Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-02-19

MOTION or Mr.. Hepburn.
After the minority report had been pre-
sented Senator Hepburn moved that the
Senate declare Mr.. Stephenson entitled to
his seat, and, supporting that motion.
spoke at length on the views that actuat-
ed the committee in exonerating Mr..
Stephenson.
The minority report Is signed by Sen
ators Kenyon. Clapp and Jones. repub-
licans, and Lea and Kern, democrats. 1t
contends that enough evidence was ad-
duced by the inquiry to warrant the Sem
ate in declaring Senator Stephensons
seat vacant.
The report was presented to the Senate
by Senator Jones, who also introduced a
resolution declaring that Senator Stephen
son is not entitled to his seat. Senator
Overman unsuccessfully sought to have
the full minority report read. No ac-
tion was taken.
Referring to the fact that the senator.
through his lieutenants. spent $1O7, 1913 In
his campaign, and that candidates for the
state legislature spent proportionately
large sums, the report quotes from the
majority report: Such expenditures were
in violation Of the fundamental principles
underlying our system Of government,
which contemplated the selection of can
didates by the electors and not the seiec-
zion of electors by the candidates"
\Oppose Majority Conclusion.
The minority report then proceeds:
I'VE concur in this statement and it
justifies US in opposing the conclusion
of the majority. How a seat in the Sem
ate can be secured in violation Of the
fundamental principles underlying our
system of government with the evidence
showing the use OF such q large sum of
money. and not be tainted by corrupt
methods and practices we are unable to
eompr ehehd.
The question now squarely before the
Senate is whether. or not methods and
practices in violation of the fundamental
ernment' shall be denounced by our words
and approved by our votes.
Quoting again from the majority re-
port. which, after summarizing the meth
ods' of Senator Stephenson'S election, de-
clared that If they had been used by a
candidate for a state office In Wisconsin,
1T would be very difficult to justify such
conduct under the laws of the state.' the
minority report continues:
Think Opposition Warranted.
"This statement we indorse. 1t war
rants our opposition to the conclusion Of
the majority. If it would be difficult to
justify a campaign like this by a candi-
date for a state Office, why is 1t not
equally difficult to justify it on the part
of Senator Stephenson? He was not COM
PEELED to go into the primary. He elected
to do SO and he should be held to the
same degree Of accountability as any
other candidate in that primary.
IF he used methods-and the majority
says he did-that 1t would be difficult to
justify in behalf of a state candidate,
then it is equally difficult for the Senate
to justify such conduct on the part of
candidate for a seat in this body and
preserve it's integrity and honor. In our
judgment it can not do it.
The report sets forth that the evidence
showed conclusively that voters were paid
to be at the polls. that eXtravagapt sums
for entertainment were expended,
records and papers concerning the cam
paign We're shifted from one place to an
other and original records were destroyed.
"All this is admitted" says the report,
land we feel we have right TO assume
from these admitted facts and actions
used in connection with said primary
election To hold otherwise is to estab-
iSh a precedent that would authorize
an expenditure of hundreds of thousands
of dollars to debauch the electorate in
order to secure seat in this body. To
do this is to notify the world that we are
careless as to whether or not seats in this
body are to be bought and sold as so
much merchandise to the man with the
largest purse.