National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1880-05-08
Minority Report from the Wallace
Committee.
Direct Issue with the Report of the Major
ity-Its Misrepresentation Exposed and
Its Charges Observation-Disclosures
and Calhoun Quoted Against
tile DemocrIts--Sensibio
Reforms Proposed.
a Democratic Campaign Document niddled

Senators Teller, Krkwood, Hoar and Blair They
take very direct issue with the findings Of the
majority. as presented by the latcrs report Of the
first ultimo, and charge that it mlsrcprcsents the
testimony.
The minority assert that the testimony fails to
show any violation or evasion Of the statute of 1876
prohibiting executive officers or employees of tho
United States not confrmablo by the Senate from re-
qucsting receiving contributions from each other
for political purposes; and also that tho majority
have not been able to show that any pressure
was mndo on the department employees in
Washington, or any one of them, to in
ducc them to contribute to the campaign fnnds
but that. on tho other hand, 1t appears that while
some refused to contribute, not one was discharged
for SO refusing. The minority quote, among others
the following passage from the majoritys "ab-
strnct of testimony.
"RHlph ]. squrcs, assistant messenger in the War
contributions.
AT the time he distributed these circulars he
was In the receipt of salary of $50 per year He
refused to contribute 10 the election iund. and his
salary was reduced to $40 per year by Congress
afterwhrd."
Mr. Teller's report comments upon this as fol-
lows:
1t is difficult to sse why the committee slould
have thought this worthy of mention. Squire B
still III office as watchman. Can 1t be that the
committee hoped to make II appear that to punish
him for his failure to contribute Congress cut down
his salary from $50 to s720 per annuln, and that
Nllt llOuSe Oh Representatives Orlgln
ated that provision in the nppropri iation bill for
this reduction at the invitation of some Repub.
lican who was plotting to punish squires2"
Similarly, the minority comment upon a portion
of the abstract of testimony" which sets forth
that one Handy, n clerk discharged from the Rich
mond, Va, postoffce, testified that he attributed
his discharge to his failure TO respond to circular
levying political ASSESSMENT. They assert that
Handys own testimony, OIL cross'exnminotion,
showed that he was was discharged several weeks be-,
| fore he received the circular. They say:
The majority report complains that the ON.
plOyeS of the Government from Pennsylvania and
other States were allowed to go home to vote. and
by their political friends The committee how
ever fail to notice the fact clearly proved, that
both Democrats aud Republicans were thus al
lowed to 60 home to vote, and both had transpor-
tation furnished by their political friends Perhaps
the committee thought because the number of
Democrats was less than the number of Republi-
cans the crime on their part was altogether too
small TO notice. 1t is unfortunate that the com
mittee should overlook so many things, and should
have minConstrued the testimony for Il gives the
report the appearance of an attempt on the part of
the committee, to conceal the fnctS and create an
impression on the public mind not warranted by
the testimony.
"The committee constantly use the word assess
| mont even when referring to tho testimony of
witnesses who declared there was no assessment
| The use of the word assessment by the committee,
as applied to the contribution, is peryersion OF
the testimony. 1t is an attempt to cause II to ap-
pear that there was an authoritative declaration as
| to how much should be paid, aud that failure to
pay would subject the party refusing, or neglect
Ing to contribute, to some Inconvenience or danger
All the testimony shows that no attempt was made
| To compel payment, and non.payment did not even
call for reproOf from the committee or any one else
IF assessments were made, as the committee
would iain have itappear, 1t is strange that among
all those who have been discharged since that time
no one could DO found who claimed that he had
been pressed into payment or discharged for non.
payment. Either the testimony did not exist, and
therefore could not be had, or the committee has
not done its duty. We ul know that the commit
tee has been dIgcnt In its efforts to find this kind
of testimony, No one familiar with the conduct
OF the committee can blame II for failure TO pro-
| duce that kind of evidence"
Tho minority then proceeded to criticise the bill
After quoting It's full text, they say: This is In
short proposition to prohibit any empOye or
person holding Cfico under the Government of the
United states from contributing money or other
things ofvHlue for political purposes, either with
reference to national political questions those of
the States 1t is based on the theory that the use
| of money Contributed by certain class Of citi-
zens, oilice-holders) in political campaign is q
crime. while money contributed by non Office
holder aud used for the same purposes Is not q
crime. 1t is not the purpose for which IL was
tributed or used that determines tho question
whether such contribution or use was or was not
| a crime but the class ofmen who contribute that
determines the question under the proposed bill.
1t makes new crime, not heretofore known 10
tho criminal code of the States or of the United
States 1t Is TO punish an act that may be of Itself
not only harmless, but probably beneficial to the
Against the corrupt use of money in political
campaigns all honest men must protest, ANA those
who contribute money for such purposes. as well
as those who contribute money, having reason "
suppose 1t will be so used, should DO severely pun
ished.
"Ths is not BIZ to prevent the use of money
for corrupt purposes but to prevent irco discus
sion among tho people of political questions IL
Is true It does not say that officials shall not discuss
political questions II allows that To be done, under
some conditions, and in one way, but II does pro-
TONS TONS f' in the ' most effective way-that is by the
agency of the prGss-unleSs they can find men who
are willing to publish thoir ldeNs for nothing,
They cannot put in the usual form Of political
pamphlets their ideas, because they must expend
money to pay the expenses of paper and printing,
and that will be n violation of the law
The purpose Of the bill Of the majority is not to
prevent the contribution OF money TO cnlghteu the
people on political questions but TO secure q mo-
nopOly OF such fundamentally TO men who are
seeking Office and ussal those who hold office.
/, should be entitled "a bill 10 compel political
Information TO be paid for from single barrel"
The minority next remark
"This is not the first effort that has been made to
prevent the officials OF the United States from eN
crCIsng all the rights of citizenship, but II Is the
1rst time that this proposition has come from mem
bers of the political party now In majority IN both
branches Of Congress. i was attempted IN l70l,
by q proposition in the House OF Representatives
not exactly like this, but in principle very similar
TO 1t. II was lost by a decisive vote, and among
those voting against u was James Madison. This
attempt was again made In the Senate in 1888, and
again in 1889 IN the House Of Representatives The
bill introduced into tho Senate in 1888 did not pro-
nlDW lne Contribution oil money, Dut ulu pfonlDll
the participation OF Government officials in political
allIlrs and is not different in principle from this
bill and the objections urged against that by prom
inent Democrats may with proprety be urged
against this, and we commend those arguments to
the majority of the committee"
The full text Of the bill OF 1888 and long extract
from the adverse report OF the Senate Judiciary
Committee upon 1t are then given, together with
mention of the fact that besides the members of
that committee such other distinguished Demo-
Gratis as Calhoun and Buchanan united in ear
nesIly condemning H.
The similar bill Introduced In the House OF Rep
resentalives In 1889 is also described, II was de
ieated by decisive vote Of lOS against 90,
The minority, before bringing their report 10 a
conclusion, arlalgn the majority at considerable
length in passages OF which the following are ex-
amples;
'Ihe committee might have found on its alcs
evidence of great abuses In connection with the
election OF 1878, 1t might have found that very
many citizens were murdered In cold blood, be-
cause they attempted 10 vote as their iudgmentaud
conscience directed they should.
an short, the committee had on its files uncon.
tradlctcd testimony 10 show that tricks, subter-
flges manipulation Of the ballots, fasincation Of
the returns force, violence fraud, forgery, perjury,
ballot-bOx stuhing and murder were reSOlted TO In
many sections of the country during that election
to defeat and set at naught the will of the people
Yet to correct these evils, directed not simply
against tho purity Of the ballot, but against Tho
very existence OF the ballot the committee appear
TO have no concern, Was IL because the pO!ifipal