Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-27
EMERY AND HIS EVIDENCE.

night The speech and the evidence which is
incorporated in 1t leave 10 doubt of the
speaker conviction that his charges are well
founded. 1t presents prima .facie case as
to a part of the charges, and produces
striking array of further allegations in
detail, which, unless the Republican candi,
date departs from his previous policy and
takes the matter into court the public must
judge solely in the light of Senator Emery's
character and good faith.
The charges made by Senator Emery are
the same he made last spring, with the addi-
ton of one that has been published before,
but which Senator Emery has not heretofore
assumed the responsibility for. They are, as
they have often been published, as follows:
1. That in Senator Delamater's nomina-
ton and election as Senator money was used
for the purchase of votes; that he paid
money for the suppression of evidence OF
this bribery which would have prevented
him from taking his seat; and that the
official oath that he took was, consequently,
perjury.
2. That as Senator he got up bogus con-
ference committee report on a bill affecting
the oil and gas interests, with the intent, as
Senator Emery alleges, of committing a
legislative fraud injurious to the producers,
and advantageous to the interests with
which Delamater is alleged to be allied.
3 The charges made previously, but not
by Emery, until now, that the action of
Delamater in beating the Billingsley bill
was secured BY pecuniary considerations,
stated at $4,000.
The matter which Senator Emery produces
in support of these allegations is of such
varied character, considered as evidence.
that it calls for classification. 1t consists of
% afidavits by persons personally cogni-
zant of the distribution of money to secure
votes for Senator Delamater; (2) statements
and afidavits by persons whose names are
withheld, as to the distribution of money,
for the purpose above stated and for the
suppression of the evidence of bribery.
These latter statements are only supported
by witnesses who make oath that they heard
them made, being reduced to writing in the
presence of the persons making them. 81
The report OF the Legislative Record on that
bogus conference committee report (D
The letter of colleague OF Senator Emery
and Delamater, namely Senator Rutan, as
to the course of Quay and Emery on the
Billingsley bill.
A large portion of the evidence of the
first class, and that of the fourth, has al
ready been published by the remarkable
Coarse of the Republican State Com
mittee. The unique theory of Mr..
Delamater's managers that the force
of the charges is forestalled, by the
publication in Republican organs of
afidavits and allegations so far undisputed,
which charge criminal misconduct on the
part of their candidate, is without parallel
in the history of politics To thus blacken
the cause of their own candidate, in order to
prevent an antagonist from doing so, is re-
sort OF such extraordinary nature, that it
can only be accounted for as confession of
fear and inability to rebut.
Apart from this remarkable adoption of
the charges by Mr.. Delamater's own sup
Porters, it is no more than fair to weigh the
evidence for what it is worth. On the first
point the expenditure of money to procure
votes for Delamater, primG fucie case is
made by the afidayits of men whose names
are given and who swear that they person
ally knew of the disbursement of funds. As
to the startling details, which are further
given, of the expenditure of money not only
for votes, but for the suppression of evidence,
it is necessary, in justice, to recognize that so
long as the names of the persons making
these are suppressed, they must remain in
the rank of mere allegations. The force of
such evidence lies in the character and
standing of the witnesses; and while the
afidavits of Senator Emery and his friends
that these statements were made, are to be
accepted, the evidence is not such as any
court world accept unless the witness makes
himself known and takes the responsibility
for his testimony. The weakness of this
point is partially Offset bv the fact that
Senator Emery himself assumes response
bilitv for the statements of these unnamed
and if they are challenged by
prosecution says he will produce the
witnesses in court
As to the charges concerning Senator
Delamater's course IN the Legislature, Sena-
tor Emery produces from the Legislative
Record evidence of a transaction by the Re-
publican candidate that, in any light, is
most astounding one. Senator Delamater's
explanation that he prepared this conference
report in anticipation OF a disagreement is
given; but it utterly fails to explain how it
was that he appended to the report the sig
natures of members of both branches, as
a committee which was never
and had the report printed in
that shape. On the other hand it seems so
incredible that an attempt could be made to
pass bill on a bogus conference report,
while the real measure was before the |
House, that the Imagination of the public |
will be taxed to account for this freak of |
legislative procedure on any hypothesis. !
As to the charge with reference to the |
bill, Senator Emery while Civ |
ing some very interesting ideas with regard |
10 State politics, simply adds to his asser-
ions the allegation of private letter Of |
Senator Rutan's. This may be corrobora-
ion, but 1t must be taken simply as the al |
legation of two Of the Senators. and judged |
oy their standing solely.
To sum up. Senator Emery has backed
I'D portion OF his charges by evidence that
-equires rebuttal; another portion is sup
ported by matter which cannot be accepted |
Is evidence in its present shape, and is
therefore, lett just where it was before, to be
considered solely by the weight due to Sem