Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1889-11-21
lFrom the Enquirer.l
BALLOT-BOX FORGERY.
HOW 1T WAS GIVEN TO THE @. G.
BY GOVERNOR FORAKER.
An Interview With T. @. Campbell,
Who Tells of the Partners
I'm the Job.


celebrated ballot-box forgery over the ini-
tials of M. Halstead.
In it the writer tells how he got the forged
documents from Governor Foraker, who had
previously obtained them from R. G. Wood.
A letter from Governor Foraker is also Civ
en-, in which the Governor tells how he got
the documents from Wood.
Colonel T. G. Campbell. who is mentioned
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE,
Was met by an Enquirer reporter in the aft
ternoon and asked if he had read the Com
mercial article.
"No, Ihave not read it. The paper con-
tanning it has been shown me, but as l ar
rived in town only this morning and am very
busy have not read it."
Mr.. Campbell WAS then asked to read Gov
eruor rnraker's letter, and the statement
which Governor Foraker made concerning
the same matter in his speech of November
8, and which were reproduced in Mr.. Hal
stead's article.
The gentleman hastily read the matter
pointed out, and said: II have thorough
knowledge of the ballot-box matter, in so far
as the building of the box and the introduc-
ing of the bill in Congress is concerned. Of
the forgery. I only knew in the beginning
that it was forgery. I knew it because
had been the attorney of the company from
its inception. l had drawn all the contracts
it entered into, and drew the bill introduc-
ed by Mr.: Campbell in Congress. Ny draft
was based upon two bills, one of which had
been introduced by Senator Hoar, of Massa-
chusetts, and the other, think, by Senator
Edmunds. The bill was introduced by Mr..
Campbell at my request, and after he had
examined the box very thoroughly H. COM
pany with an Ohio Republican member of
Congress. l requested Mr.. Campbell to IN
troduce it for the reason that as the House
was Democratic l felt that matter that
might he regarded as a political measure
would receive better attention. There never
was any contract with any one which savored
in any way of the paper published by Mr.
Halstead. l am not surprised that Mr.. Hal
sted took counsel of his own impetuous nature
and jumped at the conclusion that piece of
arrant rascality had been entered into by Mr..
Campbell, for that reason. Mr.. Halstead is
utterly unable to fairly review or calmly
Judge of the merits or demerits of man who
for the time being, he is opposing. But
Governor Foraker was in an entirely diff
ferent position from Mr.. Halstead. In the
first place, Mr.. Foraker knew that was the
attorney for the company. He knew that,
for we had conversation about it. Oonse-
quently he knew that his brother and his in
innate friend, Mr.. L. NJ. Hadden, and his
other intimate friend, Mr.. George B. Cox,
were interested in the box in this State.
Among the many mistakes Governor Foraker
has made, his friends will surely admit that
his letter to Mr.. Halstead dated November
10, 1889, is the greatest. Such confession
rarely comes from man who, it is popularly
supposed. retains his normal wit. Think OF
it. Mr.. Foraker says that the forged paper
was in his possession as far back as prior to
his conversation with Mr.. Halstead, Septem.
Der IA, 1889. Mr.. Halstead relates that
Governor Foraker, with detected air, sick
heart and bowed head, regretfully announc-
ed that he could not use the forged instru-
ment because upon the same paper, which
he processes to believe genuine, there was
the honored name of VIM. Mckinley. of John
Sherman, of s. S. Cox, of w. G. P. Brecken-
ridge, of Senator Mcpherson and also the
name of Ben Butterworth. Governor Fora
ker knew John Sherman and his post-offce
address: he knew William Mckinley and his
post Office address. Could he want better
witnesses than those men were to tell him
whether or not such a rascally document as
his friend Mr.. Halstead gave to this public,
was genuine or forgery? Was it so far from
Columbus to Mansfield that Governor Fora
ker could not have used one of his free passes
to go there and inquire, or send? Was it SO
far from Columbus to Mr.. VIM. Mckinley s
home that he could not send to Mr.. Mckinley
and ask about it? Foraker did not send be-
cause he knew that it was a forgery, and that
it was prepared because of his promise to pay
for it with the appointment of Smoke In
spector of the City of Cincinnati. Mr.. Fora
ker knew where I was and what my address
was, and it would not be the first time in his
life that he came to me for favors of special
importance not political. but of the utmost
moment to Foraker.
And great as these favors were rendered
still greater favors to j. B. Foraker, and
when he sneeringly says in his Music Hall
speech (Which, by the way, did not see till
this moment):
form the effect of introducing his bill on the
ground he did it at the request of Republi
can, but he has been careful not to tell who
that Republican was. The man to. whom he
refers when he says he introduced the bill at
the request of Republican is Mr.. Thomas
Q. Campbell, man well known in this city.
When James E. Campbell introduces bill at
the request of Thomas @. Campbell, the
effect of which is to create trust fund of
81, 900, at the expense of the Government,
for somebody's benefit; it is fair to presume
that the transaction probably meant some
thing more than the purity of the ballot"
Yes, am known in this city, and so is
Foraker. l am very willing to compare rec
ords or test popularity with him or Halstead.
What right had ]. B. Foraker to make such
a statement? He knew, without asking me.
the entire history of the ballot-box, and the
character of its friends and promoters, and
he also knew that he could have got the en-
tire truth by asking me. The bill was fair
one, based upon one drawn up by one of the
most distinguished members that ever sat in
the United States Senate. When Mr.. Fora
ker says that the box could be made for $40,
ha FOL hakh ha Ly,a 60 ha ooV1ld
not be made for $40 nor $12. The bill pro"
vided that more than $25 could not be paid
the same as was paid by law in New Jersey.
There is no more improperly in selling the
Government an article it needs, because it is
patented, than there is in selling to an indi-
vldual. Is it crime to sell patented arti-
Gle? If so, what becomes of the myriad of
articles the Government annually buys which
are patentedP What right had Mr.. Foraker
to make charges of the character that he did
even IN his Music Hall speech without inves-
tigation? But beyond and above all, what
right had he to permit an attack to be made
upon the integrity of his competitor when for
three months twas in his power to have as
certained by single brief note to Sherman,
Butterworth, McKinley-to myself-what the
truth was? Cannot any body see who choos-
es to look that this matter was kept secret
and was only intended for use on the last day
of the campaign, and the little plan set up by
Foraker was spoiled by Halstead, who, to use
his own language, touched ofth hls.dynamlte
in response to the Topp letter2 Foraker eth
or was afraid to trust Ralstead with the Sc
cret of the forgery or Halstead desired first to
ruin Campbell by producing it at the time
he did, and still believing that the Republi
cans would carry Ohio, or with that document
in his power that he could compel the assist
ance Of Sherman, Mckinley, Butterworth and