The record-union., 1891-01-13
Report of the Ballot Box Commit.
tee of the House.
THE BEHRING SEA DISPUTE BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
Senator Stewart Introduces a New
Proposition to the Free Coinage
Bill : Pension Claims to be Paid
Monthly Instead of Quarterly-Tax
on Tobacco = SAN Francisco POST
office Site.
Special to the REcoRD-UNIoN.

Special to the REcoRD-UNIoN.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 12.-The report of
the Ballot-box Committee, which last
session made an extensive investigation
into Ohio political affairs in connection
with alleged subscriptions by members
of Congress in patented ballot-boxes, was
to-day presented to the House by Chair
man Mason.
The main report, which is signed by all
the members of the committees, finds
that the alleged contract was prepared by
Richard G. Wood; that all the signatures
thereto were forged, and that Frank Mil
ward and Frank Davis were without in
tent in the transaction; that Wood uttered
said forgery for the purpose of procuring
Governor Forakers recommendation OF
himself to the Mayor of Cincinnati to the
appointment to office of smoke inspector.
The committee further finds that Gov
ernor Foraker and Murat Halstead aided
in uttering said forgery by publishing it
In the Cincinnati Commercial Bu{{etin
but finds that neither Foraker nor Hal
stead, in uttering the paper knew. tho
same was a forgery.
The committee finds that no one of the
persons whose names appear on the said
alleged contract had and has, directly or
indirectly, any unlawful, corrupt or i'm
proper connection with or in the interest
of the ballOt-boXes, which are said to be
the subject of the alleged contract, and
there was never any other contract relat-
ing to said ballot-boXes in which either of
these persons, alone or jointly with
others, was in any way interested.
A supplementary report, signed by all
the members except Chairman Mason,
10 hnt fla ~ - Il i
the connection with Foraker, closed his
depravity. They also believed a careful
scrutiny of the forged paper must have
shown its false character. The high sta
ions attained in public affairs by the per-
sons whose names We're forged should
have verification of the corrupt paper be-
fore it was uttered or published. The
publication showing Campbell's name,
and suppressing other signatures, was
almost as bad as the original fabrication
of the paper.
The entire incident, the members say,
is an example of the political methods
deserving the condemnation of all parties
and all good citizens,
Chairman Mason, in minority report,
does not agree with these additional find
ing. He does not see that a careful scru-
uny OF the forged paper must have shown
its false character. 1t is easy now to
know in January, 1891, what we ought to
have known in September, 1889. Whether
or not Foraker and Halstead treated
well the gentlemen outraged by
the forgery by not. seeing
them personally, is a question of ethics
not involved in the investigation, nor does
it throw any light on the subject. Being
deceived is the only offense of Halstead
and Foraker. They have each made a
reputation and character equal perhaps to
any of the gentlemen who We're outraged
by the forgery. Since they found they
were deceived, they have done all in their
power as honorable men to make amends.
To ask more seems to Mr.. Mason unjust,
and he respectfully protests against the
cenSure of his associates