The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-01-13
THE BALLOT BOX CASE.
HaIstead and Foraker Censyfed
by the Committee
MR. MAsOEs EXCEPTIONS
He Holds that They DO not Deserve
the Verdict---W0od aud Davis
Guilty oftbc Forgery--Heiic
Of the Ohio Campaign.

WsIursGfos, D. c., Jan. y The re
port Of the House Blllo. Box Commit
tee, which lEst session made an exteE
siys investigation into Ohio political AZ
| fpis in connection with alleged sub
Iscript!oas By Members Of Congress oi
stock in a patent ballot box, was to-day
presented 10 the House by SIR. Mason,
Of Illinois, the chairman OF the inyesti'
eating committee. The main report
which ia signed by all the members oi
the committee, says:
.'We ind that said alleged contrsc;
gas dictated by RichRrd q. Wood, and
tha, all the HiguaiuTes thereto are forged
We find that Richard G.. Wood, and
Frank aud MilRa'd aud Frank 5 Davis
were the only peEOns cOnsentlDg 70 the
preparation OF said forgery with knOWl-
edge OF is character, that said Wood
uttered said forgery for the purpose OF
procuring Governor Foraker's recon.
mendatiou Of himself for appointment
~ an office in Cincinnati, designated as
Smoke Inspector
I'VE further find that j. b Foraker,
by exhibiting the paper 10 several per
cons, and thereafter delivering II to Mr.
Halstegd, and Mr. Hslstead aided in
uttcring said forgery by publishing tue
forged pappr on O,tober 1859, ia the
Cincinnati Commercial GGsdt,. but we
find that neither Of said parties, FOrRker
aad HalA,ead, IN altering BaId paper,
knew the same was Il forgery"
de- ain IA l.
Mason. william C1g9Well, | S sTub!e,
Il. G. Turner aud William l. Wilson.
The supplementary report signed by
the members OF the committee except
Chairman Mason, says: 1--WE believe
that careful scrutiny Of the face Of the
forged paper must have shown it's false
character. The high stations attained
in public affairs aud In public contidence
by the persona whose names were forged
should have suggested ygrlilcation ol
the corrupt paper before 1t was uttered
or published.
"The publication of the false paper, in
the Commrrciri GaEsiis, showing Mr,
Campbetl's name, aud suppressiDg all
other signatures, was almost as bad aS
the original illsifcatiop Of the paper"
Mr Mason expresses his inability to
agree with his associates in the state
meut that 81 cafeiat BcEatiay OF the
forged paper must haye shown it's talss
character" ~ cannot agree contln'
tiuues Mr. Mason, that the publication
Of paper, or part OF It, which the pup
Usher believes to be genuine, and the
suppression OF apart Of It, RANK with the
crime Of forgery, aud especially. where
the suppression Is not part oil the SUD
ieCt matter of the papcr.
"Tho publication OF the forged paper
by Mr. Halstead, long before election, is
conclusive to my mind thCt he vas
thoroughly deceived and believed II to
BIZ genuine, and when he found that lie
was mistaken he at once published over
his own signature the most complete ro'
traction. Both MessrB. HalBtead and
Foraker have furnished all the evidence
within their power to this committee,
even sULmitling their private and per
s0uRl correspondence, thlt everything
could be shown TO the committees,
"BeiHg deceived Is the only olen8e oil
Messrs. Hals,eRd and Foraker. They
each have made reputation aud chaEac'
ter equG! perhaps to any Of the gentle
men who were Outraged by the forgery,
Since they found they were deceived.
they have done att iu their power as
honorable men to make amends. To
ask more seems TO me TO be most unjust,
and believing, "a DO, that the evidence
doea not warrant the Censure INDUCED
in by my associates on tho committee, IN
their above additional findings, | most
respectfully but most earnestly protest.