The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-24


The Payne Debate Closed and Further In
vestigatioD OF the Charges Refused.
WASHINGTON. July 23.--Mr. Vest, in present
ing batch of petitions got I'D by the knights OF
Labor, remarked that the signatures all APP
peared to be in the same handwriting, and that
he pre5umed, from the explanations of Mr. van
Wyck, few days ago. that these were copies
Mr. Hoar remarked that the rules of the Sen
ate prevented the presentation of any petitions
except originals.
The Chair sustained the point made by Mr..
Hoar but said he did not feel at liberty to re-
proach Senators for presenting such petitions.
although, in doing SO, they were violating the
rules.
Mr.. Vest said he did not propose to violate
any rule of the Senate but he did not wish to be
petition. He now presented these petitions,
with the statement that. in his opinion, without
any personal knowledge, they were copies. The
petitions were presented.
Mr.. Blair, rising to personal explanation.
called attention to statements in newspaper arti-
cles TO the effect that revelations were to be
made about a member of the Senate having
charged poor widow 5000 for helping her to OBJ
tain pension. He presumed the publications
referred to himself, but he had had nothing to
dc with the case since he entered public life.
Before that when he was practicing law, he OBJ
tanned pension for Mrs. Hannah Ladd the en-
tire bill for services. including outlay of SIG,
was about $50. When he was elected to Con-
gress he turned all his government business over
TO his partner, who, without his knowledge,
dered in collecting the pension and interest. and
D writ OF execution had been issued, but when
he Mr.. Blair heard of it. he directed his part
ner to discontinue proceedings. He had never
received dollar for his services and expend-
itures in the matter.
Mr.. Kenna said that it struck him and those
who had taken any interest in the matter that
the case presented question of much interest
In view OF the wholesale and indiscfiminate at
tacks of the Senator from New Hampshire upon
the President IL connection with his pension We
toes. 1t was, perhaps, somewhat remarkable
that widow who had lost her only son in the
army and whose husband was demented, should
have an attachment for 300 laid upon her little
farm for services rendered to her. That was
garded as matter of some interest.
Mr.. Blair explained that the debt was not 5000,
but about $l00 There never had been a tim
when the woman could not have paid it off with
five cents but it had been settled by her paying
nothing.
The Senate then took up the Payne case and
was addressed by Mr.. Call in opposition to fur
Their investigation.
Mr. Hawley argued in favor of the investiga-
tion. He proposed, he said. to vote for the prop
osition to investigate. 1t could not be said that
this movement was promoted by a faction of
the people of Ohio. 1t could not be said that it
came from one political party in Ohio. 1t they
looked around and beyond the legislative action,
they perceived that unquestionably great ma
jority of the citizens of that State believed that
the seat occupied by Mr. Payne had been OBJ
tanned by means which would not bear the light
Of investigation. He waived the unanimous dec
laration of the Republican newspapers and Re-
publican organizations. There was vast repre-
sentation of public sen timent from Democratic
newspapers and from Democratic leaders. de-
nouncing the conduct of the Legislature which
elected DIR. Payne with the hottest indignation
and evidently stimulated by profound convic-
tion that the whole question ought to be investi-
gated. It was absolutely impossible to
deny that the behavior of that
Legislature was discreditable to the party, to
the State and to the country; nor had that public
sentiment, he said, changed seriously. Nor had
any of the manifestations of hot indignation
moderated Concurrent with all this were the
opinions of the Governor, the Lieutenant-gov-
ernor, the other Senator from Ohio and the
declarations of both branches of the Legislature
1t was beyond controversy that these repre-
scented the sentiment of tia State of Ohio. The
whole proceeding was not 70 be governed by the
technical and detailed small rote of practice in
the police courts. This was a broader and
grander question. 1t was not matter of ru-
mors or of newspapers. 1t was great cutlery
from an outraged people. if there were any
truth whatever in these declarations from the
Legislature and from Democratic papers. For
the general good there should be dignifed and
complete investigation If it cleared the Sena-
tor from Ohio as most Senators expected it
would, they would all be pleased. If
it showed that the frauds committed
were not sufficient to be decisive of the
electiou, they would be satisfied to
show that If it would show that the frauds
were so complete and extensive that they were
decisive, and that the election was not an honest
one the Senate and the country ought TO know
that He certainly could not see how, in justice
and dealing with question Of broad considera-
tions the Senate could refuse to order an inves-
tigation.
Mr. Eyarts closed the debate in an argument
against further investigation. 1t was not to be
doubted, he said that the Senate was master of
the question presented and was under no law or
restraint except that imposed by the Constitu-
tion. But by the same reasons, the scope and
boundary of the Senate's mastery and duty were
limited and fixed by the same firm instructions
OF the Constitution. Whatever rights. whatever
duties in regard to the vindication or the pun
ishment of those concerned in frauds in
States In senatorial elections, rested in the
Senate. were In the Constitution The Senate had
no power and no right TO investigate the conduct
of one political party at the request of another
1t had no power to investigate the discords of a
party at the request or invitation of faction of
that party. 1t had no power to measure or esti-
mate any right or wrong that did not touch the
very extent and authority and scope and result
shat were measured to it by the Constitution
Still, the Senate should have great Difference for
State-for great State--as had been empha-
sized in the debate-a State of 5000 900 of peo-
pie But no constitutional distinction could be
drawn between great State of 5000, 900 of peo-
pie and great State under the Constitution, al
though it had no more population than Delaware
Or Rhode Island. The greatness of a State, in
that light and for that duty. was not measured
by the census nor was it exalted by the swelling
and just pride of its citizens. Was the Senate
70 be told that these exaggerating Influences were
70 touch the definition and the scope of
their duty, or that public opinion, the life of
republics, was to be regarded in the Senase with
The same Difference as was paid to il outside of
the Senate, and outside of official life in any