The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-07-23

strctness of lawyer, it seems to me they have
confounded the state of this inquiry.
have now performed q duty to my State,
and especially to the party that represent
here. All that / can say to you in conclusion Is
that we believe-apd mainly on statements
made by Democratic editors and Democratic
citzens-that there has been fraud and corrup-
ton in the election of my colleague: That is
the belief generally held in the State OF Ohio; and
we ask you to make such inquiry as will satisfy
your conscience whether that charge Is true or
false. If it is true: you alone are judges.
If it is false, you cannot punish
the meE who started these charges,
but you can vindicate the men
who have been unjustly accused In any view
that can take of it. believe that it is the duty
of the Senate of the United States, as it regards
it's own honor and the future of our country not
TO leave this matter Ill It's present condltlon-to
be believed by some and disbelieved by others,
to be made the subject of party contest and
party chicanery-but that you should have
fair, full and judicial investigation into the mer-
its of the accusation. If the charges are false,
stamp these men with the brand of ignomnv If
they are true, deal with the facts proven as you
shall think just and right.
Mr.. Eusts spoke in support of the majority re-
port. He did not find that the circumstances of
the Ohio investigation and its results, as they
had been reported to the Senate, were such as TO
show that the investigation had been gulded oy
those just and fair principles of evidence that
prevailed generally in this country. AS mem
Der of the committee on privileges and electlons
of the United States Senate, Mr.. Eustis had
given this case the fullest consideration. He had
done that irrespective OF personal feeiing,
knowing that the honorable Senator
from Ohio Mr.. Paynel had led
pure and blameless life, and knowing
that his private and public career had remained
unasgailed and unassailable until this moment;
ret Mr.. Eustis. in the performance of his duty
as member of the Senate committe, had, for
the time being, overlooked the personal respect
entertained by him for the Senator from Ohio
Mr.. Paynel: had discarded all personal feeling
whatever, and had sat in committee simply as
Judge. Mr.. Eustis proceeded to examine the cir
cumstances of the Ohio investigation, and hav-
ing done so, referred to the position taken by
Mr.. Hoar, who Mr.. Eustis said, had at first re-
ported to the committee that there was no ground
for an investigation
Mr. Hoar inquired how Mr.. Eustis arrived at
that conclusion.
Mr. Eustis said his recollection was that the
report of Mr.. Hoar was to that effect.
Mr.. Hoar said that the evidence taken by the
Ohio committee was reported to the Senate, &C
companed by no request from any quarter for
an investigation. but simply for the information
ofsthe Senate. He lAlr. Hoarl examined that
evidence and reported that, while it contained
certain facts as to bribery, nothing was shown
to implicate Mr.. Payne, and there nothing
to show that the result was thereby changed.
But ne Mr.. Hoar had also reported that Mr..
Little Representative In Congress from the
State 81 Ohio desired to be heard. and
that Mr. Hoar had been informed that four gen.
tlemen. said to have been the managers of Mr..
Payne, had kept out of the way. Mr. Hoar de-
MED that he had ever formed an opinion that an
investigation should not be made. On the con-
trary, he had accompanied his report with the
Statement-which statement, however, was not
copied by the press-that there was an applica-
ton for further hearing, and he Mr. Hoarl,
when making that report, had urged that further
hearing. When Mr. Little came before the COM
mittee he brought the request for an investiga-
ton from both houses of the Ohio Legislature
from Democratic editors and Republican editors
of the State, aud from the Republican State CEN
trail committee of Ohio. 1t was preposterous to
charge him EMr. Hoarl with Inconsistency in the
matter.
Mr. Eustis cared not who made request for
such proceedings. 1t was proper, and orderly,
and constitutional response for the Senate to
make If you have charges to make they
should be specific, serious substantial and Drova
bic charges 1t was useless to ask him to sup
port a movement of this character no matter
how many editors. Democratic or Republican,
asked for it. The question involved was one of
the graveSt possible in connection with our form
of government 1t would not do, III so serious
matter, to accept the opinion of anybody until
the charges were made, responsibly and Sc
riousiy, and not for partisan or political pur-
poses
The Chair Mr.. Sewell announced the ques-
ton to be the adoption of the report of the
majority of the committee.
Mr.. Hoar moved as an amendment that the
adopted instead.
Mr.. Frye, in supporting the minority report,
said the question was whether bribery and cor
ruption had been used and not whether the
Senator from Ohio Mr.. Paynel had himself
been participant in it. Mr.. Frye then took up
the work of the Ohio investigation committee,
and read extracts from the testimony to show
that bribery had been used. He was willing to
say, however, that there was no testimony
which proved that the Senator from Ohio Mr..
PayneI had been guilty of bribery, or which
even Swallowed the suspicion that that gentle
man had been guilty of bribery. Mr. Frye ad-
mitted that there was not enough testimony on
which to declare the seat vacant, but claimed
that there was abundant testimony to put the
United States Senate on the inquiry. !
He then referred to the Standard Oil Com
pany a power that made itself felt in
every inch of territory throughout this
Republic. When it was deliberately charged,
he said. by State legislature, that that great
power had put its hand upon legislative body,
and undertook to elect United States Senator.
it was the Senate of the United States that could
not afford to sit silent. He read from the Ohio
testimonyto show the condition of the senatorial!
canvass up to the time, he said, when the Stand
ard Oil gentleman appeared upon the scene.
Then. said Mr.. Frye, Presto CHANGE Up to
that time Mr.. Pendleton had clear majority of
all the Democrats elected to the Legislature;
but when these gentlemen came upon the scene
the almost peerless Pendleton got only fifteen
votes. while the sitting Senator Mr.. Payne| got
forty-six. How was that Accomplished Was it
a miracle? The testimony showed that when the
Standard Oil Company came to Columbus it
brought its money with it, ami put it into the
headquarters of the Democratic party.
Mr.. Frye insisted that Oliver FL. Payne,
Mr.. Mclean, Mr.. Thompson, Mr.. Hunt
ington, Mr.. Paige and every other agent
of the Standard Oil Company who was there,
should come before a committee of the United
States Senate and, under oath, tell whether or
not they had purchased this seat in the Senate.
Referring to the testimony in the case, Mr..
FRYE admitted that if the Senator from Ohio
fMr. Payuel were on trial it would not effect his
conviction. The statements did not touch the
skirts of his garments II know the Senator
from Ohio" said Mr.. Frye; Il served with him
in the House OF Representatives. | believe him
to be man of the strictest integrity The only
thing that has ever shaken my confidence in the
Senator from Ohio Is shat under the perfect