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


| der circumstances which create strong pre-
, sumption that it came from Washburn'
/ pocket. That is to say, Cloutier asks John
| son for 800; johnson goes to Washburn an
returns with the money and pays it to Clou
tier.
CONVINCING PROOF.
Here, then, We have four cases of bribery
involving sc bribed votes, brought home t
the sitting member in the clearest and mos
conclusive manner. In the first case the ne
gotiation is with Mr.. Washburn himself; il
the next, the money which bought the vote
is repaid in his (Washburn's) Office by hi
business manager; in the third, the bride i
offered and the money paid in Washburn'
Office by bis business manager and in tn
presence of his brother; and in the fOurtl
case, the bride is offered and the money pali
by the secretary of Washburn's committe,
in Washburn's Office, and part of the money
paid in Washburn's Office, and probably on
of his pocket. It seems to your committee
that this evidence is sufficient to convict Mr.
Washburn of bribery in any court in the
world.
And yet in the face of such an array Of
testimony Mr.. Washburn is dumb. He had
forty days in which to rebut this testimony
he could have taken the stand himself to ex-
plain or deny the Berens matter; he could
have procured the testimony of his business
manager, Hale, to contradict Shagren and
Morton; he could have called johnson to
contradict Cloutier; he could have sworn his
brother, Ex-Governor @. G. Washburn, to
deny that he was present and conferred with
Hale, and also to rebut the natural presump-
ton that he, &C. G. Washburn), furnished tie
$5 with which Hale bribed Shagren. He did
nothing of this kind; he denied nothing; he
called not single witness to rebut this or
anything else in the mass of testimony sho ~
ing bribery. Certainly no lawyer, and no lay
man familiar with human nature, will pre-
tend that it was Mr.. Donnelly's duty to place
these parties who held such close and init
mate relations with Mr.. Washburn on the
witness stand. He might just as we'll be
asked to make Mr.. Washburn his witness.
In these matters he and his friends were like
the Siamese twins, living, breathing, and
moving together. 1t will not do for Mr..
Washburn to say that he did not wish to
"dignify the case of the contestant" by call
ing witnesses in rebuttal. His own character
as man of homer demanded some denial or
explanation of this testimony, which traces
the bribery of sc voters right to his own Of
flee, to his business manager, to his brother,
and to himself If he did not consider his
own reputation affected by such charges, he
at least owed it to his constituents, and to
the Congress of the United States, to prove
that he had not gained seat in the House
by unworthy, dishonorable, and criminal
practices.
Having failed to rebut this evidence by
pnnnfar foofip,oru &c IL,
becomes conclusive that he did not do so be-
cause he could not do 80. He comedies
thereby the truth of every statement made
by contestants witnesses; and his silencs is
an admission of his guilt. 1t is we'll un-
derstood principle of law that admissions of
guilt "may be implied from acquiescence of
of the party, whether it be acquiescence in
the conduct or language Of another (Gren-
leaf on Evidence, vol. 1, sec. 81 and sec.
1919 eff material adverment, we'll plead
ed, is passed over by the adverse party, with
out denial, whether it be by confession, or by
pleading some other matter, or by demurring
in law, it is thereby conclusively admitted"
IbId sec. 27.) And in this case the failure
to rebuff or inpeach the testimony of these
witnesses as to bribery, is a confession of
the truth of their statements and of the guilt
of the party.
Your committee have dwelt at length up
on these four cases, because they reach home
directly to the sitting member; but they con-
stitute but small part of the testimony
showing bribery.
THE CRooKEDNIss AT CRooKsToN.
At Crookston, in Polk county, the testi
mony shows, Up. 223,) that but So legal votes
were cast, while 25S votes were returned as
cast. A large part of these illegal votes were
cast by parties at work upon the construc-
ton of railroad; they were not inhabitants
OF tho township; they had no right to vote
there. It is proved that IS or 40 of these
were paid for their votes by the railroad
company; their tickets were furnished them
by the agents of the company; they were
Washburn tickets, and they all voted for
Washburn. The men 80 paid to vote for
Washburn were Democrats. They were at
work shoveling dirt around tho round-house.
Besides these, two hand-c cars, loaded with
railroad men, also voted--atout sixteen of
them.
William johnson (see D. 1907 was one of q
gang of II railroad laborers; they were at
work IA miles away from Crookston, and
outside the election precinct; they had no
right to vote at Crookston, but 1G of them
did so vote, and they were paid for their
votes by the railroad company; the agents of
the company furnished them with their tick
ets-Washburn tickets; and they voted for
Washburn; they would not have voted at all
if they had not been 80 paid, 70. 1911.
ID. NJ. Robbins Up. 34), of st. Paul, had
a railroad contract to help build the railroad
through Kittson county; had $50 men work.
ing for him Is miles from Two Rivers, Kit
son county; about 100 of these men went
with him on construction train to Two
Rivers to vote; these men, except about 80
or 40, did vote; they were all paid for their
votes the same amount they would have
earned if they had continued to work; the
railroad company ran the train for their &C.
commodatlon; tile gOting-pldc aoas q rail-
road car, which stood on q side track; there
was no house at Two Rivers station of any
kind. AS the vote at Two Rivers was "a for
Washburn and for Donnelly. the bribed
voters must have voted for Washburn. 1t
further appears, Up. 3G) that the railroad
laborers working for this witness at,Tama-
rack River voted there. These made ND the
balance of the 100 votes polled ct that place,
Dennis Reardon testifes (p. 144) that he,
was one of gang of mora than so railroad
hands that voted between Middle River and
Tamarack River; at Two Rivers the voting
place was box-car, the ballot box was
candle box; there were no tickets there. but
Washburn tickets. These so railroad men.
lived in box cars and were moved forward as
the work progressed. They were all paid for
voting by tho railroad oompanyJ many of
them were Democrats. There were no houses
in sight at that place. and of course no rel-
dents of that locality.
This testimony establishes the fact that at
Crookston, Tamarack River, and Two Rivers,
there were 161 votes cast by railroad work.
men, who were net residents of those locali-
ties, were there for temporary purpose,
and were not entitled to vote and that they