The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-16


Ohio House has power only to inquire into the
conduct of four members of that body. They
report that "a number of clews furnished were
not followed, because we were convinced that
they could lead only to points at which further
pursuit would become necessary, but which
could not be passed without authority to reach
beyond the limits of the State for witnesses, and
much anonymous information was ignored by
the committee. chiefly for the same reason We
have examined the evidence taken by that COM
mIttee 1t does not support this charge as to the
four members implicated. 1t does not connect
Mr. Payne with the transactions; it does not
show that the result was changed or effected by
corrupt means, but it does show that Mr.. Paynes
name was not publicly suggested as a candidate
Tor Senator until after the State elections; that
u was not very prominently suggested unti
shortly before his election IN January; that
many persons who had been supposed TO favor
Penaiston voted for Payne; that one member
was offered large of money by another
member to vote for Payne; that there were hear
say statements charging corruption as to several
others; that two members OF the Legislature re-
ceived large sums of money about the time Of
the election. of which they. being called as wit
nesses gave no satisfactory account; that the
prominent managers of Mr. Payne's canvass
viz. Paige, Mclean, Huntington and others, did
not testify before the committee There
was no evidence tending to show the
bribery Of any particular member except
as above stated When we say it was not
shown that the result was changed or effected
kinony. But the consideration should not be
forgotten that persons familiar with the whole
case would be quite sure to know whether such
means were needful to change the result, or
whether their candidate would be elected with
Oat IT. If they were found expending large sums
Of money cofruptly, the fact alone affords strong
reason for the inference that the result was
thereby controlled. But the result of the inyes-
hgati0n Ia Ohio seems to the undersigned abso.
lntely unimportant That committee. while
hay faol wild
matter committed to them, neither said nor con-
ceived they had any power to inquire into
BEr Paynes title to his seat. They
issued no process extending beyond
conclusions except as to the four members.
When witnesses refused to answer they did not
press them. The Ohio Senate of 1884 con-
tained thirty-three members. OF these twenty
two were Democrats and eleven Republicans
The House contained 105 members. of whom
sixty were Democrats and forty-fye Republic
Ans. The members entitled to vote on joint bal
lot were 1873 in all, eighty-two Democrats and
sGfty-six Republicans. Eiehty-two persons were
entitled to vote in the Democratic caucus. of
whom forty-tw were a majority. Seventy nine
persons actually attended that caucus of which
forty were majority. Is there fair reason for
Instituting an inquiry whether the result OF the
election was procured by bribery
1--WE think that the character of the persons
making the charge is of itself sufficient to re-
qUire the Senate to listen to it: but they produce
= great body of evidence, all pointing in the
same direction. We are not now to consider
whether the case is proved, or whether there be
q prima facie case. There has, as yet, been no
evidence laid before US leading to either of those
considerations. Messrs. Little and Butterworth
nav offer, Oh their personal responsibility, TO
establish, to the satisfaction of the Senate,
largely by witnesses who were not within reach
OF this Ohio committee. and partly by evidence
which supplements and confirms that, the fol-
lowing, among other propositions:
1'First-That of the Democratic members
elected to the Sixty sixth General Assembly
more than three-fourths We're positively pledged
to Mr. Pendeton and General Ward and more
than majority pledged to Mr.. Pendieton. This
they offer to prove by Mr.. Pendleton himself, by
COL w. A. Taylor, and others.
''Second--That in these pledges these mem
bers represented the opinion and desire of their
constituents.
'sThird-Tnat Mr. Payne was nowhere spoken
of or known as candidate during the popular
election. or until a very short time before the
appointment of Senator
''Fourth-That just before the legislative eau
Gus, when the nomination was made which was
one week before the election, large sums OF
money were placed by Mr.. Payne's son and other
near friends Of his at the control of the active
members of his canvass in Columbus. This.
they allege, can be shown by the hooks of one or
more banks.
.'Fifth--Mr. Payne's near friends declared that
his election cost very large sums. gentleman
whose name is offered TO be given will testify
that David r. Paige declared to him that he
had handled S65000 Oliver B. Payne stated to
the same person that it had cost MIN 500, 900
to elect his father.
tsSixth--That the members of the Legislature
who changed from Pendleton to Payne did so
after secret and confidential interviews with the
agents who had the disbursement of the moneys.
s'Seventh-That members of the Legislature
who so suddenly changed their attitude can be
proved to have at about the time Of the change
acquired large sums of money, OF which they
give no satisfactory account
Eighth Respectable Ohio Democrats affirm
hat just before the caucus the room of Mr.
Payne's manager Paige, was like banking
house, that the evidence of large sums of money
there was abundant and conclusive; that Pages
clerk declared, in the presence of gentleman of
integrity, that he had never seen so much
money handled in his life
s.Nlnth-That the public belief that the choice
of Senator was procured by the corrupt use of
money prevails almost universally in Ohio
among persons of both parties, which finds very
general expression in the press
1.-THE Senate has also recently referred to the
COMMITTEES certain resolutions adopted by a CON
vention of the Republican editors of Ohio, held
at Columbus July 8, 1886 praying the Senate to
investigate these charges. The newspaper re-
ports of the convention show that the Governor
of the State was present at the convention. and
declared his concurrence in said prayer. There
have also been communicated to US extracts
from the Democratic newspapers of Ohio, show
ADS IHdb tHaJoEIby Oh tuOSt papers uaVoueCIdreu
their opinion that the election was procured by
corruption Copies Of these extracts are APP
pended.
WHAT is the effect upon an election of Sena-
tor of bribery of voters in caucus of the Leg
islatures which are tc make the choice, is a ques
ton upon which we prefer not to express an
opinion until the evidence is before US. The
members of d caucus ordinarily deem them
selves bound IN honor to vote in
the election for the person whom
it nominates by the vote of major
ity, condition that such person be-
long to their party and is fit for the
Office in point of character and ability. Bribery,
therefore which changes the result in the caucus,
would ordinarily determine the election. If B,
and d have promised to vote as "A shall vote,
il A be corrupted four votes are gained by the
process, although b, G and are innocent In
boxing. therefore, to see whether an election by
che Legislature was procured affected by
: axiharr he INN tart q diannxrar