Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-04-22


| $1,000 himself, or To that ehyci. This t.,,,.
noNy standing by itself would not he -.
I important, but taken in connection Win -
facts it, in onr opinion iustifi.s ,h, - o'"er
Did Charles X. Buckalew prior To this IT,,
view. know OF the part Mr. Bower WAS ,c
and lis purposes! Was he priyy TO i, and =
| adviser therein. 1H
Ii Is Ia be horne In mind. that Mr. RpcL
lew was at this time prominent (perhsps m.
n'ost prominently cand idate for the Drmoc,.
&c Caucus nomination. Ii Was natural and Co,
talniy not improper that he should feel SON..
degree OF anxiety that the Caucus nop,i,,
should succeed ia the election. and that effort.
to prevent such SUCCESS should in SOME ma,
ner be thwarted
Mr. Boyer states that IL was generally r, nor
ted that unlawful means would he resurted ,,
TO deiest the Democratic nominee. Hs all,
informs us that he kept several of his mari,
friends informed of what he was doing ana
the progress he was making. Now it is nos,
sihle that Mr.. Buckalew (the person of an
others the most deeply interested in the spc.
cess OF Mr. Boyer's scheme. } might, Will. hi.
party friends were fully informed have beer
ieit IN total ignorance of il. hut TO use the
language OF the majority report, s'is il probs.
ble 2''
III We have reason 70 believe that he wa,
privy to Boyer's proceedings at the time. h-
sought his society on the Sabbath day pr.
ceding the election, il was but natnrai thai
these proceedings should b.. the sul,iret ot
consultation and in that consultation NJ
Buckaiew must have been either passive e,
pressing neither appreciation nor disapprobs
tion OF Boyer's action he must have diss,,
proved OF II or he mnst have approved it, To
suppose that he WAS entirely passive wonId h,.
to suppose that he is constituted different
from all other men 10 infer that h, ji.sr
proved oil it. would bo TO run counter To ri,,
testimony of Bower.
That he approved of Bowers coprse-tbat
he counseled him to bo cautious; that such
caution had reference to the further inter
views which Boyer had arranged to have with
Gen Cameron and his friends-that il Wa.
merely caution TO conduct himself as 10
avoid detection. are iutercuces We think ver.
clearly deducibe from the evidence. II th.
reasoning be correct. and ii Dr. Boyer's t-sti-.
mony br true, IL follows that Charles X. Buck
aleu- is guilty vf resorting To 'sunlawful means"
To secure the election of T.. ). Senator.
Mr.. ). >. Pancoast.a member of this House
testiles that soon after the election. he met
Mr.. William Goodwin, formerly a member OF
the State Senate. in the city of Philadelphia;
that Mr.. Goodwin Informed him {ref-rrng 10
The Boyer transsction) that .'Mr. Buckai-w
set the "Loie thiRg up, and that IRE carried il
through" he further states that he under
stood from Mr.. Goodwin that there was an ar
rangement between himself Mr. Buckaicw and
or to get some person 10 offer 10 be bribed.
Mr.. Goodwin Uhc party thus imp plicated) de-
nies this substantially. II the testimony OF
Mr.. Pancoast be true, it follows that Mr.. vii
liam Goodwin. OF tho city of Philadelphia is
chargeable with resorting TO unlawful means
to secure the election OF U. S. Senator
Thus fai We have spoken only of the statu-
tory offence of which I. J. Boycr,if his festi-.
mony is true, is gnilty, and il guilty (the OF
fence being misdemeanor to which there
can be no accessores) it follows that all the
parties who were in consultation with him,
aiding, eounseling and advising, are also gull
ty as principals.
IL our conclusions are not we'll drawn from
the premises, there still another view of tho
subject, overlooked by the maturity nran
which, in our Judgment there eau Lo no Two
opinions.
The ofiense OF conspifacy at common law il
a combination Of persons to do an unlswfrs
oet, or to do a lawful vet in an unlawful mau--
her. II I. J. Boyrrs Testimony be- true hs
together with the persons mlih whom he e VI
suited. and who advised and encouraged him,
are gniltv OF u conspiracy TO enticc Gen.
Cameron ana o iHfe into breach Gf the law
by Offering none yor using other undue infiu-
ence to secure vote for Senator, and i, does
not matter whether the primary purpose of
such combination ',as 20 defeat General Cam
erun Or to enaurc the success OF the u. mo-
cratic nominee.
ihe iste honr NJ which tile majority rsport
VAS necessarily mado-the mass OF TESTIMONY
In the case and the other duties devniying up-
On MS hsve precinded anything like thor
,ngh review OF the evidence. and we are o.
higed to content ourselves with a hasty re-
'ieY Of the principal testimo ony bearing on
he subject OF our inquiry. and in our judg-
men. disc losing lsnme instances of unlawful
means used to secure the election OF United
States Senator, which were overlooked in the
majority report.
We accord to the majority of the Committee
our opprobation of the courtesy exhibited by
hem to the minority during the progress of
the investigation, and only regret thar
he argumentative character OF their report
has, in our judgment, imposed upon us the
iuty of following their example, and present
ng our views and conclusion az drawn from
he evidence, all which is respectfully sub
nitted.
Gov. Curtin declines a re- nom ination.