Evening star., 1902-04-11
EMPHAT TIG=HANGUAGE
REPORT IN CONTESTED ELECTION
CASE OF LENTZ AND ToMpKINS.
Story of uniqu Organization of
Colored VotersCalled s.The
Pigs Ankle"

The report in the CONTESTED election case
of John ]. Lentz agaiast Representative
Tompkins of the Columbus, Ohio. district
was filed yesterday. 1t istout of the ordin-
ary for the emphasis Ssfhe language en-
ployed. The report is Unanimous, both
democrats and republicans joining in it. 1t
states that many of tHe charges of fraud
by Mr.. Lentz were abandoned as they
were evidently not intended to have any
bearing upon the contest. but simply to
place upon record siurs, insinuations and
charges against outside persons"
Mr.. Tompkins' reply, the report says, also
contained much that was unjustifiable and
then Mr.. Lentz rejoined in a still more
abusive and scurrilous manner The COM
mittee says such papers would be sup
pressed in a court as ScandaloGs and i'm
pertinent, and it protests against making
these contests vehicles of abuse ard viii
lification.' ~
Unique Colored Organization.
A unique organization of colored voters Of
Columbus, Ohio is disclosed in the report.
''The testimony of witnesses" it states,
upon the subject of bribery related mainly
to an organization of colored men known
by the classic title of The Pigs Ankle.
These men, about ten in number, ordinari-
clined to do so in the congressional election
of 1900, but in the picturesque yernacular
of one of the members, they were out for
the dough- One of them testified that a
colored man named Walter commonly call
ed cPlutD Thomas, whose own testimony
shows that he was working for contestant,
offered the members of this club 81 each to
vote for Mr.. Lentz, which offer was re-
fused.
There is no evidence to show that any Of
them did vote for Mr.. LentZ, and no evil
dence to show that more than half
Of them voted for Mr.. Tompkins
Several of them have given some testimony
to the effect that they received sums rang
ing yariouSly from 80 cents to So, presum-
ably to vote for Mr.. Tompkins. Several of
them made affidavits alleging that they and
other persons belonging to the organization
had been paid or promised certain sums
in consideration Of voting for him. In some
instances the affidavits were prepared in
advance and they were induced to sign
thep. In other instances they were signed
when the affiants were drunk One of them
testified that he knew no more about what
was in the affidavit he signed than hog
does about olives Upon the witness stand
they contradicted, either in whole or in
part, the affidaVitS they had previously
made. and in some instances, upon cross
examination, contradicted the statements
they had made in direct examination There
is abundant evidence to show that these
affidayitS and the testimony of these wit
nesses was procured by the above-mention-
ed 'Plut' Thomas upon promise of COM
pensation for their testimony. The affi-
dayitS were apparently secured in advance
in the hope that they would assist in hold
ing the witnesses upon the stand to the
confederation of the statements therein
contained. Thomas t6ok tiie witnesses be-
fore one of the attorneys of contestant,
who was introduced to them under an as
sumed name. He wrote the affidavits and
the several persons signed them with the
expectation, they testified and as
Thomas himself admits, that they were
to derive pecuniary advantage from SO do
ing