Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-09

Of money soon after the dates when they
swore to having received the same" This
is shown, he says, by disinterested Wit
nesses.
The testimony upon that point, MIR.
Beverage says, convinces him that the
four members OF the general assembly
who admitted bribery actually did receive
received the money from three fellow
representatives, Mr.. Beveridge continues.
and the majority report exonerates these
three upon the ground. chiefly. that they
denied the accusation.
what else asks Mr.. Beverage, did
the majority expect these accused bride
givers to do, except to deny that they
gave the bride? Did the majority expect
everybody concerned with these corrupt
proceedings to confess?
Mr.. Beveridge reviews the testimony
and concludes that II IL overwhelming
that not only Gid the four who confessed
receive money. but that three Of the TEL
low members OF the general assembly
paid them their money.
Mr.. Beveridge. therefore. believes that
seven votes were tainted-sufficient to in
validate the election. But he adds that
1.-THE testimony shows that at least three
additional corrupt votes were cast, and
he names the men he thinks cast them,
stantiate his claims.
Challenges Senate Precedent.
Proceeding to a discussion Of the law
relating to the case. Mr.. Bevendge chal-
lenges the Senate presidents cited by
the majority that even though it be
proven that any number of votes were
bribed. yet il there were a majority Of
untainted votes the election cannot be
questioned.
g in, nf
dents that II would be hard on a per-
sonaliy guiltless and successful candidate
who had an honest majority II his cleo
ton should be invalidated by votes cor
rupted in his behalf which were not
enough in number to destroy his honest
majority.
THE clear answer is that ii is harder
on the people whose representatives this
candidate is to have any corrupt influ
ences employed in his behalf.
I'VE cannot consider the personal for
tunes or even feelings Of a candidate in
determining the law Of election cases.
Our business is to guard the purity OF
elections. Our concern Is to permit no
chances to be taken. Yet chances always
are taken under these ill-considered pre-
cedenfs-dangerous chances. For ii a
number OF corrupt votes are plainly
proven to be such, 1t Is reasonable to sup
pose that others were cast equally cor
rupt which could not be proven to be
such.
Unsoundness Of Precedent.
'And would this untainted majority be
cast il the interrupted votes positively
knew Of the bribery being practiced for
the candidate for whom they voted? II
honest members Of a legislature inno-
Gently vote for candidate for senator
for whom corrupt members Of the legis-
lature were bribed to vote, would these
honest members have so voted had they
known Of this bribery? This simple illus
tration will prove convincingiy the UNI
soundness Of the precedents which I am
assailinR.
$50 l propose that We overthrow such
unsound presidents and establish what
to us is new. but what to the world is
an old precedent, that one act OF bribery
makes an election foul.
The public welfare, the theory OF free
and fair elections which 1t IL our sole
business to safeguard, and which is the
reason and origin of the power We are
now exercising, requires the establish
ment of this new Senate precedent
I'VE should in this case establish the
law Of the Senate In conformity with the
ancient common law. We should declare
that one act Of bribery makes a whole
election foul
Would Prevent Bribery.
This pronouncement by the Senate Of
the United States would prevent an am
bilious and wealthy candidate from per.
petrating bribery to make his election
sure and doing It in such a way as to
cover up his tracks. II would give a
needed pause to corrupt interests that
undertake to make the election Of their
favorites certain by corrupt practices.
1t absolutely would prevent overzeal-
Gus friends inspired by nothing but the
heat OF battle and devotion 10 their ia
vor1te from undertaking to secure his
success by infamous methods.
III we make q new Senate precedent
that one act OF bribery makes q whole
election foul We shall have an end Of
the amusing and overworked argument Of
the improper activities Of too enthusiastic
friends bribing voters for their favorite
without any other motive than their ia
natical and money-sacriticing devotion to
him."
Senator Owens resolution declares
that the so-called election Of William
Lorfmer on May IS, 1909. by the legis-
lature OF the state OF Illinois, was il
legal and void"