Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-19

friend of Washburn," and che wanted m
to help all could;She asked me if there wer
any debts on our German church. and tina
after election he would hand me $40 to us
for what purpose we thought best coul'
do with it as had q mind" He does no
know what the consideration was for the $50
They have large German population a
Alton, about half Democrats. He worked
and voted for Washburn.
Toilet G. Fladeland, of Sank Center
Stearns county, merchant, testifes, Up. 22l
printed testimony that he was paid 500 BY
Mr.. Cooper, chairman of the Republican
county committee of Stearns county, to q
out and peddle Democratic and Republican
tickets with Washburn's name on them. HI
told Cooper that he was not politician
doesn't Know but he expressed himself il
favor of Mr.. Donnelly during the campaign
At the time Cooper paid him the 800 he wat
neutral as between Donnelly and Washburn
He visited two or three towns; used his OWL
team; was gone one day; expenses ST.
profits, $40.
DEMOCRATIC EDITOR BOUGHT.
The testimony of Nathan Richardson, OF
Little Falls, Morrison county, Up. 2S5), lead
ing Republican and politician by trade,
shows that the editor of the Democratic
paper at that place was bought up to support
Washburn; that the sum paid was probably
$125, Up. 286); that it came from Minneap-
oils, from Loren Fletcher, an active friend
OF the sitting member and prominent Re-
publican, Up. AZ; and that after the pay
49, hat AIo
ported Washburn and denounced Donnelly.
The witness Richardson, who conducted the
sale of this Democrat and his newspaper,
supported Washburn, made canvass of the
county in his behalf, spent 1926. He admits
the payment of So to William whitehall;
he did not expect to be repaid; thinks With
erall voted for Washburn; he also paid So
or $3 to man named Sloan; money has not
been repaid; thinks Sloan voted for Wash
burn.
1t will be observed that in nearly every
one of these cases of bribery committed
throughout region of country half as large
as the State of New York, the money paid is
traced back to the city of Minneapolis, the
residence of the sitting member. From this
point as common center, the corruption
radiated in all directions over the district;
and when we come to Minneapolis all the
testimony shows that it was very hotbed of
bribery. We give brief abstracts of the cases
proven:
SUDDEN CONVERSION.
1t is shown, Up. 80) that Democrat named
A. NJ. Schaak, Scandinavian, was publish
inga Scandinavian newspaper in Minneapolis
during the campaign and supported DonnaJ
ly for Congress up to the night before the
election; that night he was announced to
speak at Scandinavian Democratic meeting
at Minneapolis in favor of contestant, Don
nelly. Instead of speaking for Donnelly, he
came out strongly for Washburn, and the
next day he admitted to witness that he had
been paid $3.50 for doing so. He had new
suit of clothes and pocket full of money.
There was no attempt to contradict this wit
ness; in fact, counsel for the contestee, in
their cross examination, seem to argue that
it was perfectly right and legal to bride
Democrats to speak in favor of Republican
candidates. 1t may be said that this testi-
mooy as to Schaak is hearsay evidence. The
declaration of a voter as to his qualification
or disqualification to vote is always received
in evidence; he is regarded as party to the
This is well-settled and uni
form practice, (see 81, N. Y. Rep, People VS..
Pease; 3 McCord's Rep, p. 230, foot-note;
contested election case, Vallandigham and
Campbell, Cong. Globe, vol. Al, p. 8, S17; and
in the case of Milborne Port, 1, Douglas
election cases, 67, &c, 129, $50, &C., (see 8,
McCord, 230), it was decided that the admis-
sions of voter that he was bribed are al
ways receivable in evidence. They rest also
ho I,ok IS
crime are receivable against the party Gas
the highest and most satisfactory proof
Russell on Crimes, vol. 2, p. s23). Here
the admissions are confirmed by all the sur
rounding circumstances; the sudden CONVEX
sion on the eve of the election, the new
clothes, money, &c.
William r. Metcalf Up. 1922, farmer re-
siding in Crystal Lake township, near Min
neapolis, testifies that he was paid $15 to
work at the polls in Crystal Lake township
for the Republican ticket. Co-ser, one of
the parties who hired him to work at the
polls, was Republican candidate for State
senator, asked him to-support Washburn; he
refused; subsequently he was engaged to
work at the polls for the Republicans. The
$15 was paid him by Charles w. johnson,
secretary of Washburn's committee, the same
party who bribed Shagren, Flaherty, etc. He
went to Johnson's Office two days after the
election; he simply presented his name and
johnson paid him the $15 without word.
He declines to say who he voted for for Con-
gress; will not swear that he did not
vote for Washburn.
JoHNsoN's REPUTATION OF HALE's HOUNDS.
1t will be remembered that when Major
Hale attempted to bride Shagren, he told
Shagren to come the day. after election
to Washburn's Office, and he would
be paid. We find, from
Metcalf's testimony, that johnson also had
an arrangement to pay off his bribed voters
the day after election; and in this connection
we would refer to to the testimony of Ed. A.
Stevens, Up. 1867, whose Office was in the
same building with Johnson's Office, who
swears that as he passed Johnson's Office,
several men were standing in front of it, and
Q party said to Stevens, "You ought to hear
Charley johnson swear; there is big crowd
below after their pay, and Charley says, MA.
jor Hale can pay his own hounds. 1 have
all can do to pay those I hired myself
The testimony of Metcalf and Shagren shows
what they we're being paid for.
APPEAL FOR CORRUPTION FUNDS.
This same man, johnson, issued, Septem-
Der 10, 1873, as secretary of the Republican
Committee, an appeal (see p.
43), in the form of circular, to Republic
cans to contribute funds to the success of
the Republican cause in the district. The
circular is in these words:
MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 19.-"Sir: The Con-
gressional committee, charged with laboring