Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-10-22
STARTLING REVOLUTION.


STARTLING REVOLUTION.
But this is net all. The testimony re-.
veals the names of only six of the parties
who were bribed by ]. V. Brewer, of Saint
Cloud, in his canvass of Todd and Morrison
counties, and to these six mon he pad out
only 300, but he testiEes that he naay have
similarly employed hundred parties, and
he does not know whether no paid out $50
or $500. In the case Of William NJ. Leyde,
another of the agents sent out by Weshburn,
we have the name of only one OF the men he
hired to work at the polls, Henry Monroe,
while II is in evidence that he canvaSsed
nesrly every town in the county and hired q
number of men whose names he refused to
disclose. We find that a. Crookston there
were 179 Illegal votes, and the testimony
shows that 60 OF these were RAILROAD hands
who were all paid for their votes. The prob
ability is very great that the larger part of
the other lO5 Votes were cast By railroad
hands similarly paid fer their votes.
In Minneapolis the whole atmosphere was
ciouaed with bribery, The evidence shows
that large sums OF money, many thousands
of dollars, had been speIt fer corrupt pur-
poses. startling revolution 10 the politi-
cal feelings Of the voters was accomplished
on the eve of ih3 election, and all the testi-
Inony indicates that this was brought about
By bribery and intimidation. There was no
attempt On the part OF the sitting member
to account for this extraordinary revolution,
or to answer the testimony showing bribery.
SECRET CIIME.
It must not be forgotten that bribsry Is a
secret crimes both tho parties to 1t are equal
" interested in keeping It secret; and when
detected both are ready to give ingenious ex-
plantations OF it. II taey have acknowlslg-
ed to third parties the receipt of the bribe
they ara ready to declare, when called to the
witness stand, that they were ia favor Of the
b.ibegivsr before the money WAS offered; or
that they voted for his opponents or that
tho money was paid by some one else, sons
nanielesS party, for come other purpose.
Under these circumstances when 1t is
shown that in an election over 800 cases of
bribery and attempted bribery are proven,
the presumption is not violent that for every
case that was, by accident and the indisc,e-
ton OF the parties, brought to the light,
there were others that were never revealed.
The records of the contested-election cases
Of Congress will be searched in vain for q
pie of this Confessional district were de-
bauched to the last degree; the Witnesses iD
many cases defend the practice OF buying I'D
voters to forego their principles; the parties
who received the bribes In many instances
hoasted to their Deiehbors of the money
they had received, and seemed to bc proud of
the higu price FOR which they had sold them
selvess and the sitting member cid not think
~ 81 taiI f<,. ,,Ik q
explain away this overwhelming mass of COR
raption. Nothing could testify more strong
ly 20 the degeneracy of the age and the
depths to which popular suffrage has fallen
than the revelations made III this sztraordi-
nary case.
THE IAW OF BRIBERY.
1t is cisarly estabiiRHei principle of law,
both in England and the United States, that
bribery committed by the sitting member,
or "by any agent Of the sitting member,
with or without the knowledgs or direction
OF his principal, lenders the election void.''
[Ses FELTON, vs. Ras horps, Rogers Law and
Practice OF Elections, 221.1
In England bribery Is an offense of 80 helm
ons character, and SO utterly subversive of the
freedom OF elections, that, when proved to have
been committed, though IL one instance only,
ana though a majority of unbrioed voters re-
main. the election will be absolutely void
(Cushiug's Par. Law. .. 20, eec lS9; st. TIES.
Douglass. IL, 85S; ChVentYY, Pechwell, !, 97;
Meinc on Elections, S45.)
Freedom OF election is violated by external
violence by which the electors nre constrained
or 6y bribery by which their will is corrupted;
and, in all cases. where the electors are pre-
vented In either of these ways from the free
exercise Of their nights the election actN bs poid
1othott reference to the 9s;ts7a6er Of totes affected
the,vby tCrsuings Par. Law, p. 6S, SleI.)
The same doctrine vas affirmed by the
House of Representatives in the recent case
of Plstt VS.. Goode, second Congressional dis
trict. Virginia: See Contested Elect, 1871
'78, page $50,
The report, adopted by the House, de-
clares:
These brihed votes should not he counted
The record furnishes no method for their elm
ination. Their acceptance can only be avoid
py apply Ing the rule OF law, so well known and
or such general adoption that 1t nesd scar.
be repeated here, that when illegal and fraudu.
!ent votes have been proven, and the nou can
not be purged with reasonable certainty, the
whole vote must be rejected.
But your committee do not think Il nee
essary to rest the decision of this case apon
this principle of law, although they selieve
that the evidence shows copclusively not
only that bribery was committed in q multi
tude of instances, but that great number
of these G. ses were traced home to the sit
ting men her. They are of the opinion that
the evIde CO shows that the contestant had
majority tt the legal votes cast and returned.