property, and that a native-born 

citizen can vote without respect to the property qualification? 

Mr. MILLIKEN. That has nothing to do with this case. Mr. TURNER. I agree with my friend froDI l!aine that that inquiry has nothing to do with this case. I have no desire to traduce 

New England or her institutions. The question of her suffrage, though 

restricted to such an extent that 15,000 votes only can be polled there 

in a Congressional election that was disputed by three parties when 

there were 35,000 voters in another district, belongs entirely to the 

State of Rhode Island, and I do not arraign her. Let her determine 

her own system for herself. 

Mr. ELY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. TURNER. I beg my friend from Massachusetts to pardon me. He must see the impropriety of my giving away my time entirely·to 

his side. 

Mr. ELY. My question is directly in point. 

Mr. TURNER. The side of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 

already bad nearly twice as much time as has been occupied on this 

side. I appeal to his sense of fu.irness that he should spare me further 

interruption. 

Going over this whole field, passing this question from the one side 

to the other, and in the spirit of the greatest kindness to all sections 

of this Union, I want to say it is time, high time, there should be an lustration of American politics. They sometimes say that at the 

other end of the Capitol millionaires are seated by methods which are denounced as corrupt. I hopPJ the time will never come when that 

end of the Capitol will be able upon sworn testimony to arraign this 

end of it and say that any party could be found which would stand up 

here and undertake to vindicate and to retain a purchased seat bought 

by the paltry pittance of two or three dollars a head. [Applause.] 

The SPEAKER pro tem.pore (1\Ir. EDEN). The time o( the gentleman 

from Georgia has expired. . 

lli. TURNER. I ask the privilege of supplementing my remarks 

~th a few statements which shall not be in violation of the privilege 

if extended to me. My time has been so occupied by interruptions that 

I hope this privilege will not be denied me. 

The SPEAKER p>·o tempo·re. The gentleman from Georgia asks 

unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. 

Mr. ROWELL. I ask that the same privilege be extended to other 

gentlemen with the understanding that it shall not be held to cover anything of a personal nature. 

Mr. GALLINGER. I ask for myself the same permission to extend 

my remaarks. · 

Mr. TURNER. Then I withdraw the request. 

Mr. DAVIS. Wemightperhapsreferto elections in South Carolina. 

Mr. TURNER. As it seems I have unintentionally put New England on her mettle, I see the propriety of allowing a reply. I have no objection, therefore, to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. GALLINGER] obtaining the privilege he asks. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the 1·equest that 

gentlemen have leave to extend their remarks on the pending question? . There was no objection. 

Mr. TURNER. I now ask for the previous question. 

The previous question was ordered. 

:Mr. ROWELL. The vote, I presume, is fu'St on the motion to substitute the minority resolution. 

Mr. HOPKINS. Upon that motion I call for the yeas and nays. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the substitute; and on that question the gentleman from illinois LMr. HoPKINS] asks for 

the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will cause the substitute resolution to 

be read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

.JUsolved, That Mr. PmcE: was elected a Representative to Congress for the 

Second Congressional District of Rhode Island nt the election on November 4, 

1884, and is entitled to retain his seat. 

. The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the substitute. 

CONFERENCE COM.l\IITTEE APPOINTED. 

The SPEAKER announced as the managers on the part of the House 

of the conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 

Houses on the bill (S. 1458) to provide for holding terms o(the circuit 

and district courts of the United States for the eastern district of Michigan at Bay City, in said district, Mr. CoLLINS, Mr. RoGERS, and htr. 

RANNEY. . 

RHODE ISLAND CONTESTED ELECTION. 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 108, nays 130, not voting 80; as follows: 

Adams, G. E. 

Allen, C. H. 

Anderson, .T. A. 

Baker, 

Bayne, 

Bingham, 

Bound, 

Boutelle, 

Brady, 

Brown, C. E. 

Brown,W.W. 

Buchanan, 

Buck, 

Bunnell, 

Burrows, 

Butterworth, 

Campbell, .T. M. 

Cannon, 

Conger, 

Cooper, 

Cutcheon, 

Davis, 

Dingley, 

Dorsey, 

Dunham, 

Ely, 

Evans, 

YEAS-108. 

Everhart, 

Farquhar, 

Fleeger, 

Fuller, 

Funston, 

Gallinger, 

Gilfillan, 

Grout, 

Guenther, 

Hayden, 

Haynes, 

Henderson, D. B. 

Henderson, T • .T. 

Hepburn, 

Hermann, . Hiestand, 

Hires, 

Hitt, 

Holmes, 

Hopkins, 

.Jackson, 

.Tames, 

.Johnson, F. A. 

Johnston, .T. T. 

Ketcham, 

J .. a Follette, 

Lehlbach, 

Libbey, 

Lindsley, 

Lit.tle, 

Long, 

Louttit, 

Lyman, 

~larkham, 

McComas, 

McKenna, 

1\IcKJnley, 

Millard, 

Milliken, 

1\Ioffatt, 

Morrow, 

Nelson, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Hara, 

Osborne, 

Owen, 

Parker, 

Payne, 

Perkins, 

Peters, 

Pettibone, 

Phelps, 

Plnmb, 

Reed, 

NAYS-130. 

Adams, .T • .T. Dibble, .Tones, .T. T. 

Allen, .T. M. Dougherty, Kin~, 

Bacon, Dunn, K.lemer, 

Barbour, Eden, Landes, 

Barksdale, Ellsberry, Lanham, 

Barnes, Ermentrout, Lawler, 

Belmont, Findlay, LeFevre, 

Blanchard, Fisher, Lore, 

Bliss, Foran. Lovering, Blount, Ford, Lowry, 

Boyle, Frederick, Martin, 

Bragg, Gay, Maybury, 

Breckinridge, C. R. Geddes, McAdoo, 

Breckinridge,WCP Gibson, C. H. McCreary, 

Burnes, Glass, :McRae, 

Cabell, Green, Merriman, 

Caldwell, Hall, Miller, 

Campbell, .T. E. Ha.lsell, Morrison, 

Carleton, Hammond, Neal, 

Catchings, Harris, Neece, 

Clements, Hatch, Norwood, 

Cobb, Heard, O'Ferrall, 

Collins, Hemphill, Outhwait~. 

Comstock, Henderson, .T. S. Peel, 

Cowles, Henley, Perry, 

Cox, W.R. Herbert, Randall, 

Crain, Hill, Richardson, 

Crisp, Holman, Riggs-, 

Curtin, Howard, Sadler, 

Dargan, Hudd, Sayers, 

Davidson, A. C. Hutton, . Seney, Davidson, R. H. M • .Johnston, T. D. Seymour, 

Dawson, .Tones, .T. H. Shaw, 

NOT VOTING-SO. 

Aiken, Daniel, :1\Iatson, 

Anderson, C. M. Davenport, McMillin, 

Atkinson, Dockery, Mill!'!, 

Ballentine, Eldredge, Mitchell, 

Barry, Felton, Morgan, 

Bennett, Forney, 1\Iorrill, 

Bland, Gibson, Eustace Muller, 

Browne, T. !II. Glover, Murphy, 

Brumm, Goff, Negley, . Burleigh, Grosvenor, Oates. 

Bynum, Hale, O'Neill.Charles 

Campbl!ll,Fe1ix Hanback, O'Neill,.T . .T. 

Campbell, T . .T. Harmer, Payson, Candler, Hiscock, Pidcock, 

Caswell, Houk, Pindar, 

Clardy, Irion, Pirce, 

Compton, Kelley, Ranney, Cox, S. S. Laffoon, Reagan, Croxton, Laird, Reese, 

Culberson, Mahoney, Robertson, 

So the substitute was not agreed to. 

Rice, 

Rockwell, 

Romeis, 

Rowell, 

Ryan, 

Sawyer, 

Scranton, 

. Sessions, 

Spooner, 

Steele, 

Stephenson, 

Stone, E. F. 

Strait, 

Swinburne 

Taylor, I. H . Thomas, .T. R. Thomas, 0. B. 

Thompson, 

Van Schaick. _ Wade, · Wadsworth, 

·wait, 

Warner, William 

Weber, 

West, 

White, Milo 

Woodburn. 

Singleton, 

Skinner, 

Snyder, 

Sowden, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Charles 

Stone, W . .r., Ky. 

Stone, W • .T., Mo. 

Storm, 

Swope, 

• Tarsney, 

Taulbee, 

T~~oylor, .T. M. 

Tillman, 

Townshend, 

Trigg, 

Tucker, 

Turner, 

Van Eaton, 

Viele, 

Ward,.T.H. 

"\Varner,A . .T. · Weaver,.T.B. 

Wellborn, 

Wilkins, 

Willis, 

Wilson, 

Winans, 

Wise, 

Wolford, , Worthington. 

Rogers, 

Rusk, 

Scott, 

Smalls, 

Spriggs, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, .T. W. 

St. Martin·, Struble, 

Symes, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Taylor, Zach. 

Throckmorton, 

Wakefield, 

Wallaee, 

Ward,T.B. 

Weaver,A..T. 

Wheeler, 

White, A. C. 

Whiting. 

Mr. HAMMOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names of members voting be dispensed with. 

Mr. SPOONER. I object. 

The following-named members were anno"Lmced as paired until further notice: 

Mr. PINDA.R with Mr. DAVENPORT . Mr. CANDLER with 1\Ir. WEAVER, of Nebraska. 

Mr. CLARDY with l\Ir. BROWNE, of Indiana. 

Mr. FORNEY with Mr. GROSVENOR . llr. BLAND with Mr. GoFF. 

lli. GmsoN, of West Virginia, with Mr. STEWART, of Vermont. 

:Mr. l\IORGAN \vith Mr. ZACH. TAYLOR. 

Mr. THROCKMORTON with 1\Ir. ATKINSON. 

ltir. REAGAN with lli. HiscocK. 

Mr. Cox, of New York, with Mr. BURLEIGH. 

Mr. SPRIGGS with l\Ir. HouK. 

Mr. MITOHELL with Mr. WHITING. 

.• 
I· 

1028 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 25 ' 

The following-named members were announced as paired for this 

day: . Mr. BALLlliVTINE with Mr. BRUMM. 

Mr. BENNETT with .Mr. FELTON. 

Mr. WARD, of In<liana, with Mr. HANBACK. 

Mr. LAFFOON with Mr. HARMER. 

Mr. ROBERTSON with Mr. NEGLEY. 

Mr. FELIX C.A.!lfPBELL with Mr. W .AKEFIELD. 

Mr. BARRY with Mr. STRUBLE. 

Mr. MATSON with Mr. LAIRD. .Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri, with :Mr. SYMES. 

Mr. REESE with 1\Ir. SMALLS. 

Mr. DOCKERY with 1\Ir. MORRILL. 

Mr. DANIEL with Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. ELDREDGE with Mr. WHITE, of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. CULBERSON with Mr. E. B. TAYIJOR. 

Mr. O.A TES with Mr. KELLEY. 

Mr. ROGERS with 1\:l:r. CASWELL. 

Mr. MILLs with Mr. PAYSON. 

Mr. STAHLNECKER with Mr. W .AlT. 

Mr. McRAE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that my colleague, 

Mr. ROGERS, is absent on account of sickness. 

Mr. McMILLIN. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the hall on business. Had I been present when my name was called I would have 

voted no. The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded, 

The question was taken upon agreeing to the resolution reported by 

the majority of the committee, and the Speaker declared that the ·ayes 

seemed to have it. 

Mr. SPOONER. I call for a division. 

The House divided; and there were-ayel=! 1u3, noes 13. 

Mr. SPOONER. No quorum. 

The SPEAKER. The point of "no quorum" being made, the 

Chair will appoint the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. SPOONER] 

arid the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. TURNER] to act as tellers. 

Mr. TURNER. I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 130, nays 33, not 

voting·155; as follows: 

YEAS-130. 

Adams, J. J. Dougherty, Allen, J. M. Dunn, 

Bacon, Eden, 

Barbour, Ellsberry, 

Barksdale, Ermentrout, 

Barnes, Findlay, 

Belmont, Fisher, 

Blanchard, Foran, 

Bliss, Ford, 

Blount, Frederick, 

Boyle, Geddes, 

Bragg, Gibson, C. H. 

Breckinridge, C. R. Glass, 

Breckinridge, WCP Glover, 

Burnes, Green, 

Cabell, Hall, Caldw~n. Halsell; Carleton, Hammond, 

Catchings, llarris, 

Clements, Hatch, 

Cobb. He~rd, 

Collins, Hemphill, Comstock, Henderson, J. S. 

Cowles, Henley, 

Cox, W. R. Herbert, 

Crain, Hill, 

Crisp, Holman, 

Curtin, Howard, 

Dargan, Budd, 

Davidson, .A. 0. Hutton, 

Davidson,R.H.M. Johnston,T.D. 

Dawson, .Jones, J. H. 

Dibble, Jones. J. T. 

King, 

Kleiner, 

Landes, 

Lanham, 

l.Jawler, 

LeFevre, 

L<lre, 

L<lwry, 

Martin, 

Mayrmry, 

McAdoo, 

:McCreary, 

McMillin, 

McRae, 

Merriman, 

Miller, 

Morrison, 

Neal, 

Neece, 

Norwood, 

O'Ferrall, 

Outhwaite, 

Peel, 

Perry, 

Randall, 

Richardson, 

Riggs, 

Sadler, 

Sayers, 

Seney, 

Seymour, 

Shaw, 

Singleton, 

NAYS-33. 

Bingham, 

Brown, \V. W. B~nnell. 

Burrows, 

Butterworth, 

Campbell, .J.M. 

Cutcheon, 

Ely, 

Everhart., 

Adams, G. E. 

.Aiken, 

Allen, C. H . Anderson, C. M. 

Andersop, J. A. 

Atkinson, 

Baker 

Ballen'tine, 

Barry, 

Bayne, 

Bennett, 

Bland, Bound, 

Boutelle, 

Brady, 

Farquhar, 

Fuller, 

Funston, 

Hayden, 

Henderson, D. B. 

Hermann, 

Hopkins, 

LaFollette, 

L<lng, 

Millard, 

Milliken, 

O'Donnell, 

Osborne, 

Payne, 

Pettibone, 

R-eed, Rowell, 

Ryan, 

NOT VOTING-155. 

Browne, T.M. 

Brown, C. E . 

Brumm, 

Buchanl\n, 

Buck, 

Burleigh, 

Bynum, 

Campbell, Felix 

Campbell, J. E. 

Campbell, T. J. 

Candler, 

Cannon, 

Caswe11, 

Clardy, 

Compton, 

Conger, 

Cooper, 

Cox,S.S. 

Croxton, 

Culberson, 

Daniel, 

Davenport, 

Davis, 

Dingle;v, 

Dockery, 

Dorsey, 

Dunham, 

Eldredge, 

Evans, 

Felton, 

Skinner, 

Snyder, 

Sowden, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Charles 

Stone, W. J., Ky. 

Stone, W • .J., Mo. 

Storm, 

Swope, 

Tarsney, 

Taulbee, 

Taylor,J.M. 

Tillman, 

Townshend, 

Trigg, 

Tucker, 

Turner, 

Van Eaton, 

Viele, 

Ward,J.H. 

Warner,A.J. 

Weaver, J. B. 

Wellborn, 

Wheeler, 

Wilkins, 

Willis, 

Wilson, 

Winans, 

Wise, 

Wolford, 

Worthington. 

Scranton, 

Steele, 

Stone, E. F. Thomas, J. R. 

Thomas, 0. B. 

West. 

Fleeger, 

Forney, 

Gallinger, 

Gay, 

Gibson, Eustace Gilfillan, 

Goff, 

Grosvenor, 

Grout, 

Guenther, 

Hale, 

Hanback, 

Harmer, 

Haynes, 

Henderson, T. J. 

Hepburn, Markham, 

Hiestand, Matson, - Bires, McComas, 

Hiscock, McKenna, 

Bitt, McKinley, Holmes, Mills, 

Houk, Mitchell, 

Irion, Moffatt, 

Jackson, Morgan, 

James, Morrill, 

Johnson, F . .A. Morrow, 

Johnston,J. T. Muller, 

Kelley, Murphy, Ketcham, Negley, 

Laffoon, Nelson, 

Laird, Oates, 

Lehlbach, O'Hara, 

Libbey, O'Neill, Charles 

Lindsley, O'Neil}. J. J. 

Little. Owen, 

L<luttit, Parker, 

Love.ring, Payson, Lyman, Perkins, 

Mahoney, Peters, 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Phelps, 

Pidcock, 

Pin dar, 

~~~:b, Ranney, 

Reagan, 

Reese, 

Rice, 

Robertson, Rockwell, 

Rogers, Romeis, 

Rusk, 

Sawyer, 

Scot.t, 

Session!!, 

Smalls, 

::Spooner, 

Spriggs, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart,J. W. 

St. Martin, 

Th~ following additional pair was announced : 

Strait, 

Struble, Swinburne, 

Symes, 

'.ray lor, E. B. '.ray lor, I. H. 

Taylor, Zacb. 

Thompson, 

Throckmortoo, 

VanSchaick, 

\Vade, 

Wadsworth, Wait, 

Wakefield, 

Wallace, 

Ward,T.B. 

Warner, William 

Weaver, .A. J. 

Weber, 

White, A. C. White, Milo 

Whiting, 

Woodburn. 

Mr. DUNN with J\.Ir. WADSWORTH, for the remainder of the day. 

·The SPEAKER. On this question the yeas are 130, the nays 34. 

The yeas have it. 

Mr. SPOONER. Is there a quorum voting? 

Several MEMBERS. Oh, yes. 

:Mr. HISCOCK. Mr. Speaker, is there more than a quorum? 

The SPEAKER. One hundred and sixty-four members have voted. 

One hundred and sixty-three constitute a quorum, being a ma:jority of 

all the members chosen to the present Honse. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I desire to know how many more than a quorum 

there are, because, as I am paired, I have only voted to make a quorum. 

The SPEAKER. One hundred and sixty-four have voted ; one hundred and sixty-three constitute a quorum. There would be a quorum 

without the gentleman's vote. 

Mr. HISCOCK. I withdraw my vote. 

The SPEAKER. On this question the yeas are 130, nays 33. Tho 

resolution is adopted. -

Mr. TURNER moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved 

that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The question being taken, there were-ayes 103, noes 19. 

Mr. SPOONER. No quorum. 

Mr. TURNER. I withdraw the motion. 

Several MEMBERS. Too late! 

Mr. TURNER. 1\Ir. Speaker, have I a right to withdraw the motion? 

The SPEAKER. There has been no decision upon it; and the rules 

provide that a motion may be withdrawn atanytime before a decision 

or amendment. 

M:r. TURNER. I withdraw the motion. 

Mr. SPOONER. I object. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman has a right, under 

the rules, to withdraw it. -

Mr. SPOONER. I renew the motion to l'econsider. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman can not do that, because he did 

not vote with the majority. 

Mr. SPOONER. I did not vote at all. 

Mr. TURNER. I move that the House adjourn. 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. SYMPSON, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate had agreed to the report of the committee of 

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (S. 54) 

to provide for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians upon the 

various reservations, and to extend the operation of the laws over the 

Indian Territory, &c. · 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE. 

A message from the Senate, by Mr. McCooK, its Secretary, announced 

agreement· to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to 

the bill (H. R. 10242) making appropriations for the support of the 

Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888, and for other purposes. 

It further announced agreement to the amendments of the House of 

Representatives to the bill (S. 2301) granting a pension to Lucy E. 

Anderson. _ 

It further announced the agreement to, the amendment of the House 

to the bill (S. 2098) for the relief of Rosella E. Hibbert. 

It further announced the passage of a bill (S. 3173) to authorize the 

President of the United States to protect and defend the rights of 

American fishing vessels, American fishermen, American trading, and 

other vessels in certain cases, and for other purposes; in which concurrence was requested. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

Mr. DUJ'..TN, by unanimous consent, obtained leave of absence indefinitely on account of sickness. 

The motion of Mr. TURNER was agreed to; and accordingly (at 5 

o'clock and 15 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned. 

'. 
1887. CONGRESSIONAL R.ECORD-SENATE. 1029 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

· The following petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk 

under the rnle, and referred as follows: ' 

By Mr. J. :M. ALLEN: Petition of Benjamin Powell, and of Josiah 

Walker, of Alcorn County, Mississippi, for reference of their claims to 

the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. J. A. ANDERSON: Concurrent resolution of the Legislature 

of Kansas, relating to public lands-to the Committee on Public Lands. 

~esolution ~f th~ Kansas State Board of Agricnlture, in favor of ex- penment-station bill-to the Committee on Agricnlture. 

Also, resolution of the Kansas State Board of Agricnlture, in favor 

of the pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the same committee. 

~~ ~r. ~A.RKSDALE: Pet~tion of J. B. Harris, of Madison County, 

Miss1ss1pp1, for reference of cla1m to Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. . By Mr. BINGHAM: PetitionofWilliamM. WilsonandMishlerHerb 

Bitters Company, for the repeal of internal-revenue taxes-to the Committee on Ways and Means. . By Mr. BRADY: Petition of ·John C. Burrow, of Prince George 

County, Virginia, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. CABELL: Petition of citizens of Martinsville, Henry County, 

Virginia, praying for the abolition of the tax upon tobacco-to the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

By M~. J. M. C~MPBELL: Petition of William Swift, of Altoona, 

Pa., askmg that his name maybe placed upon thepension-roll-tothe 

Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CURTIN: Petition of Mrs. Valina Case for apension-tothe same committee. 

By Mr. ERMENTROUT: Memorial of Samuel Rhoads, an old soldier, asking for an increase of pension along with Generals Lo!mll and 

Blair-to the Cominittee on Pensions. o 

By Mr. GILFILLAN: Petition of the Consolidated Cattle-Growers' 

Association, for the passage of the Miller bill-to the Committee on .Agriculture. 

Also, petition of the Independent Order of Good Templars of Minnesota, in favor of Senate bill1579-to the Committee on the District 

of Columbia. 

By Mr. GROUT: Memorial of the National Legislative Committ-ee 

of Knights of Labor, for the passage of House bill7217-to the Committee on Territories. 

By Mr. GUENTHER: Petition of citizens of Princeton, Wis., praying that Gabriel W. Wick, United States lock-tender, be reimbursed for 

Joss sustained by the burning of the White River lock-honse-to the 

Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. F. A.. JOHNSON: Petition of H. W. Stilsonand 18 others, 

citizens of Clinton County, New York, for the repeal of inte1·nal-revenue 

taxes-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. JOSEPH: Petition of the New Mexico Bar Association re- questing the immediate passage of some bill providing for the speedy 

adjustment of land titles in New Mexico-to the Committee on the 

Juiliciary. 

By Mr. KELLEY: Petition of McKinley & Harbison, drug manu- facturers of Philadelphia, Pa., praying for the repeal of internal-revenue taxes-to the Cominittee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. LA FOLLETTE : Petition of A.. C. Gowen and 35 others, 

citizens of Chippewa County, Wisconsin, praying for the speedy passage 

of the agricultural experimental-station bill-to the Comnlittee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. LANHAM: Concurrent resolution of the Legislature of 

Texas relating to the right of way through the Indian Territory for . the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company-to the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

By Mr. LA. WLER : Joint resolution of the General Assembly of 

Kansas in :fuvor of the pleuro-pneumoni:J. bill-to the Committee on .Agriculture. 

By Mr. McCOMAS: Petition ofT. W. Stonestreet, of Maryland, for 

payment of his war claim-to the Cominittee on War Claims. 

By Mr. MORRILL: Petition of the Grand Army of the Republic 

Post at Wathena, and at Whiting, Kans., asking for the passag2 of 

the Edmunds-Tucker Mormon bill-totheCominitteeon the Judiciary. 

Also, concurrent resolutions of the Legislature of Kansas, relating to 

the jurisdiction ofUnited States courts-to the same committee. 

By Mr. O'FERRA.LL: Petition ot William C. Harrison, of Rockingbam County, Virginia, for reference of his claim to the Court of 

Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. PARKER: PetitionofC. R. Glass Post, No. 409, GrandA.rmy 

ofthe Republic; and of Ransom Post, No. 354, Grand A.rmyoftbe Republic, for the Edmunds-Tucker anti-polygamy bill-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By :r,{r. PERKINS: Resolutions of the Kansas State Board of A.gricnl ture, asking for the passage of the Miller pleuro-pneumonia bill and 

for the experimental station bill-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

A.lso,resolutionofBurdenPost,No.172, EriePost, No.311, and Thayer 

Post, No. 329, Grand Army of the Republic, of Kansas, for the .nassage 

. 

of the Edmunds-Tucker bill for the suppression of polygamy in Utahto the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. PLUMB: Memorial of the Legislature oflllinois, asking for 

the passage of the pendingSenate bill forthe suppression ofcontagious 

diseases among cattle-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. RANDALL: Petition of 35 citizens of Philadelphia, Pa., asking for repeal of internal-revenue taxes-to the Oommittee on Ways 

and Means. 

By Mr. RYAN: House concurrent resolution of the Kansas Legislature, for an1endment of United States statutes-to the Committee on 

the Judiciary. 

Also, resolutions of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, in favor 

of the experiment-station bill, and of the pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the 

Cominittee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. W. J. STONE, of Kentucky: Letter of Charles S. Bradley, 

for relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. SYMES: Petition of citizens of Greeley and Evans, Colorado, for the repeal of internal taxes-to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

By Mr. THOMAS: Joi1:1t resolution of the Legisla.ture oflliinois, 

urging the passage of the Miller bill for the suppression of pleuropneumonia-to the Committee on Agriculture. 

By M:r. WADSWORTH: Petition ofW. W. Perry, praying that his 

claim be referred to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

By Mr. W A.RD: Joint resolution of the General Assembly of Illinois, in favor of the Miller pleuro-pneumonia bill-to the Cominittee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. WHITING: Petition of 55 citizens of Easthampton, Mass., 

praying for the repeal of internal taxes-to the Committee on Ways 

and Meruts. 

The following petitions, praying for the enactment of a bill providing temporary aid for common schools, to be disbursed on the basis of 

illiteracy, were severally referred to the Qommittee on Education: 

By Mr. COMSTOCK: Of354citizensofthe:fifth districtof Michigan. 

By Mr. EDEN: Of 139 citizens of Dixon and Shobonier, Ill. 

By Mr. FORAN: Of 69 citizens, and of 320 citizens of the twentyfirst district of Ohio. 

By Mr. SKINNER: Of 94 citizens of Belvidere, ~. C. 

SENATE. 

WEDNESDAY, Jan/UUr'I.J 26, 1887. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D. . 

The Jomnal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

CREDENTIALS. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented the credentials of GEORGE 

GRAY, chosen by the Legislature of Delaware a Senator from that 

State for the term beginning March 4, 1887; which were read and or- dered to be placed on :file. 

He also presented the credentials of FlitANCIS MARION CocKRELL 

chosen by the Legislature of Missouri a Senator from that State forth~ term beginning March 4, 1887; which were read and ordered to be 

placed on file. 

Mr. HOAR presented the credentials of HE..."ffiY L. DAWES, chosen 

by the Legislature of Massachusetts a Senator from that State for the 

term beginning March 4, 1887; which were read and ordered to be 

placed on :file. 

PAYMENT OF SENATORS' SALARIES. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore laid before the Senate the following 

communication from the Secretary of the Senate; which was read and 

ordered to lie on the table, and be printed : 

OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, 

Washington, January 25, 1887. 

Sm.: In response to the resolution of the Senate, directing the Secretary to re- port to the Senate "from what time, according to custom and precedent the 

salary of Senators is reckoned and paid," I have the honor to report that s::, far as I have any knowledge or information, the "time" is the beginning ~f the 

official term of the Senator. Under the act of March 29, 1867, payments were made from the 4th of March, after the Senator had taken and subscribed therequired oath. 

This Jaw was subsequently modified by the act .of March 3,1883, so as to au- thorize payment to those whose term of office begins on the 4th of March and 

whose credentials have been presented to the Senate, but who have had n~ op- portunity to be qualified. 

In ('BSes of vacancy, oy death or otherwise, the act of July 12, 1862, provides 

that the successor shall be paid from the time the compensation of his predecess'Jr ceased. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ANSON G. McCOOK, 

Ron. JoliN SHERMAN, 

Secretar-y. 

President of tlle Senate •