The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1873-03-13

to one A. NJ. York, member OF the Senate
OF the State Of Kansas, the sum of s., 900 to
influence his vote for the said s. c. Porercy
for United States Senator.
5. That Richard Stephens, protesting to
be friend OF the said S. c. Pcmeroy, did
attempt To bride with money one VIM. Bate
man, member of the House of Represent
lives, of the State of Kansas, to vote Tor S. G..
Pomeroy for United States Senator.
Therefore, We the committee do find that
the said s. Z. Poneroy is guilty Of the crime
of bribery, and attempting TO corrupt. by Of
iers Of money. members oil the Legislature OF
the State of Kansas.
Therefore your committee request 10 be
discharged from further consideration OF this
subject.
Signed ". f GUEIIS,
Chairman on part of the senate.
E n. MORRILL,.
On the part Of the House:
S X. Cross,
| y. NUJENT
MINORITY REPORT.
Committee, dissent from the report OF the
majority. and beg leave to submit the follow
ing as their views on the sutiec', referred TO
\ the CCLlu:lttcc COnsiutIdtlOus
The language of the resolution ia so vague
and indefinite that there exists in our minds
wide doubt as to the real jurisdiction Of the
committee.
There are no distinct or specific charges
in the resolution, and the only light which
We have as TO the nature of the charges 10 be
Investigated, is contained in the following
words: As numerous charges of corrup-
ton and bribery are made against Senator
s. c. Pomeroy." Whether these alleged
charges of corruption and bribery are o! a
political or business nature, when and where
they are supposed to have been committed,
We have no information except "that these
charges are of such a character az to deserve
the careful scrutiny Of this Legislature"
Upon the whole We are OF the opinion that
the resolution is intended only to embrace
such charges az may have arisen out of the
late election of United States Senator BY the
Legislature of the State, and does not have
reference to any events that may have trans
pred before that time.
The principal charge made against Sena-
tor Pomery before this committee is tina, he
attempted TO secure the vote of one A. NJ.
York, Senator from Montgomery c1untv,
by the use of money.
Mr.. York was subpened before the COM
mi,tee and made detailed statement of the
transaction. having previously reduced to
writing his version OF the matter, which he
was allowed to read as his testimony. Much
difficulty was experienced in the examina-
ton of this witness on account Of his fire.
guent reference to his written statement. his
consequent evasion of the questions asked,
and his long and impsrtinent explanations
and notifications of his own conduct, which
he claimed the privilege to make.
The statement of Mr.. York shows sub
stanlially that he was member Of the State
Senate and Mr.. Pomeroy was candidate
tor the United States Senate; that in connec-
ton with other gentlemen who we're oppos-
ell TO Mr.. Pomeroy, lie entered into plan
whereby Mr.. POmeroy was to be induced to
offer him money to influence his vote, and
he was to accept it and expose Mr.. Pomeroy.
Mr.. York swears that the idea that POM
eroy was using money was first suggested to
his mind on Saturday, the 25th day of JAN
uary, 1873, and one OF the principal reasons
was that he was then informed that /. 5.
Ka!loch and T. b. Edridge had offered 10
be; each 81 900 draft on Pomeroy's cleo
ton, and this circumstance he gives a. the
principal inducement and incentive to his
,c,lon in entering into and carrying on, the
plan.
lie stated that he accordingly visited Mr.
Pomeroy's room, on the night of Monday,
the 9th of January, 1873. abou, midnight,
and after short interview, arose 10 leave,
saving he had been informed that the inter- |
view was to he "rrivare business inter |
view" and after this hint, Mr.. Pomeroy OF
fered him S., 900, which The witness thought |
inadequate, and after much higgling abou |
the price, it was finally agreed that Pomeroy |
should pay him SIS, 600, and that s., 900 was |
then paid, the only consideration or promise |
on the part of York being that he wonld vote |
for Pomeroy, with the privilege of consid- |
eration," and notwithstanding the handsome |
price, it appears from the statements of the |
witness that this il all the promise or pledge |
Mr.. Pomeroy required Of him; and it doe
not appear that any thing was sail about |
returning the money if the witness should
reconsider his agreement, but ii does appear |
from the statement of the witness that though |
the bargain was subject to reconsideration,
Mr.. Pomeroy informed him OF all his secret |
plans, and of numerous dark Transactions IT,
which he was engaged, and unbosomed him
self as lie would TO a tried and intimate |
friend.
Ga the next day, Tuesday, January IS,
1873, was the senatorial election, and Mr..
York voted again.t Mr.. Pomeroy, but there
being no choice, the two houses must 9, into
Joint convention After this election, and
on the same day, al" minutes before 1 |
o'clock" in the language of the witness. Mr. |
Pomeroy visited him and gave him So 900
more, Mr.. York still resting under no obii-
CATION, except his promise TO vote Tor Mr.
Pomeroy with tine privilege Of reconsidera-
ton, and Mr.. POmeroy requiring no fur
ther pledges.
The next day WIS the ioin, convention on
the floor OF which Mr.. York produced the
money and :old his story. He is asked if he
did no. state On the floor Of the joint conven-
ton that he knew the names OF members OF
the HOUSES that had pomeroy's money in
their pockets" He replies" 81 have no
recollection of saying anything tina.
could be construed to convey such
meaning, but l may have made some ex-
travsgaut expression" 1t appears from
the testimony Of Mr.. York, that he had
been acquainted with Pcmefoy for some time,
and that on one occasion he had visited
Washington carrying with him letter which
procured for him certain afidavits OF a wo-
man rsfi,c'-r~ nron the character of Senator
Pomerov, AMI charging him with criminal
intercourse with her, and with these sftida-
Wits he says lie visited Senator Pomeroy, at
his private parlors, called him away from
his family, and by their use induced Mr..
Pomeroy 10 remove the land office from
Neodesha to Independence, after such action
had been decided against by the entire Kan
sas delegation.
Mr.. Pomeroy enters no appearance in this
case, but the whole matter rests upon the
testimony of York, which is subject to the
severest criticism, and while eaying nothing
Of It's improbabilltv, is directly contraGicted
and impeached in a number Of material re-
spects BY the testimony Of other witnesses.
1t appears from the testimony of Kalloch
and Eldridge that the circumstance of their
offering to bet each 81 600 draft on Pone-
roy's election, was merely an act Of pleas
antry, bot that no such thing occurred but
once, and that vas in private room on
Monday evening. January 9th, two days
after York swears positively to having
heard IL and been Influenced and ac;uated by
il in his design TO expose Pomeroy. Mr.
York says that he communicated this cir
to B. F. Simpson, at the time he
heard it, and II was then the plan was agreed
upon to expose Pomeroy.
Again, four witnesses testify that Mr..
York stated on the floor of the Joint Con-
ven,ion that he knew members of the Legis-
ature who had Pomerov's money in their
pockets for their votes. Yet Mr.. York says !
he had no such knowledge, and If the state
ment was made By him it wss sxtravasant.