Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1882-04-15
TIE BRIBERY SCANDAL
Report of the State Senate HIVES
ugatiOn Committee.

tigati0n Committee.
The following report from the
Senate Committee to investigate
charges of bribery preferred against
certain Senators touching their votes
on the 1908 funding bill, was read
in the Senate ON the 9Th inst:
Mr.. Speaker: The committee appointed
by the Senate at the last extra session of
the General Assembly to investigate al
legged charges of bribery and corruption
against certain Senators in connection with
the enactment OF House bill No. 800, known
as the State debt bill, passed at the last Ieg-
ular session of the General Assembly, res
pectIuiIy report that they organized as soon
as practicable after their appointment and
proceeded to the discharge of the duty i'm
posed. The bills enjOining the execution of
sald act charged that 1t was passed by br1-
berry and corruption, and the counsel for the
complainants IN said cause were requested
to meet the committee and to designate
certain ones from their number who would
present the facts upon which the charges
were made SO tar as their knowledge extend
ed, and also conduct the examination OF
witnesses before the committee. In purSu-
ance OF this request, MessrS. Nertfees, Cox,
Champion and Hunt, were designated and
have attended the sessions of the commit
tee. furnished the names of witnesses so far
as their knowledge or information extended
and conducted the examination. To the
earnest and efficient aid of these gentlemen,
the committee are much indebted Tor an
examination and investigation as full and
thorough as they could make. About eigh-
" witnesses were examined, and their teSt1-
mony, making u record of about one thouS-
and pages manuscript, is herewith submit
ted as part of this report. From this proof
1t appears, If indeed proof were necessary,
that the matter before the General Assem-
bly, out of which the investigation grew was
one of absorbing and oYershadOwing inter-
est, attracting TO the capitol city many citi-
zens, prompted by a desire TO aid by their
counsel i'll securing legislation beneficial to
the State, and also many influenced by mo-
uVeS of speculation, some of whom were
prepared to resort TO improper or even des-
peratc means TO secure results productive of
pecuniary profit to themselves. " nile this
latter condition is to be regretted, yet, it was
perhaps the natural concomitant of legisla-
ton of the character of that then before the
General Assembly, and it may well be re-
garded as fortunate for the public that leg
islation of this character and consequence
occurs at rare and long intervals. When
legislation is required involving immense
sums of money in regard to which it is 50
easy for men to speculate, there will not be
wanting those who will endeavor 10 infiu-
ence the result by liberal brides, threats or
even more desperate means.
Your committee have made the inVeStiga-
ton with which they were charged as full
and thorough as a latitudinous examination
of every witness supposed to know any fact
pertaining thereto, could make it. All teSti
mOny taken has reference primarily to the
charges against Senators, Morgan, Smith
and Barrett, they having demanded an in
Vestigation, and no fact having been elected
leading the committee to inquire into the
conduct of any Senator although the exam
ination sought to embrace any Senator
guilty of bribery or corruption.
The proof shows In regard to Senator Nor
gan that an effort was made to interest him
i'll a sale of State bonds which would, it was
thought, more certainly influence him to
vote against the bill, and a certificate of sale
was LETT with him to examine and consider,
but when the paper was eXa.Lined by-him
it was returned with q comment upon the
improprie y Of the act. Parties also stated
while the bill was pending that Senator
Morgan would be or had been induced to
vote for the bill by pecuniary considera-
ons, but these statements were not with
his authority or his knowledge SO far as the
proof shows, and one of the parties making
such statements testified as a witness that
the statement made by him (the wi5ness)
was made to effect the price of bonds and
was not true. Senator Morgan did not vote
on said bill as such inducement would have
led him. As witness in his own behalf he
stated that he had never received nor agreed
to receive any money or valuable thing as a
consideration for his vote upon this or any
other measure pending before the General
Assembly ; and your committee report that
the proof does not show that Senator Nor
gan was guilty OF bribery, or influenced by
corrupt motives.
AS 10 the charges against Senator Smith,
your committee report tLat, aside from his
action and his vote in regard to the State
debt bill rs q member of the Senate, it ap-
and others that he had been offered large
sum OF money to vote for the bill, but would
not do SO; to Others, that he could make "a
large sum by 50 doing, if he would and to Il
Senator that parties were approaching him;
that he was listening to their proposals to
see how far they would go. Senator Smith
produced letters, kilograms and petitions
from Il number of his constituents urging
the importance of settling the State debt,
and advising him to vote for the bill il he
could not do better. As a witness in his
hahnlf he a hld mot hoo
influenced by any pecuniaTy consideration
in casting his vote.
While your committee are of the opinion
that the conduct of Senator Smith in listen
ing to proposals TO bride him, for any pur-
pose, was reprehenSible and unbecOming in
him as Senator, yet the proof does not
show that he received or was influenced by
any peeuniary or valuable consideration in
giving his vote on said bill.
In reference to the charges against Sena-
tor Barrett, the proof shows that parties de-
string TO defeat the State debt bill undertook
to influence his vote against it. At one
time he was given fifty dollars, which, while
Ton WIN the party, was never repaid, or
agreed 10 De repaid. and was given by per-
der the circumstances, he must, or ought to,
have known was given because of his being
a legislator having right to vote on said
bill. Afterwards he was offered by the
sIme parties $500, which he declined, but he
continued his association with the parties
and again met with them, discussed his
proposed to sell $1,000 OF Tennessee bonds
for his benefit, it being understood that he
would vote against the bill this he acceded
to a paper was executed showing sale of
said bonds in the name OF another party,
who was to hold it for him, and the profit,
which would depend upon the result OF the
Senate, and possibly upon his vote, was to
be gain To him. By one of the same party
he was again offered S6OU to vote against the
bill, which he declined, saying that if he
voted thai way he would call ON him. Sen
ator Barrett did not, h',weYer, vote as an in
tereSt in said bond sale would prompt or
receive the profit from the sale SO made.
Nor does the proof show that he received
any pecuniary consideration for the vote he
gave on the bill, and as witness IN his own
behalf, he testified that he never did. Your
committee have not thought it necessary
for them to characterize the action AID con-
duct of Senator Barrett, but they submit the
above fact to the Senate, leaving it to the
wisdom aid judgment OF Senators to deter
mine whether his conduct and action was
demoraliZing, corrupt and eOrrupting, DEEM
ing it, as before stated, their duty to report
facts rather than conclusions. All of which
is respectfully submitted.
w. NJ. DANIEL, Chm'n,
NJ. ID. SMALLMAN,
THOS. F. PERKINS, Jr.,
S. WATSON,
A. j. BROWN,
+. b. RAGLAND,
Committee.