The Washington times., 1919-12-03
FRAUDS HAVE COST
SENATORIAL SEATS
Senate Has Rrecedents to Show
Action Where Corruption
Was Proven.

The only Senatorial case in any way
analogous through actual Indictment
seems TO be that of former Senator
Iohn II. Mitchell of Oregon. MIR.
MITCHELL was indicted by a grand jury
~ MS state on charge of entering
nto conspiracy with Binger Her
mann. then commissioner of the gen.
fral land office, and others. to defraud
he United States out of a portion
of It's public lands in Oregon. Arising
% a question of personal privilege on
January IL, 1905, Senator Mitchell
1enied all the charges, and defied
nose making them to produce any
evidence worth a moments consid-
sration, which will. connect me in any
wrongful manner whatever with any
and frauds in Oregon or elsewhere"
Md then he added: "Now, having
said this much in explanation of and
IN answer to the charges against me,
and thanking you all sincerely for
YOUR courteous attention. 1 will not
further intrude myself on your pres
ence"
His Death Ended Case.
Senator Mitchell thereupon retired
from the chamber and he died be
fore his case assumed such a phase
as to call for action by the Senate.
Perhaps the most celebrated case
in which charges of corruption have
been made in recent years was that
or Senator William A. Clark, of Mon
tana. December T. 1899. Senator
Clark took the oath on his prima
facia right without challenge. al
though charges of bribery in his
election were presented Immediately
thereafter.
After a thorough investigation a
committee recommended that his
election be declared void, enough
bribery being shown to have affected
the result. Senator Clark resigned
but the Senate, uopn his being ap-
pointed by the acting governor, re-
fused to seat him on the ground that
the resignation was made apparently
to escape being unseated for brib-
cry Subsequently Mr.. Clark was
reelected by the legislature and was
In the Forty-second Congress, af-
ter inquiry. 1t was held that the evi-
dence being insufficient to show that
the election of S. c. Pomeroy, of Kan
sas, were effected by corrupt means.
the committee asked to be discharged
from consideration of the case. In
the case of Alexander Caldwell. from
the same State. In the Forty-second
Congress, the Senate committee, hav-
ing reported that the election was
tainted with bribery, was
proceeding to unseat him, when Cald-
well resigned. Following his resig-
nation the Senate desisted from pre-
ceedings to declare his seat vacant or
to eXpel him.
ingalls, Retained Seat.
The election of John ]. ingalls,. of
in 1879 likewise was inyss-
tigated on the strength of a memorial
specific charges and ac-
by evidence relating there
to. Bribery enough to affect the re-
suit not being shown, and the Senator
himself not being personally impli-
Gated, the Senate did not disturb his
tenure of office.
In 1885. following the swearing in
of Henry +. TSsne. of Ohio, memorials
and accompanying papers were pre-
scented, but an investigating commit
tee reported that the allegations con-
tanned no proof to support the charges
The Senate decided that no personal
in bribery being shown,
a Senator should be unseated only on
proof that enough votes for him had
been influenced corruptly to decide
the election.
The official report in this case con-
tains the following Statement:
.'It was not Uuestioned hy apy man.