Daily Kennebec journal., 1884-04-02
FROM WASHINGTON.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEES
In the keifer.Boynton Investigation.

WASHINGTON, April l.
The special committee appointed to inves
Iigate the charges against Gen. IL. V. Boyn
ton made by EN-Speaker keifer has submit
ted the following: Resolved, that the
charges against II. V. Boynton are net sus
tanned by the evidence, and there is nc
ground for action bv the house. Laid over
without action.
The action of the committee on the reso.
luton was unanimous Two reports accom-
panied the resolution, one signed by Reps
Hopkins, Ward and Adams, (dems. and the
other ey Reps Poland and Wilson (reps).
The majority, after summary of undisputed
facts, call attention to the further fact that
''the case against Boynton rests almost en-
tirely on the evidence of Gen. Keifer." then
proceeded to an examinatioa OF the evidence
offered by the latter in consideration of the
charge. The testimony of White did not
seem very positive. and they say: ain esti-
mating the proper weight to be given to his
testimony il is to be remembered that he is
a protege dependent of Gen. Keifer, and has
been designated by Keifer as smaller edit
ion of a tramp. The stories told by Elder and
Garfield, the remaining witnesses for Keifer.
the majority consider extremely improbable,
Having thus considered the evidence tending
to corroborate Gen. Refer, and believing it
to conclude that the proof of the charge
rests on the testimony of Kiefer alone. His
testimony AS to the alleged corrupt proposal
and all of its details fully and fatty contra
dict the testimony of Gen. Boynton.
If there was nothing but the conflicting
oaths of two men, it might be more embar-
rassing in reaching a conclusion; bu: Boyn-
ton being accused of a grave crime. the pen
atty of conviction being disgrace and impris-
onment, we are bound TO start upon our in.
vestgation with the legal presumption that
he is innocent. In the next place, we must
consider the probabilities. Is il likely that
Boynton, without the slightest prelimi nary
hint, without anything to arouse suspicion
that Kiefer's aid could be purchased. would
burst on him with such proposition? Is it
likely that Boynton, who stood well with
Keifer. would expose himself without assur-
ance of success? Neither a tyro or veteran
in lobbying would dare to approach man of
recognized integrity except in a gradual and
insiduous way. In this case it is alleged that
without any feeling of his way, Boynton
blurred out: "keifer, what do you think |
think of you? think you are fool" With
this startling prelude il is said that B0ynton
proceeded to tell keifer that he might have
made money during his term as speaker as
Spe akers Blaine and Colfax had done, and
unfolded plan by which there would be mil
lions to divide if McGarrahan's bill should be
passed. If this purported conduct of Gen.
Boynton was extraordinary, the conduct of
Keifer was still more so. lie made no answer
to the first suggestion, that he might pervert
his high Office for personal gain. He listened
to the details of the scheme and then instead
of pitching the seducer out of the window or
kicking him from the door. keifer contented
l.. Ia al, 0r
But i'll addition to improbabilities there are
points of emphatic contradiction to Keifer's
testimony. He swears that after the inter
view with Boynton, Dunnell came to him
und asked to be recognized to call up the Nc
Garrahan bill, and he told him he could not
be recognized. Dunnel on the contrary
says the speaker agreed to recognize him for
the purpose indicated, as soon pressing public
bills were disposed Of In addition to palpa-
bic contradiction. it seems singular that if
the interview with Boynton had terminated
as detailed by Keifer, Dunnell would seek
recognition which had been refused, and
equally singular that he should have been
treated with SO much courtesy by the man
who had been so grossly insulted in reference
to the bill
There is another important and material
part of Gen. keifer's testimony upon which
he is contradicted by several witnesses. He
says the friendly relations with Boynton
ended with an interview, and they have never
spoken since, but 1t is clearly proved bv
seven witnesses that after midnight of March
first Kefer was in Boynton's office in close
and friendly conversation. 1t cannot be be-
lieved that Keifer would seek Boynton in
social and friendly way on the night of
March 1st if there had been such an inter-
view as Keiter says took place on Feb. 2Sth
or March lst.
Gen. Keifer admits that some such inter-
view as that spoken of took place in Boyn-
toms Office, but says that it was several even-
ings prior to the date fixed by the seven wit
nesses. 1t is clear that this could not have
been because the subject Of the conversation
and of the dispatches sent of the visit was the
action of the conference committee, and that
committee did not meet till March lst. We
have already referred to the proof of Gen.
Boyntons high character. The barrier was
thus thrown down and the attack invited.
yet there was not any witnesses called to
show flaw in BOynton's previous reputati on
for the truth or to show he had ever been
known to be connected with any Legislative
job. Irresistible inference is that no such
proof could be obtained. The report of the
minority states that Messrs. Keifer and
Boynton being men of unblemished charac.
ter and equally honorable and having under
oath made and denies charges, corroborative
evidence would be necessary to establish the
charges. Keifers witnesses the minority
consider unreliable. They think the state OF
affairs on March lst was such as to make /,
highly improbable that the coversation be.
tween Keifer and Boynton on the night of that
day could have occurred. They do not doubt
that such conversation did take place, but
think the witness are mistaken as to dates.