The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1921-12-16

/
all of them on the summons of the
contestant, Henry Ford) as either a
wilful perjurer or a man unworthy of
belief. Every witness produced was
called by the contestant, who, under
the usual rules of procedure, is pre-
sumed to vouch for the credibility of
the witnesses he produces. Some of
the. witnesses were men of the high
est standing and character in the in
dustrial world and official life. There
was nothing in their conduct, or in
| their appearance, or in their testi-
mony, to indicate that they were
not fully and frankly telling the
truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. The conclusions at
which the contestant (Henry Ford1
would have your committee arrive
are those which the contestant bases
entirely upon unwarranted differences
and upon the merest conjectures, and
are without the testimony of a
single witness to sustain them.
"We are urged to disregard prac-
tically the entire testimony produc-
ed by the witnesses of the contestant
himself as being utterly lacking in
credibility, if not wilfully false, and
to substitute for such testimony the
baseless suspicious and unfounded
charges which the contestant is pleas
ed to make. We are asked to arrive
at false conclusions and to sustain
Incorporate charges which have
nothing except mere allegation to
support them. 1t is difficult to
imagine a case more severely charg-
ed and more completely unsustained
than is presented in this proceeding"
No Money Spent COrruptly.
Regarding the amount of money
spent by Senator Newberry's mana
gers in the primary campaign, which
resulted in his nomination, the major
ity report of the Senate investigating
committee says:
"The amount of money spent at the
primary was large-too large-but
there was no concealment whatever
with regard to it and it was spent
entirely for legal and proper pur-
poses"
The committee files an itemized
report of the amount of money spent,
which shows that 80 per cent of the
money spent in the primary campaign
in behalf of Newberry's nomination
was spent for advertising and other
publicity. 1t further finds that "none
of the money spent in the primary
election, large as was the amount,
was spent for corrupt, illegal or i'm
proper purposes" The committees |
itemized report of money expended |
shows total expenditure of approx
mately $195,000; that of this amount |
S147, 800 was spent for advertising; |
over $4,000 was spent for Office ex-
penses, such as rent, furniture and |
light; over $1,000 was spent for tele-
phone and telegraph service; $4,000 |
was expended for travelling expenses,
and the remainder was spent for
of clerks, ETC., copying of |
election registers, canvassing the
voters, etc.
The fact is emphasized that at no
time in the trial of Mr. Newberry in
Grand Rapids, nowhere in the testi-
mony at that. trial, and at no time
during the hearings of the Senate
was there any evidence
offered to show that any of the ex-
penditures in connection with Mr.
nomination was used in
al Illegal manner IOT IHe purpose Vi /
corrupting the electorate, perpetrat-
ing fraud or, in common parlance,
buying a seat" in the United States
Senate.
Situation without Parallel.
The report filed by the majority of
the Senate committee which investi-
gated the nomination and election of
Senator Newberry stated that while
it condemned the use of large sums
of money in any primary campaign,
in the case before it for investiga-
ton the amount expended "was not
spent for any purposes that were in
themselves illegal and improper"
The committees report further states
that it is but fair to set forth the
fact that the evidence disclosed
situation in regard to the primary /
which perhaps has no parallel in
American history.
To thoroughly understand the case
it is necessary to recall that at the
time Mr. Ford offered himself as
candidate for the nomination TO the