F 585 THE IMPEACHMElNT OF LEVI HUBBELL Bv JOHN BELL SANBORN, Ph. D. (From Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1905) MADISON State Historical Society of Wisconsin' IQO6 ''lass_JE_SXL. (look i'iii:.si:.\Ti:i) iiy 4b THE IMPEACHMENT OF LEVI HUBBELL By JOHN BELL SANBORN, Ph. D. // 7 (From Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1905] MADISON State Historical Society of Wisconsin 1906 Wisconsin Historical Society The Impeachment of Levi Hubbell By John Bell Sanborn, Ph. D. Those who believe that the world is growing better may re- ceive encouragement from the fact that the only impeachment in the history of Wisconsin occurred in early days. Judge Levi Hubbell, who was thus differentiated from the other cir- cuit judges of his time, was chosen at the first judicial election held in tihe state. The later immunity from impeachment may indicate either that oiu" present officials are better than those of the past, or that we are less critical than our predeces- sors, or less combative — probably the last. The campaign material of the present day may seem to belie this statement, but we are much more calm and restrained in political matters than our fathers were fifty years ago. This solitary impeach- ment, moreover, did not relate to a strictly partisan office. "Whatever has been the feeling aroused by party strife, and whatever have been the charges made in the heat of political campaigns, they have never found expression in this drastic action of the assembly. Against the judiciary, always well removed from political feeling, has this weapon alone been di- rected, and in this one instance the senate refused to convict The constitution of Wisconsin, adopted in 1848, provided for a judicial organization by dividing the state into five cir- cuits, in each of which a judge was to be chosen for terms vary- ing from t^vo to six years in the first instance, and theraafter [194] Impeachment ot Hubbell for six years. These circuit judges were also collectively to coustitute the supreme court of the state/ The second circuit, consisting of Milwaukee, Waukesha, Jefferson, and Dane counties, was the largest and most important. For the elec- tion which was to occur upon August 7, 1848, party conven- tions were held therein in order to nominate candidates. Abram I). Smith, afterwards a judge of the supreme court, was nominated by the Democrats, Francis Randall being named by the Wliigs." Much dissatisfaction was expressed with the Democratic nomination,^ the Madison Argus going so far as to refuse to support the candidate in language that brought out threats of a libel suit from Smith.* Compara- tively late in the campaign Levi HubboU, who had been men- tioned as a possible noaninee of the Democrats,^ entered the field as an independent candidate. It was some time before the result of the election was known, but it was at last ascer- tained that Hubbell was elected by a plurality of 6Q votes over Smith and 107 votes over Randall.*' Tlie successful candidate was bom in iN^ew York state April 15, 1808. He was a graduate of Union College, later being adjutant-general of Xew York and a member of the legislature of that state.^ In 1844 he came to Milwaukee, where he soon became the senior member of the firm of Hubbell, Finch, and Lynde, the other members whereof ^^ Jre Asahel Finch and William P. Lynde, both well known in the legal history of the state. ^ 1 Constitution, art. vii, sees. 4-7. ^Milwaukee Sentinel-Gazette, July 28, 29, 1848. ^Ibid, July 28, 29, Aug. 1-5. ■t Madison Argus, July 28, Aug. 1, 8, 1848. 5 Sentinel-Gazette, July 18, 1848. 6 According to the Madison Argus (Aug. 28, 1848), the vote stood: Hubbell, 1,606; Smith, 1,540; Randall, 1,499. 7 "Wisconsin Bar Association Reports, i, p. 111. 8The lives of Hubbell menTion this partnership, but those biog- raphies of Finch that I have seen do not. The card of Hubbell, Finch, and Lynde appears in the Sentinel for July 20, 1844. [ 195 ] Wisconsin Historical Society 111 the drawing of lots by the Tarious circuit judges to de- termine tlie lengtii of tiheir respective terms, Judge Hubbell's service was fixed at tbree years/ He consequently came up for re-election in the fall of 1851. That his conduct had not been entirely satisfactory is evident from the opposition mani- festeid against him when be became a candidate to succeed himself, and that he did not do so at the desire of his party, but was nominated by a call of his friends. A convention of the Democrats of the circuit, held at Oconomowoc, August 27, 1851, refused to make any noimination, but passed resolutions condemning the procedure of Hubbell." He w^as also opposed by the Milwaukee Wisconsin and the Free Democrat^ while the News and the Sentinel supported him. The two latter did so Ijecause it considered him equal in ability to his opponent, while he had had the advantage of three years' experience on the bench. Politically, the Sentinel should have opposed him.* The opposition to Hubbell appears to have been personal rather than caused by the wish for any particular candidate in his place ; but at last his former partner, Asahel Finch, was chosen by tlie opposition, and the campaign was an ex- tremely bitter one, conducted on both sides with small regard for the amenities of the occasion. The charges against Finch and his fitness for the place do not here concern us. Much of the criticism of Hubbell, particularly that of the Free Demo- crat, edited by the wrell-known S. M. Booth, was extremely abusive.* There w^as little definiteness in the opposition, how- ever, and only two direct charges were made against the judge; one of these was, that in the trial of one Haney in Dane County for assault, the sentence imposed was less than that al- lowed by law.^ This also was one of the charges in the impeachment, and will be considered m that connection. The 1 Madison Argus, Aug. 28, 1848. ^Free Democrat, Aug. 28, 1851. 3 See Sentinel, Sept. 9, 1851. 4 See the issues of this paper for August and September, 1851. sSfee Sentinel, Sept. 4, 11, 1851. [196] Impeachment of Hubbell other charge was connected with the Macaboy case, wherein the judge had allowed a defendant in a criminal trial to make a stateanent to the jury in his o^vn behalf/ According to mod- em standards, this was not a serious accusation ; but Booth considered that it showed the grossest maladministration." It was claimed at the time of the impeachment that other charges against Hubbell were known at tlie time of his re-election and published in handbills ;'' but I can find no evidence that charges other than those mentioned were made at that time. It is significant that the heat of a campaign was able to bring out only one of the numerous charges aftei-ward made. Judge Hubbell was re-elected by a good mjajority — about 274 in Mil- waukee County, 569 in Waukesha, and 100 in Dane, while the vote was nearly a tie in Jefferson.* ^STot long after the beginning of his second term there came before Judge Hubbell a case which probably had much influ- ence on his subsequent career. The E,a,dcliff murder trial was one of the famous incidents in the early days of Milwaukee. There seemed no question of tlie gnili of the defeiidant, and years later a story was current that the prisoner had confessed to his attome}', during the trial, and that this confession was communicated to the judge.^ Be this as it may, E-adcliff was acquitted by the jury. When the verdict was brought in, Judge Hubbell examined it for some time and then asked, "Gentlemen of the jury, is this your verdict?" The foreman replied, "Yes, your honor;" whereupon Judge Hubbell answered, "All I have to say is, if this is so, may God have ^Free Democrat. Aug. 19, 1S51. ^Ibid, Aug. 16, 1851. 3 This statement was made in the Grant County Herald and denied in the Free Democrat. See the latter paper for July 23, 1853. i Sentinel, Oct. 2, 1851. ^Sentinel, March 11, 1852; Free Democrat, March 10, 1852; Milwau- kee Telegraph, Oct. 31, 1880; quoted in [Prank A. Flower], History of Milwaukee, p. 315. [197] Wisconsin Historical Society mercy on your consciences!"^ The foreman of this juiy was W. K. Wilson, of Milwaulcee, and on the twenty-sixth day of the following January (1853) he presented to the speaker of the assembly a communication charging Hubbell with high crimes, misdemeanors, and malfeasances in office." It may be that the impeachment would have taken place had that unfor- tunate remark never been addressed to himi by Judge Hubbell, but this seems doubtful.^ A motion to send these charges to ibe judiciar)^ committee was lost, 13 to 63 ; and the matter was referred to a select com- mittee consisting of P. B. Simpson of Lafayette County, Horace T. Sanders of Racine, George W. Gate, of Portage, later circuit judge, C, Latham Sholes of Kenosha County, and E. ]^, Poster of Dodge.' It will be noted that none of these came from HubbeU's circuit. A few days later this coimiiittee received permission to send for persons, papers, and records; and soon after that the speaker was authorized to issue subpcenas as might be required by the committee.^ Need of legal assistance was soon felt, and E. G. Ryan, who had attained fame in the second constitu- tional convention and who was then one of the leaders of the Mjilwaukee bar, was summoned by telegraph (January 27), and assisted the committee in the investigation until the twenty-third of February.*' The procedure was that of a grand jury, and Hubbell was not allowed to appear, although he stated both to the assembly and to the public tliat he desired in every way to assist the iFree Democrat, March 10, 1852; Sentinel March 11, 1852. ^Assembly Journal, 1851, pp. 98-99. 3 It was stated in the Sentinel (Jan. 29, 1853) that the charges were piut forward by another who did not appear, but I find no confirmation of this. ^Assembly Journal, 1853, pp. 98, 99. 5 Ibid, pp. 110, 118. 6 Petition in Ryan v. State, in supreme court MS. files. [198] Impeachment of Hubbell cominittee.^ On February 23, the committee reported that they found that Levi Hubbell had been ''guilty of divers acts of corruption and malfeasance in the discharge of the duties of his said office, and that public justice requires that the said Levi Hubbell should be removed from his said office as judge of tjie second judicial circuit." The procedure recommended was by address of botli houses in pursuance of section 13, arti- cle vii, of the constitution." It was asserted that by proceeding in this manner the legislature would not be bound by the strict legal rules governing an impeachment.'' The assembly decided to impeach, however, and the services of Ryan were again requested, he being in attendance from March 9 to 27, engaged in the preparation of the charges. The articles of impeachment were agreed to by a unanimous vote, and the election of managers to conduct the trial resulted in the choice of P. B. Simpson, H. T. Sanders, J. Allen Bar- ber, George W. Gate, and Elzra Wbeeler.* On tlie twenty-second of March the senate resolved itself into a court of impeachment. In the absence; of the lieutenant- governor, the oath was administered by the chief clerk, to D. O. Reed, the president pro tern., who in turn administered it to the senators. The managers being then announced, Mr. Sanders read at length the articles of impeachment and deliv- ered an engrossed copy to the clerk. There were eleven charges, each of a general nature, and under these were numer- ous specifications, amounting in all to seventy. It is evident from this niunber that the committee had with great minute- ness reviewed tlie five years of Hubbell's servaces upon the bench. In some cases, however, the same matter was presented in different form, under different charges ; but the whole num- ber of distinct accusations against him was at least fifty. iSee letter to the assembly, Feb. 17, Assembly Journal, 1853, p. 259; Evening Wisconsin, Feb. 1, 1853; Milwaukee Sentinel, Feb. 2, 1853. 2 Assembly Journal, 1853, pp. 300-301. 3 Free Democrat, Feb. 28, 1853, * Assembly Journal, 1853, pp. 364-366, 577-581. [199] Wisconsin Historical Society The first charge was that of receaving a bribe; the second, with three specifications, accused him of adjudicating cases in which he was interested; the third, with two specifications, concerned the inflicting of punishments less than those pre- scribed bv Law; tlie fourth, with six specifications, related to his acting as judge in cases in which he had previously been of counsel ; tlie fifth, with three specifications, was to the effect that he had used nLoney paid into court.; the sixth, with three specifications, was regarding the consultation with suitors in his court; the seventh, with eight specifications, charged him with undue partiality; the eighth, with four specifications, with immoral conduct; the ninth, with six specifications, with arbitrary and oppressive exercise of his judicial functions; the tenth, with twenty-one specifications, charged that he had al- lowed himself to be approached and influenced out of court in suits pending before him; and the eleventh, with thirteen specifications, was that he had oflieiously interfered and inter- meddled with suits instituted in the courts of the state.^ To conduct his defense Judge Huboell had engaged Jona- than El. Arnold and James H. Kncwlton, two of the best known lawyers of the state, who entered a formal plea of not guilty. Meanwhile an adjournment of the legislature was taken until the first Monday in June. When that time arrived neither the senate nor the assembly was ready to proceed. The upper house met each day, but nothing was done for a week because of the absence of witnesses.^ Nor were the managers for the assembly prepared with counsel, and it was not until June 8 that such employment was authorized.^ Kyan was again sent for, and it was stated that W. K. Wilson went to Milwaidsee to secure him.* Meanwhile, the members of the 1 Trial of Impeachment of Levi Hubbell, reported by T. C. Leland (Madison, 1853), pp. 5-19. \2 0f the 55 witnesses subpoenaed, only 6 v/ere present on June 9 — Trial, p. 30. 3 Assembly Journal, 1853, p. 839. 4 Free Democrat, June 10, 1853. [ 200 ] Impeachment of Hubbell legislature luid an opportunity to enjoy the early summer beauty of Madison. Mr. "W. H- Watson, one of tke editors of the Sentinel, -wrote: "Madison is certainly one of the most charming spots in the country." Comujenting on its citizens, he said that if one of them is complimented on the appearance of the town he puts on an air of indifference, '*a sort of I-have^- seon-it-look-better-a- thousand- times look'' ' Considerable criticism, particularly from Whig newspapers, was forthcoming because of the delay in the proceedings." On June '3 the witnesses were formally summoned by the sergeant- at-arms by calling them tliree times at the door. "The cere^ niony was very impressi^'e to the immediate audience. Its effect upon the more distant portions of the state we have not yet learned," said the Madison Journal (June 10, 1853). As a more effective method, attachments were issued by the senate. On Monday, June 13, the trial of the case began in earnest, opening witli the argument of Mr. Ryan, which, concerned itself largely witli the gTounds upon which a verdict of guilty could be found in an impeachment proceeding. He argued that the right to impeach concerned not only crimes and misdemeanors, but also, as a distinct and separate ground, corrupt conduct in office. He considered all wilful maladministration of office to be corrupt conduct, and said, "he who, no matter how little, de- parts from the duties of his office, is guilty of corrupt conduct in his office."^ He then took up the various charges, claiming that each of them stated a separate reason for the removal of J udge Hubbell. His opening speech t( ok the greater part of the first day, whereupon the examination of witnesses upon the part of the prosecution was begun. Early in the proceed- ings Mr. Knowlton, after stating that Hubbell desired a trial 1 Sentinel, June 13, 1853. 2 See Sentinel, June 13, 1853; Madison Journal, June 9, 10, 1853; and reply to these in Madison Argus and Democrat, June 11, 1853, and Free Democrat, June 16, 1853. 3 Trial p. 47. 14 [ 201 ] Wisconsin Historical Society on all of tlie charges, but maintaining tliat consent could not confer jurisdiction, objected to the jurisdiction in general, and particularly regarding matters which occurred before the new term of the judge. These points were to he submitted with- out argimient. Eyan, however, argued the questions at some Icoigth, and drew out a short reply from Mr. Arnold.^ The first objection, based on the use of the words "House of Eepre- sentatives" instead of "Assembly" in section 13, article vii of the constitution was overruled unanimously, and the second by a vote of 19 to 5. The next move on tJie part of the defense was to request a copy of the testimony taken before the investigating committee. This was opposed by Eyan on the ground that the action of the committee w^as that of a grand jury, and that such a demand was unprecedented,^ and the inspection of the testimony was refused.^ The examination of witnesses on the part of the proseciition then began, and continued tlu'ougli June 25. Some difficulty was experienced wuth Albert Smith, a justice of the i>eace of Milwaukee, who tlireatened to imprison the assistaut sergeant- at-arms for contempt of his court if he persisted in his efforts to serve a ^vrit of attachment.* i^o particular order was observed in the calling of witnesses, the prosecution passing from one charge to anotlier. The testimony tlius presented to the senate was confused, the sena- tors finding it difficult to obtain any clear idea of the case. The heat, moreover, was oppressive, the thermometer ranging from 00" to 96° in the shade. During one session Mr. Wat- son noted the pi'eoccupations of the various senatoi*s, and re- corded tJiat only seven were listening to the proceedings. ilbid., pp. 70-77. : ; 2Z6i(Z, pp. 80-82. 3 Journal of the Court, p. 49. 4 Trial, p. 79. He did, however, attend as a witness; see Journal of the Court, p. 55. [202] Impeachment of Hubbell Jime 27, Mr. Arnold opened tlie case on behalf of Judge Hubbell in an address which occupied nearly the entire day. In addition to a general consideration of the nature of the charges, he took up the specifications separately and discussed the testimony which had been brought out by the prosecution.^ The examination of witnesses then continued im.til the second of July, when Mi-. Knowlton stated that he was willing to submit the case to the court without aigument; Mr. Sanders, however, refusing to agree imless the assembly Vvould consent to this plan. In the afternoon it was announced that the prosecution would waive the opening of the case, that the de- fendant's attorneys would present their argument first, and that the counsel for the state would close. ^ On Monday the fourth of July an eficrt was made to hold a session of the court, but the number of absentees prevented.® On, the follovfing moniing, Mr. Knowlton, after stating that some fourteen specifications had been abandoned by the prose- cution,* opened the argument for the defense. He occupied the greater portion of two days in a thorough discussion of the remaining charges.^' His argTiment Vv'as not eloquent, but a careful, clear pi-esontation of the facts as viewed from the standpoint of the defendant He was followed by his associ- ate, reputed one of the most eloquent and skillful lawyers of the state;® to one reading these arguments, however, Mr. Knowlton's appear superior. It may be that the time which he devoted to the matter accounts for this result, but certainly Mr. Arnold's argument does not afford much assistance in estimating the truth or falsity of the various charges. The fact that he was in poor health at the time probably partially accounts for this. 1 Trial pp. 283-337. ^Ibicl, pp. 469-470. 3 Madison Journal, July 5, 1853. ■i Trial, p. 472. 6 Ibid, pp. 472-556. 6 lUd, pp. 562-613. [203] Wisconsin Historical Society Friday morning Mr. Sanders, from the committee of man- agers, made a comparatively brief address/ and in the after- noon Mr. Eyan began his now famous indictment. He stated in opening that he was laboring under great physical disability, and that he knew that he could satisfy neither himself nor those who desired to hear him." On Saturday morning the clerk wished to correct the printed journal of the day before, which stated that Mr. Hyan had commenced the argument for the "persecution." This soonewhat innocent mistake does not appear to have been well received by Mr. Eyan, for he referred to it as a "stale and witless jest," and discussed the matter for some time, referring especially to the persecution to which those who practiced in the second circuit had been subjected.* The speech was a severe arraignment of Hubbell, and a strong presentation of such portions of the testimony as told most strongly against him. Yet despite its eloquence it was not effective. Instead of selecting the few charges on which there was a possibility of a conviction, and concentrating attention upon those, Eyan dwelt upon nearly all of the speci- fications. He spoke at great length and with scathing invec- tive upon those for which there was practically no proof. He magnified trivial incidents into proofs of conaiption, and barely secured a single vote for conviction on matters which he pressed strongly. The effect was not only to create sympathy for Hubbell, but to obscure the strong points of the case. Of the seventy specifications first presented, fourteen had been abandoned. On nineteen others the vote of acquittal was unanimous. In the other cases, one voted guilty on eleven specifications, two on four, four on one, five on two, six on six, seven on six, eight on four, nine on one, ten on one, and twelve on oue. This last vote was a tie of the senate. 1 Ihid, pp. 614-629. ^lUa, p. 630. 3 lUd, p. 658. [204] Impeachment of Hubbell Twelve of the senators voted not guilty on every specifica- tion ; these were Alban, Bashford, Bovee, Briggs, Ciary, Dunn, Lewis, Pinckney, Eeed, Sniitli, Seaton, and Sterling. Of the remaining twelve Weil, Whittlesey, and Walseley voted guilty twice; McLane eleven times; Stewart thirteen times; Vittum and Blair eighteen times; Hunter and Bowen twenty times; Prentice twenty-one times ; Miller twenty-three times ; and Allen twenty-four times. There appear no special political or personal reasons for the several votes. The senate was heavily Democratic; of the seven Whigs five were among the twelve who voted constantly to acquit, while the other two voted guilty thirteen and twenty- one times respectively. Tliere were two members from Mil- waukee, one of whom always voted not guilty, while the other voted giiilty twenty times. Of the other members from Hub- bell's circuit one always favored himi, while the other three voted guilty t^vice, eleven, and thirteen times respectively. Allen, who was strongest in his opposition to the judge, repre- sented the extreme northwestern portion of the state,^ while Miller, who was second in this respect, came from Bock County. The vote which came nearest to conviction was that on the second specification of the fourth charge — that Hubbell had been of counsel in an indictment of William S. Hungerford for perjury in the United States court ; and at the same time there was pending in the state court a case brought by Hungerford against Caleb Cushing, in which it was alleged that the same questions arose, and Judge Hubbell had beard an appeal of this case in the supreme court. There was no dispute as to the facts. Hubbell had been Hungerford' s attorney in a motion to quash the indictment, and he had heard the Hungerford- Gushing case. This was done openly, and even if he had 1 Crawford, La Cro&se, Bad Ax, St. Croix, Chippewa, and La Pointe counties. [205] Wisconsin Historical Society erred as to his right to so hear die case one would hardly, in the absence of some bad motive, call this corrupt conduct. As far as obsei-^-ed the testimony was silent as to such a. motive,^ But I do not believe that he erred legally. He might have avoided suspicion had he declined the retainer from Hunger- ford, but a salary of fifteen hundred dollars is not conducive to such declinations, A circuit judge then as now, had the right to practice in other courts ; the modem practice, however, of refusing to exercise this right is to be commended. Hub- bell, moreover, was accused primarily of corrupt conduct in hearing the case in the supreme court — not in taking the re- tainer. The Hungerford-Ctishing case involved the perfonnance of certain trusts which it was alleged had been imposed in a con- veyance of lands made by the plaintiff tO' the defendant. The bill of complaint recited the conveyance, set up tlie trusts, al- leged non-performance, and demianded a re-conveyance. The indiotment of Hungerford was for making an affidavit that he had made no agreement to convey these lands at the time he had entered them. Hubbell was retained on a motion to quash, which of course involved only the legal sufficiency of the indict- ment — ^a motion which was never argued, for Judge Miller quashed it of his own accord. It seems evident that such an eniplojanent did not make Hubbell an attorney in the Hungerford-Cushing case. The miatter was afterward presented to the supreme court on the same grounds as those presented to the court of impeacliment, in an appeal from an order of Hubbeli refusing a change of venue. Judge Whiton held that Hubbell was entitled to hear the case.^ An examination of the cases has convinced me that 1 The late Justice Newman improperly heard an appeal In the su- preme court, but I have heard of no one who has seen in this any evi- dence of corrupt conduct. See Case v. Hoffman, 100 Wis. 314. 352. 2 Hungerford v. Gushing, 2 Wis. 397. [206] Impeachment of Hubbell this decision is in accord with the weight of authority/ The result of the vote on this specification seems strange, since it was one of the weakest charges presented., On many others a vote of guilty could much more easily have been justified. In- deed, this was the opinion attributed to Eyan himself.^ The next vote was on the first charge, that of accepting a bribe ; on this the vote stood ten to fourteen,^ Briefly stated, the facts on this charge appeared to be that Hubbell had been asked by one of the parties to an equity case if he had decided it and had replied that he had done so in favor of the inquirer, one William Sanderson. He had then asked Sanderson for a loan of tW'O hundred dollars, which was granted. After^vai'd Sanderson conceived the idea that there was no need of repay- ment, and had resisted the efforts of Hubbell to that end.* There was a manifest impropriety in a request for a loan under such circum-Stances, but the testimony does not make it appear that Hubbell regarded this as anything else than a loan. The next closest vote (nine to fifteen) was on another aspect of the same case, charging Hubbell with consulting with parties out of court." It was based on some indefinite testimony of Sand- erson's that he had spoken to Hubbell about the case at the 1 See Cleghorn v. Cleghorn, 66 Cal. 309. 5 Pac. 516; McMillan v. Nichols, 62 Ga. 36; Wolfe v. Hines, 93 Ga. 329, 20 S. E. 322; Shoemaker V. South Bend Spark Arrester Co., 135 Ind. 471, 35 N. E. 280, 22 L R. A. 332; Glasscock v. Hughes, 55 Tex. 461; King v. Sapp, 66 Tex. 519 2 S. W. 573; Cullen v. Drane, 82 Tex. 484, 18 S. W. 590; Blackwell v. National Bank, 97 Tex. 445, 79 S. W. 518; Stevens v. Hall, 8 Idaho 549, 69 Pac. 282. 2 It was reported that one of the senators who had voted for convic- tion in this case, approached Ryan after the trial and said that the vote was pretty close. Ryan answered "Yes, and there wasn't a d d thing in that specification anyhow, while you voted unanimously to acquit things ten times as bad." — Sentinel, July 16, 1853. 3 Allen, Blair, Bowen, Hunter, McLane, Miller, Prentice, Stewart, Vittum, and Wakeley voted guilty. — Trial, p. 790. ilbid, pp. 89-94. B Allen, Blair, Bowen, Hunter, McLane, Miller, Prentice, Stewart, and Vittum voted guilty. — Ibid, p. 814. [207] Wisconsin Historical Society time it was brought, and was not nearly so strong as the brib- ery charge. Eight senators yoted ^lilty on IfouJr other sp€