The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-01-13
|50aAKER AND HALSTEAO
Denounced as a Precious Pair Of
forgers by Congress
sional Committee.
The Deepicablo Political Methods
They Employed In tho
Ohio Campaign.
They Aided In Utfsring Forgery--Abet-
tod False Publication to
Harm Campbell

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12.-The report OF tn.
ballot box committee which, last session
made extensive investigation into Ohio
political affairs in connection with the al
legged subscriptions by members OF congress
TO stock in patent ballot box, was to-day
presented to the house by Chairman Mason
The main report, which is signed by all thu
members OF the committee. finds that the
alleged contract WAS prepared by Richard
u. Wood; that all signatures thereto were
forged, and that Frank Millard and Frank
Davis were without evil intention in the
transaction; that Wood uttered said forgery
Tor the purpose of procuring Gov. Fora.
Kccs recommendation of himself to the
mayor OF Cincinnati for appointment to
the Office of smoke inspector. The COM
mittee further finds that Gov. Foraker and
Murat Halstead aided in uttering said forg-
cry by publishing 1t in the Cincinnati Com
mercial Gazette, but finds that neither For
aker nor Halstead, in uttering the forgery.
knew the same was forgery. The COM
nittee finds that no one of prominence
whose name appears on the said alleged
contract had, or has, either directly or in
directly, any unlawful, corrupt, or improp-
or, or any other connection with or inter est
IN the ballot boxes which are said to be the
subject OF the alleged contract. and there
never was any other contract relating to
said ballot boxes in which either of these
persons, alone or jointly with others, was
in any way interested.
The supplementary report, signed by all
the members except Chairman Mason, finds
that the conduct of Wood during the nego-
tiations with Foraker disclosed his deprav-
ity. They also believe careful scrutiny of
the face Of the forged paper must have
shown its false character. The high sta
tions attained in public affairs by persons
whose names were forged should have sug-
gested the verilication of the corrupt paper
bsfore it was uttered or published. The
publication showing Campbell's name, and
5uppressing the other signatures was al
most as bad rs the original fabrication of
the paper, The entire incident, the mem
bers say, is one OF the political methods
deserving the condemnation OF all parties
and all good citizens.
Chairman Mafcn, in minority report,
does not agree with these additional find
inGs. lie does not see that careful scruti-
ny of the forged paper must have shown it's
false character. 1t is easy now to know. in
January, 1891, what ought to have been
known in September, 1889. Whether or not
Foraker and Halstead teated we'll the gen.
tlemen outraged by the forgery by not see
ing. them personally. is a question of
ethics not involved i'll the investigation.
Nor does it throw any light upon the sub
ject as to who uttered the forgery. Being
deceived. is the only ofensc of Halstead
and Foraker. They have each maze repu.
tation and character equal, perhaps. to any
of the gentlemen who were outraged by the
forgery. Since they found they were de-
ceived they have done all i'll their power, as
honorable men. to make amends. To ask
more seems 10 NJ. Mason unjust, and he
respectfully protests against the censure of
his associates in the additional findings
summarized above.