Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1886-07-22

i
inculpstion of Mr.. Payne. They there
fore turn their attention to the question
of the validity of his election to the Sen
ate. The report holds that the evidenct
in such case must show that the frauC
which 1t alleged was committed, en-
braced enough in number of the voting
electors to have changed the result. Tht
testimony presented by the Ohio House
of Representatives shows the member!
of the General Assembly that have beer
brought into inculpation, and the weigh
of evidence against them.
As to the four members, Baker, Hunt
Schultz and ZeigIer, it Is found by tbt
signers of the report that the testimony
developed nothing of an inculpatinG
character. AS to the two members
Kahle and Hull, the report finds thai
they were not diverted from the support
of Mr.. Pendleton to that of Mr.. Payne
| OF the two Senators and two Represen-
tatives named in the majority report oi
the select committee (Messrs. Mooney
and Roche of the House, and White and
Rsmey, of the Senate,l the signers of the
report refer without observation of their
own, to the majority and minority re-
ports of the Ohio committee. They dc
not find that the select committee rec'
commended any action by the Legislature
looking to any further Investigation and
they express the opinion that there was
no evidence presented to the United
States Senate which purperts to prove
that fraud, corruption or bribery was
employed in Mr.. Payne's election. affect
ing the votes, either in caucus or in the
Legislature whereby the election was
carried, to effect his election, nor is
there evidence that any such proof
exists.
Therefore the report holds that the
Senate would not be warranted under
the Constitution in instituting an inves-
tigation. The report points out that the
State is not under the restrictions which
bind the Senate in such investigations,
and says the State should execute its
laws respecting tbeipurity of Senatorial
elections by the indictment and convic-
tion of the bribe-givers and takers. In
this case the State has attempted no fur
ther investigation than is embodied in
the matter laid before the Senate, either
through the Legislature or courts of
law. If further examination by the
State should be made, the Senate would
be governed in its further action by
what might appear. But as the matter
stands, the report holds that an investi-
CATION should not be instituted by the
Senate.
Senators Hoar and Frye in separate
report state that they cannot concur
with the views expressed by the other
members of the committee. They de-
scribe the eminent sources from which
the charges were brought to the stten,
tion of the Senate, and say they think
case is presented in which it is the du-
ty of the Senate to permit the petition
ers to present their evidence and to au>
thorize the issue of proper process to
aid in procuring the attendance of wit
nesses.
The Senate is the only court which can
have jurisdiction of the question. The
courts of Ohio may exercise Jurisdiction
of the effense of bribery, but could not
decide whether the resalt of an election
was thereby changed. For the Senate
to refuse to listen to this complaint
would be taken as q declaration that it is
Indifferent to the question whether its
seats are to be in the future the subject
of bargain and sale or may be represent
ed by few millionaires as compliment
to friend.
The reports set forth a series of ten
propositions which Messrs. Little and
Butterworth offer upon their own re-
sponsibility, to establish to the satisfac-
tion of the Senate, largely by witnesses
who were not within reach of the Ohio
committee. In brief, among these are
the following: Three-fourths of the
members of the Legislature were pledg-
ed to Pendleton and Ward; that just be-
fore the Legislative caucus large sums
of money we're placed by Payne's son and
other friends who had the control of Mr..
Payne's canvass that gentleman whose
name is offered to be given, would de-
clare that David r. Paige had said he
handled $65,OO0, and that Oliver B.
Payne had said it cost him 100000 to
elect his father; that the smembers of the
Legislature who changed frOmPendleton
to Payne did so after a secret confiden>
tial interview with agents who had the
of these monies, and that
these members about that time had large
sums of money for which they do not
satisfactorily account.
The report discusses the above men+
toned features of the case at great
length and the conclusion is reached
that an investigation is warranted. The
question is warranted. The question is
not, the report says. whether the case is
proved. 1t is only whether it shall be
inquired into. No unwilling witness
bad ever yet been compelled to testify
and no process had gone out which could
cross the State lines. 1t could hardly be
doubted that cases of the purchase of
seats in the Senate would multiply
under the decision proposed by majer-
ity Of the committee.
The first great precedent to constitute
the rule under this branch Of law was to
be this: Held by the Senate of the Uni
ted States, that charge made by the