The St. Joseph observer., 1921-12-10

tne senate amendment VI DV per cent |
instead of adhering to the. House
amendment of 80 per cent.
II is significant that this Progres-
sive Republican vote for the higher
surtax all came from the West, and
truly reflected the spirit OF revolt
against reactionary Republicanism
which is now prevalent throughout
that section as II was IN 1912.
Ncwberry Toga "a Dirty Rag"
Senator Pomerene ltDem., Ohio),
closed his great speech reviewing the
notorious and scandalous Newberry
case before the Senate with this bls-
tering excoriation Of Senator New
berry:
"Mr. President it so happens that
there can be only two senator's from
each sovereign state at one time-only
two. When the voters Of a state go to
their wardrobe and take from it the
senatorial toga and drapo It around
the shoulders of one OF their favorite
sons, he is indeed honorcd but when
some rich man who aspires to that
honor builds out Of gold dollars a
stairway leading into that wardrobe
and takes from 1t the senatorial toga,
whether it is done by himself or by his
millionaire friends, the toga Is no
longer a robe of honor; It is a dirty
rag that disgraces him that wears it,"
The discussion of the Newberry
election scandal in open session in the
Senate, as forccasted in this corre-
spondence, has had little publicity in
the daily press due to the volume of
news from the conference on the lin
itation Of ornaments, condition
foreseen by the Republican defenders
of Newberry when they refused to
| postpoIe the case and forced it to a
| hearing at this time.
The case against Newberry. at this
writing has been presented by two Of
| the ahlest lawyers OF the Senate, SEN
ators Pomerene Of Ohio and Walsh of
| Montana, but Notwithstanding their
review Of the hundreds Of scandalous
incidents and their truly wonderful
analysis Of the evidence, the Repub-
! lican reactionary membership of the
| Senate has continued 10 absent itself
| from the charber. On the other
hand, Progressive Republicans like
| Senators Kenyon of Iowa and Borah
OF Idaho. have attended the hearing
and have taken part In the colloquies
tending to develop the facts and the
arguments.
The review of the testimony and the
arguments ther, on may be summar-
ized in the main as follows:
Over S2oO.OO0 Was Spent
That approximately $263,OOO was
spent in the interest of Newberry in
the primary contest. $4,000 of
which is admitted.
That the money was supplied large
ly by members of tho Newberry fam
lily, including transfers OF money from
Truman Newberry's account and that
Of other members Of the family to
that OF his brothers.
That Newberry protested against
the huge sums spent and drawn from
the accounts to keep his brothers ac-
| count from being ovcrdrawn, and
wanted to know when the heavy ex-
penses would cease.
That the expenditures were in vio-
lation of the Michigan state law.
That Newberry had hand in the
selection of tho manager Of his cam
paign and OF the campaign commit
tee and received frequent reports of
the progress of the campaign.
That the books showing the trans
fers OF money in the Newberry ac-
counts and other campaign records
are missing ami were missing at the
time of the trial OF Newberry in the
federal court.
That Newberry failed TO testify IN
his own behalf either in the federal
court or before the Senate Committee
on Privileges and Elections, although
at the criminal trial some of his CO.
defendants had testified for him.
(senator McKeilar (Dem., TENN,
supplied the information that in pre-
vious contests, when the seats of Sem
ator Smoot Of Utah, Senator Lorimer
of Illinois and Senator Stephenson Of
Wisconsin were challenged all three
took the stand in their own behalf,
and added; 80 far as I have been
able to find out. the sole and only
contestee whose seat has been con-
tested in this body who has ever stood
mute when he was charged with all
manner OF crimes and misdemeanors,
was the contestee IN this case, Mr..
Newberry.") H.l
That the general denial of New