Great Falls tribune., 1922-01-12
SENATOR WALSH ON
NEWBERRY

cENAToR WALSH of Montana
~ has taken prominent part in
opposition to the majority report
Of the committe on elections in the
United States senate which is a
complete whitewash for the Doodle
senator from Michigan. The major
ity report finds that Senator New
berry had no knowledge OF the
spending of the sum of quarter OF
a million dollars to secure his elec-
ton, that he had not spent more
than the law allows in campaign ex-
penses, and that he is entitled to
his seat. The Montana senator
riddles these statements most effec-
lively. Mr.. Newberry for the first
time spoke in his own defense be-
fore the senate, but all he had to
say was that he was absolutely ig-
norant of the enormous sums spent
in his behalf by relatives and bust
ness friends and never heard OF
them until after the election and
the contest filed by Henry Ford.
Mr.. Walsh we'll states that such a
declaration is unbelievable In view
of the general scandal in Michigan
that these enormous expenditures
created. At the trial of the case
before a federal jury which con-
victed Mr.. Newberry Of guilty
knowledge of these violations OF
the law, evidence was given by
several prominent citizens that they
wrote to Mr.. Newberry during the
campaign and called his attention to
these corrupt expenditures. Mr..
Newberry says he paid no attention
to these letters because he did not
consider the writers as friendly TO
his candidacy. He did not go on
the stand at any time to deny
his guilt during his trial, and he
did not go before the senate COM
mittee to deny his guilt. Asked by
Mr.. Walsh why he took such a
course, he said he was good client,
and followed the advise of his
lawyers. If he had gone on the
stand at his trial before the court
or the senate committee he would
have been subjected to searching
cross-examination and his testi-
mony might have been impeached
by other witnesses.
Speaking in the senate under the
rules Of that body, he could not be
interrupted, except by his own con-
sent, and he need not answer any
questions unless he chose to do so.
The fact that he took advantage of
the law for the protection OF per-
sons charged with crime that al
lows them to refuse to testify on
the theory that it is tantamount to
compelling a man to criminate him
self, does not reflect any credit on
the sincerity of the senator's plea
that he is innocent. The jury that
tried him did not think 80. The
Judge that sentenced him, did not
think so. The fact is that in his ap-
peal to the supreme court, he did
not allege his innocence, but relied
on the purely technical plea that
the bribery and corruption alleged
against him concerned the primary
election, and the congressional pro-
hibition against such corrupt ex-
penditures applied only to the gen.
eral election. On that plea the su-
preme court upheld his contention
and set aside his conviction in the
federal district court of his home
state.
In the face Of such facts it is not
strange that independent and self
respecting republican senator's re-
fuse to vote for the majority re-
port, even in the face of the ut
most efforts Of the president and
the whole republican party machine
to force them to do so as a party
measure. Their argument is that
they needed his vote two years ago
to organize the senate with, and
while they need it no longer, having
now an ample party majority in
the senate, yet gratitude for past
favors should induce them to stand
by the Doodle senator now and give
him his needed coat Of whitewash.
But even with the ample republican
majority in the senate, it is con-
ceded that the vote is going to be
very close because number Of
republican senator's have boldly de-
clined to swallow the noxious dose
set before them by President Hard
ing and the leaders Of the repub-
lican party, and announced their i'm
tention Of voting against the Doodle