JK B^9 
 
 JK 1359 
 .63d 
 .S7 W3 
 
 1 Copy 1 
 
63d Congress, ) HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. J Report 
 
 M Session. X I No. 158. 
 
 TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. 
 
 WHALEY. 
 
 December 20. 1913. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to l;e printed 
 
 Mr. Post, from the Committee on Elections No. 1, submitted the 
 
 following 
 
 REPORT. 
 
 [To accompany H. Res. 35().] 
 
 On the 20th day of September, 1913, one John P. Grace filed written 
 charges in the form of an affidavit against the Hon. Richard S. 
 Whaley, Congressman-elect from the first congressional district of the 
 State of South Carolina, questioning his right to a seat in the United 
 States House of Representatives, the charges being addressed to the 
 Speaker of the House and the Congress of the United States and 
 which charges were by the Speaker referred to Committee on Elec- 
 tions No. 1 for consideration. 
 
 The committee has carefully examined the^ evidence adduced by 
 the respective parties and has given the subject most careful and 
 painstaking consideration. The controversy arises out of two pri- 
 mary elections held in the first congressional district of the State of 
 South Carolina for the purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate 
 to succeed the late Hon. George S. Legare, who died on the 31st day 
 of January, 1913. The first primary was held on the 1st day of April, 
 1913, and the second on the 15th day of April, 1913. Under the 
 election laws of the State of South CaroUna, where there are more 
 than two candidates for an office of Representative in Congress 
 standing for the nomination in the primary, it is required that the 
 two candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall submit to 
 a second primary. 
 
 At the first primary, held on the 1st of April, 1913, there were five 
 candidates, namely, E. W. Hughes, J. G. Padgett, John H. Peurifoy, 
 George F. von Kolnitz, and R. S. Whaley. At this primary IVt. 
 Hughes and Mr. Whaley each received more votes than any of the 
 other candidates. Consequently they were the only candidates in 
 the primary held on the 15th day of April, at which election Mr. 
 Whaley received a majority of the votes and became the Democratic 
 
3^"^v. 
 
 31' 
 
 2 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 candidate for Representative in Congress at the special election held 
 on the 29th day of April, 1913. At this special election there was no 
 other candidate, and Mr. Whaley was unanimously elected to the 
 office of Representative in Congress to fill out the unexpired term 
 caused by the death of the Hon. George S. Legare. A certifi- 
 cate was duly issued to Mr. Whaley, and he appeared at the bar of 
 the House, took the oath of office, and has since been serving as a 
 Member. None of the candidates at either of the primaries saw 
 proper, within the time required by law, to institute proceedings to 
 contest the election of Mr. Whaley, or in any other respect to question 
 either the manner in which he received nomination or his election. 
 No elector or interested person in the district took any steps to 
 question the manner of his nomination or contest his election. 
 
 The first congressional district in the State of South Carolina is 
 composed of the counties of Charleston, Clarendon, Colleton, Berke- 
 ley, and Dorchester. At the second primary there were 12,050 votes 
 cast, distributed as follows: In Charleston, 6,168; in Clarendon, 
 1,519; in Colleton, 1,807; in Berkeley, 953; in Dorchester, 1,603; of 
 which, on the face of the returns, Mr. Whaley obtained 6,298 and 
 Mr. Hugues 5,752, giving Mr. Whaley a majority of 564. The vote 
 is distributed by counties, as follows: 
 
 
 E. W. Hughes. 
 
 R. S. Whaley. 
 
 Charleston 
 
 3,105 
 776 
 752 
 522 
 597 
 
 3,063 
 
 Clarendon 
 
 743 
 
 Colleton 
 
 1,059 
 
 
 431 
 
 Dorchester 
 
 1,006 
 
 
 
 THE CHARGES. 
 
 The petition of John P. Grace contains most serious charges against 
 the respective candidates in the two primaries held in the first con- 
 gressional district of South Carolina. It is charged that Mr. Whaley 
 in promulgating his candidacy announced that whoever entered the 
 race must be prepared to outspend him in money; that this intelli- 
 gence speedily resolved the campaign into unprecedented vote 
 seffing; that Mr. Whaley spent in the first and second primaries not 
 less than $60,000, or an average of about $10 for each vote received 
 by him; that he deliberately placed in the hands of various persons 
 in the several counties of the district and in various voting precincts 
 for the purpose of corrupting and debauching the electors, sums of 
 money from $200 to $6,000; that he placed $5,000 in the hands of 
 Mitchell Whitsell, W. B. Ackerman, and James Peurifoy, who used 
 that amount in the second primary held in Colleton Count}^ on April 
 15; that he placed the sum of $6,000 in the hands of S. Louis Simons, 
 O. B. Limehouse, Walker Utsey, and that sum of money was used in 
 corrupting the electorate in Dorchester County at the second primary. 
 That the sum of $6,000 was placed in the hands of Dr. George W. 
 Dick, Walter B. Logan, and Ben. Harwin for corrupting the voters 
 in Clarendon County, and that sum of money was used in the second 
 primary in that county; that the sum of $2,900 was placed in the 
 hands of Russell Williams for the purpose of corrupting the voters 
 
 EC ^^'ym 
 
^ TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 3 
 
 in'Borklcy County, and that sum was used in the second primary for 
 such purpose; that the sum of $200 was placed in the hands of one 
 Max Goldman, and used by him to corrupt the voters in ward 3 in 
 the city of Charleston at the second primary; that the sum of $400 
 was placed in the hands of T. H. Young, and was us?d for the purpose 
 of corrupting the voters in ward 3 in the city of Charleston at the 
 second primary; that tha sum of $1,500 was placed in the hands of 
 W. J. Bennett, and was used by him in the purchase of votes and for 
 the purpose of corrupting the electorate in ward 5 in the city of 
 Charleston at the second primary; that the sum of $2,200 was placed 
 in the hands of Harry A. Withington and J. W. Dunn for the purpose 
 of corrupting the electorate in ward 7 of the city of Charleston, and 
 was used for that purpose in the second primary; that the sum of 
 $5,000 was placed in the hands of J. J. O'Shaughnessy, and was used 
 by him in corrupting the electorate in ward 9 of the city of Charles- 
 ton at the second primary; that the sum of $2,000 was placed in the 
 hands of B. P. Carey and Lewis Morilla, and was used by them in 
 corrupting the electorate in ward 9 of the city of Charleston in the 
 first primary; that the sum of $300 was put in the hands of one Harry 
 Friend for the purpose of corrupting the voters in ward 9 of the city 
 of Charleston in the first primary; that the sum of $200 was placed 
 in the hands of Robby Wicket for the purpose of corrupting the 
 electorate in ward 9 of the city of Charleston, a part of which was 
 used in the first primary and the balance of which was knocked down 
 and kept by the recipient and used for his private affairs; that $1,900 
 was placed in the hands of Frank Simmons for the purpose of cor- 
 rupting the voters m ward 10 of the city of Charleston, on the night 
 preceding the second primary, and $1,300 on the day of the second 
 primary and used in that ward for the purpose of corrupting the 
 electorate; that $600 was placed in the hands of Joe La Torri, and used 
 to corrupt the voters in ward 5 of the city of Charleston in the first 
 primary; that the sum of $200 was put in the hands of one L. Horwitz 
 and used in the corruption of the electorate in the McClellanville 
 precinct in the county of Charleston; that a large sum, designated by 
 the petitioner upon information and belief, to be not less than $5,000, 
 was placed in the hands of M. P. Heely, and used in the corruption of 
 the voters in ward 11 of the city of Charleston at the second primary; 
 that a large sum, designated upon information and belief by the 
 petitioner to be not less than $5,000, was placed in the hands of A. J. 
 Mclnness, and used for the corruption of the voters inward 12 of the 
 city of Charleston at the second primary; that other large sums, 
 alleged by the petitioner to be unknown to him but amounting to 
 several tliousand dollars, were paid out for advertising, badges, car- 
 riage and automobile hire, hire of halls, bands, purchase of drinks, 
 and many other purposes and were expended throughout the district; 
 that Mr. Wlialey made sundry promises of Federal offices in case of 
 his eletcion, contrary to law, particularly that he promised J. D. 
 Gerald and C. W. Wills each an appointment as postmaster at 
 Manning, in said district; that Mr. Whaley unlawfully received large 
 contributions and used them in said two primary elections and failed 
 to account for such contributions, in violation of the Federal statutes; 
 that Mr. Whaley, in filing his statements as required by the Federal 
 statutes with the Clerk of the House, knowingly made false oath 
 
4 TO DISMISS CHAKGES PILED AGAINST EICHAKD S. WHALEY. 
 
 thereto, deposing that he had only spent in said primary elections 
 the sum of $4,533.10. 
 
 The prayer of the petitioner is that these charges may be investi- 
 gated, and", if found true, that Mr. Whaley be expelled from his seat 
 in the House. 
 
 The procedure is an anomalous one, and so far as we have been 
 enabled to determine without precedent. The ultimate object sought 
 to be obtained by the petitioner is to expel a Member of the House. 
 Under the circumstances this can only be done upon two-thirds vote 
 of its membership. The question readily occurs to the mind, How 
 is such a case to originate ? Can an elector of a congressional dis- 
 trict, by simply filing an affidavit with the Speaker of the House, 
 invoke the power of the House to expel one of its Members ? Will 
 the House upon the complaint of a single elector, ipso facto, take 
 jurisdiction of the subject matter of such a complaint? We call 
 attention to the fact that the charges of bribery and misconduct 
 relate principally to the manner and methods employed in the nomi- 
 nation of the accused. That no charges are made in the complaint 
 against the accused as to the manner and method of his election. 
 The real gist of the petitioner's complaint is the charge of perjury 
 committed before and after the election of the accused as he claims 
 in violation of the Federal statutes. 
 
 In 1910 Congress passed the following act: 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled. That the term "political committee" under the provisions of 
 this act shall include the national committees of all political parties and the national 
 congressional campaign committees of all political parties and all committees, 
 associations, or organizations which shall in two or more States influence the result 
 or attempt to influence the result of an election at which Representati^ es in Congress 
 are to be elected. 
 
 Sec. 2. That every political committee as defined in this act shall have a chairman 
 and a treasurer. It shall be the duty of the treasurer to keep a detailed and exact 
 account of all money or its equivalent received by or promised to such committee or 
 any member thereof, or by or to any person acting under its authority or in its behalf, 
 and the name of every person, firm, association, or committee from whom received, 
 made by the committee or any member thereof, or by any person acting under its 
 and of all expenditures, disbursements, and promises of payment or disbursement 
 authority or in its behalf, and to whom paid, distributed, or disbursed. No officer 
 or member of such committee, or other person acting under its authority or in its 
 behalf, shall receive any money or its equivalent, or expend or promise to expend 
 any money on behalf of such committee, until after a chairman and treasurer of such 
 committee shall have been chosen. 
 
 Sec. 3. That every payment or disbursement made by a political committee 
 exceeding $10 in amount be evidenced by a receipted bill stating the particu- 
 lars of expense, and every such record, voucher, receipt, or account shall be pre- 
 served for fifteen months after the election to which it relates. 
 
 Sec. 4. That whoever, acting under the authority or in behalf of such political 
 committee, whether as a member thereof or otherwise, receives any contribution, 
 payment, loan, gift, advance, deposit, or promise of money or its equivalent shall 
 on demand, and in any event within five days after the receipt of such contribution, 
 payment, loan, gift, advance, deposit, or promise, render to the treasurer of such 
 political committee a detailed account of the same, together with the name and 
 address from whom received, and said treasurer shall forthwith enter the same in a 
 ledger or record to be kept by him for that purpose. 
 
 Sec. 5. That the treasurer of every such political committee shall, within thirty 
 days after the election at which Representatives in Congress were chosen in two or 
 more States, file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives at Washington, Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, an itemized, detailed statement, sworn to by said treasurer and 
 conforming to the requirements of the following section of this act. The statement 
 so filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall be preserved by him for 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 5 
 
 fifteen months, and shall be a part of the public records of his office, and sliall be open 
 to public inspection. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the statements required by the preceding section of this act shall state: 
 
 First. The name and address of each person, firm, association, or committee who or 
 which has contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced to such political committee, 
 or any officer, member, or agent thereof, either in one or more items, money or its 
 equivalent of the aggregate amount or value of $100 or more. 
 
 Second. The total sum contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced to such political 
 committee, or to any officer, member, or agent thereof, in amounts less than |lOO. 
 
 Third. The total sum of all contributions, promises, loans, and advances received 
 by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof. 
 
 Fourth. The name and address of each person, firm, association, or committee to 
 whom such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof, has dis- 
 bursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or promised any sum of money or 
 its equivalent of the amount or value of $10 or more, and the purpose thereof. 
 
 Fifth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or 
 promised by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof, where 
 the amount or value of such disbursement, distribution, loan, advance, or promise to 
 any one person, firm, association, or committee in one or more items is less than $10. 
 
 Sixth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or 
 promised by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof. 
 
 Sec. 7. That every person, firm, association, or committee, except political com- 
 mittees as hereinbefore defined, that shall expend or promise any sum of money or 
 other thing of value amounting to $50 or more for the purpose of influencing or con- 
 trolling, in two or more States, the result of an election at which Representatives to 
 the Congress of the United States are elected, unless he or it shall contribute the same 
 to a political committee as hereinbefore defined, shall file the statements of the same 
 under oath, as required by section six of this act, in the office of the Clerk of the 
 House of Representatives at Washington, District of Columbia, which statements shall 
 be held by said Clerk in all respects as required by section five of this act. 
 
 Sec. 8. That any person may in connection with such election incur any pay from 
 his own private funds for the purpose of influencing or controlling, in two or inore 
 States, the result of an election at which Representatives to the Congress of the United 
 States are elected all personal expenses for his traveling and for purposes incidental 
 to traveling, for stationery and postage, and for telegraph and telephone service 
 without being subject to the provisions of this act. 
 
 Sec. 9. That nothing contained in this act shall limit or affect the right of any per- 
 son to spend money for proper legal expenses in maintaining or contesting the results 
 of any election . 
 
 Sec. 10. That every person willfully violating any of the foregoing provisions of 
 this act shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more 
 than one year, or both. 
 
 This act was approved June 25, 1910, and is found in part 1, 
 volume 36, of the United States Statutes at Large, page 822. This 
 act was amended at the first session of the Sixty-second Congress, as 
 follows : 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled. That sections five, six, and eight of an act entitled "An act 
 providing for publicity of contributions made for the purpose of influencing elections 
 at which Representatives in Congress are elected," approved June twenty- fifth, 
 nineteen hundred and ten, he, and the same are herel)y, amended to read as follows: 
 
 "Sec 5. That the treasurer of every such political committee sliall, not more than fif- 
 teen days and not less than ten days next before an election at which Representatives 
 in Congress are to be elected in two or more States, file in the office of the Clerk of the 
 House of Representatives, at Washington, District of Columbia, with said Clerk, an 
 itemized detailed statement; and on each sixth day thereafter until such election 
 said treasi rer shall file \vith said Clerk a supplemental itemized detailed statement. 
 Each of the said statements shall conform to the requirements of the following section 
 of this act. except that the supplemental statement herein required need not contain 
 any item of which publicity is given in a previous statement. Each of the said state- 
 ments shall be full and complete, and shall be signed and sworn to by said treasurer. 
 
 "It shall also be the duty of said treasurer to file a similar statement with said Clerk 
 within thirty days after such election, such final statement also to be signed and sworn 
 to by said treasurer and to conform to the requirements of the following section of this 
 act. The statements so filed with the Clerk of the House shall be preserved by him 
 
6 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST RIGHAKD S. WHALEY. 
 
 ■for fifteen months and shall be a part of the public records of his office and shall be open 
 to public inspection. 
 
 "Sec. 6. That the statements required by the preceding section of this act shall 
 state : 
 
 "First. That name and address of each person, firm, association, or committee who 
 or which has contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced to such political committee 
 or any officer, member, or agent thereof, either in one or more items, money or its 
 equivalent of the aggregate amount or value of one hundred dollars or more, and the 
 amount or sum contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced by each. 
 
 "Second. The aggregate sum contributed, promised, loaned, or advanced to such 
 political committee, or to any officer, member, or agent thereof, in amounts of less 
 than one hundred dollars. 
 
 " Third. The total sum of all contributions, promises, loans, and advances received 
 by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof. 
 
 "Fourth. The name and address of each person, firm, association, or committee to 
 whom such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof, has dis- 
 tributed, disbursed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or promised any sum of money or 
 its equivalent of the amount or value of $10 or more, stating the amount or sum dis- 
 tributed, disbursed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or promised to each, and the 
 purpose thereof. 
 
 "Fifth. The aggregate sum distributed, disbursed, contributed, loaned, advanced, 
 or promised by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof, 
 where the amoimt or value of such distribution, disbursement, loan, advance, or 
 promise to any one person, firm, association, or committee in one or more items is less 
 than $10. " 
 
 "Sixth. The total sum disbursed, distributed, contributed, loaned, advanced, or 
 promised by such political committee, or any officer, member, or agent thereof." 
 
 "Sec. 8. That any person may in connection with such election incur and 
 pay from his own private funds for the purpose of influencing or controlling, in two or 
 more States, the results of an election at which Representatives to the Congress of the 
 United States are elected, all necessary personal expenses for his traveling, for sta- 
 tionery, and postage, and for telegraph and telephone service, without being subject 
 to the provisions of this act." 
 
 Sec. 2. That section eight, as above amended, and sections nine and ten of said act 
 be renumbered as sections nine, ten, and eleven, and that a new section be inserted 
 after section seven of the said original act, to read as follows: 
 
 "Sec. 8. The word 'candidate' as used in this section shall include all persons 
 whose names are presented for nomination for Representatives or Senator in the 
 Congress of the United States at any primary election or nominating convention, or 
 for indorsement or election at any general or special election held in connection with 
 the nomination or election of a person to fill such office, whether or not such persons are 
 actually nominated, indorsed, or elected. 
 
 "Every person who shall be a candidate for nomination at any primary election or 
 nominating convention, or for election at any general or special election, as Repre- 
 sentative in the Congress of the United States, shall, not less than ten nor more than 
 fifteen days before the day for holding such primary election or nominating conven- 
 tion, and not less than ten nor more than fifteen days before the day of the general or 
 special election at which candidates for Repres'^ntatives are to be elected, file with the 
 Clerk of the House of Representatives at Washington, District of Columbia, a full, 
 correct, and itemized statement of all moneys and things of value received by him 
 or by anyone for him with his knowledge and consent, from any source, in aid or sup- 
 port of his candidacy, together with the names of all those who have furnished the 
 same in whole or in part; and such statement shall contain a true and itemized account 
 of all moneys and things of value given, contributed, expended, used, or promised 
 by such candidate, or by his agent, representative, or other person for and in his behalf 
 with his knowledge and consent, together with the names of all those to whom any 
 and all such gifts, contributions, payments, or promises were made, for the purpose 
 of procuring his nomination or election. i 
 
 "Every person who shall be a candidate for nomination at any primary election or 
 nominating convention, or for indorsement at any general or special election by the 
 legislature of any State, as Senator in the Congress of the United States, shall, not less 
 than ten nor more than fifteen days before the day for holding such primary election 
 or nominating convention, and not less than ten nor more than fifteen days before the 
 day of the general or special election at which he is seeking indorsement, and not less 
 than five nor more than ten days before the day upon which the first vote is to be taken 
 in the two houses of the legislature before which he is a candidate for election as Sena- 
 tor, file with the Secretary of the Senate at Washington, District of Columlna, a full. 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 7 
 
 cOircct, and itemized statement of all mon"ys and things of value receivea by him or by 
 anyone for him with his knowledge and consent, from any source, in aid or support 
 of his candidacy, together with the names of all those who have furnishi d the same in 
 wliole or in part; and such statement shall contain a true and itemized account of all 
 moneys and things of value given, contril)uted, expended, used, or promisitl by such 
 candidate, or )>y liis agent, representatixe, or other piTson for and in his behalf with 
 his knowledge and consent, together with the names of all those to whom any and all 
 such gifts, contributions, payments, or promises were made for the purpose of procur- 
 ing his nomination or election. 
 
 "p]very such candidate for nomination at any primary election or nominating con- 
 vention, or for indorsement or election at any general or special election, or for elec- 
 tion by the legislature of any State, shall, within fifteen days after such primary 
 election or nominating convention and within thirty days after any such general 
 or special election and within thirty days after the day upon which the legislature 
 shall have elected a Senator, file with the Olerk of the House of Representatives or 
 with the Secretary of the Senate, as the case may be, a full, correct, and itemized 
 statement of all moneys and things of value received by him or by anyone for him, 
 with his knowledge and consent, from any soiirce, in aid or siipport of his candidacy, 
 together with the names of all those who have furnished the same in whole or in 
 part; and such statement shall contain a true and itemized account of all moneys 
 and things of value given, contributed, expended, used, or promised by such candi- 
 date, or by his agent, representative, or other person, for and in his behalf, with his 
 knowledge and consent, up to, on, and after the day of such primary election, nomi- 
 nating convention, general or special election, or election by the legislature, together 
 with the names of all those to whom any and all such gifts, contributions, payments, 
 or promises were made for the purpose of procuring his nomination, indorsement, or 
 election. 
 
 "Every such candidate shall include therein a statement of every promise or 
 pledge made by him, or by anyone for him, with his knowledge and consent, or to 
 whom he has given authority to make any such promise or pledge, before the com- 
 pleti(m of any such primary election or nominating convention or general or special 
 election or election by the legislature relative to the appointment or recommenda- 
 tion for appointment of any person to any position of trust, honor, or profit, either in 
 the county. State, or Nation, or in any political subdivision thereof, or in any pri- 
 vate or corporate employment, for the purpose of seciiring the support of such person 
 or of any person in his candidacy, and if any such promise or pledge shall have been 
 made the name, or names, the address or addresses, and the occupation or occupa- 
 tions, of the person or persons to whom such promise or pledge shall have been made 
 shall be stated, together with a description of the position relating to which such 
 promise or pledge has been made. In the event that no such promise or pledge has 
 been made by such candidate, that fact shall be distinctly stated. 
 
 "No candidate for Representative in Congress or for Senator of the United States 
 shall promise any office or position to any person, or to use his influence or to give his 
 support to any person for any office or position for the purpose of procuring the support 
 of suca person, or of any person, in his candidacy: nor shall any candidate for Senator 
 of the United States give, contribute, expend, use, or promise any money or thing of 
 value to assist in procuring the nomination or election of any particular candidate for 
 the legislature of the State in which he resides, but such candidate may, within the 
 limitations and restrictions and subject to the requirements of this act, contribute 
 to political committees having charge of the disbursement of campaign funds. 
 
 "No candidate for Representative in Congress or for Senator of the United States 
 shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise, or cause to be gi^'en, contributed, 
 expended, used, or promised, in procuring his nomination and election, any sum in 
 the aggregate in excess of the amount which he may lawfully give, <^ontribute. expend, 
 or promise under the laws of the State in which ne re.sides: Provided, That no candidate 
 for Representative in Congress shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise any 
 sum, in the aggregate, exceeding $5,000 in any campaign for his nomination and 
 election: and no candidate for Senator of the United States shall give, contribute, 
 expend, use, or promise any sum, in the aggregate, exceeding $10,000 in anj campaign 
 for his nomination and election: Provided further. That money expended by any such 
 candidate to meet and discharge any assessment, fee. or charge made or levied upon 
 candidates by the laws of the State in which he resides, or for his necessary personal 
 expen,ses, incurred for himself alone, for travel and subsistence, stationery and postage, 
 writing or printing (other than in newspapers), and distributing letters, circulars, and 
 posters, and for telegraph and telephone service, shall not be regarded as an expend- 
 iture within the meaning of this section, and shall not be considered any part of the 
 sum herein fixed as the limit of expense, and need not be shown in the statements 
 herein required to be filed. 
 
8 TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 "The statements herein required to be made and filed before the general election, 
 or the election by the legislature at which such candidate seeks election, need not 
 contain items of which publicity is given in a previous statement, but the statement 
 required to be made and filed after said general election or election by the legisla- 
 ture shall, in addition to an itemized statement of all expenses not theretofore given 
 publicity, contain a summary of all preceding statements. 
 
 " Any person, not then a candidate for Senator of the United States, who shall have 
 given, contributed, expended, used, or promised any money or thing of value to 
 aid or assist in the nomination or election of any particular member of the legislature 
 of the State in which he resides shall, if he thereafter becomes a canaidate for such 
 office, or if he shall thereafter be elected to such office without becoming a candidate 
 therefor, comply with all of the provisions of this section relating to candidates for 
 such office, so far as the same may be applicable; and the statement herein required 
 to be made, verified, and filed after such election shall contain a full, true, and item- 
 ized account of each and every gift, contribution, expenditure, and promise when- 
 ever made, in anywise relating to the nomination or election of members of the legis- 
 lature of said State, or in anywise connected with or pertaining to his nomination and 
 election of which publicity is not given in a previous statement. 
 
 " Every statement herein required shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the 
 candidate, taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths under the laws of 
 the State in which he is a candidate, and shall be sworn to or affirmed by the candidate 
 in the district in which he is a candidate for Representative, or the State in which 
 he is a candidate for Senator in the Congress of the United States: Provided, That if 
 at the time of such primary election, nominating convention, general or special elec- 
 tion, or election by the State legislature said candidate shall be in attendance upon 
 either House of Congress as a Member thereof, he may at his election verify such state- 
 ments before any officer authorized to administer oaths in the District of Columbia: 
 Provided further, That the depositing of any such statement in a regular post office, 
 directed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives or to the Secretary of the Senate, 
 as the case may be, duly stamped and registered within the time required herein shall 
 be deemed a sufficient filing of any such statement under any of the provisions of 
 this act. 
 
 " This act shall not be construed to annul or vitiate the laws of any State, not directly 
 in conflict herewith, relating to the nomination or election of candidates for the offices 
 herein named or to exempt any such candidate from complying with such State 
 laws. ' ' 
 
 This amendment was approved August 19, 1911, and is found in 
 part 1, volume 37, of the United States Statutes at Large, page 25. 
 
 It is manifest that the original act providing for publicity of con- 
 tributions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which 
 Representatives in Congress are elected did not include the candidate 
 himself, but applied only to political committees as defined by that 
 act and to persons receiving contributions or making expenditures 
 as defined by the act. The act of August 19, 1911, amended sections 
 5 and 6 of the original law. The act of June 25, 1910, related only to 
 general and did not include primary elections. A candidate for the 
 nomination in a primary as Representative in Congress must by the 
 provisions of the amendment file with the Clerk of the House of 
 Representatives not less than 10 nor more than 15 days before the 
 holding of such primary election a sworn statement of all moneys and 
 things received by him, or by anyone for him with his knowledge and 
 consent, together with the names of those who furnished the same in 
 whole or in part, and such statement shall also contain an itemized 
 account of all moneys and things contributed, expended, or used by 
 such candidate, his agent or representative with his knowledge and 
 consent, together with the names of all those to whom any such 
 gifts, contributions, payments, or promises were made for the purpose 
 of procuring his nomination. 
 
 Such candidate for nomination at any ]3rimary must also file within 
 15 days after such primary a like statement with the Clerk of the House 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 9 
 
 of Reproseiitatives. A candidate for Representative in Congress for 
 election must, before the election, file with tlie Clerk of the House not 
 less than 10 nor more than 15 days before such election such statement 
 and within 15 days after the election file a like statement. Such 
 statements are required to be verified by the oath or affirmation of 
 the candidate. It is further i)rovided that no candidate for Repre- 
 sentative in Congress shall give, contribute, expend, use, or promise 
 any sum in the aggregate in any campaign for his nomination and 
 election exceeding $5,000. 
 
 Section 10 of the original law provides that any person willfully 
 violating any of its provisions shall upon conviction be fined not more 
 than Si, 1)00 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This is 
 the only ])enalty imposed for the infringement of its provisions. The 
 making of a false oath to any statements required by the act to be 
 filed is not specifically made the crime of perjury. 
 
 Section 5392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides: 
 
 Every person who, having taken oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, 
 in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, 
 that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, 
 declaration, deposition, or certihcate by him subscribed is true, willfully and con- 
 trary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe 
 to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than !j!2,000, 
 and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than five years; and shall, moreover, 
 thereafter be incapable of giving testimony in any court of the United States until 
 such time as the judgment against him is reversed. 
 
 It is apparent that the willful making of a false oath to the state- 
 ments required by the publicity act would, under the general perjury 
 statute, constitute such willful oath the crime of perjury. The willful 
 and knowingly making of false oath required by law and administered 
 by any person directed or permitted by law to administer such oaths 
 constitutes the crime of perjury under the Criminal Code of the State 
 of South Carolina, and anyone committing such a crime upon convic- 
 tion incurs the pains and penalties of that offense. We quote sections 
 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, and 365 of the Criminal Code of the State of 
 South Carolina as pertinent to the controversy under consideration: 
 
 359. Voting more than once at elections. — If any person qualified by the constitution 
 and laws of this State to vote at any election for the Members of Congi-ess of the United 
 States, members of the legislature of this State, sheriff, clerk, judge of probate, or any 
 other county officer, mayor and aldermen of any city, intendant and wardens of any 
 incorporated town, officers of the militia or volunteer organizations of the State, or at 
 any other election (whether general, special, or primary) held within this State, shall 
 vote more than once at such election for the same office, such person so voting more 
 than once shall be fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the judge before whom 
 the case shall be tried. 
 
 360. Bribery at elections. — If at any election hereafter held within the State, whether 
 general, special, or primary, for Members of the Congi'ess of the United States, mem- 
 bers of the legislature of this State, sheriff, clerk, judge of probate, or other county 
 officer, mayor and aldermen of any city, intendant and wardens of any incorporated 
 town, officers of the militia or volunteer organizations of the State, or at any other elec- 
 tion held M'ithin this State, any person shall, by the payment, delivery, or promise of 
 money or other article of value, procure another to vote for or against any particular 
 candidate or measure, the person so promising and the person so voting shall each be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and. upon conviction thereof, shall, for the first offense, be 
 "fined" in any sum not less than $100 nor more than $500, and imprisoned for any period 
 of time not less than 1 month nor more than 6 months; and, for the second offense, 
 shall be fined in any sum not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned for 
 any period of time not less than 3 months nor more than 12 months. 
 
 36i. Offering to procure voters by bribery. — If at any election, as in section 359 of this 
 chapter, any person shall offer or propose to procure another, by the payment, deliv- 
 ery, or promise of money or other article of value, to vote for or against any particular 
 
10 TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST RICHAKD S. WHALE Y. 
 
 candidate or measure, or shall offer or propose, for the consideration of money or other 
 article of value paid, delivered, or promised, to vote for or against any particular candi- 
 date or measure, such person so offering to procure or vote shall be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined and imprisoned, at the dis- 
 cretion of the court. 
 
 362. Misdemeanor to obtain votes by bribe or threat. — At or before every political 
 primary election held by any political party, organization, or association for the pur- 
 pose of choosing candidates for office, or the election of delegates to conventions, in 
 this State, any person who shall, by threats or any other form of intimidation, or by 
 the payment, delivery, or promise of money, or other article of value, procure or 
 offer,_ promise or endeavor to procure, another to vote for or against any particular 
 candidate in such election, or who shall, for such consideration, offer to so vote, shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 363. Candidates to make pledge — Form — Failure nullifies election — Violation a mis- 
 demeanor. — Every candidate offering for election, under the provisions of section 
 362, shall make the following pledge and file the same with the clerk of court of com- 
 mon pleas for the county in which he is a candidate, unless he should be a candidate 
 in more than one county, in which case he shall file same with the secretary of state, 
 
 before he shall enter upon his campaign, to wit: I, the undersigned , 
 
 of the county of and State of South Carolina, candidate for the office of ■ 
 
 hereby pledge that I will not give nor spend money or use intoxicating liquors for 
 the purpose of obtaining or influencing votes, and that I shall, at the conclusion of 
 the campaign and before the primary election, render to the clerk of court (or secre- 
 tary of state, as hereinbefore provided), under oath, an itemized statement of all 
 moneys spent or provided by me during the campaign for campaign purposes up to 
 that time, and further pledge that I will, immediately after the primary election or 
 elections that I am a candidate in, render an itemized statement, under oath, showing 
 all further moneys spent or provided by me in said election: Provided, That a failure 
 to comply with this provision shall render such election null and void, in so far as the 
 candidate who fails to file the statement herein required, but shall noit affect the valid- 
 ity of the election of any candidate complying with this section: And provided further, 
 That such itemized statement and pledge shall be open to public inspection at all 
 times. That any violation of the provisions of sections 362 and 363 shall be a misde- 
 meanor, and any person, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $100 
 nor more than $500, or be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one month nor 
 more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. 
 365. Penalty for serving candidate for money consideration. — Any person who shall 
 perform, or agree to perform, any service in the interest of any candidate for any office 
 provided for in article 8, Chapter XLIX, of the Civil Code, volume 1, of the Code of 
 Laws (whether in connection with the primary election nomination, or in connection 
 with the municipal election, or in connection with the obtaining and filing of the 
 petition required herein), in consideration of any money or other valuable thing or of 
 future support in obtaining office, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or 
 imprisonment not exceeding one year, and any candidate or other person who shall 
 solicit or contract for, or otherwise seek or obtain, such services in the interest of or 
 against the candidacy for mayor or councilman, or for or against any question that 
 may be submitted to an election, or shall pay any money for said services or promise 
 any valuable thing for such services, or to influence any elector in his vote, shall be 
 punished in the same manner, and any person making false answers to any of the 
 provisions of article 8, Chapter XLIX, of the Civil Code, volume 1, of the Code of Laws, 
 relative to his qualifications to vote at any election herein provided for, any person 
 willfully voting or offering to vote at any such election when not qualified as herein 
 provided, and any person knowingly procuring, aiding, or abetting any violation of 
 any of the provisions herein, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, 
 shall be fined not exceeding $500_ or imprisoned not exceeding one year, and all the 
 otherp rovisions of lawnow applying to bribery or corruption or other improper prac- 
 tices in connection with elections shall likewise apply to the elections herein re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 A perusal of these sections discloses that repeating, bribery, offering 
 to procure voters by bribery, threats, and duress are all made crimes 
 alike applicable to primary elections and general elections. A candi- 
 date for Congress must file with the secretary of state a pledge that 
 he will not give nor spend money nor use intoxicating liquors for the 
 purpose of obtaining or influencing votes. His neglect to file such a 
 statement is a misdemeanor. His violation of such a pledge nullifies 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. It 
 
 his election. It is made a penal offense to give a bribe for the pur- 
 pose of influencing a voter, but not to receive one, and under section 
 368 one-third of the pecuniary penalty shall go to the informer and 
 the remainder to the State. 
 
 We have cited these statutef-^, both State and Federal, for the pur- 
 pose of showing that the memorialist, if the voters at the two primary 
 elections held in the first distiict of the State of South Carolina were 
 by Mr. Wlialey and his friends debauched and the enormous sum of 
 money alleged to have b(>en spent was spent for that purpose, could, 
 and as the majority of the committee believe should, have resorted 
 to the criminal courts either of the State or Federal Government. 
 
 As we have heretofore pomted out, the proceeding is not one of 
 contest, but of expulsion. The committee finds that in a proceeding 
 of this nature it is without authority to subpoeiia witnesses or to 
 compel the production of papers or records, and it was therefore 
 obliged to require the petitioner to present his case by affidavits and 
 such witnesses as he might produce before the committee. 
 
 On October 1, 1913, Mr. Grace produced four witnesses, who 
 appeared voluntarily before the committee, and whose testimony 
 was taken. These witnesses were H. F. Hogan, M. J. Barry, Stephen 
 D. Sargent, and H. Leon Larisey, all from the city of Charleston, 
 S. C. Their testimony was clearly hearsay. 
 
 The witness Hogan was a Hughes supporter. He boastingly an- 
 nounced to the committee that he was an "experienced politician," 
 and that "people found me out to be honest, square, and truthful, 
 and got me to handle their campaign." He is usually known as 
 "Rumpty-Rattles" Hogan; was formerly a "blind tiger" keeper in 
 the city of South Charleston, and kept such a notorious dive that the 
 governor of the State was compelled, over the protest of John P. 
 Grace, who was mayor of the city of Charleston, to eradicate his 
 place of business. After being driven out of the "blind tiger "busi- 
 ness, he was placed by Mayor Grace upon the city pay roll. He 
 boastmgly admitted that E. N. Hughes, m the first primary, placed 
 in his hands $1,200 for the purpose of debauching the electorate, 
 and $1,600 in the second primary, and said he spent this enormous 
 sum by giving it to the fellows to pay them off. In an alleged con- 
 versation which he says he had with Mr. Whaley durhig the progress 
 of the campaign, he testified, "I am not out for money; I am out for 
 principle." His testimony wholly failed to implicate Mr. Whaley 
 or his friends in the improper use of money in either of the primary 
 elections or to connect him with any improper conduct during the 
 respective campaigns. He was permitted to implicate various parties 
 by hearsay only, but was completely refuted by the parties thus 
 implicated in counter affidavits filed by Mr. Whaley. Nine wit- 
 nesses completely destroyed his accusations. His appearance, his 
 conduct upon the witness stand, and his testimony was such that 
 the majority of the committee believe him to be absolutely unworthy 
 of belief, and that no credence whatever could be placed either in 
 his affidavits or his oral testimony. 
 
 Mr. Grace also produced as a witness one M. J. Barry, designated 
 by some of the witnesses as "Peg-legged" Barry. He is another 
 celebrated citizen of the city of Charleston, formerly the keeper of 
 a "blind tiger," up to the time that Mr. Grace was elected mayor of 
 
12 TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST EICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 the city of Charleston. After Mr. Grace's election he was pro- 
 moted from the "blind-tiger" business to a position as foreman on 
 the streets. He had been frequently arrested, "frequently got out 
 and spread the joy," to use his own expression. He was an adherent 
 of Von Kolnitz and implicated by hearsay various parties. As a 
 sample of his testimony, he testified that he saw J. J. O'Shaughnessy 
 the evening before the polls with a large roll under his arm wrapped 
 up in a newspaper containing $5,000 in money. That he saw him 
 going from poll to poll the next morning and during the election day. 
 He was quite positive in his opinion that the roll contained money. 
 O'Shaughnessy is one of the magistrates of the city of Charleston 
 and has been elected to that office for several terms. He was an 
 adherent of Mr. Whaley. The roll which he carried under his arm 
 proved to be the club roll from one of the wards of the city of Charles- 
 ton, which is a list of the registered voters and perfectly harmless. 
 In this connection Mr. Grace, by the affidavits of various witnesses, 
 attempted to show that this roll contained money and was being used 
 by Judge O'Shaughnessy in the interest of Mr. Whaley. Barry's 
 testimony was wholly hearsay. He was refuted by several wit- 
 nesses. His appearance and demeanor on the witness stand and the 
 unreasonableness of his testimony were such that no credence what- 
 ever can be placed in what he says. 
 
 Stephen Sargent was a boiler inspector upon the Atlantic Coast 
 Line. He was an adherent of Mr. Hughes, and openly confessed that 
 he spent $1,000 in the second primary in the interest of Mr. Hughes 
 in the ninth ward in the city of Charleston and $800 in the first 
 primary. He testified that he purchased the votes without any com- 
 pensation to himself whatever. He openly admitted that Mr. 
 Hughes, through himself and others, spent between four and five thou- 
 sand dollars in ward 9 in the city of Charleston, and estimated that 
 all the candidates brought the grand total up to $13,000 in that ward. 
 Since appearing upon the witness stand it is shown that Sargent has 
 been discharged from the Atlantic Coast Line for misuse of the prop- 
 erty of the company. He testified that he had spent as high as $60 
 in the purchase of a vote. His appearance and his demeanor upon 
 the witness stand while some better than Hogan and Barry, yet his 
 statements were so preposterous that the majority of the committee 
 place no stress upon his testimony whatever. 
 
 H. Leon Larisey contemplated being a candidate for Representative 
 to Congress at the first primary. He was Mr. Grace's right-hand man, 
 especially in the present investigation. His part in the program was 
 that of a private detective. Mr. Grace acknowledges that he paid 
 him between six and seven hundred dollars for traveling over the five 
 counties in the first district of the State of South Carolina to procure 
 affidavits to be filed with the committee. In addition to this, he 
 accused more than 50 persons in the district of handling Whaley 
 money for the purpose of bribery. His testimony was wholly hear- 
 say and contained nothing tangible whatever. 
 
 Every person charged through hearsay testimony_ by this witness 
 filed a counter affidavit disputing the accuracy of I^arisey's statements 
 and, in addition to this, many testified that his character and repu- 
 tation was such that they would not believe him under oath. One 
 witness stated that he "does not know H. Leon Larisey, except by 
 reputation, but on account of nature of said reputation and assertions 
 
TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST EICHAKD S. WHALEY. 13 
 
 made in his sworn statement, he is forced to state that he could not 
 believe Larisey under any circumstances, on any subject, on any 
 occasion, connected with life or death, the present, or the hereafter." 
 Witnesses with whom Larisey alleged he had conversation denied 
 that they even knew him, and branded his statements as absolutely 
 false and untrue. One witness, a practicing physician and mayor 
 of the town of Walterboro, in Collendon County, testifies that he has 
 known Larisey for a long time and that Larisey has always borne a 
 reputation of being a crook and swindler and willing to do most any- 
 thing for the dollar and that he would not believe him under oath. 
 Larisey's inipeachment was perfect, his testimony absolutely incred- 
 ible, and his statements and claims so preposterous as to render them 
 wholly without value. 
 
 Mr. Grace also presented to the committee the affidavits of 35 
 persons, the character and standing each of which were shown by 
 the evidence to be similar to that of the four witnesses who appeared 
 before the committee and orally testified. As a sample of these wit 
 nesses and the character of their testimony we cite the following: 
 
 Philip Fash. His testimony was wholly hearsay and related to 
 conversation he had with Judge J. J. O'Shauglinessy; he is a keeper 
 of a fruit shop and "blmd tiger," and the evidence shows completely 
 under the dommation of John P. Grace. Testimony was refuted by 
 the affidavits of various parties. 
 
 Michael Bazarr. His testimony wholly hearsay; he is a foreigner; 
 subsequently made a second affidavit that he could not read nor 
 write the English language and denied making the statements con- 
 tained in his first affidavit. 
 
 Robert Smart. Made an affidavit m the mterest of Mr. Grace's 
 contention; subsequently made a second affidavit to the eft'ect that 
 he had not signed any paper whatever in connection with the con- 
 troversy; that the statements as contamed m the alleged first affidavit 
 were not true. 
 
 William Singleterry. Made an affidavit in which he alleged that 
 he saw men vote at the polls and then return to J. J. O'Shaughnessy 
 and receive money. In this connection the witness is absolutely 
 repudiated by the counter affidavits of O'Shaughnessy and three 
 other parties. It is shown that the witness is a boy and designated 
 as "addlepated." 
 
 Frank Fosberry's affidavit was filed by Mr. Grace, making very 
 startlmg accusations against several of the citizens of the city of 
 Charleston. From what we can gather from the testimony, he is 
 a sort of general roustabout, with no fixed business, thoroughly ad- 
 dicted to strong drmk, and frequently imbued with the same. He 
 was thoroughly impeached by six witnesses, who filed counter affi- 
 davits. Fosberry himself filed a counter affidavit impeaching the 
 allegations of his first affidavit and claimed that he did not sign his 
 name to the first affidavit, but if he signed it that he was in such an 
 mtoxicated condition that he did not understand the import of the 
 paper that he signed and charged that C. J. Bresnihan, who was the 
 appomtee of John P. Grace as superintendent of garbage in the city 
 of Charleston and who had been employed by Grace for the purpose 
 of procuring affidavits, found him at the corner of State and Market 
 Streets, in the city of Charleston, in a drunken condition, took hini 
 to the Atlantic Cafe and gave him two drinks, and then took him to 
 
14 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EIGHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 the office of Mr. Grace, where he may have signed the affidavit. He 
 says that the affidavit was not read over to him and that the state- 
 ments therein contained were not true. 
 
 Mr. Grace also filed the affidavit of James H. Noland in which he 
 alleged that he had expended $120 which he had received from 
 Mr. "WTialey's representative. He filed a subsequent affidavit showing 
 that this amount of money was used for legitimate purposes in de- 
 fraying legitimate expenses of the campaign and that the money had 
 been received from friends of Mr. Whaley without his knowledge or 
 consent. 
 
 The affidavit of C. Crovatt was filed by Mr. Grace to the effect that 
 he had been paid $10 by one Patrick Hanley to keep the boys in line 
 and vote for Mr. Whaley. Crovatt subsequently made an affidavit 
 to the effect that he had been a Wlialey adherent; that after he had 
 voted for Mr. Whaley on the day of the second primary Hanley 
 employed him as a rallier around the polls, for which he received the 
 sum of $10. He completely repudiated the statement made in his 
 first affidavit to the effect that he was paid $10 to vote for Mr. Whaley. 
 In his last affidavit he is fully corroborated by Hanley. 
 
 It will thus be seen that out of the 35 affidavits 5 of the number 
 repudiated the correctness of their first statements. Without such 
 contradiction upon their part a careful examination of their testi- 
 mony contained in their affidavits will. disclose that what they pur- 
 ported to know in reference to the conduct of the two primaries comes 
 exclusively within the rule governing hearsay testimony. 
 
 The affidavits of the other witnesses offered by Mr. Grace, namely, 
 Victor Perry, J. J. Hilton, F. Brandes, John Aulberry, A. H. Brouth- 
 ers, C. Conklin, Lester Schwartzberg, Frank Beylot, T. E. Gleason, 
 E. E. Harbeson, E. L. Clubb, M. H. Fulcher, A. W. Reynolds, Samuel 
 D. Barshay, A. Seebeck, Carl StanfiU, H. C. Heines, A. F. Dunlap, 
 G. Garado, Darbie L. Sanders, D. J. O'Brian, George E. Plough, 
 John J. Murphy, J. W. Moore, J. Burns, and Benjamin Ruddock, were 
 of like import and could not be received by the rules of law in any 
 court of justice or by any investigating committee with a view to 
 determining the truth. Each of the witnesses was flatly contradicted 
 by counter affidavits from 1 to 10 in number. A great majority are 
 shown to be under the direct domination and control of John P. 
 Grace; many of them are upon the pay roll of the city of Charleston, 
 through its mayor; quite a per cent are the keepers of low-down dives, 
 where the truth seldom penetrates. In no instance in all of the testi- 
 mony adduced by Mr. Grace is it shown, except by evidence that 
 would not be admissible in any sort of an investigation, ex parte or 
 otherwise, that Mr. Whaley used money illegitimately in either of 
 the two primaries or that any of his friends used any money illegiti- 
 mately in either of the two primaries with Mr. Whaley's knowledge 
 and consent. It is shown that small sums of money were used by 
 Mr. Whaley and his friends for the purpose of defraying the legitimate 
 expenses of such election. 
 
 One George E. Plough makes an affidavit in behalf of Grace to the 
 effect that he was stationed as a policeman before the polls of ward 3, 
 m the crty of Charleston; that he saw Mr. Whaley drive up to the 
 curb on Broad Street where the polls are located; that one Max 
 Goldman and Wlialey conversed together; that Whaley during the 
 conversation gave to Goldman a large roll of greenbacks. No evi- 
 
 \ 
 
TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST KICHAED S. WHALEY. 15 
 
 dence was adduced to show that anyone else other than Plough and 
 Policeman Moore witnessed any such transaction. And this trans- 
 action is absolutely refuted by Mr. Whaley and Goldman. Plough is 
 a policeman and under the absolute domination of John P. Grace. 
 The transaction as related by Plough is hardly probable. The per- 
 formance of such transaction is ridiculous. Necessarily there were 
 many persons about the polls and if such a flagrant affair occurred 
 between Whaley and Goldman, there should have been plenty of 
 witnesses to it ; but it is hardly probable that even if Mr. Whaley was 
 engaged in such nefarious conduct that it would occur in such an open- 
 handed manner as testified to by these policemen. 
 
 The same state of affairs was sworn to in the affidavit of J. W. Moore, 
 another policeman under the dominance of John P. Grace. It is 
 significant that both of these witnesses testified that they were 
 stationed as policemen at the polls in ward 3 in Broad Street near 
 Church, where the polls are located. They do not state for what 
 purpose they were stationed there. It is reasonable to presume they 
 were there for the purpose of seeing that no infraction of the laws was 
 committed. While they say they saw various persons spending money 
 freely around said polls, buying drinks, and saw money pass from one 
 person to another, it is passingly strange that these two vigilant 
 policemen made no arrests. 
 
 The witness, H. Leon Larisey, as we have heretofore pomted out, 
 acted as sort of a private detective to Mr. Grace and traveled over 
 the various counties comprising the first congressional district of the 
 State of South Carolina and accused, through hearsay statements, 
 some of the very best citizens in each of the counties of using Whaley 
 money to corrupt the electorate in the two primaries, among them 
 many prominent persons, such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, 
 merchants, managers of large industrial concerns, mayors of towns 
 and cities, and members of the Legislature of the State of South 
 Carolina. 
 
 Among those making affidavits in behalf of Mr. Whaley and dis- 
 puting hearsay assertions of the witness, H. Leon Larisey and 
 others, are: 
 
 Bernard P. Carey, a resident of the city of Charleston, and a 
 master plumber. 
 
 Thomas Young, a machinist at the Charleston Navy Yard. 
 
 Lewis R. Morillo, a machinist employed at Valk & Murdoch's, 
 city of Charleston. 
 
 William H. Grimball, graduate of Lehigh University and is prac- 
 ticing lawyer in city of Charleston. 
 
 Harry Friend, boiler maker at the Charleston Navy Yard. 
 
 H. C. MilHgan, employee of the Charleston Terminal Co. 
 
 M. J. Blanche, employee of the Charleston Terminal Co. 
 
 John A. Barrineau, lineman for the Consofidated Charleston Rail- 
 way & Lighting Co. 
 
 Ignatius O. Donaghue, machinist at Valk & Murdoch's Iron Foun- 
 dry Works, city of Charleston. 
 
 Frank Cox, boiler maker at the Charleston Navy Yard. 
 
 Judge J. J. O'Shaughnessy, 11 years ministerial magistrate for the 
 city of Charleston, wliich office is 2 years. 
 
 John Steenken, superintendent of the Bethany Cemetery. 
 
16 TO DISMISS CHARGES PILED AGAINST RIGHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 P. Hanley, special agent of the Southern Railway Co., of Charles- 
 ton. 
 
 J. Russell WilUams, deputy "clerk, court of common pleas tor 
 Berkeley County. 
 
 W. H. Lorenz, postmaster at St. Stephens, Berkeley County. 
 
 C. M. Whaley, physician, Berkeley County. 
 
 C. M. Wiggins, auditor of Berkeley County. 
 R. G. Causey, sheriff of Berkeley County. 
 
 J. M. Witsell, manager of the Farmers' Mercantile & Warehouse 
 Co., Walterboro, Colleton County. 
 
 James E. Peurifoy, practicing attorney, Walterboro, Colleton 
 County. 
 
 A. A. Patterson, chief of police, Walterboro, Colleton County. 
 
 D. B. Peurifoy, practicing attorney, Colleton Connty. 
 
 W. B. Ackerman, practicing physician and mayor of Walterboro. 
 William. J. H. Brandt, grocerman, city of Charleston. 
 O. C. Scarborough, member of State legislature from Clarendon 
 County. 
 
 A. C. Bradham, mayor of Manning, Clarendon County. 
 
 Dr. George W. Dick, practicing physician, Sumter County. 
 
 A. S. Appelby, magistrate at Reevesville, Dorchester County. 
 
 T. R. Waring, chief of police, Dorchester County. 
 
 M. J. Eagen, travehng salesman, Summerville, Dorchester County. 
 
 E. H. Hutchinson, superintendent of the Chisobns Island Phosphate 
 Works, Summerville, Dorchester County. 
 
 Henry J. Groveman, merchant, Summerville, Dorchester County. 
 
 W. B. Cox, merchant, city of Charleston. 
 
 G. B. Harley, practicing physician, Dorchester County. 
 
 W. J. Bennett, county jailer, county of Charleston. 
 
 Walter B. Logan, traveling salesman, Charleston. 
 
 There was also filed by Mr. Whaley, in addition to the foregoing 37 
 affidavits, the counter affidavits of 58 other persons. 
 
 John P. Grace, the memorialist, also made a statement to the com- 
 mittee of his clarnis as to the conduct of the two primaries in which 
 Mr. Whaley was a candidate for the nomination as Representative in 
 Congress. Mr. Grace is now mayor of the city of Charleston, and has 
 been mayor of said city for about two years. By his own admission 
 he was the principal manager of the campaign of Mr. E. W. Hughes 
 in both primaries. According to his statement, in the belief of Mr. 
 Grace, Hughes expended in the two primaries the sum of $44,500, a 
 large part of which was used m the city of Charleston, and must have 
 been, if true, within the direct knowledge of John P. Grace. In fact, 
 Mr. Grace openly stated to the committee that on the day of the 
 second primary he in one of the wards in the city of Charleston 
 learned that one Simmons, an alderman of that city, was dispensing 
 money for the purpose of debauching the electorate ki a small room 
 near one of the polls; that he went into this room unmolested and 
 saw said Simmons sitting at a table; that he had at least $2,000 in 
 money spread before him on the table; that men were waiting upon 
 the outside to be paid for their voting; he clauned that Simmons was 
 working in the interests of Mr. Whaley; that he reproached Simrnons 
 not for the fact that he was unlawfully engaged in open nefarious 
 bribery but for the fact that he was working for Whaley and not for 
 Hughes, the Grace candidate; that he made no effort to arrest 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALE V. 17 
 
 Simmons for his unlawful conduct. Grace stated that the purchase 
 of votes by the managers of the different candidates, his own as well 
 as otheis, was carried to such an extent as to be open and notorious 
 and came within the observation of everybody; that he was so con- 
 stituted that he instinctively knew when and where it was going on; 
 that he could smell it. His statement in i-eference to Simmons was 
 absolutely refuted by the testimony of Sinunons and others who 
 observed the conduct of Simmons at that election. 
 
 Grace was the chief executive officer of the city of Charleston and 
 had under his control at both of the primary elections not only the 
 large police force in the city of Charleston but every other officer of 
 the city. He had the power to appoint, in detail, special policemen 
 for duty during the day of election. The evid(MiC(^ wholly fails to dis- 
 close that any arrests wen^ made for bribing voters, and Mr. Grace 
 franldy admitted that he was not in a ])osition to enforce the law on 
 account of his own culpability, Ixing the manag(n- of W. E. Hughes, 
 whose cohorts were engaged in the same nefarious business. The 
 attitude which he assumed was that his most arckMit deshe was to 
 purify the election in his own city and congressional district, but 
 claimed that he was powerless, that the local criminal courts were 
 inadequate to furnish any relief, and that the only remedy available 
 to him was the m(>thod h(^ had adopted in this case. He admitted, 
 that he expended in his election as mayor of the citv of Charleston 
 the sum of about $15,000; that the salary of his office was only $3,500, 
 the term of which was four years; that he had expendcfl in procuring 
 his election in advance of receiving any of the emoluments of the office 
 $1,000 more than he would receive during his four years' administra- 
 tion of the office. 
 
 The city of Charleston has a population of about 60,000 inhabit- 
 ants. The only place where liquor is allowed to be sold under the 
 laws of the State of South Carolina is the county dispensar}", from 
 which liquor may be sold in quantities of one-halt pint and upward. 
 These dispensaries are conducted by the county officials. Notwith- 
 standing this fact, yir. Grace admitted to the committee that there 
 were existing in the city of South Charleston at least 250 liquor 
 establishments, commonh'^ known as "blind tigers"; that in most 
 instances he, as the chief executive officer of the city of ( harleston, 
 fhied the keepers of these "blind tigers" every three months the sum 
 of $50. That these ffiies were covered into the city treasury. The 
 evidence discloses that there is in the neighborhood of 500 places 
 that liave taken out the Government license for the sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors. ]\Ir. Grace filed w^ith the committee a statement of 
 the ffiies collected from liquor cases covering a period of his incum- 
 bency in office, showing tliat the illegal collection of money from 
 those unlawfullv engaged in "bootlegging" increased from the sum 
 of $26,400 in 1911, to $32,700 in 1913. He depicted the civic and 
 political condition in the city of Charleston and throughout the 
 ffi-st congressional district to be in such deplorable state that in his 
 opinion ^^^ou could not corrupt the negroes of the district, who he 
 he said were not permitted to exercise the right of franchise, any 
 worse than the white people were corrupted in tlie last election. 
 
 His attitude before the committee was that of vindictiveness, not 
 only to the committee itself, but toward the mdividual members of 
 H. Kept. 158, 63-2 2 
 
18 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 the committee. A careful consideration of Mr. Grace's conduct and 
 his admitted turpitude in the campaigns in which he has been engaged, 
 the campaign of his own election for the office of mayor in the city 
 of Charleston, and his admitted conduct in the two primaries pre- 
 ceding the election of Mr, Whaley to fill the vacancy caused by the 
 death of the lamented Legare, his demeanor before the committee, 
 convmces a majority of the committee that in this proceeding he is 
 actuated solely by his animus toward Mr. Whaley. His feelings as 
 exhibited by his conduct and words against Mr. Whaley are malicious 
 and most vii-ulent. He says that '^'I hate Mr. Whaley like a snake; 
 that I hate him because he is like a snake, and who does not hate a 
 snake?" That ''All of the hterature of the campaign referred to 
 him specifically as a wiggler and as a man who knew how to make 
 black white; and this is the characteristic, the snake characteristic, 
 that he is now exhibiting before your committee." 
 
 It will be observed from the sections of the Criminal Code of South 
 Carolina heretofore quoted that the buying of votes, the illegal use 
 of money in a primary election, that selling or giving away intoxi- 
 cating liquors to influence voters, and various other corrupting influ- 
 ences are made misdemeanors, and under the Code of South Carolina 
 Mr. Grace as mayor, mayors of the various towns and villages, and 
 the_ rnagistrates throughout the first congressional district have 
 Jurisdiction over such misdemeanor. If Mr. Grace is actuated by 
 motives to purify the civic and political situation in his own town 
 and throughout the first congressional district, he should have 
 resorted to the force permitted by the laws of his State to punish 
 those guUty of their infraction. When asked if Mr. Hughes had been 
 elected would he have instituted a similar proceeding to the present 
 controversy against Mr. Hughes, he stated that he would not have 
 idone so on account of his own culpability. The evidence produced, 
 as we have heretofore pointed out, consisted of mere heaisay and 
 to a great extent resembles the scintillations usually emitted by 
 those disappointed in the results of a political campaign. The com- 
 mittee gave Mr. Grace ample time to present to it tangible evidence 
 to substantiate, either in whole or in part, charges made against Mr. 
 Whaley. He was given an opportunity to present his case by the 
 way of affidavits or by producing before the committee such wit- 
 nesses as he might be able to procure the attendance of. Ample 
 time was furnished him for such purpose. He was accorded the 
 privilege of producing such evidence from the time the charges were 
 referred to the committee until the 1st day of December, 1913. 
 
 Mr. Whaley was permitted to file counter affidavits for which Mr. 
 Grace was permitted to introduce such oral testimony and file such 
 affidavits in rebuttal as he might desire, which he did and the case 
 was finally submitted upon the 16th day of December, 1913, at which 
 time the committee, in numbers seven to two, agreed that the charges, 
 for want of any substantial evidence in support thereof, should be 
 disregarded. The majority of the committee respectfully submit 
 that no testimony whatever was produced in support of the charges 
 that was relevant or that would be accepted in any court at law or 
 would be admissible before the Elections Committees of the House. 
 A careful survey of the testimony will disclose that nothing can be 
 found in any way compromising the accused. It must not be for- 
 gotten that the evidence taken in this case was mostly ex parte and 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY, 19 
 
 without the right of cross-examination. Notwithstanding this fact, 
 the committee has searched in vain for any relevant testimony 
 imphcating Mr. "Wlialey of any of tlie acts alleged in the complaint. 
 It IS well settled that the ordinary rules of evidence applies as well 
 to election contests as to other cases; that the evidence must be con- 
 fined to the point in issue and must be relevant. (McCreary on 
 Elections, 4th ed., sec. 459.) 
 
 Notwithstanding the fact that the whole of the testimony sub- 
 mitted by Mr. Grace in support of his charges were mere rumors, Mr. 
 Whaley, the majority of the committee believe, most successfully 
 refuted such rumors. An examination of the testimony produced 
 shows that there is very little in any of the testimony which should 
 be received in any court of justice in this or any other civilized 
 country. In so far as it relates to the question of bribery or illegal 
 voting, it does not rise even to the dignity of hearsay. It is seldom, 
 if ever, proper to regard hearsay statements as competent evidence. 
 
 Judge Bartley, in discussing this kind of testimony, says (3 Ohio 
 Stats., p. 412): 
 
 No class of testimony perhaps is more imrelialile and a more frequent cause of 
 error in courts of justice than the narration of conversations, real or pretended. The 
 meaning and intention of a person in a conversation often depend much upon gesture , 
 attitude, mode of expression, or peculiar attending circumstances known, perhaps, 
 to but few present. A conversation may not be fully heard by the witness, imper- 
 fectly recollected, or inaccurately repeated, when the omission or addition of a single 
 word, or the substitution of the language of the witness, under color of bias or excite- 
 ment, for the words actually used might change the sense of an entire conversation. 
 This is apparent from the irreconcilable contradictions daily manifested in the nar- 
 ration of the same conversations from mouths of different witnesses. The liability 
 to error in this kind of testimony would be greatly increased by allowing witnesses 
 to add their own conclusions or understanclings from the conversation related or 
 their inferences as to the understanding of the parties to the conversation. Such 
 latitude would break down an important barrier which protects judicial investigation 
 from error and falsehood. The understanding or inferences of witnesses are very 
 frequently formed from bias, inclination, or interest. And a witness's understanding 
 or inference from a conversation or transaction rests entirely in his own mind, and 
 his consciousness of falsehood would be incapable of proof, so that there could be no 
 possibility of contacting a witness of perjury on the ground of such evidence. 
 
 The principles laid down by Judge Bartley are but the repetition 
 of the rules governing such testimony sanctioned by every respectable 
 text writer. 
 
 If the primary elections consisted of such flagrant use of money 
 and other abuses as Mr. Grace would have us believe, he had ample 
 opportunity to present some facts, incidents, or circumstances by 
 testimony about which there could be no question. No evidence 
 whatever was furnished by Mr. Grace connecting Mr. Wlialey or 
 those interested in his success with the state of affairs claimed to have 
 taken place that would be admissible under any of the ordinary rules 
 of evidence governing courts of justice or by any of the rules govern- 
 ing the admissibility of evidence in contested election cases of the 
 House. 
 
 The question presented to the committee is not a question as to 
 the election, returns, or qualifications of the sitting Member. If it 
 related to the election of the sitting Member, then the House would 
 deal alone with the question of the number of legal votes he received. 
 If it related to the returns of the sitting Member, then the House would 
 deal with the form of returns on which he was admitted to a seat in 
 
20 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EICHARD S. WHALEY. 
 
 the House. If it related to his quahfications, neither the question of 
 election nor of returns is nivolved. The question, however, relates 
 to the eligibility of the sitting Member. Ineligible not for a want of 
 any of the cons*titutional qualifications, but because it is alleged that 
 the sitting Member was guilty of the crime of bribery in the conduct 
 of his election and the crime of perjury in the verification of his 
 expense statement required to be filed with the Clerk of the House, 
 and which crimes, it is contended, are inconsistent with the trust 
 and dutv of the Member. 
 
 The Federal Constitution provides that each House may deter- 
 mine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disloyalty 
 and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. The 
 power of expulsion is a necessary and incidental inlierent in all 
 legislative bodies. It is a power of protection. It necessarily 
 abides in the House in order that it may perform its high functions 
 and is necessary to the safety of the State. A Member may be 
 wholely unfit through some physical disorder or mental derange- 
 ment to perform the duties of his office. His conduct may be so 
 disorderly as to obstruct the business of the House. He may commit 
 a crime or may be disloj^al or do man}^ things which would render 
 him ineligible as a Member. The precedents are numerous that in 
 cases like these the power to expel a Member is invaluable. This 
 power may be exercised for misconduct on ths part of a Member 
 committed in any place and either before or after conviction in a 
 court at law. From a careful survey of the precedents of the House 
 and Senate, its extent seems to be unlimited. It seems to be a 
 matter purely of discretion to be exercised by a two-thirds vote. Of 
 course, this unlimited power must be fairly, intelligently, and con- 
 scientiously made with due regard to the propriety, honor, and 
 integrity of the House and the rights of the individual Member 
 affected. For an abuse of this discretion there is no appeal. The 
 honest election of each Member of this House is a matter of the 
 highest importance both to the House and to the people at large. 
 
 When a question is raised as to the election of one of its Members, 
 the House should stand ready to make a thorough investigation and 
 promptly expel a Member whose seat was obtained by fraudulent 
 or dishonest methods. None should be permitted to prevent or 
 impede a thorough mvestigation. Yet something tangible should 
 be presented upon which to base an investigation. To permit an 
 investigation mthout first requirmg some proof or A\dthout the 
 establishment of the ordinary rules of evidence of facts or circum- 
 stances as a basis for such investigation, would render every Member 
 insecure in his rights. To permit an investigation to be instituted 
 upon the pretended claims of a smgle individual actuated solely by 
 a'malicious motive, bent upon destroying the character and the polit- 
 ical life of an adversary, without first requiring some evidence of 
 culpability would be to establish a most dangerous precedent. From 
 an ex parte investigation conducted by the committee, the majority 
 of the committee are of the firm conviction that Mr. Whaley's elec- 
 tion was consummated by votes of the very best element in his dis- 
 trict; that his election was effected by that class of people usually 
 free from the corrupting influences alleged to exist in the city of 
 Charleston and other points throughout the district. 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES PILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 21 
 
 Mr. Graco has been guilty of laches in that he did not institute a 
 proceeding to contest the seat of Mr. Whak^y. The House may 
 adjudicate the question of the right to a seat in either of the four 
 following cases: 
 
 (1) In the case of a contest between the contestee and the return 
 Member of the House instituted in accordance with the provisions 
 of law. 
 
 (2) In the case of a protest or memorial filed by an elector of the 
 district concerned. 
 
 (3) In the case of the protest or memorial filed by any other person. 
 
 (4) On motion of a Member of the House. 
 
 Mr. Grace could, and we think should, have filed a protest in the 
 nature of a contest and within the time prescribed by the statute. 
 By his own admission he knew about the things of which he now com- 
 plains within the time for filing a contest, because he was a part and 
 parcel as the managei' of IVlr. V]. W. Hughes in both of the primary 
 elections, the conduct of which he complains. 
 
 The election of Mr. Whaley occurred on the 29th day of April. 
 The Congress was then in session. Notwithstanchng these facts he 
 withheld his protest until the latter part of September, a period of 
 five months. Had he filed his contest within the time prescribed by 
 the statute, a method of taking testimony would have been provided 
 for and the sitting Member would have been given an opportunity to 
 have known the nature and cause of the accusations, the right to answer 
 thereto, and to examine and cross-examine the witnesses. 
 
 Under the laws of South Carolina the voters in the wards of cities 
 are registered in clubs and the clubs usually number 1, 2, 3, etc. 
 Great stress was laid by the protestant upon alleged wholesale cor- 
 ruption and bribery of voters in ward 3, clubs 1 and 2, and ward 9, 
 clubs 1 and 2, in the city of Charleston. Those having charge of 
 the registration of the voters are compelled to publish the registered 
 list of the voters in each ward and distribute them to the public. It 
 appears from the evid(Mice that in some of the clubs in the city of 
 Charleston, particularly those clubs located in the foreign settle- 
 ments and what was designated as the lower classes, are subject to a 
 great deal of unlawful registration. This state of facts was said to 
 exist in the clubs before mentioned and presented the opportunity 
 for bribery. The preposterous proposition was advanced that the 
 enormous sum of $13,000 was expended in the two primaries in clubs 
 1 and 2 of ward 9 by the several candidates. In the first primary 
 there were 222 votes cast in club 1, ward 9, and 220 in club 2, or a 
 total of 442 votes. In the second primary there was cast in club 1, 
 258 votes and in chib 2, 292 votes, or a total of 550. 
 
 The experienced politician, H. F. Hogan (Rumpty-Rattles), testi- 
 fied that he had 100 workers on his committee; that Mr. WTiale}^ had 
 a rallying committee in that ward of al)0ut 100; that the duties of 
 these members of this so-called rallymg committee was to go over the 
 registered lists m the club and purge it of unlawful registration, and 
 on election day to see that the friends of the respective candidates 
 were gotten to the polls and voted. He also testified that there were 
 a great number of respectable voters in that ward who were noc pur- 
 ■chasable. I'aking the second primary and you deduct the rallying 
 committees from the total vote of the ward, it would only leave 250 
 voters who were not members of the rallving committees. The 
 
22 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EIGHAKD S. WHALEY. 
 
 members of the rallying committees were paid, according to his testi- 
 mony, for the work they performed before and on the day of election. 
 According to an estimate of this witness, at least one-half of the voters 
 of this ward were nonpurchas able; so that there would only remain, 
 after the payment of the rallying committees, 25 voters who were 
 purchaseable. Ihis witness also testified that the members of the 
 rallying committee were paid from $10 to $25, the price varymg with 
 the quality of the member. Allowing a liberal compensation to each 
 member of the rallymg committee, say, $20 to each member, there 
 would have been paid to each committee the sum of $2,000, and the 
 sum of $4,000 would cover the cost of both committees. This would 
 leave in the treasury $9,000, which, according to this witness, mathe- 
 matically demonstrated, was expended in the purchase of 25 voters. 
 The proposition is most preposterous. 
 
 We call attention to the fact that Mr. Whaley received only 37 
 votes in club 1 and 30 votes in club 2, ward 9, while Hughes received 
 106 in club 1 and 143 votes in club 2. If Mr. Whaley had a rallying 
 committee in this ward of a hundred members, then the Hughes men 
 must have purchased considerable of his committee, because his total 
 vote in the first primary amounted to only 67. It is conceded by Mr. 
 Grace that the vote of Von Kolnitz and Peurifoy received in the first 
 primary was cast for Mr. Whaley in the second primary because he, 
 Grace, was an issue in the campaign. Mr. Peurifoy received 10 votes 
 in the ninth ward and Mr. Von Kolnitz 79 votes in the fhst primary. 
 If the votes of Peurifoy and Von Kolnitz be added to the votes re- 
 ceived by Mr. Whaley in the first primary, they aggregate about the 
 vote that he received in the second primary. The Whaley vote in 
 the second primary was 98 in club 1 and 84 in club 2. These figures 
 when carefully scrutinized prove conclusively the falsity of the propo- 
 sition that $13,000 was spent in this ward in the two primaries to de- 
 bauch and corrupt the voters. We cite another illustration to show 
 the folly of the pretensions of Mr. Grace. He asserted that, upon 
 information and belief, $5,000 was placed in the hands of one indi- 
 vidial in Mount Pleasant precinct, Charleston County, for the pur- 
 pose of purchasing the vote in that precinct in the second prima'ry. 
 In the first primary there was cast in that precinct 118 votes, of 
 which Hughes received 6, Peurifoy 21, Von Kolnitz 78, and Whaley 
 13. In the second primary Hughes received 26 and Whaley 91, a total 
 of 117; a loss of 1 vote. Hughes increased his vote from 6 to 20. 
 The Peurifoy and Von Kolnitz votes, it being conceded were hostile 
 to Hughes on account of Grace, were cast for Whaley, who received 
 91 votes. These examples illustrate the general character of the 
 accusations sought to be established on mere rumor by the protestant. 
 
 It was contBuded that men who disbursed or received money 
 corruptly will not ordinarily admit their culpability, that in order 
 to procure testimony as to acts of bribery and corruption resort 
 must be had to the class of witnesses presented to the committee in 
 this invsstigation. With this contention the majority of the com- 
 mittee find no fault, but when it is contended that bribery and cor- 
 ruption existed in both of the primaries in question so openly and 
 notoriously as to come under the observation of practically every- 
 body at the polls then we submit that some tangible evidence other 
 than mere rumor should have been submitted by the memorialist. 
 If money was so openly used in the buying of votes as Mr. Grace 
 
TO DISMISS OHAKGES FILED AGAINST KICHAKD S. WHALEY. 23 
 
 would have us b?lieve, then the majority of the committee submit 
 that ho would have been able to have shown the existence of such 
 facts by evidence admissible und^^r the ordinaiy rules of law and 
 from persons whoso character is above reproach. Mr. Grace boast- 
 fully stated that if we would give him the power of subpoena he would 
 produce tlie very highest class of witnesses and that he would indi- 
 vidually pay their mileage to Washington ratlnn' than have the 
 inv(istigation fail. If the (h^moralization, corruption, and dt'bauching 
 of the (dectorate was as flagrant as he attempted to show, then the 
 committee gave him tha power far superior than the power of sub- 
 poena. We gave him the right to produce evidence by affidavits, in 
 which event the witness was not facing the accused and would not 
 bo submitted to the ordeal of cross-examination; the power to pro- 
 cure evidence ex parte without requiring the witness to face the 
 person he may accuse and without having to submit himself to 
 cross-examination is more potent than the power of subpoena. 
 
 The publicity act should not be treated lightly. It is a most 
 wholesome law. Its provisions should not he compromised. Any 
 Member who has violated its provisions should be jiromptly expelled 
 from his seat in this body. Its provisions should not be treated as a 
 farce. If a Member has procured his seat by demoralizing, corrupt- 
 ing, and debauching the electorate of his district, this House should 
 not hesitate to expel him. On the other hand, when the electors of 
 a district return a Member to this body and he has duly received 
 his certificate of office, the judgment and decision of the electors of 
 the district and of the certifying officer should be given their j:) roper 
 weight. He should not be disturbed in his rights by a single indi- 
 vidual imbued with the single idea of revenge. Mr. Grace's position 
 before the committee is fairly exemplified by an editorial in the 
 Columbia Record, published at the capital of the State of South 
 Carolina, which we quote: 
 
 The completeness of the fia.sco pulled off by Mayor Grace in Washington probably 
 saved South Carolina, and certainly saved Charleston from something of a black eye. 
 For no matter ho^x extravagant or reckless may be the charges brought against an 
 individual or a community, if they are made with a certain amount of dignity and 
 seeming seriousness some of the mud will stick. But an introduction of the farcical^ 
 of the element of the ridiculous — into such an inquiry as Mr. Grace claimed to be 
 promoting could not but prove fatal to him and cover both his alleged cause and 
 himself with confusion. What was a grave and practical minded committee of Con- 
 gress to think of a prosecutor and lawyer who came befo.-e it to arraign another for 
 bribery and vote buying armed only with hearsay testimony against the accused 
 and incriminating evidence against himself? What wa.s the committee to do with 
 testimony that was not only hearsay and incompetent for the prosecution, but which 
 was offered by a witness who impeached liimself and positively testified to the illegal 
 expenditures and vote buying on the part f)f liimself and his friends wliir'h he sus- 
 pected but had no positive evidence to prove had been practiced by the other side? 
 
 It is not strange that, hemmed in by such an impossible situation, Mr. Grace, when 
 he was put on cross-examination, lost control of what little sense and propriety he 
 may have been possessed of, played the r61e of an ill-temixned , spoiled child, stuck 
 out his tongue at and called everybody names that crossed him in his ungovernable 
 wrath, not excepting the chairman of the congressional committee himself, and con- 
 cluded by denouncing by wholesale as corruptionists tlie people of the city over 
 which he presides and of the State of which he is a native. 
 
 Concluded, did we say? Well, not quite. lie capped the climax by likening 
 himself in his position before the committee to ''Christ before Pontius Pilate." 
 
 And then the committee washed its hands of the Whaley-Grace matter entirely. 
 
 Would you blame it? 
 
24 TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 As a sample of the character of ]\Ir. Grace we quote from his testi- 
 mony on page 34 of the printed record, in which Mr. Grace, speaking 
 of the witness "Rumpty-Rattles" Hogan, made the following state- 
 ment : 
 
 Mr. GnACE. When I made my campaign for mayor he (Hogan) bitterly fought me, 
 very bitterly, and he will tell you that there was an awful fight in ward 9; a bitter 
 fight. If you could see the papers at that time you would see that he was on Whaley's 
 side in that campaign, but when I was elected mayor I was in a position to drive him 
 to the wall, absolutely, because he was in a business which would have enabled me, 
 if I had shown the disposition to do so, to absolutely drive him to the waill. 
 
 Mr. Elder. That is, the liquor business? 
 
 Mr. Grace. Yes, sir; to be perfectly frank with you, the liquor business; but I 
 treated, so far as the administration of the law was concerned — and I think everybody 
 will agree with me in Charleston — everybody absolutely alike. I could have driven 
 him to the wall, as I stated, but I gave everybody an absolutely square deal. 
 
 Mr. Frear. What do you mean by driving him to the wall? 
 
 Mr. Grace. I mean to say that if I had cared to exercise the vigilance of the police 
 force against him—he was in a business that, according to the strict interpretation of 
 the law, he should not have been in. 
 
 Mr. Frear. In what way? 
 
 Mr. Grace. In the liquor business. 
 
 Mr. Frear. In what way? 
 
 Mr. Grace. Well, it was a blind tiger. 
 
 Mr. Frear. He was running a blind tiger? 
 
 Mr. Grace. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Grace 4id not disturb the open and notorious dive run by this 
 man, Hogan. It was conducted in such a disgraceful manner that 
 the governor of the State of South Carolina was compelled to eradicate 
 it, and it is fairly inferable that Mr. Grace placed hnn on the pay roll 
 of the city of Charleston in order to make him one of his adherents. 
 Mr. Grace frequently, during his appearance before the committee, 
 admonished it to the effect that the charges came from him, the mayor 
 of the citv of Charleston, and insisted for that reason alone, an 
 investigation should be had. In contrast to this attitude on his part, 
 we point with some degree of pride to the attitude and conduct of 
 the sitting Member. He did not appear before the committee when 
 Mr. Grace was present. However, he informed the chairman of the 
 committee his reason for not so doing — that Grace was so bitter and 
 hostile toward him and was so obssessed and insane by personal 
 hostility toward him that it would be most disagreeable for him to 
 endure the vituperation that Grace would endeavor to cast upon him. 
 We believe that the sitting Member's conclusion was thoroughly 
 justified from the subsequent conduct of Mr. Grace. 
 
 From the hearsay testimony produced before the committee the 
 majority is thoroughly convinced that Mr. Whaley was elected to 
 Congress by the very best element in the first congressional district 
 of South Carolina. Mr. Whaley served 1 1 years as a representative 
 in the State Legislature in South Carolina ; he was chairman of many 
 of the most important committees of his State legislature and was 
 chairman of the judiciary committee of that body for four years; he 
 served one year as speaker pro tempore, and was elected and served four 
 years as speaker of that body; he was unanimously elected as presi- 
 dent of the State Democratic convention in South Carolina in 1910; 
 in 1912 was elected in his district as a delegate to the national 
 Democratic convention at Baltunore; this year he was elected as a 
 Representative in Congress from the first congressional district of his 
 State. 
 
TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EICHARD S. WHALEY. 25 
 
 We cite these many official positions held by him and his long tenure 
 of public service as some evidence of the esteem, respect, and confi- 
 dence in which he is held by the people of his district and State. Mr. 
 Whaley is by no means a w(;althy man and is not surrounded by rich 
 relatives or friends. His fortune is so small as to render the charges 
 ridiculous. 
 
 The committee in this investigation under tlie situation was com- 
 pelled to act in the nature of a grand jury as a sort of iiuiuisitorial 
 body to determine whether or not an investigation should be made 
 into the charges submitted by Mr. Grace. A majority of the com- 
 mittee find that no evidence has been submitted under any of the 
 rules of law recognized in civilized countries to establish the corpus 
 delicti of the crime alleged. Without substantiation of a basis of an 
 indictment, there would be notliing to investigate. The majority of 
 the committee hnd that the charges were not filed as pretended in 
 good faith to purify what he alleges to be a coriiipt electorate but 
 were instituted solely through the personal liostility of Mr. Grace 
 against the sitting member and to gratify his own personal ambitions. 
 For this committee or the House to lend assistance to further his 
 personal animosity toward the sitting Member and to forward his 
 own political ambitions would be most stultifying. Seven members 
 of the committee join in these views. Mr. Borchers believes that 
 the evidence warrants an investigation. Mr. Frear will submit an 
 individual report. 
 
 The majority of the committee, therefore, ofi'ers for adoption the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the charges filed by Johu P. Grace agaiiij^t Richard S. Wlialey, Rep- 
 resentative from the first cougressional district of the State of Soiitli Carolina to the 
 Sixty-third Congress, be dismissed. 
 
VIEWS OF MR. BURTON L. FRENCH. 
 
 I concur with the majority of the members of Elections Committee 
 No. 1 in finding that the charges preferred by Hon. John P. Grace 
 against Hon. Richard S. Whaley nave not been sustained by evi- 
 dence brought before the committee, and in the recommendation of 
 the committee that the charges be dismissed. 
 
 The allegations made by Mr. Grace and by other witnesses whose 
 affidavits he presented to the committee set forth conditions that if 
 true render those uiipHcated responsible under the laws of the State 
 of South Carolina, and Mr. Grace may have been guilty of laches in 
 not instituting contest or a protest before this House against the 
 seating of Hon. Richard S. Whaley. 
 
 I believe, however, that notwithstanding this, had the charges 
 filed by Mr. Grace been sustained, it would have been the duty of the 
 committee to have reported to Congress a recommendation that an 
 investigation be made of the charges against Mr. Whaley, and 
 further than this, I have no doubt that the Congress has the right and 
 ought to expel one of its Members who may have been guilty of cor- 
 rupt practices in obtaining either his nomination or election, even 
 though the facts were not discovered till after the Member had taken 
 his oath of office. 
 
 The laws passed by Congress touching the publicity of campaign 
 expenditures are just as binding upon candidates for Congress who 
 may not be elected a^; upon the successful candidates. These laws 
 are set forth very fully in the report of the majority. It is also set 
 forth in the report of the majority that Mr. Grace, who admitted 
 before the committee that he practically had charge of the campaign 
 of E. W. Hughes in the primaries looking to his nomination over 
 Richard S. Whaley, alleges that Mr. Hughes expended upward of 
 $40,000 in the primary campaign. The testimony' of H. F. Hogan 
 and Stephen Sargeant, who were supporters of Mr. Hughes, is illumi- 
 nating as to how some of this money was spent. The evidence in 
 this connection is so clear cut that the question if fairly raised as to 
 the duty of the Congress with respect to the campaigns made by 
 E. W. Hughes in the first South Carohna district. 
 
 Manifestly the Congress has no disciphnary authority over E. W. 
 Hughes, who was a candidate for Congress, though not elected, but 
 it would be within the province of Congress to inquire into the allega- 
 tions made touching the expenditure of money upon his part. In 
 view of the fact, however, that the Department of Justice is en- 
 trusted with the responsibihty of law enforcement, I shall make no 
 recommendation, but merely raise the question for the consideration 
 of the Congress and the bearing it may have upon the consideration 
 that the Congress will give to the question of making more effective 
 the corrupt-practices acts. 
 
 26 
 
MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. JAMES A. FREAR. 
 
 The undersigned, one of the members disagreeing with the majority 
 report, submits the following reasons therefor. 
 
 The record in tliis case is printed in three parts. The last part of 
 the record, consisting of testimony, arguments, and data given in 
 rebuttal by witnesses presented through Mayor John P. Grace, of 
 Charleston, S. C, has not been received from the ])rinter, for which 
 reason a brief summary of evidence is submitted in order that the 
 actual question at issue may be ascertained. 
 
 The rights of Richard S. Whaley, Member from the first South 
 Carolina district, are involved, but the question reaches far beyond 
 the rights of any individual Member, because it impeaches the right 
 of a congressional district, under present local conditions, to repre- 
 sentation in this body. Charges have been filed, supported by much 
 testimony, of wholesale corruption, bribery, and debauchery of the 
 electorate of that district. 
 
 In different communities it is alleged that the purchasable vote 
 reaches 80 per cent of the vote cast in the primaries. These votes 
 are sold to the highest bidder. No convictions for violation of law 
 can be secured because of local sentiment. The sitting Member is 
 charged with having participated in this debauchery of voters, with 
 being the direct beneficiary of corruption, and with having violated 
 the corrupt practices act passed by Congress. This is the gist of the 
 charges. The indictment includes all candidates for Congress at the 
 special election held in the first district, and, based upon evidence 
 submitted to the committee, an investigation is herein asked, with 
 power to subpoena witnesses and learn the truth; that is the issue, 
 the right of investigation. 
 
 The follo\\dng statement of facts is submitted: 
 
 Richard S. Whaley, of Charleston, was a candidate for Repre- 
 sentative in Congress from the first congressional district of South 
 Carolina, to succeed George S. Legare, deceased, and was elected to 
 fill the vacancy. 
 
 The first primary was held April 1, 1913, at which five candidates 
 contested for the Democratic nomination, to wit, Messrs. Whaley, 
 Hughes, Padgett, Von Kolintz, and Peurofoy. A second primary 
 was held April 15, 1913, at which the two leading candidates in the 
 first primary, Messrs. Whaley and Hughes, again contested for the 
 Democratic nomination and Mr. Wlialey received a majority of votes 
 cast, as hereinafter appears. A special election was held May 3, 
 1913, at which Mr. Wlialey was elected. No other party ticket was 
 represented at the primaries or election. A statement of campaign 
 expenses was filed by Mr. Wlialey with the Clerk of the House reciting 
 that the total amount expended'by him was $4,553.10. (R., p. 118.) 
 
 Thereafter John P. Grace, mayor of Charleston, filed with the 
 Clerk of the House verified charges alleging that Mr. Whaley had 
 
 27 
 
28 TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 violated the act approved August 19, 1911, limiting expenditures to 
 $5,000, for Members of Congress; that he had in fact expended 
 $60,000; that such money was used in bribing voters at the primaries 
 to vote for said Whaley and to otherwise corrupt the electorate; that 
 peruny was committed in the expense statement filed by Mr. Whaley 
 ancl further asked that an investigation be instituted by the House 
 as to tlie truth of such allegations. (R., p. 3.) 
 
 Pursuant to a demand by the Elections Committee, Mr. Grace 
 filed an amended and further statement of charges, specifying in detail 
 the alleged amounts of illegal expenditures incurred by Mr. Whaley 
 in sucli primaries together with the names of men whom it was alleged 
 disbursed the monev in the several counties and precincts of the 
 district. (R., p. 4.)^^ 
 
 Pursuant to a further demand by the Elections Committee that 
 only direct evidence of fraud or corruption would be considered and 
 hearsay testimony would be excluded, Mr. Grace presented in Wash- 
 ington, five witnesses from Charleston, including himself, who ap- 
 peared at their own expense and were cluly examined under oath by 
 the committee. (R., pp. 25-49). 
 
 In further support of the charges filed by Mayor Grace, 40 affidavits 
 of first district electors, were furnished to the committee. (R., pp. 
 6-24. Six affidavits omitted from the printed record by mistake.) 
 
 The names of approximately 150 other electors who, it 'was alleged 
 should be subpoenaed and examined, were further furnished in the 
 affidavit of H. L. Larisey, a former candidate for Congress, who con- 
 ducted a private investigation throughout the district before pre- 
 sentation of charges. (R., p. 15.) 
 
 Notice was given Mr. Wlialey of the several hearings held by the 
 committee at which Mr. Grace "and other witnesses were present and 
 examined, but the first district Member did not appear in person or 
 by representative at such hearings. 
 
 On December 3, 1918, Mr. Wh^ey appeared before the committee 
 and made a verbal statement (R., p. 50), accompanied by afl&davits 
 denying the charges as to corrupt expenditures. No notice was given 
 Mr. Grace or to any of the other witnesses of such committee hearing. 
 On December 15, 1913, Mayor Grace appeared again in response to 
 notice, brmgmg more witnesses and additional affidavits relating to 
 the charges. 
 
 At a committee meeting held December 16 a resolution was pre- 
 sented to the committee by the undersigned member of the minority 
 and rejected, which read as follows: 
 
 Whereas the charges of John P. Grace, of Charleston, against Richard S. Whaley 
 Congressman from the first congressional district of South Carolina, have been 
 supported by oral testimony and other evidence that presents prima facie a vio- 
 lation of law on the part of said Richard S. Whaley which, if true, disqualifies 
 him from remaining a Member of Congress: 
 _ Resolved, That this committee request its chairman to immediately prepare and 
 introduce a resolution in the House asking for authority to prosecute a thorough 
 investigation as to the facts and to extend its inquiry to the several counties of said 
 first Carolina district, if need be, in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of such 
 charges. 
 
 It may be proper to here submit a question raised as to the impor- 
 tance of this proceeding, because no contest was made agamst seating 
 Mr. Whaley within the prescribed time fixed by law and no contestant 
 has appeared disputing Mr. Whaley's title to a seat in this House. 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 29 
 
 No election contest can he instituted in any congressional district of 
 South Carohna under existing conditions, for the reason that there is 
 only one political party in that State. All congressional candidates 
 who secure a Democratic nomination are elected without opposition 
 This IS not the law, l)ut a condition. (R., p. 3.) All congressional 
 contests m South Carolina are conducted in the primary between rival 
 candidates within the same party. The defeated candidate in the 
 primary has no status before this House, because he is not entitled to 
 a seat under any circumstances. Charges of violation of law, if filed 
 from that State, must come from a private citizen acting for the people 
 of the district. SucjIi charges have been filed by Mavor Grace, of 
 Charleston. 
 
 From the charges made under oath and appearing in full in the 
 record of the case, page 4, Mr. Grace alleges that Mr. Whaley " bought 
 his nomination" and spent "not less than $60,000" in the respective 
 counties, wards, and precincts of the district in approximately the 
 following amounts: 
 
 Colleton County, |5,000; distributed bv Mitchell Whitpell, W B Ackernian 
 James Peurifer, and others. ' 
 
 Dorchester County, $6,000; distriJnUed bv Louis Simons, O. B Limehouse 
 Walker S. Utsey, and others. " ' 
 
 Clarendon County, $6,000; distributed bv Dr. Dick, Walter B Logan Ben Har- 
 win, and others. ' 
 
 Berkeley County, $2,900; distributed bv Russell Williams and others 
 
 Charleston, ward 3, $200, distributed by Max Goldman. 
 
 Charleston, ward 3, $400, distributed bv T. H. Young. 
 
 Charleston, ward 5, $1,500, distributed by Joe LaTorri. 
 
 Charleston, ward 5, $1,500, distributed by W. J. Bennett. 
 
 Charleston, ward 7, $2,700, distributed by H. O. Withington and J W Dunn 
 
 Charleston, ward 9, $5,000, distributed by J. J. O'Shaughnessy. 
 
 Charleston, ward 9, $2,000, distributed by B. P. Cary and Louis Morilla. 
 
 Charleston, ward 9, $300, distributed by Harrv Friend. 
 
 Charleston, ward 9, $200, distributed by Robert Wicket. 
 
 Charleston, ward 10, $1,900, distributed by Frank Simmons. 
 
 Charleston, ward 12, $1,000, distributed by A. J. Mclnness 
 
 Charleston, $5,000, distributed by M. P. Heely. 
 
 McClellonville, $200, distributed by L. Horwitz. 
 
 The foregoing amounts approximate $44,900 and the sworn 
 charges allege that money was corruptly expended in practically 
 every precinct of the first congressional d"^istrict at the congressional 
 prunary (R., pp. 4, 5, and 6), and that on investigation the total 
 amount will reach, if not exceed, .160,000. 
 
 In support of the charges 40 affidavits were offered and filed 
 and offers were made to the committee that additional aflSdavits 
 would be filed if desired. Briefly stated the most knportant of these 
 affidavits tend to show as follows: 
 
 J. P. Grace. That Frank Simmons was given $1,900 in Mr. Whaley's office the 
 night before the primary and spent it in buying votes for Mr. Whaley! (R. p. 6 ) 
 This is not denied in the Simmons affidavit. ' (R., p. 108.) ' 
 
 Philip Fash. J. J. O'Shaughnessy handled $5,000 in the ninth ward. (R., p. 7 ) 
 
 M. J. Barry. Heard O'Shaughnessy say he had $5,000 of Whaley money and 
 affiant saw men paid off by him. (R., p. 12.) 
 
 H. C. Heins. Heard O'Shaughnessy say he had $5,000 Whaley money and affiant 
 saw men paid by O'Shaughnessv. (R., p. 13.) 
 
 A. W. Reynolds. Was offered $25 by August Rowe to vote for Whaley. Saw 
 O Shaughnessy pay over a dozen men from $10 to $20 each for Whalev votes fR 
 p. 12.) ^ ^ ■' 
 
 Willie Singletary. Saw O'Shaughnessy pay J. Driggers $15, E. M. Reeves $25, 
 James Reeves $25, and saw others paid to vote for Whaley. (R., p. 13.) 
 
80 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST EICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 E. L. Clubb. Received |10 from J. J. O'Shaughnessy to vote for Whaley. (R., 
 
 Robert Smart. Was offered $25 by August Rowe to vote for Whaley. Had same 
 
 offer from Frank Cox and Milton Stoll. (R., p. 10.) 
 J. E. Noland. Was paid $120 to work for Whaley. (R., p. 11.) This statement is 
 
 admitted. (R., p. 74.) 
 D. L. Sanders. Lengthy affidavit. Witness was paid $60 to work for Whaley. 
 
 (Not printed.) 
 H. F. Hogan. Received $200 from R. C. Richardson to work for Whaley at first 
 
 primary. (R., p. 10.) 
 
 Samuel D. Bashaw. Was offered $300 for a Whaley headquarters by E. G. Heape 
 
 acting for Whaley. (R., p. 11.) 
 
 A. H. Brothers. Saw J. F. Simmons pa>ing off members of Whaley rallying com- 
 mittee from $10 to $25 each. (R., p. 9.) 
 Lester Schwartzberg. Heard S. D. Barshay say he was offered $500 for Whaley 
 
 campaigning headquarters, drinks, etc. ('R., p. 9.) 
 
 C. Conklin. Was offered $50 by Xouis Burns to vote for Whaley. (R., p. 9.) 
 
 A. Seeback. Saw Thomas Young pay men from $10 to $20 each for Whaley \otes. 
 
 (R.,p. 12.) 
 
 C. Crovatt. Was paid $10 by Patrick Hanley for "NAT-ialey vote. (Not printed.) 
 J. J. Hilton. Received $9 from Chan Shaver for Whaley vote. (R., p. 8.) 
 Michael Bozarr. Saw Jos. La Torre pay John Aulberry and five other men $10 each 
 
 for Whaley votes. (R., p. 8.) 
 
 John Aulberry. Received $10 from LaTorre for Whaley vote. (R., p. 8.) 
 
 M. J. Barry. Louis Morilla said he had $500 Whale> money. (R., p. 9.) 
 
 Philip Fash. Louis Morilla said he had $500 Whaley money. (R., p. 9.) 
 
 T. E. Gleason. Was offered $10 by Frank Simmons to vote for Whaley, and saw 
 
 J. J. Barreneau pay J. H. Strenken $15 for Whaley vote. (R., p. 10.) 
 
 FranJc Brylet. Was offered $10 bv Frank Cox to vote for Whaley. (R., p. 9.) 
 Victor Perry. Was offered $10 to Vote for Whaley. (R., p. 7.) 
 
 F. Brandes." Was offered $15 by I. Donohue to vote for Whaley. (R., p. 8.) 
 John J. Murphy. Drinks and cigars were disbursed by Wlialey's supporters. 
 
 Donoghue and Fosberry were Whaley workers under pay. 
 
 Geo. E. Plough. Saw Thomas Young pay 10 men for Whaley votes. Saw Whaley 
 pay Max Goldman money which Goldman paid to Whaley workers. (Not printed.) 
 
 John W. Moore. Similar to Plough affidavit. (Not printed.) 
 
 J. Burns. Saw M^haley workers paid from $5 to $10 each, ward 10. Witness was 
 offered $10 to vote for Whaley. (Not printed.) 
 
 Benjamin Ruddock. Similar to Burns affidavit. (Not printed.) 
 
 Other affidavits filed by Mr. Grace with the committee were to the 
 same general effect as those signed by Gleason, Brylet, Perry, and 
 Brandes. 
 
 Deciding that the affidavits should be supported by positive evi- 
 dence to make a prima facie case warranting an investigation, the 
 Elections Committee further requu"ed Mayor Grace to present wit- 
 nesses, four of whom in addition to himself appeared before the com- 
 mittee and were examined under oath. The record contains testi- 
 mony to the following effect: 
 
 Henry F. Hogan (E., pp. 25-36). Witness spent $2,800 for 
 Hughes, Whaley's opponent. Whaley asked witness to handle 
 financial part, but he refused. Names Harry Friend, Kobert Wicket, 
 Carney Casev, and Louis Morilla, who handled amounts ranging from 
 $200 to $2,000 for Whaley. Whaley rallymg committee of 60 to 70 
 in ninth ward were all under pay. 
 
 Stephen D. Sargent (R., pp.' 43-47). Witness spent $1,000 for 
 Hughes in primary. Four thousand six hundred dollars in all spent 
 by Hughes in ninth ward. Witness estimated that double the amount 
 was spent by Mr. Whaley in the second primary in ninth ward of 
 Charleston. Whaley had a rallying committee of 75, all under pay. 
 
 M. J. Barry (E., pp. 36-43). O'Shaughnessy said in witness^'s 
 hearing that he, O'Shaughnessy, was handling $5,000 of Whaley 
 
TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 31 
 
 money. Morilla told witness he, Morilla, was handling S5()0 of 
 Whal;\y money. Witness saw O'Shaughnessy pajdng off men after 
 primary with a large roll of bills. 
 
 H. L. Larisey (K., pp. 47-49; also li., 17-24). Testified and also 
 furnished a long affidavit reciting an extended trip made by him 
 over the district after the primaries, during which trip the wit- 
 ness states he visited different precincts in every county m the dis- 
 trict. The affidavit gives the names of over 100 witnesses who, the 
 affiant claims, if subpoenaed, will, in his judgment, furnish evicknico of 
 the truth of th?, charges, and stat(>s that money was corruptly used in 
 Mr. Whaley's behalf in practically every precmct. 
 
 John P. Grace, ma3^or of Charleston. Upon notice of a statement 
 made by Mr. Wlialey before the committee, without his knowledge 
 of the hearing, Mr. Grace appeared, December 15, with additional 
 witnesses and offered 24 additional affidavits, or 64 affidavits in all. 
 Twenty of these affidavits were rejected because not filed in time 
 and not in rebuttal to affidavits offered by Mr. Whaley. Mr. Grace 
 testifying before the committee assumed full responsibility for the 
 charges ; he offered them to three South Carolina Congressmen before 
 Mr. Whaley was seated, in May last. Then on advice of Senator 
 Tillman he presented them in the form submitted. As to his own 
 participation in vote buying witness said he was no hypocrite, the 
 practice was general; that he was no candidate, but a supporter of 
 Mr. Hughes, the opponent of Mr. Wluiley at the primaries. Witness 
 said that a public knowledge of conditions and enforcement of the 
 corrupt practices act by Congress would remove temptation to 
 avoid the law. That was the reason for his charges. Testifying 
 generally he declared political methods in the first district could 
 not be adequately described; to prosecute for bribery would be to 
 indict the whole community. Convictions could not be secured for 
 that reason. Testifymg specifically, he stated that he saw Alder- 
 man Simmons, of Charleston, at the last primaries in a small build- 
 ing near the polls with piles of bills before him, estimated at $2,000, 
 engaged in buying votes for Whaley. Witness denounced Simmons, 
 but testified the practice was common throughout the city and dis- 
 trict. Witness on questioning defended his own city administra- 
 tion by declaring he controlled the "blmd-tiger" evil following pro- 
 cedure of his predecessor and the plan adopted by Brant Whitlock, 
 of Toledo, Ohio, in dealing with the problem. 
 
 Mr. Wlialey appeared before the committee December 3, 1913, and 
 made a statement (R., p. 50) which consisted of denials and of igno- 
 rance on his part of any wrongful or excessive use of money. He 
 stated that he and Grace have not been personal or political friends 
 for years. With his statement Mr. Whaley filed affidavits in rebuttal 
 of those filed by Mr. Grace. These affidavits allege that some of the 
 affiants on the other side are unworthy of belief. One affidavit (R., 
 p. 82) is from a man who had previously made affidavit as to pay- 
 ments by O'Shaughnessy. (R., p. 14.) This affiant now says he was 
 too drunk to know what he first swore to, but offers no testimony as 
 to subsequent sobriety. The statement of affiant's condition upon 
 executing the first affidavit was denied before the committee by two 
 reputable witnesses. Many of those who are recited in the affidavits 
 filed by Mr. Grace as disbursers of money for Mr. Whaley filed affi- 
 davits denying the allegations. This is true of O'Shaughnessy, whose 
 
32 TO DISMISS CHAEGES FILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 payments to diifereiit affiants was admitted by them and who was 
 named by witnesses before the committee and in affidavits as having 
 expended $5,000 m Mr. Whaley's behalf. 
 
 Without passing judgment upon the record placed before the com- 
 mittee, it is submitted that men who disburse or receive money cor- 
 ruptly will not ordinarily admit such act. The fact that the accusing 
 witnesses admit such roceii)t is unusual; that the accused have de- 
 nied it is not unusual. Neither is it unexpected that affiants denounce 
 those who declare corruption was practiced. The bias or lack of 
 bias and personal interest of such witnesses should be fau-ly weighed 
 in determinmg whether the House of Representatives should msti- 
 tute a thorough investigation as to the facts. 
 
 The record contains 122 printed pages and I quote briefly from the 
 sworn testimony of witnesses relating to corruption in the city of 
 Charleston. One of the fairest appearing witnesses, m the judgment 
 of the committee, was Stephen D. Sargent. 
 
 Mr. Sargent testified (r., p. 45) : 
 
 A. I had in the rallying committee about 75 (club 2). 
 
 Q. How many did Whaley have? — A. I guess he had about the same. I guess he 
 had some on his rallying committee that I had on mine, because they "double- 
 headed." 
 
 * * * * ■ * * * 
 
 A. If you could get the roll of your opponent over there you would find that he 
 had some on the same roll. 
 
 Q. They would not stay bought?— A. They would not stay bought. They will 
 go over on the promise of $5 for their day's work. 
 
 Mr. Sargent testified as to the ninth ward of Charleston: 
 
 A. I am positive from my knowledge of the gang that "Whaley had following him 
 about and the men he had in the field that he could not get away with less than three 
 times as much money. 
 
 Q. What is your judgment of the amount that Whaley spent? — A. From the money 
 I have previously spent in that ward and my experience there, I would not hesitate 
 to say that Mr. Whaley did not spend one cent less than $8,000 in the second primary. 
 
 Q. In that ward? — A. In that ward. 
 
 Q. And your folks spent between $4,000 and $5,000?— A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. That "would be about $13.000?- A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. In that one ward? — A. Yes, sir. 
 
 From testimony of Henry F. Hogan (r., p. 31) : 
 
 Q. Were all members of this rallying committee paid? — A. They were all paid. 
 
 Q. How many do you estimate sell their votes in that ward in the way you have 
 described — that is, as workers or by being bought outright? — A. Well, you mean just 
 a rough estimate? 
 
 Q. Yes; give us a I'oiigh estimate. — A. In the neighborhood of 100 vote on principle. 
 ***** ^ * 
 
 Q. Give me a rough estimate of how many Mr. Whaley had on his rallying com- 
 mittee. — A. At the house they paid off in — Mr. Stahl's house on Aiken Street — I saw 
 a crowd of about 60 or 70, to my best knowledge and belief. 
 
 Q. Was that for ward 9? — A. Yes, sir; and some of them came out grumbling 
 because they did not get more than $10 — that is, came out of Stahl's house. 
 
 From testimony of M. J. Barry (R., p. 39): 
 
 A. I am coming down to where I overheard O'Shaughnessy say that he had $5,000. 
 Q. Well, wliat did he say? 
 
 * * ■ * * * * * 
 
 A. He said he had $5,000 and that he did not have enough to settle up with. 
 Q. From whom did he say he got the $5,000? — A. From Whaley. He said that he 
 had to send iiack for $500 more to settle the ward. Whaley was out of town. 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST KICHAKU S. WliALEV. 33 
 
 Mayor Grace testified (R., p. 46): 
 
 Q. Do the negi'oes vote there? — A. No, wif * * *. Without uiiy reflection on the 
 white citizens of the town I live in, I do not believe you could corrupt the negroes any 
 worse than the white people were corrupted in the hint election. 
 
 Q. That Ir a pretty severe reflection. — A. I can not help it. Tlui1 is the truth. 
 
 As an indication of the unsatisfactory nature of an investi<^ation 
 by affidavits, I quote from affidavit of vSamuei 1). Jiarshay (R., p. 11): 
 
 One E. G. Heape came to him and, explaining that he was related to Mi-. Whaley, 
 said that he (Heape) would pay him $;^00 for the use of his upstairs until after election. 
 
 In Heape's affidavit filed by Mr. Wlialey, he says (R., p. 69): 
 
 Deponent admits that he spent money in the place of business nf the said Samuel 
 D. Barshay, which is a blind tiger on King Street in the city of Charleston. 
 
 Deponent furthei- denies the proffer of S30() at Mr. Whaley's 
 request. 
 
 A. Seebeck, in an affidavit filed by Mr. GracH', says (R., p. 12): 
 
 That the said Yotuig told him that he had more than $250 to spend for Whaley; 
 that he saw Young give money in varying amounts, from $10 to $20, to men before 
 the polls for having voted for tlie said \\ haley. 
 
 In his aflfidavit filed by Mr. Whaley, Youno; says (R., pp. 68-69): 
 
 For this canvassing purpose it required money amounting t«, deponent thinks, to 
 about $60, but Mr. \\'haley did not furnish the money and knew nothing about it 
 * * *. Deponent rejjeats that any and all money used by him was done Avithout 
 the knowledge of Mr. \Vhaley. 
 
 In addition to his offer of 20 affi(hivits, filed too late for the 
 record, IVIr. Grace said to the committee : 
 
 I have proposed to the chairman that if he will only get me the power to subpoena the 
 very highest class of witnesses, I will individually pay their mileage to Washington, 
 rather than have this investigation fail. I have promised that these witnesses vnll 
 be Mr. Wlialey's nearest friends, and I will prove from their own lips that they handled 
 thousands of dollars in Mr. Whaley's office the night before the first and second 
 primaries, Mr. Whaley being present at the time. 
 
 This power was not possessed by the committee. 
 
 With over 40 witnesses in person and by affidavits alleging under 
 oath that money has been corruptly spent to nominate and elect 
 ;Mr. Whaley, and positive opposing testimony, it is submitted that 
 some one is mistaken. The declaration of Mayor Grace and others 
 who have furnished evidence impeaching Mr. Whaley's right to a 
 seat in this House was represented by them to the committee to be 
 pursuant to a desire to secure better and more honest elections. 
 This statement is supported by Mayor Grace's declaration that he has 
 persistently tried to secure the passage of an Australian ballot law 
 by the South Carolina Legislature ; that large sums of money were cor- 
 ruptly used throughout the district at the last primaries in the in- 
 terest of both candidates; that an amount estimated at $13,000 was 
 corruptly spent b}^ the rival factions in one ward, two-thirds of which 
 amount is alleged to have been used to advance Mr. Whaley's can- 
 didacy. From the fact that Hughes and Whaley di\dded the ninth 
 ward and the entire city about evenly (R., ]). 65) it a})pears the con- 
 testants were equally vigilant on corralling the voters. 
 
 It is also submitted that, based on the sworn testimony, if $12,000 
 was expended in this ninth ward, the average expense of each of the 
 
 H. Kept. 158, 63-2 3 
 
34 TO DISMISS CHARGES PILED AGAINST RICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 558 votes cast, to the respective candidates or their supporters, 
 amounts to from $20 to $25. 
 
 The following unofficial election statistics show the closeness of the 
 contest : 
 
 First primary, April 1, 1913. Whaley, 3,156; Hughes, 2,912; 
 Padgett, 1,698; VonKolintz, 1,451; Peurifoy, 1,332. 
 
 Second primary, April 15, 1913. Whaley, 6,307; Hughes, 5,840: 
 total, 12,147 votes. 
 
 Second primary and special election by counties : 
 
 
 Second primary, i 
 
 Special elec- 
 tion, 
 Whaley.2 
 
 
 Whaley. 
 
 Hughes. 
 
 Charleston 
 
 3,068 
 
 3.105 
 
 620 
 
 Berkley 
 
 431 1 '522 
 
 743 ' 776 
 
 1,059 ! 752 
 
 1,006 597 
 
 175 
 
 
 383 
 
 
 343 
 
 
 432 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 Total number of votes, 12,147. 
 
 2 Total votes, 1,953 (no opposition). 
 
 The primary votes in Charleston by precinct appear (R., pp. 64-65) 
 as follows : 
 
 Returns of first primary election held in Charleston County, Apr. 1, 191S, for Congress- 
 man from the first district. 
 
 
 Hughes. 
 
 Padgett. 
 
 Peurifoy. 
 
 Von Kol- 
 nitz. 
 
 Whaley. 
 
 Not 
 stamped. 
 
 Chal- 
 lenged. 
 
 Ward 1, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 156 
 
 62 
 
 95 
 
 363 
 
 148 
 
 151 
 
 64 
 
 47 
 
 103 
 
 112 
 
 109 
 
 106 
 
 143 
 
 70 
 
 173 
 
 95 
 
 173 
 
 97 
 
 60 
 
 6 
 
 42 
 
 
 6 
 11 
 
 6 
 39 
 
 7 
 4 
 8 
 
 12 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 15 
 4 
 6 
 
 17 
 7 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 36 
 
 40 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 83 
 
 16 
 
 86 
 
 77 
 
 18 
 
 56 
 
 86 
 
 36 
 
 43 
 
 30 
 
 55 
 
 67 
 
 41 
 
 119 
 
 24 
 
 78 
 
 19 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 101 
 
 162 
 49 
 84 
 
 122 
 34 
 79 
 
 177 
 22 
 77 
 
 101 
 
 37 
 
 30 
 
 73 
 
 84 
 
 95 
 
 91 
 
 37 
 
 23 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 25 
 
 17 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 Ward 2, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 3, club 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 3, club 2 
 
 19 
 3 
 
 
 
 Ward 4, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 5, club 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 5, club 2 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 6, club 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 1 
 
 Ward 6, club 2 
 
 
 
 Ward 7, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 
 
 Ward 8, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 9, club 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 Ward 9, club 2 
 
 
 21 
 
 Ward 10, club 1 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 10, club 2 
 
 
 
 
 Ward 11, club 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Wardll,club2 
 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 12, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 St. Philips and St. Michaels 
 
 
 
 Mount Pleasant 
 
 
 21 
 4 
 5 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 Sullivans Island 
 
 
 
 
 Awensdaw 
 
 
 
 
 McClellenviUe 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 James Island 
 
 
 
 Johns Island 
 
 
 9 
 1 
 9 
 
 
 
 Wadmalaw Island 
 
 3 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 Yonges Island 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 Edisto Island 
 
 
 
 Adams Rnn 
 
 6 
 2 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 8 
 3 
 1 
 
 7 
 6 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Ravenels 
 
 
 
 Warrens Cross Roads 
 
 
 
 St. Andrews 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 2,412 
 
 58 
 
 276 
 
 1,102 
 
 1,648 
 
 8 
 
 34 
 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES TILED AGMNST EICHARD S. WHALEY^ 
 
 35 
 
 Returns of second primari/ election held in Charleston County, Apr. 15, 1913, for Con- 
 gressman from the first district. 
 
 
 E.W. 
 Hughes. 
 
 R. S. 
 Whaley. 
 
 Chal- 
 lenged 
 votes. 
 
 Ward 1, clubs 1 and 2 . . 
 
 198 
 
 96 
 
 84 
 
 495 
 
 195 
 
 214 
 
 118 
 
 64 
 
 no 
 
 160 
 
 118 
 
 110 
 
 141 
 
 79 
 
 198 
 
 112 
 
 207 
 
 125 
 
 43 
 
 26 
 
 46 
 
 38 
 
 28 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 43 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 151 
 
 237 
 
 83 
 
 57 
 
 211 
 
 32 
 
 168 
 
 281 
 
 43 
 
 1.50 
 
 224 
 
 98 
 
 84 
 
 132 
 
 165 
 
 213 
 
 153 
 
 172 
 
 31 
 
 91 
 
 36 
 
 1 
 
 26 
 
 25 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 33 
 
 17 
 
 61 
 
 11 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 Ward 2, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 3, club 1 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 3, club 2 
 
 4 
 
 Ward 4, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 2 
 
 Ward 5, club 1 
 
 11 
 
 Ward 5, club 2 
 
 18 
 
 Ward 6, club 1 
 
 8 
 
 Ward ti, club 2 
 
 7 
 
 Ward 7, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 8, clubs 1 and 2 
 
 13 
 
 Ward 9, club 1 .. 
 
 50 
 
 Ward 9, club 2 
 
 67 
 
 Ward 10, club 1 
 
 3 
 
 Ward 10, club 2 
 
 17 
 
 Ward 11, club 1 
 
 7 
 
 Ward 11, club 2 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 St. Philips and St. Michaels 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 McClellenville . .. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Johns Island 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yonges Island ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Adams Run 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Warrens X Roads '. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,105 
 
 3,063 
 
 248 
 
 
 
 A study of the comparative vote in three wards of the city of 
 Charleston, where claim is made that "Whaley spent heavily, dis- 
 closes : 
 
 Ward 9: 
 
 Hughes 
 
 Whaley 
 
 AVard 11: 
 
 Hughes 
 
 Whaley 
 
 Ward 12: 
 
 Hughes 
 
 Whaley .... 
 
 Charleston city: 
 
 Hughes 
 
 Whaley 
 
 First 
 primary. 
 
 Second 
 primary. 
 
 249 
 
 67 
 
 251 
 
 182 
 
 268 
 186 
 
 319 
 366 
 
 97 
 37 
 
 125 
 
 172 
 
 2,412 
 1,648 
 
 3, 105 
 3,063 
 
 These statistics are submitted as bearing on th(> truth or falsity of 
 the charges that have been filed. 
 
36 TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST EICHAED S. WHALEY. 
 
 Mr. Whaley filed a statement of campaign expenses with the Clerk 
 of the House containing amounts expended as follows : 
 
 Date. 
 
 1913. 
 Apr. 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 14 
 15 
 15 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 16 
 16 
 18 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 25 
 29 
 
 What given, contributed, expended, used, or promised, and to whom. 
 
 To advertising in the Manning Times 
 
 To advertising in the Walterboro Press and Standard 
 
 To advertising in Moncks Corner Echo and Press 
 
 To advertising In Charleston Review 
 
 To advertising in SummerviUe Advertiser 
 
 To advertising in Charleston News and Courier 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Evening Post 
 
 Rent of hall for headquarters, day of primary 
 
 Hire automobiles 
 
 To amoimts deposited, police cotut, Charleston, as bail bond for appearance of par- 
 ties who subsequently failed to appear, and this amount forfeited 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Review 
 
 Contribution chairman coimty executive committee for barricades 
 
 To advertising in the Deutsche Zeitung 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Review 
 
 To advertisitag in Charleston News and Courier 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Evening Post 
 
 To advertising in Walterboro Press and Standard 
 
 To advertising in Maiming Times 
 
 To advertising in Moncks Corner Echo and Press 
 
 To advertising in SummerviUe Advertiser 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Review 
 
 To advertising in Charleston Evening Post 
 
 To 3,000 cards from Charleston Review (additional) 
 
 To amoimt paid since second primary, held Apr. 15, 1913, to date, for watchers and 
 challengers at the various club precincts throughout the district 
 
 Total 
 
 Amount. 
 
 $70. 00 
 40.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 
 210. 00 
 
 107. 00 
 50.00 
 
 420. 00 
 
 235. 00 
 17.00 
 
 145.00 
 58.50 
 49.00 
 
 160. 25 
 
 159. 60 
 20.00 
 20.00 
 10.00 
 19.00 
 43.00 
 26.40 
 6.75 
 
 1,765.00 
 
 3,691.50 
 
 Also, the following summary of the statement made and filed with 
 the Clerk of the House of Kepresentatives before and after said 
 primary election (nominating convention) as required by law, viz: 
 
 Summary of expenditures and receipts before and after primary or convention. 
 
 Amount 
 received. 
 
 Amount 
 expended. 
 
 Total receipts filed in statement before primarv 
 
 
 
 Total expenditures filed ia statement before primarv, S69.60, .$792 
 
 
 •?861. 60 
 
 Total receipts not included in previous statement. . . 
 
 
 
 Total expenditures not included in previous statement 
 
 
 3,691.50 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 4 553 10 
 
 
 
 
 Aside from advertising, which includes two-thirds of the foregoing 
 items, amountiDg to $1,119, the only definite light on large expend- 
 itures is a single item of $1,765, inserted for watchers and challengers — 
 less than $10 to a precinct. The testimony shows $8,000 was used 
 in Mr. Whaley's behalf in the ninth ward of Charleston alone, and 
 $4,600 was admittedly spent by his opponent, Mr. Hughes, in that 
 same ward. As an example of careful financiering, it is submitted 
 that Hughes's gain of 2 votes at a cost of $4,600 did not compare 
 with Whaley's gain of 115, or 200 per cent, for less than double the 
 investment. Item No. 15 of $235 indicates the vigor of the con- 
 test. The supporters of Hughes, who opposed Whaley, admit 
 that Hughes spent $44,000 in the primaries, making a total expend- 
 iture by two candidates for Congress in the primaries for that special 
 election of more than $100,000. 
 
 Section 8 of the amended act, providing for publicity of contri- 
 butions made for the purpose of influencing elections at which Rep- 
 
TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 37 
 
 resontatives in Congress are elected, approved Angust 19, 1911, pro- 
 vides that: 
 
 No candidate for Representative in Congress shall give, contribute, expend, use, 
 or promise any sum in the aggregate exceeding $5,000 in any campaign for 
 his nomination and election (by such candidate, or by his agent, representative, 
 or other person for and in his behalf, with his knowledge and consent): * * * Pro- 
 vided fur iher, That money expended by any such candidate to meet and discharge 
 any assessment, fee, or cliarg(^ made or levied upon candidates by the laws of the 
 State in which he resides, or for his necessary personal expenses, incurred for him- 
 self alone, for travel and subsistence, stationery and postage, writing or ^irinting (other 
 than in newspapers), and distributing letters, circulars, and posters, and for tele- 
 graph and telephone ser\dce, shall not be repjarded as an expenditure within the 
 meaning of this section, and shall not be considered any part of the sum herein fixed 
 as the limit of expense and need not bo shown in the statements herein required to 
 be filed. 
 
 It is not overlooked that claim is made that this corrupt-prac- 
 tices act passed by Congress to limit election expenses of its own 
 Members is farcical because of the numerous provisions and excep- 
 tions which permit congressional candidates to expend $50,000 
 or more if the money is used in many so-called legitimate chan- 
 nels. Very few Members will be found to justify compromising 
 provisions that reach to the heights of legislative buncombe, and 
 no one is deceived and no candidate deterred from spending all the 
 money he can raise. But with all its exceptions, this law places a 
 limit upon expenditures and does not exempt "bribery" by any 
 of its provisions. In fact, the measure is declared to have been passed 
 to prevent the demoralization, corruption, and debauching of an 
 electorate, for the committee's report so states. 
 
 A thorough investigation will serve to advise the House as to the 
 truth of the serious charges brought agamst one of its Members and 
 will further furnish needed information on a vexed question that is 
 intimately associated with such charges. Evidence presented to the 
 committee tends to show that Messrs. Whaley and Hughes corruptly 
 spent S 100.000 in the primaries before this special election; that in a 
 district where negroes do not vote the negroes could not be corrupted 
 any worse than the white people are cori'upted; and that the total 
 vote cast at the special election after the primaries was 1 ,953. Further 
 investigation discloses a total vote cast for all Members from the same 
 State at the last g(^neral election slightly larger than the average vote 
 cast for individual Members in a majority of the States. 
 
 Apart from the right of the State to deal with its own social and 
 Jiolitical problems is the question of a just basis of representation in 
 this House, and any information bearing upon this question ought to 
 be welcomed. If a different rule of law is to govern one State than 
 that invoked by a sister State in determining its internal affairs when 
 the matter directly affects representation in this body it is conceded 
 that the same license may logically be extended to such State in 
 applying the corrupt-practices act. The minority views do not 
 assume that such privilege exists and submit that the law should be 
 applied with equal impartiality in determining the rights of member- 
 ship in this House. 
 
 No attempt has been made to pass upon the weight of evidence in 
 this proceeding, but it is submitted that the evidence jHesented 
 before the committee is sufficient to justify an investigation of the 
 facts at Charleston where all the witnesses can be easily subpoenaed. 
 
38 TO DISMISS CHARGES FILED AGAINST EICHARD S. WHALEY. 
 
 In order to ignore the charges and testimony given by the witnesses 
 and mass of affidavits submitted, the House must disbeheve all the 
 witnesses; disbeheve that money was corruptly used by either Hughes 
 or Whaley, and that the witnesses who voluntarily admitted the 
 receipt of moneys were falsifying. Either this or it must be inferred 
 that the law is of no value. To disbelieve all the witnesses examined 
 by the committee, to discredit all of the affidavits of specific corrup- 
 tion, to reject all the corroboratmg facts, including Mr. Wahley's 
 knowledge of the rallying committees and the self-interest of those 
 who deny the charges, is to establish a precedent that will prevent 
 future violations of the corrupt-practices act from being considered 
 by the House. 
 
 In a prior case, unanimously decided by the committee during the 
 present session, this committee's action was severely criticized by 
 distmguished Members of this House regardless of party, because it 
 was asserted that the corrupt-practices law should be strictly enforced, 
 although in that case the candidate did not expend 5 per cent of the 
 amount authorized by law, but inadvertently tailed to file his state- 
 ment in time. 
 
 In this proceeding expenditures reaching twelve times the amount 
 authorized by law are charged, supported by abundant testimony. 
 If the charges are sustained and the House should decide to unseat 
 the present incumbent, such action would place the seal of con- 
 demnation upon willful violations of law, but would not change the 
 political representation of this body, because South Carolina rec- 
 ognizes only one party. 
 
 It mav be urged by the majority of the committee that the mattex* 
 be quashed because the evidence presented was not of the strongest 
 character. To this it may be said that direct positive evidence was 
 demanded by the committee, which necessitated the inclusion of all 
 witnesses having specific knowledge of facts; that the hearings were 
 not held for the purpose of determining all the lacts, but to ascertain 
 whether or not conditions warranted an investigacion. It is unjust 
 to the first district of South Carolina and ^o Mr. Whaley, if innocent, 
 and to the House, to shut out the truth. Confficting testimony 
 should be sifted. That the worst of men are not whoUy bad or the 
 best of men wholly good is demonstrated from the record. The 
 goal sought by Mr. Whaley was a seat in this House, and it is imma- 
 terial if all parties were equally blameable in the methods pursued. 
 If the law has been violated, the House should exclude without 
 reference to comparative wrongs committed. 
 
 In justification of this demand for an investigation it is submitted 
 that the greatest statesman ever produced by South Carolina onc& 
 said: 
 
 When it comes to be understood that politics are a game, that those ^,vho are en- 
 gaged in it but act a part; that they make this or that profession — -not from honest 
 conviction or an intent to fullfil them but as a means of deluding the people and 
 through that delusion to acquire power — when such professions are to be entirely 
 forgotten, the people will lose all confidence in public men, all will be regarded as 
 mere jugglers, the honest and the patriotic as well as the cunning and profligate. 
 
 The mutabihty of human afi'aii's is forcibly presented by the fact 
 that the metropolis and State once represented in this body by that 
 mighty constitutionalist and incorruptible statesman, John C. Cal- 
 houn, now fuids the executive of Charleston, his home city, appearing 
 
TO DISMISS CHAKGES FILED AGAINST RICHARD S. WHALEY. 39 
 
 before the House in an effort to purge that State from the alleged 
 trafficking in votes and otlier forms of vicious politics. The native 
 State of Andrew Jackson, the high-minded patron saint of Democ- 
 racy, after three quarters of a century, is compelled to defend its 
 fair name from the charge that its electorate is now debauched. 
 
 Before action is taken by the House an examination of the record 
 is invited in order that no injustice may be done through an incom- 
 plete presentation of facts. The minority behoves the evidence 
 submitted in support of Mayor Grace's charges, ])resents a strong 
 prima facie case that warrants a thorough investigation of an alleged 
 violation of the corrupt practices act. The absence of a contestant 
 does not add to or take from the merits of any case because, although 
 a determination of rival claims is not involved, gross violation of law 
 is alleged which vitiates the election. Congress has been called upon 
 to probe into charges, filed wdth all the formality and definiteness of 
 an indictment. These charges are supported by sworn testimony 
 that can not be' discredited by simple denials. 
 
 To disregard the charges and refuse the investigation asked for by 
 Mayor Grace will, in the view of the minority, tend to nullify a law 
 passed by Congress in the interest of clean and honest elections 
 throughout the country. A law which Avith all its weakness will, if 
 enforced, minimize the shameful conditions alleged to exist in South 
 Carohna and which undoubtedly exist elsewhere. A law designed 
 to prevent a long purse from having undue influence in Congressional- 
 elections and which declares to the country that while it legislates for 
 others, Congress will not ignore the plain demands of justice or of 
 moral responsibility when the integrity of its own membership is 
 challenged. 
 
HBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 331 
 
 698 8 
 
 Hollinger Corp.