The Washington times., 1911-01-09

of preventing them from so voting and
inducing them to vote for Mr.. Lorimel
that they were bought? II not. fol
what purpose were they bought?
"And were they bought II the buyers
| did not think their votes were neces
sary? Is it possible that large sums
were spent to purchase votes moi
needed? ...-... ..-... ........-...- .------..
| Cannot Question Election.
while 1t is not necessary to de-
cision, vet 1 challenge the precedents
cited by the majority that even though
| it be proven that any number of votes
were bribed, yet IL there were ma
jority of untainted votes tho election
cannot be questioned.
IF only one case OF bribery be clearly
| established in the election of Sen
| ator, / hold that this invalidates the
entire election. In my opinion, one act
of bribery makes the whole election
| foul.
IN the language of my illustrious
predecessor in this body, Senator MOI.
| ton, Bribery is to an election what
| fraud Is to contract.
1T is said in defense Of these pre-
cedentS that it would be hard on a
personally guiltless and successful can
didaIe who had an honest majority ii
his election should be invandateo by
votes corrupted in his behaf whlcn
We're not enough in numper 10 Destroy
his honest majority.
The clear answer is that 1t Is harder
on the people whose representative this
candidate IS to have any corrupt III
f1uences employed in his behalI.
I'VE cannot consider the personal lof-
tunes or even feelings Of candidate In
determining the law of election cases.
The candidate is not on trlal. Inc
election is on trial. Was the election
pure and free. or influenced ana venai :
The candidate is nothing; the people
are everything. Or, rather, the cahuI-
date is nothing except as the represen-
tative of the people.
Must Guard the Ballot.
"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-con-
sidered acknowledgements chances
For if a number of corrupt votes arc
plainly proven to be such, 1t is reason
able to suppose that others were cast
equally corrupt which could not be
proven to be such. The law recognizes
no more difficult task than that of prov
ing bribery or conspiracy to bribe.
And would this untainted majority
be cast If the uncorrupted votes posi-
lively knew of the bribery being prac-
ticed for the candidate for whom they
voted? If honest members of Legis-
Iature inDocently vote for candidate
for Senator for whom corrupt MEM
bers of the Legislature were bribed 10
vote would these honest members have
so voted had they known Of this brtb-
cry? This simple illustration will prove
convincingly the unSoundness of the
precedents which am assaillng.
O. hat uyn
unsound precedents 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 is our
sole business to safeguard and which
is the reason and origin Of the power
we are now exercising, requires the
establishment of this new Senate
precedent
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 Further Fraud.
This pronouncement by the Senate
of the United States would prevent an
ambitious and wealthy candidate from
perpetrating bribery to make his cleo
ton sure, and doing it in such a way
as to cover up his tracks. 1t 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 overzealous
friends inspired by nothing but the
heat of battle and devotion to their
favoriteS from undertaking to secure MS
success by Infamous methods.
IF we make new Senate preceoent
~ hrih a whole
election foul, we shall have an END OF
the amusing and overworked argument
of the improper activities OF too en-
thusiastic friends briblng voters ior
their favorite without any other motive
than their fanatical and money sacrlnc-
ing devotion TO him"
Point Not Necessary.
THE time has arrived when we had
much better take to heart the peoples
unsuIlied andf funinfluenced represen-
tation than that we should continue to
bemoan the possible fate of vtrtu-
Gus candidate in whose behalf the
beinors crime of bribery has been
practiccd. whether by venal interests
or by well intentioned. but overZeal-
ous and financially affiuent friends.
But waive this point. The evidence
SHOWS II is not necessary to a decision
of rhis case / advance il only because
this body ought to establish now that
one act Of bribery invalidates an cleo
tion. .a,,h,a
And this suggests another untenaple
view heretofore suggested in election
cases and which we should now decisive
" negative. This view Is that single
act of bribery perpetrated or counten-
onced by a person elected to the Senate
of the United States does not void the
election, but only so taints such person
thar he must be expelled. That is, II the
sitting Senator personally perpetrated
or countenanced bribery to secure his
eIecrion, his seat cannot be vacated by a
majority vote, but he must be expelled
nv a two-thirds vote.
~ think ii clear that this view is
wrong. The argument for tits that the
bribing Senator is guilty only of moral
defect which renders him unfit to be a
member of this body.
tagious disease, such as smallpox or
that he was dangerously insane, or that
he had committed treason-and yet, in
any one of these cases, insisted upon
sitting among US. In any of these cases
or others that may suggest themselves,
such a member may be expelled-but
only by a two-thirds vote.
The reason a two-thirds vote was
provided in the Constitution to expel a
member was that the mental, moral, or