The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-11-19
GRAVE CHARGES AGAINST A UNITED
STATES SENATOR.

DC better Tor Sucn CONFUSION.
GRAVE CHARGES AGAINST A UNITED
STATES SENATOR.
From Haypcr's Weekly.
There seems to have been an open market
for votes at the late election in Rhode Island
The Providence Journal asserts that hun-
dreds were bought, that the price was i've
dollars, and that there was scarcely pre-
tense of secrecy 1t has been often ALLEGED
that the politics of the little State were more
venal than those OF any of the other States,
and that preferment and influence have de-
pended mainly upon money. The late con-
test in Rhode Island has occlsioned a great
deal of plain talking; and one speech of Mr..
Jenckes just before the election is of ma
tioDal Importance. because of the
grave charges which it makes, upon official
documentary evidence, against a Senator
of the United States. Mr.. Sprague, one of
the Senators from Rhode Island has been
known for some time to be peculiarly hostile
to Mr.. Jenckes, one of the representatives
gentleman most honoTably known TO the
country for his bankrupt act, and more es-
pecially for his efficient advocacy of civil
service reform The Republican Convention
of his district were unable to agree upon
candidate, and referred the selection to the
people. There were five candidates ut the
polls, and Mr.. Jenckes was defeated. Mr.
Games, who is called Sprague Republican,
was elected, having nearly three thousand
majority over Mr. JeDckes. aad nearly four
hundred over all OF the local aud per-
sonal considerations affecting the cleo
ton, we have, of course, nothing
to say, except to regret that so experienced,
able, and faithful q legislator rs Mr.. Jenckes
is lost to the country. But in the speech to
which we have alluded Mr. Jeuckes, after
stating very plainly that it was the general
impression in Congress that Senator Sprague's
will is the law of Rhode Island. and that his
will WAS established by political bribery aud
fraud, in consequence of which tho State was
everywhere notoriously disgraced, proceeded
to charge, not as he said, ''wthout the most
ample proof that in the darkest
days of the war, William Sprague, formerly
Governor, and now Senator of Rhode Island
in the Congress of the United States vio-
lated the articles of war Of the United
States in holding commerce with the enemy,
and aiding them with money and munitions of
war;" Mr. JenckeG then read an Off cial re-
port from General Holt to the Secretary of
| War in 1865, concerning case of illicit trade
to Texas, ''implicating Hoyt, Sprague, and
| others, brought to the notice of the depart
ment by Major-General Dix" The substance
of the case is, that in the autumn of 1869
certain firms in Providence furnished money
| with which vessels were bought, loaded with
machinery, arms, etc., cleared for foreign
ports, and run to Texas under changed flags
the cargoes sold in Texas, and the proceeds
invested in cotton. General Holt states
that MIR. Sprague wrote several letters to
General Dix denying the statements of Hoyt,
who seems to have been the agent, and who
asserts that Mr.. Sprague was fully informed
of everything, and advised and aided the en-
terprise. MIR. Sprague alleges that his object
was to aid Union men in Texas; but no one
else, the General says, seems to have taken
that view; and Mr.. Sprague's brother, who,
as the Senator admits, had especial charge of
the undertaking, describes its object to have
been to get out cotton. General Dix, in
writing to the Secretary of War, states that
the proof of illicit trade is ample, and that it
is an important question whether the pro-
cesdings should be by military commission
or in civil court, and whether the facts, if
proved, are violation of the laws of
war, or a still higher crime under the
Constitution. General Holt, in conclusion,
is of opinion, after an examination of
the papers, that the persons involved may be
brought to trial for relieving the enemy with
money and ammunition, or for violating the
laws Of war in trading with the enemy. His
report is dated June -, 1865, and he says il
is for the Secretary to decide whether, in
view of the circumstances and of the present
condition of affairs, the trial shall be or.
dered. To the question why the accused
persons were not tried at the time, Mr..
Jenckes replies that General Burnside ad,
vised postponement upon the ground that in
that dark hour the trial of a Senator upon
such a charge would be too demoralizing q
shock to the frontier line. Later, when the
report was made by General HoltiA 1868, more
than two of the three years of the offenss,
which are the limit within which it can be-
tried, were passed; there were no nationa
civil courts in Texas, aud the authority o.
commissions was in question in the Supreme
Court, which presently denied it; aud thC
offenders, according to Mr. Jenckes, thus es
capped exposure, trial, and punishment. W.
understand that Senator Sprague has denied
either the accuracy OF Mr.. Jenckes' statemsn
or the inferences of Generals Dix aud jHolt
But the report of the latter gentleman il
very emphatic, and General Dix's OPT
nion was that the proof of illicit trad
was conclusive. 1t appeared, for instance
from tho invoice of the cargo with whicl
Hoyt went from Havana to Matamorss, tina
|, it included thousands of cartridges and per
cussion caps" Party and personal feeling il