Year: 1873

Il WASHINGTON, March DO
The Caldwell case was taken up and


Mr.. Coukling concluded his speech


He condemned, as grossly pernicIous
the payment by Caldwell OF fifteen
thousand dollars to Carney to withdraw
in his favor, but this transaction did not
effect the proof Of the bribery of the
members of the legislature to effect his
election. He expressed his beef that
this discussion which had taken place


would serve to concentrate the burning
focus Of public stte ution on the tax, and
public agencies which are set at work
to influence the elections, and the result
OF this will be that Congress and the
Legislatures OF the States will enact such
lava, or will punish bribery aid impro-
per influences in elections. He hoped
that the decision OF this case would
show that the American Senate was
calm enough to maintain the spirit Of
the Constitution as our fathers gave it
to us.


Mr.. Schurz alluded to statement
made by Mr. Conkling to the effect that
he had received three hundred dollars
piece far bis speeches during the last
cam paign. He thought it strange that
after the debate had been conducted so
long in this nom personal manner that
these personal matters should be lug
ged in. He pronounced this allegation
an unmitigated fslsehood. He did
not ask any pay for his services during
the last campaign, but when the Literal
Republican Committee had remitted
sum to him to detrsy his expenses lie
had declined it and returned the same.
During that whole campaign he had
never received a cent.


Mr.. Conkling-DOes the Senator
mean the last. or the previous csmpaign?


Mr.. Schurz said he would send for
the Globe and read where he had re
piled last July year ago to the charg.
es in this connection made against HIM
in the New York Times, and that he
had then pronounced them base and
unmitigated falsehoods. He must again
express his surprise after the triendlyand
courteous manner in which the debate
had heretofore been carried on, that
such unprovoked personal alIusious
should be made. II must confess he
was unable to see the propriety OF it,
and he was 10th to engage in personal
discussion. for this reason only, aud not
because OF any apprehensions oI the
consequences.


Mr.. Coukling said the truth or the
fault OF the matter oI which the Sen
ator spoke was no concern of his, but
the Senate had undertaken to read him
a lecture as to the propriety OF the ar
gument which he had made. He did
not acknowledge the right of the Sena
tor do anything OF the kind. The SEN
ator was placing himself in an attitude
OF assuming that he was guilty OF a
practice which was so extraordinary
that it WAS not the privilege of others,
but his alone. He had no apology to
make 10 that Senator, but stood by the
propr ely Of what he Dad esid. Ii the
Senator denied money was ever paid
him for making speeches. he Conkling,
had never heard it, He did not think
the Senator would make such denial
in his presence. The Senator IRON
Missouri forced him to say this.


Mr.. Shurz said he never denied that
in former campaigns he had received
ompensation Tor expenses. He had
replied, in January, 1872, in answer to
the allegations oil the Times that during
fifteen years OF campaign services, sd
dressing the people OF all and every
State outside OF his own and having no
money to spare, but lsborlng and work
ing day after day, week alter week and
month after month in building up the
Republican party, be was compeIIei, ,bv
his own necessities, to accept compensa-
tion for his services sufficient to pay his
expenses, that he might be able to do the
work to which he had been called
He would address the remark TO the
Senator from New York, aud IN order
to test the proper Observance Of drcrn-
cv, what would the Senator from New
York think if he-Schurz should
come on here and report a runor that
was wide spread, that az Senator he
had received a zee of 10000 from II
railroad company TO look after its inter-
ests, and if the alluson was made in
such q way as TO indicate the Senator
from New York, would be not think it
pertinent to raise the question OF de-
cency and propriety.


Mr.. Conkling-l would authorize the
Senator to say to the man who made
such statement that he was liar, and
would further authorize the Senator
TO inform the man that | was personal
ly responsible for what l ssid.


Mr.. Schurz-Adoptng the language
OF the Senator from New York; su-
thoriIe him TO say to the man from
whom he obtained his Information that
be is q liar and that l am personally
responsible TOR what say.


Mr.. Conkling-DOes the Senator
authorize us to say that turing the lat
campaign he never received sny speci-
fed sums for his services


Mr.. Schurz-I authorize the S.nator
to say that the man lies who saws
received 5000 for every speech l deliv.
cred during the last campaign.


Mr.. Coukling rose again, but Mr..
Schurz declined to give way and re
pested his denial.


Mr.. Conkling then said, in the re-
marks that had called out this be
meant no personal sllusion to Mr.
Schurz What be had said was in the
line OF the argument snd was perfectly
just and fair, but the Senator bad chos-
en- to construe what tad been said 81
reflection on him, Tor which he,-Mr.
Conkliug-was not responsible, not
witbstsnding the grossly improper re-
mark which the Senator had made at
one stage OF the proceedings he would
now say be had no personal feeling