The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-10-03

paper in which to spread the facts be-
fore the people; and Of course the Re
publican press would not publish them.
We hope therefore our readers will
scan tie following extracts closely and
hand the paper around among their
Republican friends. -fs-s,-
Is man guilty of such practices, as
are here shown forth, fit to represent
honest people in this enlightened age
of the worlds history? Bribery is
crime, the penalty for which is the
penitentiary. The following extracts
depict dark and awful epoch in the
history of our state. Have we out
grown it? Has a better day dawned
upon us? Religion, morality, decency,
and state pride, all demand that our
politics should be purified, and the
bribe-givers and bull-dozers be relegat-
ed to the rear.
The references to Loren Fletcher,
now candidate for Congress-; Charley
Johnson. recently chief clerk of the
United States Senate, and many 9TH
ers, will make these extracts interest
ing reading to the people of Minneapo-
lis and the whole state; while che
workingmen OF the cities will be curl
Gus to learn just how their predeceS
sors were inundated sixteen years
ago.
Read and circulate.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ELEC-
TIONs IN THE CONTESTED ELEC-
TION CASE OF DoNNELLY VS.. WASH
BURN, FROM THE THIRD CONGRESS
SIGNAL DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
The Committee of Elections, to whom
was referred the contested election
case of Ignatius Donnelly against
William d. Washburn, from the
Third Congressional district of Min
nesota, having had the same under
advisement, beg leave to report:
Your committee have carefully ex-
amined the questions of law and fact
involved in the case.
BRIBERY.
The first question which they con-
sidered was the question of bribery.
They find that bribery was commit
ted on behalf of the sitting member,
Mr.. Washburn, by his friends, by mem
bers of his district committee, and. by
personal, political ad business agents;
that this bribery was not confined to
any portion Of the district, or to any
one town or county, but that it eX-
tended throughout region of coun
try nearly 400 miles long and 100 miles
wide: and they further find that in
many cases the bribery has been traced
home directly to Mr.. Washburn him
al t,A fno 1,ov r I,
an abstract of the testimony in some
of these cases.
BUYING A DEMOCRATIC POSTMASTER.
Charles Berens, Democrat. the
postmaster of the village Of North
Prairie, Morrison county, Situated
about 100 miles from Minneapolis, ties
titles Up. 300 printed testimony. that
prior to the election of Nov. 5, 1878, he
wrote and mailed a letter directly to
the sitting member, Washburn, in
which he said that he would give his
support at the election to him, Wash
burn, fer $50 This letter evidently
reached the sitting member, for Ber-
ems testified that he received a letter
in reply to it, from Keith, the post
master at Minneapolis, political
friend of the sitting member, in which
would work that way" he. Keith,
further stated that he would give Ber-
ems letter to j. Y. Brewer. one of the
Republican United States land officers
at st. Cloud, and that Brewer would
attend to the matter. J. V. PrOwer
teStifes, (D 246), Charles BerenS wrote
a letter to Minneapolis demanding $50,
for which ne was to support General
Washburn, (the sitting member); the
letter was sent to me by some one in
connection with the campaign; can't
say whether by the committee, or by
Gen. Washburn, or by some one for
for them" Brewer admits the re-
ceipt of $50 from Washburn or his
committee, and may have got more.
Berens, (p. 300). and Brewer, Up, 246),
both agree that Brewer visited North
Prairie, Morrison county, and called
l should work for Washburn and he
would see me all right" He says Brow
er did not pay him any money because
he, Brewer, did not trust him-he
thoughOt he was supporting Donnelly.
Brewer testifies: II advised Gen. Wash
burn, the sitting member, or some
one for him. after had been advised
that no arrangements of that charac-
ter could be entered into'' THAT is the
purchase of Berens support for $50l,
"Or words to that effect, that he should
not enter ito such arrangements with
Charles BerenS, or any one else"
Here it is clearly esta Bills he'd that
there was a negotiation between a
Democratic voter and Mr.. Washburn,
the sitting member the one to sell his
vote, for his vote is implied in his
''support,' , for $50, and the other to
buy it. The letter is answered for
Mr.. Washburn by Keith, his friend;
the proposition iSaccepted with thanks
and the letter is delivered to federal
officer who goes with the letter and
with Washburn's money, or the money
of Washburn's committee, in his pock-
ct, to see the party and conSummate
the transaction. 1t is of no moment
that BerenS finally declined to receive
the money. The offense of bribery
was complete when one party offered
to sell his vote and the other agreed
to buy it. (See Russell on Crimes,
vol. /, p. l59: Hardinge VS.. Stokes, NJ.
& W., 23O. Brewer reports to Wash
burn, or some one for him, that the
arrangement; could not be entered
into.
There is no denial of this testimony
and no attempt to impeach Berens or
Brewer.
If Washburn had not been ready to
use money to corrupt the voters of his
district he would have resented the
proposition made to him by Berens as
an insult: on the contrary, he appears
tO have bcen as ready to Inv RernuS'S