The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-22

silly, and ought not To- rest on friends nearest
him, or upon the State that had SO houored him.
The question before the Senate not how
case should be decided but only whether an in
curry should be instituted. One thing he sup
posed would be conceded by everybody, and
that was that the power wherever it bel which
should make this inquiry must.be one that could
compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses,
and that had the jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case after the inquiry was made. Az to the
source of the charges, all that the Senate re
quired was that the charges should come from
individuals, or with sufficient proof to assure
made without reason IL was not neees-
sary to define exactly the qualifca-
tions of the complainant, but surely the
Legislature of the. State chiefly concerned was
such complainant surely the Governor of the
State was such a complainant; surely ten mem
bsrs of the House of Representatives. of this
United States were entitled to make such com
plant; surely the conductors of the press of
both political parties OF State OF four millions
of people constituted such compliments. But
when. rs here. these wore all combined, it was
impossible that there ever should be sutton
who could more rightfully bring case 20 the
Judgment of the Senate ii these could not. He
referred to presidents bearing on the case, and
argued from them that it was in the United
States Senate and not in the Ohio Legislature,
that the jurisdiction over this case lay he re-
piled to the implication of inconsistency made
against him by Mr.. Pugh--as to his having made
and stated that at that time the charges had not
been made by the Ohio State Legislature, or
by the convention of Ohio editors, or by the
ten members of the United States House of Rep
resentatives nor had the communication from
Messrs. Little and Butterworth been received by
the committee. Besides that, there was no re-
quest before the Senate from any quarter, when
that first report was made for an investigation
A magistrate who would refuse processes under
circumstances like these presented to the Senate
would he said be mpeached. The district at
torney who should refuse process to bring such
witness before grand jury would go out OF office
very speedily, and was the Senate, he asked In
different position in determining the question:
IL the charges against the sitting member were
not true then still the more is 1t right that the
investigation should be made that the member
should be cleared. Then, too. Messrs Little
and Butterworth had offered TO show by Mr. Fem
dleton himself and by other Witnesses that q
majority of the Ohio Legislature had been
pledged to Mr.. Pendleton. Credible witnesses
were offered to be produced who would show
that one of Mr.. Paynes managers-Oliver II.
Payne-had declared that it had cost him
$4,000 to elect the sitting member,
and that the other most active
manager-Mr. Paige-had handled $50 600.
In addition TO that, proof was offered that the
rooms of the Payne managers were like bank
ing house; and that new So bills were so numer-
Gus about Columbus at that time that the fact
was the subject of comment and ordinary talk.
A corrupt republic must bow its head and disap
! pear from among the nations like Lucifer, son
Of the morning A purchased and corrupt bal
lot, whether cast by the people or their repre-
sentatves would bring decline and death The
precedent of this case, If the committee were
sustained by the Senate would render corrup-
eiOn easy in the loftiest seat and in the highest
place, where its example would be pernicious
and its effects worse
Mr. Logan took the floor to reply to the argu-
nent of Mr.. Hoar and to sustain the views ex
creased in the report signed by himself and
Messrs Teller and Evarts. He ready
now as any Senator, and ever had been. to expel
member if he felt justified in so voting; but if,
es in this case, the Senate was appealed to on
gsrbled statements, garbled extracts
or perversion of testimony, to do in
Justice to a man or to his reputation
he (Mr. Locanl was not the man to do 1t.
There were many considerations in this matter.
While he might be appealed to on one side for
the benefit of his party associates, to do an act
which, in his judgment, was not warranted by
the law or the facts, ne was appealed to on the
other hand by the knowledge which he had OF
honored age, of honesty of purpose and of fair
character. Not only that. but he knew Senator
Payne to have been as devoted to the govern
ment and to the country during the war as any
man whose voice was heard within the Senate
chamber. When he asked to deal wrongly
with the rights OF such man, his answer was
that there was no power In the land that could
be brought to bear upon him, either from news
papers or political brawlers. to do such injus-
tice. The argument put forth by Mr.. Hoar,
that an unfavorable inference was 10 be drawn
from the fact that Mr.. Payne was not candi-
date at first was, Mr.. Logan said. preposterous.
There were several gentlemen holding seats IN
the Senate who had not been known caldi
dates until the day of their election. Mr.. Pen
dleton had beer the author of the civil service
reform bill in the Senate, and on this and
his opposition to the war for the Union, there
had been great resistance to him in Ohio, and
some of the Democratic politianS had determined
that they would defeat him in his struggle for
the senatorship if they could. When Dir.
Payne's name had been suggested 1t had been
favorably received, not only by Democrats, but
Republicans. Mr.. Payne had received the
caucus nomination, and had been elected by the
Legislature, that was a Democratic Legislature.
Bitterness grsw out of the contest. and there
were charges Of corruption, pro and con- The
Ohio Legislature was in session for some months
afterwards, but no notice of these charges was
taken by it When the next Legislature met
the Cincinnati Commercial and other papers
commenced the widest howl, and the Legis
lature was forced to make the investigation. 1t
did so on charges made sby Donavin. 1t was as
serted that Donavn had knowledge of instances
of bribery, and that he would go before
mittee of the Legislature and give the names of
the men who had been bribed and the sums
which some of them had received Donavin did
60 before the legislative committee and swore
that he knew nothing whateverh bout it. There
was not, in his testimony. scintilla of proof as
to bribery or as to anybody having been pur-
chased. But the howl continued, and four mem
bers of the Legislature were charged with hay
ing been bribed. The committee investigated
the matter for four months, and came TO the
unanimous conclusion that there was nothing in
the testimony that proved the charges against
these four members. And the Ohio Legislature
did not think enough of the testimony taken to
go to the expense Of printing it They sent it to
the Senate In manuscripts, and this mass of rub
bish had been printed by order of the Senate.
There was not, in the evidence taken before the
committee of the Ohio Legislature. one single
iota of testimony duplicating Mr. Payne, directly
or indirectly. He challenged the Senator from
Massachusetts, to point out il there was. If the
Senator had the name of a witness who could
prove anything that would warrant an investga-
tion; what was the name of that witness? where
did he live2 and what was his business!
Mr.. Logan quoted sons extracts from the
testimony, and said: That is the character of
testimony on which we three men. as good Re-
publicans as the Senator from Massachusetts,