Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-07-16
port holds that an investigation should
not be instituted by the Senate.
THE THIRD REPORT

port holds that an investigation should
not be instituted by the Senate.
THE THIRD REPORT.
Messrs. Hoar and FRYE in a separate re,
port state that they cannot concur with
the views expressed by the other members
OF the committee. They describe the
eminent sources from which the charges
were brought to the attention OF the Sem
ate. and say they think q case is pre-
sented in which 1t is the duty OF the Sem
ate TO permit the petitioners to present
their evidence and to authorize the issue
OF proper process to aid in procuring the
attendance of witnesses. The Senate Is
the only court which can have jursdic-
tion of the question. The courts of Ohio
may exercise jurisdiction Of the ofense
OF bribery but could not decide whether
the result OF an election was thereby
changed. For the Senate to refuse to
listen to this complaint would be taken as
declaration that 1t Is indifferent TO the
question whether its seats are to be in
the future the subject OF bargain and sale
or may be presented by few million
aires as compliment to friend.
LITTLE AND BUTTERwoRTH.
The report sets forth a series of "pro-
positions" which Messrs. Little and But
terworth offer upon their own RESPONSE
Dility TO establish to the satisfaction of
the Senate, largely by witnesses who
were not in reach of the Ohio committee.
In brief, among these are the following:
Three-Quarters Of the members of the
Legislature were pledged TO Messrs. Pen
dletOn and Ward; that just before the
legislative caucus large sums OF
money were placed by Mr.. Payne's
son and other friends at the control
OF the active managers OF Mr.. Payne's
canvass; that gentleman whose name is
offered to be given would declare that
David r. Paige had said he had handled
$4,000, and that Oliver B. Payne had said
it cost him 100000 to elect his father: {:
that the members of the Legislature who
changed from Mr.. PeGdleton to Mr..
Payne did so after secret confidential
interview with the agents who had the
disbursement of these moneys, and that
these members about that time acquired
large sums OF money, for which they do
not satisfactorily account.
WHAT 1T WILL LEAD TO.
The report discusses the above men
toned features of the case at great length,
and the conclusion is reached that an in
vestigati0n 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 had
ever vet been compelled to testify and no
process had gone out which could
cross State lines. 1t would
hardly be doubted that cases of
purchase Of seats in the Senate would
rapidly multiply under the decision pro-
posed by the majority of the committee.
The first great precedent to constitute a
rule under this branch Of the law was to
be this: "Held by the Senate OF the
United States that the charge made by a
Legislature Of State and bya committee
of political party to which the larger
number OF Its citizens belong aud by
ten Of Its Representatives in Congress,
that an eleeti0u Of a Senator was
procured by gbflbsry, accompanied by an
offer to prove the fact, does not deserve
the attention of the Senate." The report
! concludes with a resolution directing
an investigation OF the charge and with a
| recommendation that it be adopted.