The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1888-08-11

followers and plunderers that have mad
that party stencil In the nostrils o
humanity, and so vote the Democratic
ticket. They are called Mugwumps. bu
the attempted ridicule falls harmless
from the dignity conscientious discharg'
Of duty gives every man Our friend y
choice vituperation calls them q more in
decent name. Now. the difference be
tween Senator Ingalls, and these mucl
abused gentlemen Ii very clear, comfort
ing and significant. They are Mug
wumps in the hour Of peace
and disloyal to their party for the
sake of the republic; while he was Mug
wump in the hour Of war, and disloyal t.
his party when that party was of vita
necessity to the republic. To put this
fact in the sort Of sentence in which In
gals and his admirers delight, the differ
ence between Ingalls, and the MugwumI
is that ingalls, muSwum2ed in war, he in
peace; Ingalls,, because he wanted little
Office and could not get it; he, because
such records Of barefaced corruption as
that of your senatorial election in 1875
had made Republicanism cesspool OF
corruption and shame TO the republic.
Speaking of corruption. that decay
which 80 often precedes death in party,
and holds it to life. not on the principles
that justified the organization, but in the
organization itself that survives the prin-
ciples, is in no feature so marked as in
the elevation Of John j. Ingalls, to the
leadership of the senate, When that
gentleman first made his appearance il
the chamber as representative of q
sovereign state. his advent had been pre-.
coded by grave charges so well sustained
that neither his talents could condone nor
his senatorial robes cover the tainted
regulations and the only recognition
given was that which his official
position necessarily accorded him.
Even his hardened nature and cool assur-
ance was dashed, and he humbly accepted
his isolated condition. and had full time
to study Webster's Unabridged. as he
tells us in his practice for strong words
with which to frame epigrammatic sen.
fences fitted for style of omtory made
popular by John Randolph. of Roanoke.
As the Republican party went down Son
ator Ingalls, rose into prominence, like q
waterlogEed stake in the Mississippi that
shows its Shiny head as the wate. 8 receda
The tainted outcast Of Kansas is not only
the presiding officer of the senate, but at
intervals leaves the chair no pOllutss to
pour out upon the floor his selected and
long studied vituperation, with not only
the appreciation Of his political associates.
but with that hearty applause which
shows ut once their poverty and his impu
dence.
The official record now before rs and
not TO be disputed. Of the senatorial elec
tion Of John J. Ingalls, in 1879, is curious
reading, and leaves us little reason to
doubt the justice of sentiment that rel
egated the so called senator TO solitary
existence. II was not 80 common then as
now To have these senatorial chairs put
up at auction and sold to the highest bid
ders The senate was yet political body,
and not social club for millionaires to
occupy because of their wealth. The
corruption attending Ingalls, election was
50 bare faced that the seat might he said
to have been sold in open market. The
excited people were not so accustomed to
such transactions at that day. and inves-
legations were demanded and had. The
result, rs reported by the committee APP
pointed by the lower house Of the Kansas
legislature. confesses and avoids In way
that is as charming in it's simplicity as it
Is startling in its morality. Here is the
finding:
THE majority reported that they had
examined about forty five witnesses; that
they find from the testimony that John J,
Ingalls,. the recently elected United States
senator used no corrupt means to SECURE
his election to the United States senate,
and that neither of said late senatorial
candidates were guilty Of bribery or cor
ruption in the late senatorial election, and
that there was no evidence against any
member Of the house which would war
rant their expulsion.
This coat of whitewssh was laid on by
a vote of GO to A.
But the house desired it to be under
stood that this was whitewash, and
straightway proceeded to resolve;
Whereas, The testimony taken by the
committee discloses the fact
that certain members of the house did,
during the late senatorial canvass, take
special pains to place themselves in posi-
ton to be offered money to influence their
votes, and did in some instances actually
receive money though not from either of
the senatorial candidates; therefore, be it
Resolved. That the conduct of all such
members is deserving Of and this house
does administer upon them, its severest
censure, committing them to the care of
their constituents for their ultimate con
demnation which they so richly deserve"
These two resolutions reveal a very
clear glimpse Of the ethics of the men
who elected Ingalls,. 1t is clearly evil
denced that, according to their morality,
the member who receives bride is not
deemed fit for expulsion, but he is to be
If caught at it. 1t is fur
ther shown that senatorial candidate in
Kansas may resort to bribery provided he
acts by agent and not IN propria persona.
But the history did not end here. A
memorial signed by some thirty odd mem
bers Of the Kansas legislature, charging
Mr.. Ingalls, and his agents with acts of
bribery and corruption, was presented to
the United States senate. 1t was set
forth that the investigation before the
Kansas committee was partial and incom-
plcte, among other things, because Of re-
peated and corrupt efforts on the part of
the agents of Mr.. Ingalls, to intimidate
and suborn important witnesses" One
Of tho members Of that legislature
signed written confession that Mr.. In
gals had agreed to pay him money for
his vote and that said Ingalls, referred
him to Il friend who was assisting in the