The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-01
ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY
CHARGES FREQUENTLY MADE, But
THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS TRUE.
Instances at Washington Where Rich
Men or Corporations Were ''BIed,'
but No Person Bribed.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal.

Special TO the Indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, March 31.-The bribery
charges in relation to the Danish treaty
were less impressive to Washington than to
any other place in the country. Here is
where one hears many things about the use
of money in accomplishing legislation and
in the control of the departments of the ex-
ecutive. 1t is easy TO say that men or de-
partments have been improperly influenced
and difficult TO prove the contrary. In fact
one OF the monumental a~nnoyances of
Washington is the nerve of men who claim
that they are able TO influence men for
price.
Within the last few years q very rich man
came to Washington with a secretary who
claimed he could handle the correspond
ents in the press gallery. The rich man was
interested in a proposition on which many
of the great newspapers of the country
were certain to take sides. Thu secretary Of
this rich man made a careful analysis Of
the probable positions of these newspapers.
His employer was not familiar with the
newspapers and naturally would not know
how they would accept the proposition
which was to come before the Congress.
This private secretary announced that 1t
would cost $4,000 to handle these newSpa-
pers and the correspondents who repre-
scented them. He made out a list of the men
TO whom he would give money and he gave
a schedule OF the probable result. The mon
ey was paid and the employer was given a
list of the men to whom money was paid.
In the end it was possible for the secre-
tary to place in the hands of his rich en-
plOyer clippings from these newspapers
showing that the money paid had given ex-
cellent results. He was entirely satisfied
with his investment and although he was
not successful with his proposition before
tho ffnnUraGc ho fa1f that no had had hiG
moneys worth in his investments with the
newspaper correspondents and, incident
ally, with their newspapers.
1t was by accident long afterwards that
one of these correspondents learned that
he was on the list for 5000. He had never
heard Of the matter. He had written CORE
~spondence which might be accepted as be-
ing on the side of the man who had paid
out the money. He was representing the
policy Of his paper and he had nothing to
do with forming the policy. There was no
redress for him. He discussed with his edi-
tor the propriety of making a row, but it
was decided TO do nothing. The secretary
would have said that he never heard of the
matter. The rich man would ave sale that
he never heard of the matter. The rich man
wOuld I'VE believed his secretary and said
nothing more. The editor would lave be-
lieved his correspondent and could say
nothing more. In fact, there was no way of
developing the truth.
Another instance will assist i'm showing
how these things go. IL was known to "A few
men that an influential United States SEN
atOr would make a certain stand on a GER
tain question of great public interest. A
clever lobbyist was among those who knew
this. He went to d wealthy corporation
which was interested and said that he
could influence this United States senator.
He said that for a certain sum, and it was
a very large one. he could secure the sup
port of this senator. He said he could Sc
cure two strong speeches if enough money
was paid. The United States senator had
made up his mind and nothing could
change him. He was reasonably sure to de-
liver two speeches. 1t was well known that
this lobbyist was closely related to him,
although there might be nothing improper.
He collected a large sum for influencing
the United States senator and never parted
with a dollar of the money paid him. If
the senator should say that he did not get
the money. the man who paid il out TO the
LOBBYIST would not believe him.