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

resentative or other person. has expressed the
opinion, or intimated any belief or suspicion,
that Henry B. Payne is or connected in the
remotest degree by act or knowledge with any
thing that was may have been wrong, Grim
inal or immoral IN his election: and on the whole
case as presented to them, they recommend that
the Senate make no further investigation Of the
charge involving the right of Henry B. Payne to
his seat This report asks that the committee
be discharged from further consideration of the
subject, and that it be indefinitely postponed.
The report of Messrs. Teller, Evarts and Lo-
gan gives full resume of the proceedings had
in the Ohio legislature and predicates any
action by the Senate upon the constitutional
provisions for Judging of the elections Of its
members or providing for their expulsion. They
examine the the evidence presented in the two
reports of the Ohio committees. and reach the
conclusion that there is no evidence or iikeli-
hood of evidence that will involve Mr. Payne in
personal moral delinquency justfying his expul-
sion, and that there is no evidence to show that
a sufficient number OF votes were corrupted to
change the result of the election. The report
continues:
Upon the whole matter as presented in
evidence and argument. to the committee
on privileges and elections. are of opin-
ion that there is no evidence which pur
ports to prove that fraud, corruption or brib-
cry was employed in the election of Mr. Payne
affecting the vo.es, given either in the caucus or
In the Legislature, whereby the election was car
red by corrupt votes TO the effect of his election
Nor, in our opinion, is there any allegation that
proof exists or would he forthcoming to the
extent that would vitiate the election of Mr.
Payne by reason of the necessary votes, in
caucus or in the Legislature for his election
having been obtained by fraud, corruption
or bribery. We are of opinion, therefore, that
under the first clause of the fifth section of
Article l of the Constitution the testimony and
other considerations placed before the Senate do
not warrant the Senate in constituting by itself
an investigation looking to the unseating of Mr.
Payne as a member of the Senate. We have,
in our conclusions, made no distinction between
the use of fraud, corruption or bribery in
caucus vote or in the legislative vote for Sena-
tor Although caucus. or what proceeds in it.
has no constitutional or legal relation to the
election of a Senator. yet, by the habit of po-
to who is to be elected Senator and
the influence. proper or improper that
produces that determination, is that which
precedes and is concluded in the
caucus So far as the question of personal de-
linquency or turpitude is concerned no moral
distinction should be taken between corrupt
proceedings in caucus aud those in the I4egisla-
ture How far any such distinction would need
to he insisted upon, in any case, on the question
of unseating Senator, who was himself not
affected with any personal misconduct
completely with the misconduct of others, we
have no occasion. in the immediate case or pres
emit attitude of the subject to consider or sug-
gest. At the outset of our observations we
Sbdleu LILO uIullS WHICH Lu0 Indictment
and conviction Of a single person who
oribes or is brbed, whether the election is af-
fected or not. The State should investigate as
we'll TO the end of better laws and surer execu
ton of the laws. The State, too is charged
with the maintenance of the honor of Ohio and
its vudication rests with it's own Legislature, its
own judiciary and its own people, but it cannot
demand this vindication at the hands Of the
United States Senate, except as they may flow
from Investigations by that body within the linn
its of its constitutional powers and duties. That
State has conducted and concluded IT'S investiga-
lions into the election of Mr. Payne, and has
placed the results before the Senate
of the United States. 1t has at
tempted no further Investigations either
by the plenary power of its Legislature,
through the functions Of the courts Of law. If
upon further examinations made by the State,
through its Legislature its courts
should be presented for renewed consideration
by the Senate within the rules and principles we
have stated governing the action of the Sen
ate. the further action of the Senate will be gov
erned by what may then appear. AS the whole mat
ter now stands before the committee, We concur In
its Judgment that an investigation should not be
instituted by the Senate, and the committee be
discharge from the further consideration OF the
subject, and for the reasons which we have thus
piyen.H -