North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-04-15


Reported Attempt to Secure Cameron's
Election by Bribery--Strong Probability
ofthe Guilt of Mr.. Cameron.
The following is the report of the commit
tee appointed by the Legislature of Pennsyl-'
vania tove ins tigate the charges against Gen
Cameron of attempting to secure his election
to the United States Senate by bribery:
The committee appointed under the reso-
luton of the Goth January last, to inquire
whether unlawful means were employed to
secure the election ola United States sena-
tor, with authority to send for persons and
papers, beg leave to offer the following report
That they have held forty three sessions
since that time and examined thirty witness
es.
The first witness was T, JEFF. Boyer.
(He testified precisely as he wrote in his
letter published after the election.)
Now if this statement of Mr.. Boyer is true
there can be no donbt about the employment
Of unlawful means to secure the election of
General Simon Cameron to the Senate of the
United States. But the committee had 9TH
er testimony before them in regard to the
transactions related by Dr. Boyer and it be-
comes necessary, in the sight of that testimo-
ny, to examine his claims to truthfulness.-
That there were, within few days previous
to the senatorial election, repeated interviews
between Mr.. Brobst and Mr.. Boyer cannot
be doubted, because they not only both tes-
tify to this fact, but their testimony is cor
roborated by that of Captain Chritzman, DR..
Early, Michael r. Boyer, and Mr.. Vaughan.
They also agree in regard to the private in
terviews had between DR.. Boyer aud Gener-
and afterwards at DR.. Boyer's room, in the
Pennsylvania House and in this they are
sustained by the testimony of Captain Chrtz-
man, DR.. Early, and Mr.. Vaughan. They
agree, moreover, as to the arrangements and
preparations which were made 10 visit Gen
eral Cameron at his own house at the request
of Mr.. Bright and as to the fact that such
preparations were made we have the testimo-
ny Of DIR. Early. There is also marked
agreement between the testimony of DR..
Boyer and that of John j. Patterson. They
both testify that they met in Harrisburg on
the Friday Immediately preceding the sena-
torial election that they went to Reading
in the afternoon of that day, on the Lebanon
Valley cars, and that General Cameron was
on the same train that arrangements were
there made between Mr.. Patterson and DIR
Boyer to meet General Cameron at the house
of his son, j. d. Cameron, on the next even
ing +; that they met according to oppoint,
ment, and that On the following Tuesday
morning, the day of the senatorial election,
| DR.. Boyer, at the request of Mr., Patterson,
| went to Patterson's room in Uerr's Hotel
where he found General Cameron, and after
| ward met DR.. Fuller. These are only few
of the numerous points of coincidence be-
tween the testimony of DR.. Boyer and that
of Messrs. Brobst and Patterson. Indeed.
there is almost perfect agreement between
them, except in regard to the alleged money
| transactions. 1t must be evident to every
one that in the interviews which Mr.. Brobst
and Mr.. Patterson had with DR.. Boyer, their
only object was to influence him, by some
means or other, to vote for General Ca meron
for United States senator. But by what
means did they attempt to accomplish this
object? Here the testimony of these three
witnesses involves a direct contradiction. -
DR.. Boyer asserts that MIR. IBrobst told him
he was authorized by General Cameron to
offer five thousand dollars for a vote, which
Mr.. Brobst denies, and that General Gamer
on and Mr.. Patterson positively agreed to
give him twenty thousand dollars, and finally
twenty five thousand dollars, in order to Sc
cure his vote for Simon Cameron, which is
emphatically denied by Mr.. Patterson. We
are, therefore, bound to conclude either that
the statements of DR.. Boyer, on the one
hand, or those of Mr.. Patterson and Mr.
Brobst on the other, in regard to the pecu-
mary considerations, are downright and de-
liberate faIsehoods. Men always act from
motives. 1t is, therefore, legitimate to in
auire what motive could have influenced DR..
Boyer in this single case, while all the other
leading features of his statement are shown
to be true, to bear false testimony? 1t
could not have been fear, for surely he had
no more to fear from telling the truth than
from declaration of falsehood. 1t could
not have been the hope of gain, for it is i'm
possible for any one to see how he could have
expected any benefit from the utterance of
any such false statement. Nor could he
have been actuated by malevolent or re-
yengeful feeling, for there is no evidence of
the existence OF any such feeling on the part
of DR.. Boyer against General Cameron or
any of his friends. Moreover, to suppose
any man could falsely and knowingly charge
upon his fellow man, without some strong