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

Up. llt), WnIle ne denies UIldG TIC COlu
Shagren that he had received $25 from
Washburn, admits that he received
SIS or $25 from omebody, he declines
whether or not he peddled tickets
with Washburn's name on them. SO
that these witnesses confirm, instead
Of impeaching the substantial truth
of Shagren's testimony. How could
he have known the facts stated unless
these parties told him?
The proof in this case seems to your
committee to be very conclusive; the
party bribed was an active opponent
Of WaShburn and warm supporter OF
Donnelly, and these facts were known
to Washburn'S business manager. He
belonged to different political party
from the sitting member. The bribery
takes place in Washburn's office and
in the presence of his brother. The
witness, Shagren, was coaXed there
under the promise of job, and adj
vantage taken of the fact that he was
out of work and poor. A distinct and
deliberate proposition is made to him
to pay him a given sum for his vote
and support, and part of the money is
paid to him.
BUYING UP ANOTHER DEMOCRAT.
Bernard Cloutier, (see p. 2ll,) resid-
ing in Minneapolis at the time Of the
election, and sold farm machinery.
He was. and had always been, a Demo-
craft, and generally took an active
part in politics. About week or ten
days before the election he met John
Baxter, friend of the sitting mem
Der. Cloutier told him, in answer to a
question by Baxter, that he, Cloutier.
did not intend to take any part in the
election. He says, Il told him that I
had made up my mind to take no part
in the election, as l had heretofore
been promised a good deal and never
got anything for it," Thereupon
Baxter requested witness to see
Charles w. Johnson, secretary of the
Republican central committee of the
Third Congressional district). Two
or three days thereafter Baxter met
Cloutier again and asked him if he had
seen Johnson. Clouter said no. Bax-
ter said that was queer, as Johnson
had promised he would see Cloutier
Baxter then took Cloutier to the office
of the sitting member, Washburn,
and they told him there that Johnson
had gone out. An hour afterwards
Cloutier was in Christian & Deans Of
flee, when gentleman came in and
told him that General, Washburn
the sitting member. wanted to see
me- [Cloutier. at his [WaSburn's] Of
fee" Cloutier went to Washburn's
office, and there met Charles w. john
son and DR.. Keith, (the postmas ter of
Minneapolis, and the same party who
thanked Charles Berens for his offer
to sell his support to Washburn for
500. Johnson wanted Cloutier to go
out and eiectioneer for Washburn.
Cloutier said he would do so if he was
paid for his time and expenses.
Thereupon Johnson told him to start
out. The next day Johnson met Clou-
tier at the postoffice and paid him
thirty dollars. The following Wednes-
day Cloutier met johnson again at
Washburn's office. II told him |
wanted some more money. He asked
him | wanted twenty dollars. He,
mir. Johnson.] went into the next
room and commenced talking with
Mr.. Washburn, the sitting memberl.
He came back and handed me twenty
dollars"
The witness, ClOutier, states in his
cross-examination that he was in IA
vor of Mr.. Washburn in the first
place; but it appears by his eXamina-
tion in chief that he had made up his
mind TO take no part in the election,
because he had been previously prom
ised brides were not paid: and there
upon he was paid $50 to convert him
from that position Of neutrality and
indifference into a warm supporter Of
the sitting member. In other words,
the payment of that sum of money Sc
cured to Washburn support and in
fluence which he would not have had
without it. 1t is fair to presume that
if the vote and support of this mer-
cenary politician could have been had
without the payment of the money,
the $50 would not have been paid.
THE CONTRACT MAIDEN wAsHBURN's
OFFICE.
The contract of bribery was made by
the secretary of Washburns commit
tee IN Washburn's office. and part of the
money was paid in Washburn's office
in his presence. and under Giro m:
stances which create a strong presump-
tion that 1t came from Wushburns peck
ct. That is to say, Cloutier asks John
son for 500; johnson goes to WaShburn
and returns with the money and pays
it to Cloutier.
Here, then, we have four cases Of
bribery, involving 96 bribed votes,
brought home to the sitting member
in the cleareSt and most conclusive
manner. In the first case, the negOti
alton is with Mr.. Washburn himself;
in the next, the money which bought
the votes is repaid in his, wash
burn s. office by his business manager;
in the third, the bride is offered and
the money paid in Washburns office
by his business manager and in the
presence of his brother; and in the
fourth case, the bride is offered and
the money paid by the secretary Of
Washburn's committee in Washburn's
office, and part of the money paid in
Washburn's presence, and probably
out of his pocket. 1t seems to your
committee that this evidence is suffi-
Gent to convict Mr.. Washburn of
bribery in any court in the world.
And yet in the face of such an array
Of testimony Mr.. Washburn is dumb.
He had forty days in which to rebuff
this testimony; he could have taken
the stand himself, to explain or deny
the Berens matter; he could have pro
cured the testimony of his business
manager, Hale, to contradict Shagren
and Norton; he could have called
johnson to contradict Cloutier; he
could have sworn his brother, EX-Gov-
ernor G. 9. Washburn. to deny that he
was present and conferred with Hale,
and also to rebuff the natural pre-
sumption that he, &C.. G. Washburn),
furnished the S. with which Hale
bribed Shagren. He did nothing of
this kind; he denied nothing; he called
not q SINGLE witpocc To rohut thic or