The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-01-20
DUG UP HISTORY.
Burrows Cited Pomeroy Case in
L0rimer Defense.
Kansas Findings Read Before
Senate at Washington.
BRIBED MEN SCORED.
Their Testimony Wort HESS, Said
Michigan Senator.
Browne Denial Held Sufficient
to Clear Accused.
BRIBED MEN SCORED.

Washington, Jan. Ex-senator Ju-
Illus c. Burrows of Michigan cited the
Pomeroy case in Kansas on Thursday,
when in the senate he made speech
defending Senator William Lorirner
of Illinois, against whom there is be-
ing waged a battle to unseat, following
sensational charges of bribery in his
election by bipartisan vote CT the
Illinois legislature about a year ago.
Burrows said that the testimony of
all men who had confessed to bribery
was worthless and that the denial of
Lee O'Niel Browne that he paid
bride may be taken as sufficient to
clear the senator. Browne then was
speaker of the Illinois house.
The Michigan senator in referring
to the Pomeroy case said:
"One of the early cases in which it
was alleged that United States senator
had secured his election by bribery
was that of S. c. Pomeroy, a senator
from Kansas. In that case 1t was al
legged that attempts to bride members
of the legislature had been made by
Mr.. Pomeroy's friends, and that in the
case of one legislator an attempt to
bride was made by Mr.. Pomeroy him
self. AS to the former charges, the
committee found:
"A majority of the committee are of
opinion that, under this state of facts,
and under the evidence, this charge of
bribery is not affirmatively sustained.
i n.
ton, George L. Anthony, John A. Mar
tin. and Mr. Legate, the confidential
friends and advisers Of Mr.. Pomeroy
in the canvass and in a position where
they would naturally know, say they
have no knowledge of Mr. Pomeroy US
ing, or authorizing to be used, any i'm
proper influences in the election.
And Mr.. Pomeroy most positively de-
MES that he ever directly or indirectly,
paid or promised to any individual one
dollar, or any other sum, for his vote
for him at the late senatorial election.
"As to the charge of a direct at
tempt by Mr.. Pomeroy to bride one
York, a member Of the legislature, the
committee, after recounting some of the
facts and circumstances appearing in
the testimony, said:
These circumstances do not prove
that Mr.. Pomeroy did not bride Mr..
York, but they do impair the credibili-
ty of Mr.. York as a witness, for when
a line Of deception has been entered
upon no one can say when it is dropped
and the golden thread of truth adopted.
Aided by Another's Failure.
1.-THE probability of York's statement
also is discussed by the committee, and
then follows this statement:
I'm considering this statement, Mr..
Pomeroy is entitled, to the extent that
other men ARCTIC the presumption Of
innocence-a presumption strengthen
ed by the fact that his accusers have
failed to sustain their other charges of
bribery against him in the same cleo
ton.
Mr.. vickers of the committee SUBJ
mitted his views at some length, con-
GLIDING as follows:
Taking all the testimony and cir
cumstanceS into consideration ana
weighing them carefully, I cannot de-
eide that the guilt of Mr.. Pomeroy is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
4 r q, ftr6c or n fiIrO
not convict upon such testimony. The
duty of the committee was to take the
testimony and report it to the senate
with their convictions of its bearing and
effect. They have been prevented from
giving as thorough a consideration of
the evidence as they desired to do. But,
considering the nature and character
of the testimony for the prosecution
and defense, with all the surrounding
circumstances, L have not been able to
conclude that the charges against Mr..
Pomeroy have been sustained.
Quotes the ingalls, Report.
SIN the case of John J. ingalls,. the
investigation was conducted by sub
committee at Topeka and the report
of the committee, concurred in by
Messrs. salisbury, Hill, Herman, Bal
ley, Pryor and Vance, embodied the
following resolution:
Resolved, That the testimony taken
by the committee proves that bribery
and other corrupt means were employ
ed by persons favoring the election of
John ]. ingalls, in the senatorial cleo
ton to the senate to obtain for him
the votes of members of the legisla-
ture of Kansas in that state. But it is
not proved by the testimony that
enough votes were secured by such
means to determine the result of the
election in his favor. nor is 1t shown
that Senator ingalls, authorized acts
of bribery to secure his election.
"And in the views of the minority,
submitted by Messrs. Cameron, Logan
and Hoar, it is stated:
1--WE concur in part of the report.
We exonerate Mr.. Ingalls, from any
completely with improper practices.
We also find that the result of the