Los Angeles herald., 1891-01-13
BALLOT-BOX FRAUDS.
FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE.
The Signatures to the Contract Were
Forged-Halstead and Foraker Gen.
sured for Their Connection With 1t.

WASHINGTON, Jar. 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 of stock in patent ballot-box,
was today presented to the house by
Chairman Mason. The main report,
which is signed by all the members of
the committee, finds that the alleged
contract was prepared by Richard G..
Wood, and that all the signatures there
to were forged, and that Frank Milward
and Frank Davis were without intent in
the transaction; that Wood perpetrated
said forgery for the purpose of procuring
Governor Foraker's recommendation of
himself to the mayor of Cincinnati for
appointment to the office of smoke in
spector.
The committee further finds that
Governor Foraker and Murat Halstead
aided in uttering said forgery by pub
fishing it in the Cincinnati Commercial
Gazette, but finds that neither Foraker
nor Halstead, in uttering the paper,
knew the same was forgery.
| The committee finds that no one Of
the persons whose names appear on
said alleged contract, had, or has, either
directly or indirectly, any unlawful, cor
rupt or improper, or any other connec-
ton with, or interest in, the ballot
boxes which are said TO be the subject
of the alleged contract; and there was
never any other contract relating 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
of the members except Chairman Ma
son, finds that the conduct of Wood
during his negotiations with Foraker
disclosed his depravity. They also be
ljeved a careful scrutiny of the forged
paper must have shown it's false charac-
ter. The high stations attained in pub
lie affairs by the persons whose names
were forged, should have suggested
verification of the corrupt paper before
it was uttered or published. The publi-
cation showing Campbell's name and
suppressing other signatures, was al
most as bad as the original fabrication
of the paper. The entire incident, the
members say, is an example of political
methods. deserving the condemnation
Of all parties and all good citizens.
Chairman Mason in minority report
does not agree with these additional
findings. He does not see
that careful scrutiny of the
forged paper must have shown
it's false character. SIT is easy now to
know, in January, 1891, what we ought
to have known in September, 1889.
Whether or not Foraker and Halstead
treated we'll the gentlemen outraged by
the forgery by not seeing them person
ally, is question of ethics not involved
in the investigation, nor does it throw
any light upon the subject as
to who forged and who uttered
the forgery. Being deceived is
the only otfense OF Halstead and For
aker. They have each made a reputa-
tion and character, equal, perhaps, to
any of the gentlemen who were outraged
by the forgery. Since they have found
they were deceived, they have done all
in their power as honorable men to make
amends
To ask more seems to Mr.. Mason un-
just, and he respectfully protests against
the censure of his associates in the ad-
ditional findings summarized above.