The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-01-13
Ohio ELECTION METHODS.
Report Of The BallOt-B0X COMMITTEES Pre-
S6ntGd to the House.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12.-The report of
the BallOt-box Committee, which last ses-
sion made an extensive investigation into
ono political affairs in connection with al
legged subscriptions by members of Congress
Tor stock in a patent ballot-boX, was to-day
presented to the House by Chairman Mason.
The main report, which is signed by all the
members OF the committee, finds that the al
legged contract was prepared by Richard G.
Wood; that all the signatures thereto were
forged, aud that Frank Milward and Frank
Davis were without intent in the transac-
ton; that Wood uttered said forgery for ths
purpose of procuring Governor Foraker's
recommendation OF himself to the Mayor of
Cincinnati for appointment to the Office of
Smoke Inspector The committee further
finds that Governor Foraker and Murat Hal
stead aided IN utterIng said forgery by pub
fishing it in the Cincinnati Commercial Ga
Zette, but finds that neither Foraker nor
Halstead, in utteTing the paper knew the
same was forgery. The committee finds
that no one OF the persons whose name ap-
pears on said alleged contract had or has,
either directly or indirectly, any unlawful.
corrupt or improper or any other connection
with or interest in bali0t-boXes which are
said to be the subject of the alleged contract
and there was never any other contract re-
lating to said ballot-boxes in which either
OF these persons, alone or jointly with others,
A 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-
lty. They also believe careful scrutiny Of
the forged paper must have shown its false
character. The high stations attained in
public affairs by the persons whose names
were forged should have suggested a verifi-
cation Of the corrupt paper before it was
uttered or published. The publication
showing CampbelPs name and suppressing
the other signatures was almost as bad as
the original fabrication of the paper. The
ample of political methods deserving the
condemnation Of all parties and all good clt-
liens.
Chairman Mason, in a minority report,
does not agree with these additional find
lngs. he does not see that a careful scrutiny
OF the forged paper must have showed 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 in
volved In the iny estigation, nor does it throw
--nQmes were forged and who uttered the for
gerry. SeIng deceived is the only offenss Of
HaIstead and Foraker. They have each
made reputation n-and character, equal, Der
haps, to any of the neEgsntlemen who were
outraged by the forgery - Slnce they found
they were deceived they haSS done all IN
their power as honorable men t0--n9ake
amends. To ask more seems to Mr.. Mason
unjust, and he respectfully protests against
the censure of his associates in the addi-
tiOnal findings as summarized above.