New-York tribune., 1886-07-23
THE ONO CASE.

Much of the heated debate about the Payne
case is caused by overlooking the fact that a
caucus is not Legislature. The charge
against the friends of Mr.. Payne is that persons
were blibed to vote in the party caucus by
which he was nominated. 1t is not claimed that
anybody was bribed to vote for him in the
Legislature Giving and taking bribes is NOR
ally the same whether the person is bought to
vote in one body or the other. Bnt here the
question is whether the Senate shall investigate
the conduct IF men in party caucus. 1t Is
question whether the conduct of men in patty
caucus determines the right of member of the
Senate to his seat.
Precedents need not be considered. If the
Senate had never done the thing before, or If 1t
had done the thing many times before, 1T would
still be entirely free to determine whether IN
this case the action of caucus should be lnvesti-
| gated that is, whether its action involved the
| right of Senator to his seat. While the Sen
ate is sole Judge of the election of its idembers,
| il has I, right to decide for itself whether a
bonght caucus constitutes a bought seat. The
difference between certain Senators lies just
there. Some hold that, whether votes in eau
Gus were bOugh, or not, there is no evidence
that any money was paid to any member to IN
| tuence his vote in the Legislature for Senator,
and that, if no votes in the Legislature Tor
Senator were bought, there is no gror nd on
which the right of the Senator to his seat can
be questioned. Other Senators hold different
opinion. They leason that the election Is virtu-
ally made in party caucus, so that bribery TO
secure a nomination is virtually bribery 10
secure an election. In a moral aspect they are
unquestionaby right. In technical and legal
aspect it is a different affair but In the Judg-
ment of these Senators, bribery in caucus
affects the integrity of the Senate as much as
bribery in the Legislature.
There is no occasion for men to get heated
and angry with each other, because OF these
differences of opinion. Either opinion is one
which an honest man can hold without the sus-
picion of unfair motives. Sui less Is theie
occasion for passionate denunrlaiIOn OF Scna-
tors who hold either opinion as If they had
been unfaithful to principles or were III SYM
pathy with corruption, or had been influenced
TO their decision by selfish aims Angry men III
Ohio and angry men IN the Senate have been
saving good many things which the exact
facts do not Justify. All decent men agree in
their estimate of the moral baseness of the
bribe-giver and bribe- -taker and agtee that II
is as base to give or take a brlbe for vote III
caucus as for a vote in the Legislature. But
men do not agree as to the proprlety OF treat
| ing a vote in caucus az if it we've the vote by
which Senator was legally elected. The differ
ence of opinion is one which ought on both
sides to be respected 1t is entirely ndefenslOe
| for Ohio men to talk of Senator Logan as II his
Judgment on that question must be governed by
private and selfish motives and 1t Is equally
| indefensible for Senator Logan to speak OF
Others as if their judgment IN the matter couid
not be an honest and unbiased one. Certainly
he has little reason to suppose that the lndlg-
nation of Ohio people has been manufactured
! for the purpose of affecting his interests.
| A caucus nomination is not an election.
| Legally, ii bought vote for a nomination Is not
| n bought vote for the SenatOrshIp. But the
disgrace of the Democrats who defend shame
less corruption in Ohio is just as great as II the
bought votes were cast i'll Legislature ana mol
in caucus, and the Indignation of the people,
| in view of the infamous conduct OF Democrats
| III the Legislature, is SO natural and lusilhable
that Senators may well make large allowance
| for it,