Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-05-16
SUNDRY EXPENSES
Continued from page -
saw Foster going away. He had not
CT


nation tending to show any act OF cor
ruption on the part of any member of
the present legislative session, Mr..
Monroe answered, mo.
Are there any other acts personally
known to you tending to shoWG any
corrupt or unlawful conduct on the
part of any senator in connection with
| his official duties?' NO.
Witness was then excused.
At this point Col. Heseltine arose
and asked if as counsel for Mr.. Ray
mond he would be allowed to question
| the witness. Chairman Frost replied
| that he would not be. The lawyer then
Withdrew from the hearing.
John Shepherd, president of the
Shepherd Oil Co.. of Boston, was then
called. To the stereotyped question as
| to personal knowledge of Legislative
! corruption he answered that he had no
such knowledge. He said that no mon
lev had been asked of or collected from
his company for the purpose of inllu-
encing legislation of any sort. He did
! remember that his house had paid S.
towards defraying some expense in
connection with printing a bill but he
|
would not be consulted about to small
| a matter.
| John R. Ainsley, financial manager
of Brown, Durrell &, Co, was the next
witness. He had no personal knoWl-
| edge of corruption on the part of any
senator. He is a member of the Credit
Mems Association. the object of which
is to correct abuses in trade. This as
ISOLATION, he said, was interested in
the bill ito prevent the sale of mer-
| chandise in bulk in defraud of credit
ors." In fact, the bill was presented
in his name. No money was ever
raised by the association for corrupt
| purposes in reference to pending legis-
| lation. Witness denied that at any
| meeting of the association any discus
| sion had taken place or vote passed in
reference to advertising in any paper
in the commonwealth for the purpose
of influencing legislation.
MIR. Ainsley knew that the merchan-
disc bill encountered opposition and
understood that it's cOnstitutionality
was questioned. Thereupon it was
| found necessary to ask the members
of the association to contribute to a
|
| sci to remedy the bill, if necessary,
and also to defray the expense of
printed matter, which it was decided
to circulate among the members OF the
| Legislature. The association raised
$3.50, and all of it was spent for legit-
| innate purposes. w. NJ. Morgan was
employed as counsel. No portion OF
the fund WAS spent in newspaper add
vertising. His own firm contributed
$40.
Witness said his house never paid
any money for the purpose of influ-
| cnCing legislation. He was never ap-
preached by the proprietor of paper,
who solicited advertising with the ar
gunent that patronage of his paper
would result in influencing Legislation
favorable to the advertiser.
VIM. NJ. Morgan, who acted as at
torncy for the Credit Mans Associa-
ton when the bill referred to was
pending. was called. He knew person.
ally or indirectly of no acts rejecting
upon the official reputation of any leg
islator. Witness told in detail of the
| efforts Of the association in behalf Of
bill 1914.
EX-Attorney General Pillsbury was
consulted concerning the constitutional
ity of the measure and Mr.. Morgan
himself appeared at several committee
Hearings. He knew something of the
distribution of the fund of 1880 and
mentioned the following items as hav
ing been paid out of it: His personal
fee, $500; Mr.. Pillsbury's fee, 500; print
ing circulars for distribution among
legislatures about $3.50; printing copies
of the bill, $l0 service of stenogra-
pher, $25.
NJ. N. Smith of Smith, Patterson G.
Co.. jewelers., followed. He knew of no
legislative corruption. His firm had
contributed $40 toward the fund raised
in support of Senate bill 1874
George II. Graves, treasurer of the
Waiworth Manufacturing Co, and tenn
Dorary treasurer of the Credit Mems
Association. was the next witness. He
told of meetings of the association at
Which it was decided to collect q fund
for the support of the Senate bill and
named eight members, who We're APP
pointed as collectors. These collectors
afterwards turned into him the sum of
$3.50. 1t was understood that the
money was to be paid out at the order
of G. Fl. Arnold. chairman of the legis-
latve committee. Witness produced
memoranda showing that the amounts
received from various members of the
association and his check book from
which he read the names of those to
whom money had been paid from the
fund with the amounts of such pay
ments.
The check book showed that the fol-
lowing checks had been drawn: March
-, to J. II. Knowles for services as
collector, $50; April ., to Wright &
Potter, printing, $1,000; April 2, to w.
NJ. l.. McAdam, printing, $129; April
., to w. w. Collins stenographer $25:
April 2, to Brown, Durrell & Co, check
advanced for i. E. Pillsbury, 500;
April 2, to C. II. Arnold, chairman leg
islative committee, sundry expenses.
$75C a balance of $2S5 remained.
Witness had no knowledge of what
accounts were included under the head
of "sundry expenses His firm had
contributed SO to the fund but had
never been solicited or paid money with
the intent of influencing legislation. He