The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-28
GEORGE |. FOX ON
 TIE ROMAN REPORT Important Questions Not Specifically Answered
 He Says. ONLY GENERAL DENIAL Fox Supplies Specific An swers Which, He Claims Show Homan Guilty.
ONLY GENERAL DENIAL

Now that the Senate Committee on { Elections has reported unfaporably up- 1 on my petition in the Homan case, desire through your columns to re- view the evidence produced at Hart ! ford. In my argument on April IT, l urged that the committee should report as an election court, what facts had been found out by the inquiry, after the custom of an election court in Can- l ada and England They have, how ever, simply made general denial and not specifically considered any of the important questions that came up. In order to facilitate their action, I sub- mitted at the opening of the inquiry a series of questions, embodying the al- legations made in my petition, to which asked them to give specific answers in their report.
 As they did not do so, I will do so now, so that the citizens of New Ha- ven may know the facts in the case, and realize to what degree voters were debauched by liquor in the last elec- ton.
 l. Did Senator Homan and his polit- cal agent, Town Clerk Frederick E. Whitaker, either together or separate ", within the two months before eiec- tion, resort to a large number of sa- looms in the Tenth district and treat the voters gathered there, in order to secure votes for Homan?
 Answer The testimony of Whitaker and others proved that both did this, but the motive was denied, Whitaker said that he always treated the crowd, and the euphemism of Homan was T treated my friends in the saloons and their friends" Prosecuting Attorney Hoyt frankly acknowledged that his client visited the saloons and said that he had to go there as well as to the Young Mems Christian Association, If he wished to secure his election. There was no direct proof of motive, but the motive could be easily inferred, for it was shown that the places visited were mostly in that district. If no man can be convicted of corrupt practices, ex- cept on positive testimony of motive, then few will ever be convicted In Canada and England the motive is readily inferred from the act.
 The whole question turns upon this point. It was either done to win votes or out of charity to these thirsty vot- CTS, If it was done for the purpose of getting votes, then the candidate un- questionably violated Section 43 and four clauses of the corrupt practices act. He was guilty of illegal prac- ,u@tices in securing votes by drink, he is forbidden by law to incur expenses for v,t4v election expense, he made no state- nlent of such expenses in his sworn statement of his expenses.
 With regard to the treating of voters in McCrann's saloon on Water street on election day the evidence was posi- tive as to the fact on Whitakers tes- timony, but here also any corrupt mo- tive was denied, and no proof could be found except that several voters were treated there at four in the afternoon in company with Whitaker and a man alleged to be Homan..
 With regard to the presence of Whit aker in Fitzgerald's saloon on Con- gress avenue on election day, there was no evidence, except that he came in an automobile close to the saloon On the testimony of Brennan, who seemed a thoroughly honest man, am inclined to think that Whitaker was not in there. That is a very small mat ter. If Whitaker's undoubted presence in McCrann's and treating of voters would not be considered sufficient evil dence of guilt, it is a waste of time to talk of Fitzgerald's. From very reliable sources I learn that Fitzgerald was a worse offender than McCrann, and did mere to elect Homan by debauchery of voters through his saloon on election day He showed on the stand that he was unreliable. Though at first claim ing that he was Independent, I soon stripped the garment of falsehood from him, and he acknowledged that being defeated in the democratic caucus, he worked hard for Homan all day. He undoubtedly got ample reward from Heman whom he proudly claimed as his friend.
 The inquiry developed something en- tirely new to me, the strong probabil- ity that Homan himself was in Me- Grams saloon or very close to it on election day. On his own confession li6 WGitL lilAOdSll d. IctuG III ludL DlOEh to a shed where with any other man he got liquor. He said that he could not possibly find the lane for me, yet have found the lane I think, myself, and 1t leads straight to the back door of McCrann's, through which Whitta- ker and many others went for their toddy on election day,
 As to the gift of barrel of oysters to men in Shanley's saloon by Homan the evidence was conclusive as to the fact, but here again the corrupt in- tent was denied. Homan claimed that Shanley offered to pay for them (which Shanley squarely denied. He also claimed that he gave oysters to advertise his business with Shanley s aristocratic patrons and that he did not know that the men he met there were voters.
 Another damaging fact developed ir the Inquiry was that a dozen or more names of workers receiving money or Whittaker's sworn statement could not be found in the directory, and were ''dummies.'' Judge Wolfe promised at the first hearing to identify all oi these and then absolutely refused tc do so, unless compelled to do so by the committed I very much wished that the committee would insist upon the sanetity of sworn statements. ant force Judge Wolfe to keep his prom ise. but as I remember, they did no say word one way or the other abou the matter, and thus it went by de fault. My surmise is that most O