The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-01-14
THE BALLOT BOX FORGERY.
Foraker and Halstead Helped the Thing
Along.

Foraker and Halstead Helped the Thing
Along.
The report of the house ballot box com
mittee which last session made an extern
sive investigation into Ohio political af-
fairs in connection with alleged subscrip-
tons by members of congress OF stock in
a patent ballot box, was to-day presented
to the house by Mr. Mason Qll), the
chairman of the investigating committee
of five. The main report, which is signed
by all the members - the committee,
says:
10 response to the firstinQuiry directed by the
resolution, viz: BY whom said contract was
prepared, and whether the several signatures
appended thereto are forged or genuine, we
find that said alleged contract was dictated
tprepared) by Richard G. Wood, and that all
the signatures thereto are forged In response
to the second inquiry directed by the resolu-
tion, viz: If forged, what person or persons,
il any, were directly or indirectly aiding, abet-
ting. assisting. or knowingly oOnsenting to the
preparation and uttering OF said forgery, and
for what purpose? We find that Richard G..
Wood. Frank and L. Milward, and Frank S.
Davis were the only persons directly or
or knowingly cousenting to the
preparation Of said forgery, with
knowledge of its character that Milward and
Davis were without evil intent in the part they
took in the transaction, and had no other pur-
pose than 10 accommodate :. Il. Wood. and at
Woods request; that said Wood uttered said
forgery for the purpose of procuring Governor
FOraker's recommendation of himself to the
mayor of Cincinnati. o., for appointment TO
an Office OF that city, designated in the evil
dence as smoke inspector"
We further find that ]. +. Foraker and Murat
Halstesd aided in uttering said forgery, Mr..
Foraker by exhibiting the paper to several per-
sons and those after delivering il to Mr.. Hal
stead and Mr.. Hastead aided in uttering said
forgery by publishing the forged paper on Oct.
4lSo9, In the Cincinnati Commercial Gasotte;
but we find that neither of said parties, For
aker and Halstead, in uttering said paper,
knew that same was forgery.
In response 10 the third inquiry directed by
the resolution viz, whether any OF the members
whose names appeared on said alleged contract
had or have either directly indi-
rectly, any unlawful, corrupt or i'm
proper connection with, or interest in the
ballot boxes and which are subject matter of
said alleged contract, we find no one of the per-
sons whose names appear on said alleged con-
tracts had or has. either directly or indirectly,
any unlawful, corrupt improper. or any
other connection with or interest in the ballot
boxes which are said 10 be the subject of said
alleged contract; and that 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. Signed,
WILLIAM E. MASON.
WILLIAM CoGswELL,
]. s. STRUBLE,
ii. G. TURNER,
WILLIAM L. WILSON.
The supplementary report signed by all
the members of the committee except
Chairman Mason, reports the following
additional findings:
We find that the conduct OF Wood during
the negotiations with Governor Foraker and
also pending the execution of their agreement,
disclosed his depravity We also believe that
a careful scrutiny of the face of the forged
The high stations attained in public affairs and
in public confidence by the persons whose
names were forged, should have suggested YER
ifcation of the corrupt paper before il was
uttered or published. Information as to its
real character was near and easy of access, as
disclosed by the report of the committee. The
publication of the principal paper
In the Commsrcia Gazette, showing Mr..
CampbelPs name and suppressing
all other signatures, was almost as
bad as the original fabrication of the paper. IL
was spoliation of evidence. The entire incl
dent the committee have been instructed to in
vestigate is an example of political methods
deserving the condemnation Of all parties and
ali good citizens.
Mr. Mason, in a minority report. SAYS
that he cannot agree with the additional
findings of his colleagues, because they are
not within the inquiry propounded by the
resolution or under which the committee
was appointed. Mr.. Mason expresses his
inability to agree with his associates i'm
the statement that careful scrutinity of
the forged paper must have shown its false
character.