Arizona republican., 1922-01-10
Mr.. Newberry's Statement

The statement Of Senator Newberry is simple
straightforward one, general denial OF his knowl-
*afp OF the vast expenditures made in behalf of his
ernaidacy for the United States senatorshp and it
n8sk be impressive to his colleagues. But it will
pahaps not be convincing to althat notwithstanding
A senators absence from the state during the cam
n#p, he could have been wholly ignorant of the
RN# outlay that was being made in his interest.
Z AZ was matter of common report that the Ford
enfsers had been opened and that golden tide from
NotM campaign chests was inundating the state We
believe it was not clearly shown that money was be-
ing used in the interest of either of the candidates
for the corruption of voters-that is for the actual
purchase of votes. 1t campaign of publicity
and there had never been such intensive publicity
in Michigan in any other state
That the law limiting expenditures was being
Nla Jed in both the primary and the general cam
NA rs was openly charged and only perfume
H denied The law itself afterward held to
hs valid SO that. for the violation of it alone Sena-
or ewberry could not be denied his seat But there
older law against the corruption of voters and
been held that that law may be violated by
otA# means than by the buying of votes; that by
M presentation, the mind of the voter may be cor
HNA and he may be misled.
uch corruption is not punishable by any federal
Mla#le The senate alone has power to inflct
me of the defenders of Mr.. Newberry few
aaN ago, excusing the great expenditures that had
hAe made in his interest, introduced a unique de-
fla that inasmuch as his opponent was himself a
xen rich man. it could not be said that the wealth
noHNd in for Mr.. Newherry had initiated against
aH ord
herein is misunderstanding of the spirit of
sN1Mpt practices acts. They not framed for the
etion of poor candidates against rich ones but
sN be protection of the electorate against the
eesslEe of money and influence purchased by
money. We cannot say that laws, moral of statute,
are to be suspended when financial giants are pted
against each other
On the other hand, we do not think there is any
comparison between the Newberry case and the
Lorlmer case to which the opponents OF Mr.. New
Lerry refer. In the Lorimer case the most
bridled sordid corruption of voters proved
lusvely. Votes purchased and delivered whole-
sale Lorimer backed by ruthless political
ing which stopped at nothing.
AS we have gathered from the evidence in the
Sewberry case, the charge rests on the volume of
money which spent rather than upon the manner
ii which it was spent. The campaign, too, was diff
serent from the usual senatorial campaign. 1t be-
came national in character. Mr.. Ford was less
The candidate of any element of the people of Michi-
gan than the president of the United States. He
had been selected by Mr.. Wilson, not because of his
tness that high office, but because Of his promi
hence attended by his great wealth He the
one in the state, republican, who might, with
the support of the of Michigan be elected
and became as much the supporter of democratic
administration policies il he were democrat
He was thus democratic candidate at large for the
senate of the United States, and in senatorial
test nowhere else that year was there such GEN.
tering of democratic interest
There is. believe, the part Of the republican
senator's who opposing Mr. Newberry, per-
sonal anmosity against him. They recognize his high
character as man and his fitness for place in the
senate if he could have to it without stigma.
But the stigma there and to them 1t is immateral
whether or not it was with his knowledge and con-
sent that it was placed upon him by his campaign
managers
A Challenge to the Press
Neusnapers have made some progress but they