The morning times., 1895-10-11


interested yesterday in the levy of tribute
Times exclusively yesterday morning. 1t
only seeks evidence TO connect some United
States official with the case in order to
prosecute. That evidence The Times fur
nishes to-day.
Commissioner Harlow could not remember
yesterday that his attention had been
drawn 10 the matter, presumably because
Mr.. Bakers name was not mentioned to
him. He showed The Times account to
Major W ebster, chief examiner, and
probably TO others and there was con-
desirable gossip and comment
The commission has not been very sue
cessful in securing convictions under the law.
In several cases loop holes,'' TO use Mr..
Olney's apt word, have been found by which
the offenders escaped. In the case OF Re
corder Taylor, where the evidence seems
TO have been insufficient to convict In n
court of law a recommendation of dismissal
was made to the President. But the recon-
mendation has been steadily ignored for
one reason or another assigned until this
day.
WHAT THURBER SAYS.
Private Secretary Thurber is said TO
have remarked that Taylor was not given
an opportunity to be heard at the inves-
tigation of his case by the commission.
This is vigorously denied by Commissioner
Proctor. or course Mr.. Thurber has no
personal knowledge OF the matter, and
Prof. Proctor's statement settles that eX-
cuse- But there are others, and they are
sufficiently numerous and satisfactory to
save Mr.. Taylor from dismissal.
The commissioners are naturally dis
couraged by this sort of treatment from
fha hf..P iva -Ian 10 MI r-ar
his own signature TO enforce the civil ser
vice law, both in its letter and its spirit.
1t looks very much like a snub. Neverthe-
less they are ready to do their duty.
Commissioner Rice is quoted as hav-
ing said yesterday:
The commission cannot afford to beat
the air. and without proof that Mr.. Baker
is in the employ of the government it
would seem, in view of the decision Of
the Attorney General, that his offense
does not come within the terms Of the
law. l can assure you that il Mr. Baker
is in any sense an employe of the govern
ment the commission will take action upon
his case
Mr.. Baker. OF course. is not an emplOye
of the government; but it is not TO be sup
posed that he would be subjected 10 pros
ecution when his employer Will be per
mitted to go unmolested. though found 10
The Times invites the attention OF the
commission to the following facts:
On Wednesday afternoon between
and 4 o'clock Times reporter called
upon Secretary r. T. Baker. of the Ohio
Democratic Association, >lt his ruou.s on
the third floor of the Equity building.
Mr.. Baker apparently mistook him for a
contributor to the Ohio campaign fund,
and laid the plan OF work and the hopes
OF the party in Ohio before him. He said
he was Congressman Iayton's clerk. and
made it apparent that the Cougressman's
good will could be secured by doing the
proper thing in the way of help 90 ex-
Gov. Campbelfs campaign in Ohio On
leaving the reporter remarked: But you
can't make a ReIe blican contribute, can
your"
NO was Mr.. Bakers reply, ''bUt If he
should it would be remembered and all that
you know
A little more than seven hours later at
10:45 p. M. the reporter again called on
Mr.. Baker. He had meantime asked ques-
tions of Commissioner Harlow and Chief
Examiner Webster as t. the legality of Mr..
Raker's assessment bureau and had been
cited to Attorney General oneys opinion
LAYTON MAY BE LIABLE
In reading that opinion he discovered that
the exemption saved Mr.. Baker, who is
not in the pay of the government and under
the opinion is not soliciting in u government
office, but it was equally clear that If
Congressman Layton was connected with
his clerks proceedings lie was Liable to
prosecution under section l OF the act. It
was, therefore, important TO determine how
far Mr.. Baker had his employers sanction
and for tina purpose the second visit to his
office was made.
The reporter found Mr. Baker at his
desk in his inner office. He asked what
was Mr.. La yton's connection with the rails
ing OF the money, and was assured that Mr..
Layton knew all about it.
us he chairman of the committee?'' was
asked.
The printing committeee?'' was the
question in reply. Mr.. Baker evidently
still thought his visitor was a printer with
pocketful of money to turn in as soon as
convinced that all was right.
mo; the Ohio Democratic committee"
answered the reporter.
Not Congressman Layton, but his broth
er," said Mr.. Baker.
But Congressman Layton knows all
about 1T, and can be depended on" con-
tinued the visitor.
Yes, certainly was the response.
These statements of Mr.. Baker seem to
bring Congressman Layton at least indt
rectly into connection with the assess
meDt OF government employees and liable
under the following sections OF the act
approved on January 16. 1888:
Section IL. That no Senator or Repre-
sentative, OF Territorial Delegate of the
Congress, or Senator, Representative, or
Delegate-elect, or any officer or enpioye
of either of said houses, and no executive,
judicial, military or naval officer OF the
United States, and no clerk or employe of
any Department, branch or bureau of the
United States, and no clerk or employe of
executive, judicial, or military, or naval
service of the United States, shall, directly
or indirectly, solicit or receive, or be in
any manner concerned in soliciting or re-
ceiving any assessment, subscription or
contribution for any political purpose what
ever, from any officer, clerk, or employe
of the United States, or any Department,
branch or bureau thereof, or from any
person receiving any salary or compensa-
ton from moneys derived from the Treas
ury of the United States.
Sec. 15. That any person who shall be
guilty of violating any provision of the
four foregoing sections shall be deemed
guilty of q mistiemeanor, and shall, on
conviction thereof, be punished by a fine
not exceeding $4,000, or by Imprisonment
for term not exceeding three years, or
by such fine and Imprisonment both, in
the discretion of the court.
Mary Rod m, NJ