The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-02
KEIFER- B0YNT0N.
The Charges Preferred Against the Latter
Not Sustained.

WASHINGTON, April 1.-The special committee
appointed to investigate the charges against
General H. V. Boynton, made by ex-Speaker
Keifer, this afternoon submitted the following:
Resolved, That the charges against H. V. Boynton
are not sustained by the evidence, and there is no
ground for further action by the House."
The action of the committee on the resolution
was unanimous Two reports accompanied the
resolution, one signed by Representatives Hop
kins, Ward and J. Adams Democrats, the other
by Representatives Poland and Wilson, Repub
icans.
The majority, after reciting the charge made
against General Boynton begin their report as
follows:
1t appears that prior to the accusation General
Boynton had borne unsulled regulations that he
had never been known to have personal interest in
any subject of congressional act that neither NECTAR
rahan himself nor any of his counsel
who for fifteen years has been pressing his claim
knew General Boynton having any interest in the
claim; that General Boynton never spoke to
General keifer in reference to McGarrahan
prior to the alleged corrupt proposal
except by his letter on Feb ~ 1888; that for six
years friendly even intimate relations existed be-
tween Generals Keifer and Boynton; that there
had been an intimaton between them of possibility of
one making or the other intimating 9 corrupt
propositions that General Boynton held ticket to the
press gallery granted aud signed by Speaker Kefer
and that it not revoked after the alleged interview
that speaker Refer did not call the attention of the
House to the alleged violation of its rules and abuse
of its privileges did he make any public mention
of the fact until during the present session of Con
gress
After this summary of undisputed facts, the
majority calls attention to the further fact that
the case against General Boynton rests entirely
upon the testimony of General Keller
They take up first the testimony of
| the young man White, who said
he was in the Speakers room when General
| Boynton called. In estimating the proper weight
10 be given to the testimony of young White
the majority say it is to be remembered
eral Keifer, and has been designated
| by General Keifer as smaller edition of the
tramp. The majority then take up and analyze
| the testimony of John w. Elder and Charles g.
Garfield, which was introduced for the purpose
| of showing that General Boynton had admitted
| having an interest in the McGa1Tahan
! bill, and with regard to this testimony the ma
| jOrity deem it an extremely improbable story
that under such circumstances, and to compare
| tive strangers, General Boynton would confess
| himself lobbyist and vioatOr of the rules
which admitted him to a seat in the reporters
| gallery
The minority report says:
Weeoneur in reporting the resolution presented by
the committee, but deem it advisable to state briefly
the precise grounds and reasons of our concurrence.
| The law presumes every man innocent of crime, and
whenever in civil issue is raised which
involves the charge of criminal act there must be
not only an ordinary Preponderanee OF evidence,
] but IN addition to that, legal presumption
of innocence must be encountered to over
come. General Boynton is at least entitled
| to that rule in this proceeding, General Keifer dis
ncty and unequivOcaly testified corrupt suggestions
| to influence his action were made to him by
! General Boynton. General Boynton dis
! tinety and unequivocally denies having made
| any such suggestion proposition
Both of these gentlemen perfectly upright and of
unbemshed character, and entitled to the same and
equal consideration truthful men. No other
| person was present at the interview between
them Unless other evidence before the committee in
the confederation contradiction of the evidence of
these two principal witnesses solves the difference be-
tween them by strengthening weakening the testi-
mony of or the other, the finding must rest on
| their evidence alone, In that event it is clear
the charge against General Boynton cannot be said to
be proven oath against oath; but in the suggestions
and arguments advanced we can find nothing at all
| controlling decisive to which conflicting
statements to be believed. To sustain the allegation
made against General Boynton, besides direct testi
mony Mr. Refers principal evidence is that of
J. W. Elder and Charles G. Garfield as
to what was said by General Boynton in
| an interview with these men. If could find their
statement true it was corroborative evidence of
General Kefer to what said to him by General
! Boynton. That we cannot do.