The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1873-03-14

= W0ere they are supposed 10 nav
: been committed, we have no infol
nation, except ''that these charge
? are of such a character as TO descrV
, the careful scrutiny of this legisls
!, ture.',
II Upcn the whole we are of ia
E opinion that the resolution is II
l tended only to embrace such charge
: as may have arisen out of the lat
election of United States Senate
, by the legislature of the State, IN
: does not have reference TO an
events that may have transpired be
, fore that time.
The principal Charge made agains
Senator Pomeroy before this com
: mittee is that he attempted to Sc
cure the vote of one A. ri. York,
Senator from Montgomery county
. by the use of money.
\ Mr.. York was subpened befor
the committee and made q detailed
statement of the transaction, having
previously reduced TO writing hi
version of the matter, which he wa
allowed to read as his testimony
Much difficulty was experienced il
the examination of the witness OF
account of his reference to his writ
ten statement, his consequent eva
| sion of the questions asked, and hi
long and impairment explansuonl
of his own conduct, which he claim
ed the privilege to make. as
/ The statement of Mr., York shows
substantially that he was member
of the State Senate, and Mr.. Pom.
1 eroy was a candidate of the United
States Senate; that in. connection
with other gentlemen who were OPP,
posed to Mr.. Pomeroy, he entered
into q plan whereby Mr.. Pomeroy
was to be induced to offer him
money to influence his vote, and he
was 10 accept it and expose Mr..
Pomeroy.
Mr.. York swears that the idea
that POmeroy was using money was
first suggested to his mind on Sat
urday the 25th day of January,
| 1873, and one of the principal rea-
sons was that he was then informed
that l. S. Kalloch and I. B. Ed
ridge had offered TO bet each 81 900
draft on Pomeroy's election, and
this circums' ance he gives as the
principal inducement and incentive
to his action in entering into and
carrying out the plan.
He stated that he accordingly Wis
tied Mr.. Pomeroy's room on the
night of Monday, the 9th of Janu-
airy, 1873, about midnight, and after
a short interview, arose to leave,
saying he had been informed that
the interview was to be "private
business interview" and after this
hint, Mr.. Pomeroy offered him
$1,000, which the witness thought
inadequate, and after much hig-
Cling about the price, it was finally
agreed that Pomeroy should pay
him $1,000, and that two thousand
dollars was then paid, the only con-
sideration or promise on the part OF
York being, that he would vote for
Pomeroy, "with the privilege of
reconsideration" and notwithstand-
ing the handsome price, it appears
from the statements of the witness
that this is all the promise or pledge
Mr.. Pomcroy required of him; and
it does not appear that anything
was said about returning the money
if the witness should reconsider his
agreement, but it does appear from
the statements of the witness that
though the bargain was subject to
reconsideration, Mr.. POmeroy in
formed him of all his secret plans,
and of numerous dark transactions
in which he was engaged, and I'M
bosomed himself as be would to Il
tried and intimate friend.
On the next Tuesday, January
%, was the senatorial election, and
Mr.. York voted against Mr.. Pome-
roy, but there being no choice the
houses must go into joint conven-
ton. After this election, and on
the same day, at ''five minutes be-
fore 4 o'clock" in the language of
the witness, Mr.. Pomeroy visited
him and gave him $1,000 more, Mr..
York still resting under no obliga-
ton, except his promise, to vote for
Mr.. Pomeroy with the privilege of
reconsideration, and Mr.. Pomeroy
requiring no further pledges.
The next day was the joint con-
yention, on the floor of which Mr..
York produced the money and told
his story. He is asked if he did not
state on the floor of the Joint con-
vention "that he knew the names of
members OF the house that had Mr..
Pomeroy's money in their pockets ?"
He replies, 81 have no recollection
of saying anything that could be
construed TO convey such a mean
ing, but may have made use of
some extravagant expression" II
appears from the testimony of Mr..
York that he had been acquainted
with Mr.. Pomeroy for some time,
and that on one occasion he had Yis-
tied Washington, carrying with him
a letter which procured for him GER
tain affidavits of a woman, reflect
ing upon the character of Mr.. POM
eroy, and charging him with crimi-
nal intercourse with her; and with
these afidavits he says he visited
Senator Pomeroy at his private par
vate parlors, and calling him away
from his family, and by their use in
duced Senator Pomeroy to remove
the land office from Neodesha to In
dependence, after such action had
been decided against by the entire
Kansas delegation.
Mr.. Pomeroy enters no appear
snce In this case, but the whole mat
ter rests upon the testimony of
York, which is subject to the Sc
verest criticism, and while saying
nothing of its improbabiiity is di-
rectly contradicted and impeached
in a number of material respects by
the testimony of other Witnesses.
1t appears from the testimony of
KaIloch and Eidridge that the cir
cumstances of their offering to bet
each q $1,000 draft on Pomeroy's
election. was merely an act of pleas
antry, but that no such thing occur
/ 10 ~ mi
| yate room on Monday evening,
January 9th, two days after York
swear, positively to having heard
il and been Influenced and actnated
by il in his design to expose Pome-
roy. Mr.. York says that he COM
municated this circumstance to d.
f. Simpson, at the time ne heard it,
and it was then the plan was agreed
upon to expose Mr.. Pomeroy.
Again, four witnesses testify that
Mr.. York stated on the floor of the
joint convention that he knew MEM
bers of the legislature who had Mr..
Pomeroy's money in their pockets
for their votes. Yet Mr.. York says
he had no such knowledge, and ii
the statement was made by him ii
was extravagant. After q hasty
consideration of the testimony il
this case, such as we are compelled
| by the shortness OF the session to
| give il, we have reached the con-
ciusion that there is no evidence
before this committee, nor within
its reach, which goes to show thai
Mr.. Pomeroy used any money
promise of office, or other corrupi
means TO secure his election to the
United States Senate, except that o.
Senator York.
Mr.. York, by his own testimony
was q party to the transaction
crime, or corrupt bargain, and wa
of course an accomplice. There Il
no palmer principle in the law thai
| fhn1 rzhfNh doniaroa Atsns tho mi