Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-05-26
Senate SIush Fund Group
Probing Pennsylvania
Primary Expenses.
$1O,541.45 IS DECLARED
CONTRIBUTION OF DAVIS
Winner Tells Commute Of $40, 900
More Given Him for Race.
Reports Incomplete.
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.


senatorial primary, the Senate slush
fund committee today brought out at
its hearing the following facts:
Contributions to the campaign of Sen
ator Joseph r. Grundy totaled $685.
602; disbursements, s332,076.
Senator Grundy contributed from his
own funds 1921, 900. The balance of the
contributions, amounting to about SAT-
600, was contributed by something over
100 persons.
Francis H. Bohlen, the wet candidate
for the senatorial nomination, and his
running mates for governor and l1euten-
ant governor had total expended tor
them Of about 100000.
Webster G. Drew of Bradford, Pa,
a fourth candidate for the Republican
senatorial nomination, sent the COM
mittee a telegram saying that he had
expended $675.69. He said that he
would be glad to appear before the
committee, but had no information to
give it.
Sedgwick Kistler, the Democratic
nominee for the Senate, was not heard
from today.
Secretary James j. Davis of the De-
partment of Labor, who won the nomi-
nation for the Senate, expended and
pledged out Of his own funds $l0,541.45
Mentions Contributors.
Mr.. Davis also told the committee
that he had knowledge of approx
mately $4,000 more which was con-
tributed to his campaign and turned
over by him to the committees which
were conducting his campaign. He
mentioned as contributors former Sena-
tor Calder of New York, $1,000; former
Senator du Pont of Delaware, $4,000,
and former Chairman Lasker OF the
Shipping Board, $4,000.
The committee has still to hear from
representatives of the Davis-Brown
State committee and the Philadelphia
and Allegheny County Davis-Brown
committees as to what their expendi-
lures were.
Accountant Testifies.
Senator Grundy and Thomas Bell, q
pubic accountant in Philadelphia, the
treasurer of the Grundy campaign COM
mittee, testified regarding the expend-
itures in the Grundy campaign. Neither
was able to give the Senate committee
the details Of the expenditures at this
time. Bell, however, promised COM
plete report.
It was testified by Bell that the
Grundy campaign committee contrib
uted to the campaign committees in 30
out of 81 Of the counties of Pennsyl-
vania. He said that he did not know
what was done for Mr. Grundy in the
other 81 counties, and that the Senate
committee would have to call upon the
county chairmen in those counties for
further information about them.
Senator Grundy said that he believed
that from $4,000 to $4,000 had been
spent in the city of Philadelphia in
his campaign and that probably good
deal Of this money had gone to watchers
at the polls. He called attention to
the fact that there were some 1000
election districts in Philadelphia.
Senator Dill of Washington, a men,
Der of the committee, sought to OBJ
tain Senator Grundy's views in the
expenditure Of money in the senatorial
primary campaign.
"You contributed 1921 900 Of your
own money" said Senator Dill, address
ing Senator Grundy. II would like to
get your own views in regard to these
large contributions. Mrs. Mccormick,
who won the senatorial nomination in
Illinois, testified that she expended
$3.50, 900 of her own money. A Senator's
salary for six years total only $4,000.
You expended $231,0 of your money
over and above any possible returns.
Congress draw the line in the amount
of money which may be expended In
senatorial primaries"
Grundy Criticizes Law.
'I don't think that Congress should
draw any line at ALL" was the reply of
Senator Grundy. He went on to say
that in a State the size of Pennsylvania
or Illinois it was important to get the
before all the voters and that 1t took
money to do so. He said that he
thought the fault lay in the law and in
the form of government which demand
ed primary elections. making it neceS-
Sary to educate all the voters.
MY point of view," said Senator
Grundy, lis that money does not enter
into it."
Senator Dill called attention to the
fact that in the Eewbury case the Sem
ate had declared the expenditure Of
$4,000 by and for a candidate in his
race for the senatorial nomination was
excessive.
did you feel that the Senate would
now disregard the limit it set up them"
asked Senator Dill.
do you want me as a member of the
Senate to criticize the Senator" asked
Senator Grundy.
"You would be unusual If you did
not" said Senator Dill.
eff money makes no difference" said
Senator Wagner of New York. why
spend so much?"
THE only need was to get a proper
Continued on Page 2, Column ~