The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-03-10

return of their contributions and dis
if any, for their campaign
and election, in the absence OF such
returns, the estimate must remain
somewhat conjectural of the money
which was soWn and plOughed IN at
the caucuses in the late senatorial con-
test throughout the state. If add to-
gether, however, the sums credibly re-
ported as so used in about fifty towns
ranging from $500, $500. 500, $500 up to
81, 500, and more if needed; and II
compute therefrom an average TOR the
state, as one might figure on election
returns, the amount foots up to very
large sum, which renders the amount
currently reported, say $4,000 more or
less, seem not at all incredible. Now
if one estimates how much money may
ordinarily be needed for all possible le-
climate expenses, the margin OF this
sum left over for practices which are
not tolerated by the Corrupt Practices
Act is certainly not small. More dol
lars than there are voters in a small
town are usually not required for eau
Gus and election purposes. Over $4,000,
to take one instance, in a town of less
than eight hundred voters is a large
pecuniary cover for a small political
pot. ! do not hesitate to say, with
such information as have from men
in a position to know in many towns,
and in some instances from men who
were in the game, and who have them
selves seen the goods handled, that
hi nf
now come to be intolerable. But, not
withstanding this hardly concealed
body of corruption; Notwithstanding
the fact that political corruptionists in
this state have grown so recklessly
bold in their deals that even a clergy
man like myself may easily know per
haps more than he ought to see of
their practical politics. nevertheless,
not a single prosecution, SO far as !
have heard, has been brought under
the existing law since it was enacted.
Notwithstanding the notorious use OF
money and other valuable considera-
tions in the last campaign, not in one
solitary town has a legal inquiry been
instituted, not a single stroke of a pros
ecuting pen has been made; not a dol
lars fine has been imposed, not a jail
door has swung open to receive a sin
gle political robber of the people of
Connecticut. AS a further reason for
the practical amendment which. / shall
proceed to propose, let me, remind you
how powerless the private citizen is to
reduce to legal evidence even good pre-
sumptive Information concerning such
corrupt practices. In matters of pub,
lie justice, the duty Of obtaining convic-
ting evidence should not rest upon tie
rupt practices the integrity of the
state is directly attacked, the state it.
self should be the complainant. Where
ordinarily the best informationn Of a
private citizen, like myself must end,
there before a suspicion even of crime
directly against itself, the state ought
not to be stalled. But affirm that in
this slough of corruption the legal ma
chinery of the state of Connecticut is
stalled to-day. I offer in proof of this
assertion my own experience in the eff
fort to find out whether or not there is
any legal power in Connecticut compe.
tent to detect and to bring to Justice a
political conspiracy to obtain by cor,
rupt deals the offices and goods of the
people. -aa ...e-
For this and other purposes | have
sought with painstaking care, and in
some localities with repeated inquiries
to gather trustworthy information. as
to the actual facts underlying the gen
eral and notorious belief in prevalent
political corruption. Having obtained
some presumptive and in several cases
| definite information, I went with i
first to the board of state police, seek
ing to have them relieve me of any fur
Their burden of inquiry into it. I turned
first to them because the law by which
they were created, expressly enjoin
them, when not answering the calls o
prosecuting officers under their own
rues, to endeavor to prevent and to de
tect crimes. beg leave therefore t.
present here the following correspor
dence between myself and the state pc
Ilice. Tt constitutes, taken all together
the first premise of my argument 70
1.-THE amendment which I shall proceed +
lurge. 700.
| New Haven, Conn.,, Feb. Z, 1905.
Mr.. T. F. Egan:
Dear Sir--I write to inquire whethe
1.-THE attention of the state police f1a
been called to any of the many allege
violations of the Corrupt Practices Ac
during the last political campaign, es
pecially at the preliminary caucuses o