The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1912-04-22

ator Stephenson Of wisconsin, whose
expense account in the primary cleo
ton at which he was elected ran 20
over 100000. Previous to his APP
poiatn1ent on the investigating conn
mittee Senator Jones was opposed to
the continuation in once Of the elderly
Wisconsin senator; but. after listening
TO the large volume Of testimony pro
and con in the case, he voted with the
majority OF the committee to the eff
feet that no case had been made con-
Meeting the senator with the spend
ing OF any OF his money illegally. The
evidence showed that vast sums of
money had also been expended by otn-
or candidates in that primary, one of
the defeated candidates having spent
more than $4,000, the difference be-
tween this man and Stephenson being
only one OF degree. 1t was also
shown that when LaFol1ette was first
elected governor OF wisconsin Mr..
Stephenson's money-bags were also
opened as wide for the ponlpadour
candidate as they were when he
IStephenson) vas elected senator. In
his speech Senator Jones dissected the
undertaking press that, regardless OF
the evidence, sought to have Stephen
son declared guilty, when he had done
absolutely nothing that had not been
done by those who opposed him as cam
didates in the primary election. The
fact Is that Stephenson did in Wiscon-
sin just what men having the money to
spend have done right along In every
election for important place, and just
what he did when his immense wealth
was used to make LaFollette govern
or-only to meet. later, nothing but In
gratitude and abuse from the man
who owed his first rise in politics
largely to Stephenson's money. The
committee reported that, while a large
sum had been spent by several of the
candidates when Stephenson was
chosen senator in spite OF LaFollette,
there was nothing to show that 1t had
been spent for the purchase of votes.
The senate voted in favor of stephen
son, among the majority being a doz-
en- democratic senators-men like SEN
ator Pomerene of Ohio, against whose |
election the finger OF suspicion could
not be pointed-men who believed in
the legal and equitable maxim of Civ
ing an accused man "the benefit of the
doubt"-men WHO, while regretting
the prevalence Of a system that allow
ed large expenditures of money in
elections, would not condemn an in
dividual who had violated no law
men with the moral courage to espouse
the u of an unpopular man for the
sole and only eason that they believed
him innocent. And yet many of these
senators who refused, with such evil
dence as had been given in the investi-
cation, to find Stephenson guilty, are
strongly in favor of laws that will rem
der the expenditure of large sums i'm
possible, 1t is to provide a remedy
for this evil that corrupt practices
acts such as we have here in North
Dakota are being passed. And how
manifestly unfair it would have been
to unseat a senator who had expended
a large sun-but only in degree a larg-
er sum than his opponents at the pri-
mary-while there was no law against
such expenditures, and while such ex-
penditures were being made in all the
states that were without limiting laws.
Senator McCumber Of this state. was
another senator who had the moral
courage to vote against the unseating
OF Stephenson, knowing that he had
done nothing that had not been done
by him for LaFoIlette, n that had
been done by his opponents at the pri-
mary election in Wisconsin. Senator
McCumber knew that every barking
newspaper cur that had been snap
ping at his heels for years would yelp
still louder in North Dakota; u it
did not move him. It moved him no
more than eastern opposition in the
senate a moved him during the
years that he has been battling
against injustices of the reciprocity
stamp aimed at the interests of the
agricultural commonwealth he repre-
sents. And he will be honored for the
doing of it by every fairminded per-
son and newspaper in North Dakota.