Evening star., 1897-06-01

tempe ratura is indicated for the ONO val
ley and lower lake region.
Rivers.-The following changes in the
rivers Gn feet and tcnths) nave occurred ]
dividual or of n private corporation to
make contributions for such purposes have
not been and cannot be questioned. The
mere fact that such contribution nad
been made without some accompanying
charge affecting the election or conduct OF
some senator. would not be subject for in
vestigation by the Senate. 1t would be es-
sentially private matter.
Senate without Power.
That the Senate of the United States does
not possess the broad power to investigate
the general conduct Of individuals or Of
corporations not it's own creatures in max
Ing contributions for political or campaign
purposes would appear to be a necessary
conclusion from the reasoning of the Su-
Irene Court of the United States in the
case of Kilbourn VS.. Thompson, log U. s.,
p. 16S.
Judge Bradley referred at very great
length to the decision in the Kilbourn case,
holding that 1t applied in great part to the
one OIL trial, holding that the questions
asked Mr.. Sear,es could not be regarded as
pertinent to any possible inquiry that might
be directed by the Senate into the election,
return and qualifications of any of Its own
members, for the questions relate to contri-
buttons generally for political purposes In
b
the action of the state legislature in the
election OF United States senator.
II the inquiry related to the use of money
| in the state legislature for the purpose of
electing some particular individual to the
Senate of the United States, 1t would be
apparently within the power of the Senate
of the United States.
Money for Campaigns.
If the inquiry related solely to the use OF
| money for campaign purposes. which was
| employed in the election of members OF
| the state legislature, 1t would appear to be
beyond the power of the Senate. AS to the
election, return and qualifications of their
| own members, the two branches of the
| state Legislature must be deemed to be the
| exclusive judges, and that 1t Is beyond the
| power of the Senate Of the United States
| to go behind the acts of the two houses CT
| the state legislature in their organization
| to inquire whether those two houses were
| justified in seating any of their members.
| 1t would appear that the Senate of the
| United States in judging of the election,
| return and qualificat tions Of its own men,
| bers, must necessarily accept the organiza-
tions of the two houses Of the stale lcgis-
| lature by which the senator was elected
| as Independent entities, and that the acts
! Of those houses in effecting their own or
ganization, SO far as the seating of their
| own members is concerned, were conclu-
| sive upon the Senate of the United States.
| So that it would appear to have been be-
| yond the power of the Senate of the United
| States to inquire whether the American
| Sugar Refining Company had contributed
the election of any member of the state
| legislature without more authority. II that
be SO with reference to state purposes, 1t
is much more clearly so with reference to
local or municipal purposes. With the cleo
tion of municipal officers the Senate had
absolutely no concern. Such elections, with
all of their incidents, are matters exclu-
sively of local interest. subject to state
| and control and to state INQUIRY
alone
MIR. Davis Admission.
Judge Bradley referred to Mr.. Davis ad-
| mission that the pertinency of the commit
| tees questions is a matter Of law for the
| court, and he said:
"Suppose the answer to these questions
had indicated the amount that had been
| contributed for local campaign purposes, OF
for state political purposes; was any pos
| sible inference to be drawn from that fact
| that the sugar schedule had been made W
by reason thereof. or that the contribution
made was made for the purpose of secur.
ing or defeating legislation? There doei
not appear to be any connection between
the fact that was sought as an evidentiary
. | fact and the fact that was sought to b'
established as a conclusion or inference.
ut was suggested in argument by thu
attorney for the United States that thu
answers to these questions might hav'
shown that the money contributed wa.
that by calling these named individuals
could be ascertained what they did will
the money, and SO on. until eventually
might be ascertained that 1t had been paft
| corruptly to some senator, or that 1t hat
: been paid, corruptly, under some bargain
: | made In such a way that it resulted In thu
I | election of senator Of the United States
| 1t will be sufficient answer to this suG
gestion that the question does not ask t
s whom the money was contributed. to whom
, II was paid over. That question was no
E asked.
For What Money Was Paid.
"It is my opinion that these questions
called for an answer which, as an evi
dentiary fact, would throw no light upol
the ultimate fact that was sought to b
|, established. There was no evidence t
I whom this money was paid There was II
y question asked that called for 1t. II III
= questions had been answered In such Wis
4 as to indicate the exact amount that ha,
d been contributed 1t would be the wildes
g conjecture, the plainest instance Of no
Q sequitor to infer from the size Of such con
's | trtbutions though large, that the none
| making up Of the sugar schedule or I
: secure or defeat legislation, or that ther
was any bargain whatever made by tn
| recipients OF the money with the suga
trust so called, that 1t should be 80 II
piled.
tee thar they were not In possession q
any information whatever that would hay
Justified the promise or the hope OF estak