ELECTION OE ISAAC STEPHENSON REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER WITH THE HEARINGS HELD BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SENATE Document No. 312 S. RES. 136 DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, OR ANY SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER CORRUPT METHODS AND PRACTICES WERE USED OR EMPLOYED IN THE ELECTION OF ISAAC STEPHEN- SON AS A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. 1 Pages 1 to 996 (DIGEST INDEX IN EACH VOLUME) WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 " 62d Congress 1 viTr'VATP' / Document 2d Session / l No. 312 ELECTION OE ISAAC STEPHENSON REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER WITH THE HEARINGS HELD BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE PURSUANT TO S. RES. 136 DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, OR ANY SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER CORRUPT METHODS AND PRACTICES WERE USED OR EMPLOYED IN THE ELECTION OF ISAAC STEPHEN- SON AS A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. 1 Pages 1 to 996 (DIGEST INDEX IN EACH VOLUME) WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 In the Senate of the United States, February 12, 1912. Resolved , That one thousand additional copies of the report and accompany ing papers presented by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, who were directed to investigate whether corrupt methods and practices were used or employed in the election of Isaac Stephen- son as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, •be printed for the use of the Senate, and that four hundred and fifty additional copies of the report, together with the hearings held before the committee, be printed for the use of the Senate. Attest : Charles G. Bennett, Secretary . By H. M. Hose, Assistant Secretary. COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS, WILLIAM P. DILLINGHAM. Vermont, Chairman. ROBERT J. GAMBLE, South Dakota. WELDON B. HEYBURN, Idaho. MOSES E. CLAPP, Minnesota. GEORGE SUTHERLAND, Utah. WIILLIAM O. BRADLEY, Kentucky. WESLEY L. JONES, Washington. GEORGE T. OLIVER, Pennsylvania. | WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa. THOMAS H. FAYNTER, Kentucky. JOSEPH F. JOHNSTON, Alabama. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Florida. JOHN W. KERN, Indiana. LUKE LEA, Tennessee. ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio. Ferdinand H. Pease, Clerk. Ooc , 57 REPORT- OF COMMITTEE. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://archive.org/details/electionofisaacs01unit [Senate Report No. 349, 62d Cong., 2d sess.] CHARGES RELATIVE TO ELECTION OF ISAAC STEPHENSON. February 12, 1912. — Ordered to be printed. Mr. Heyburn, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. Res. 13G.] The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred certain charges preferred by the Legislature of the State of Wiscon- sin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, with instructions to report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report: On August 15, 1911, the Senate adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections or any sub- committee thereof be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges pre- ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson, as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices; that said committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during the recess of the Senate, to hold its session at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths ; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chairman of the subcommittee. Pursuant to the authority given by said resolution the Committee on Privileges and Elections appointed a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Heyburn, chairman, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Paynter. and Mr. Pomerene, with full powers to investigate said charges. On January 20, 1912, the subcommitte reported to the full com- mittee as follows: IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST ISAAC STEPHEN- SON, A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN. To the honorable the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate : Your subcommittee proceeded pursuant to the terms of its appointment to investigate the above-mentioned charges, and in pursuance of said duty met in VII VIII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. the city of Washington and, having organized, proceeded to adopt a plan for holding such investigation. It was agreed by your subcommittee that the investigation should commence on October 2, 1911. at the city of Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin. Accordingly your subcommittee met at the city of Milwaukee on the above- mentioned date, all parties in interest being present. Hon. Charles E. Little- field, W. E. Black, and H. A. J. Upliam, Esqs., appeared as counsel for Senator Stephenson. The governor and the attorney general of the State of Wisconsin were notified by the chairman of your subcommittee of the time and place of the hearing and were invited to indicate to the committee whether or not they desired to be present and participate in any manner in such investigation. The governor of Wisconsin, speaking for the State, informed your subcommittee that no one on behalf of the State would appear at such investigation. Your subcommittee then proceeded to the examination of witnesses and docu- ments, which examination occupied 25 days, during which time 124 witnesses were sworn, 35 affidavits received, and 2.100 pages of printed testimony taken, which testimony, affidavits, and exhibits are herewith submitted as a part of the report of your subcommittee. Your subcommittee has given the fullest consideration to all the testimony introduced and has considered its weight and effect under the rules pertaining to the investigation and is of the opinion that the charges preferred against Senator Isaac Stephenson have not been sustained, and your subcommittee finds that the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin was not procured by corrupt methods or practices in said election of Isaac Stephenson. W. B. Heyburn, Chairman. George Sutherland. W. O. Bradley. Atlee Pomerene. Mr. Heyburn, chairman of the subcommittee, submitted a state- ment of his views in support of the conclusions reached, and on the request of members of the committee further consideration of the matter was postponed to February 3, 1912, on which date a further postponement was had to February 10, 1912, with the understanding that any member of the committee might file a statement of his views to accompany the final report of the committee, and that a vote might be taken on that date. On February 10, 1912, the Committee on Privileges and Elections met in regular session and received a statement of the views of Mr. Pomerene and Mr. Sutherland in support of the report of the sub- committee, and proceeded to the consideration of the report of the subcommittee together with the views expressed by the members thereof upon a full record of the testimony and proceedings in the case. On motion it was ordered that the report of the subcommittee be adopted and that said subcommittee be discharged. Whereupon it was ordered that Mr. Heyburn be instructed to re- port the action of the committee to the Senate, together with a tran- script of testimony and of all the proceedings of the subcommittee, including the address of Hon. Charles E. Littlefield before the whole committee, and also the individual views presented by members of the committee. Leave was given to file a minority report by those dissenting from the conclusions reached. Wherefore your committee, having given full consideration to the law and to the testimony and to all of the facts and circumstances brought to its notice, does find that the charges preferred against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. IX Wisconsin, are not sustained, and your committee further finds that the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States was not procured by corrupt methods or practices. Wm. P. Dillingham. Robert J. Gamble. W. B. Heyburn. Geo. Sutherland. George T. Oliver. Jos. F. Johnston. Duncan U. Fletcher. Atlee Pomerene. W. O. Bradley. VIEWSOF MR. HEYBURN IN SUPPORT OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. The subcommittee having reported to the whole committee in favor of Isaac Stephenson, I desire to submit herewith the reasons which actuated me in arriving at that conclusion: jurisdiction. On August 15, 1911, the United States Senate adopted the follow- ing resolution: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections or any subcom- mittee thereof be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson, as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices; that said committee or sub- committee be authorized to sit during the recess of the Senate, to hold its session at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investiga- tion, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chair- man of the subcommittee. Pursuant to the authority given by said resolution the Committee on Privileges and Elections appointed a subcommittee consisting of Senators Heyburn, Sutherland, Bradley, Pa\mter, and Pomerene, with full powers “ to investigate said charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin relating to the election of Isaac Stephenson, a Senator from the State of Wisconsin.” meeting of subcommittee In performance of said duty the subcommittee met at Milwaukee, Wis., on October 2, 1911, in the Federal Building, a quorum of said subcommittee being present. The chairman announced that the subcommittee would recognize a duly authorized representative of the State of Wisconsin, in view of the fact that the State had submitted through its governor to the Senate of the United States the charges to be investigated. No one X SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. appearing, the chairman then instructed the secretary of the subcom- mittee to communicate with the governor and attorney general of the State and advise them that the committee was in session in Milwaukee for the purpose of investigating the charges aforesaid, and to inquire whether or not the State desired to be represented at the bearing, and, pursuant to such instruction, the secretary sent the following com- munication to the governor: Milwaukee, Wis., October 2, 1911. Hon. Francis E. McGovern, Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.: A subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate, duly appointed, with instructions to investigate the election of Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, as recommended by the Legislature of Wisconsin as provided in joint resolution 58 of said legislature, has entered upon the investigation in the Federal Building, in the city of Milwaukee. As the State appears to be unrepresented by counsel, you are requested to advise the committee whether or not it is the desire of the State to be represented* by counsel before this committee, and if so, designate in writing such person to represent the State. W. B. Heyburn, Chairman. To which communication the governor replied as follows: Executive Chamber, Madison, Wis., Octobers, 1911. Hon. W. B. Heyburn, Chairman Subcommittee of the United States Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections , Milwaukee, Wis. My Dear Sir: In reply to your telegram of yesterday, in which you request me to advise your committee “whether or not it is the desire of the State to be represented by counsel” before your subcommittee, permit me to say that I find there is very serious doubt that I have any power to act m the matter. Joint resolution 58, to which you refer, confers no such authority. It simply requests the United States Senate “to investigate the manner, means, and methods by and through which Isaac Stephen- son secured his election to the United States Senate,” recommends to the district attorney of Dane County that prosecutions be commenced against all persons shown to have committed perjury in the senatorial inquiry in this city, and suggests that prosecutions be commenced in other counties of the State for such violations of the corrupt-practices or bribery statutes as the evidence may justify. In the absence of any specific authority conferred by this joint resolution the only other possible source is chapter 268 of the laws of Wisconsin for the year 1911. Care- ful consideration of this statute leaves me in doubt as to whether it confers power upon me to employ at the expense of the State counsel to attend the investigation your subcommittee is now conducting. Nor can I see that much good is likely to come from such employment. Your invitation comes so late as practically to pre- clude the possibility of anyone whom I might select rendering any real service to your committee or materially assisting in the investigation now in progress. That investigation has already begun. The transactions to be inquired into are numerous and involved, as appears from the fact that the testimony already taken occupied many months of the time of committees of the State legislature and now fills a number of large volumes of printed reports. To be of service counsel for the State should have been employed months ago. I say this with no feeling of personal responsi- bility in the matter for the reason that until your telegram came yesterday there was no ground for anticipating that the appearance of an attorney for the State at this hearing would be acceptable to your committee. Indeed, more than a week ago, under date of September 25, the" Associated Press quoted you as having expressed yourself as chairman of the subcommittee as follows: “The State of Wisconsin will not have an attorney in the investigation of the election of Isaac Stephenson by the United States Senate committee. This hearing is under the jurisdiction of the United States Senate, which does not recognize the State as a party to the investigation. This is an investigation, not a trial.” An additional reason why I should not avail myself of your invitation at this time is furnished by the practice of other committees charged with duties similar to yours. So far as I know no State has been represented by counsel at any of these investigations. The work has been done either by the members of the committee alone or by counsel of their own choosing. At any rate, the responsibility for a thorough, searching inquiry is upon your subcommittee acting as the agent of the United States Senate SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XI in determining a question relative to the “election, returns, and qualifications” of one of its own Members. Neither the State of Wisconsin nor its legislature desires to assume the role of prosecutor or to sustain any other relation to this investigation than that of petitioner for a thorough, fearless, and impartial inquiry. For the present, therefore, I shall take no action concerning the matter mentioned in your telegram. Assuring you, however, of my appreciation of your consideration in extending the invitation, I am, Very truly, yours, Francis E. McGovern. The chairman inquired whether or not counsel were present to represent Mr. Stephenson. Whereupon ITon. Charles E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. A. J. Upham appeared on his behalf and were recognized by the committee. The joint resolution and specific charges certified to the United States Senate by the governor of Wisconsin were then read. (Tran- script, pp. 4 and 5.) Before entering upon the examination of witnesses by the com- mittee Hon. Charles E. Littlefield, of counsel for Mr. Stephenson, requested leave to make a statement, which leave was granted. (Transcript, pp. 6-23.) The subcommittee then proceeded to the examination of witnesses and documents, which examination occupied 25 days, during which time 116 witnesses were sworn and examined, 36 affidavits received, and upward of 2,100 pages of printed testimony taken, which testi- mony, affidavits, and exhibits are herewith offered as a part of the report of the subcommittee. The subcommittee was directed to investigate certain charges pre- ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Mr. Stephenson. These charges were set forth in the communication of the governor of Wisconsin, and the papers accompanying the same, certified to the United States Senate, among which was the joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of Wisconsin on June 26, 1911, which is found on page 2 of the transcript. The charges referred to in the resolution under which the subcom- mittee acted are as follows: SPECIFIC CHARGES. 1. That Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette, Wis., now United States Senator and a candidate for reelection, did, as such candidate for reelection, give to one E. A. Edmonds, of the city of Appleton, Wis., an elector of the State of Wisconsin and said city of Appleton, a valuable thing, to wit, a sum of money in excess of $106,000, and approximating the sum of $250,000, as a consideration for some act to be done by said E. A. Edmonds, in relation to the primary election held on the 1st day of September, 1908, which consideration was paid prior to said primary election, and that said Isaac Stephenson was at the time of such payment a candidate for the Republican nomina- tion for United States Senator at such primary, and did by such acts as above set forth violate section 4543b of the statutes. * - 2. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to said primary, pay to said Edmonds above- mentioned sums with the design that said Edmonds should pay to other electors of this State, out of said sums above mentioned and other sums of money received by said Edmonds from said Isaac Stephenson, prior to said primary, sums ranging from $5 per day to $1,000 in bulk, as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to said primary by said electors for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate, in violation of said section. 3. That with full knowledge and with instructions from said Isaac Stephenson, as to how and for what purposes said sums were to be expended, said sums were so paid as above stated to said Edmonds by said Isaac Stephenson and that said sums were paid as above stated for the purposes above stated and also for the purpose of bribing and corrupting a sufficient number of the electors of the State of Wisconsin to encom- pass the nomination of said Isaac Stephenson at said primary for the office of United States Senator. XII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 4. That in pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one U. G. Keller, of Sauk County, an elector of this State, the sum of $300 as a consideration for some act to be done by said Keller for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 5. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to one Hambright, of Racine, Wis., large sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by said Hambright for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, said Hambright being then an elector of this State, corruptly and unlawfully. 6. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one Roy Morse, of Fond du Lac, Wis., then an elector of this State, the sum of $1,000 as a con- sideration for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, and corruptly and unlawfully. 7. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to divers persons, then electors of the county of Grant, Wis., ranging from $5 per day and upward, as a consideration for some act to be done by said several electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 8. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to divers persons who were at such time electors in this State a consideration for some act to be done for said Isaac Stephenson by such electors preliminary to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 9. That in further pursuance of such purposes and designs said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to electors of this State, who were of a different political opinion and who held to other political principles than those of the Republican Party, more particularly Democrats, sums of money as a considera- tion for some act to be done by such electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 10. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did offer to pay to Edward Pollock, of Lancaster, Wis., certain sums of money, as editor of the Teller, a newspaper pub- lished in said city of Lancaster, Wis., and to other editors of newspapers who were at such time electors of this State, and for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support of such editors and as a consideration of something to be done relating to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 11. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to such primary, by and through his agents, promise and agree to pay to one Lester Tilton, a then resident and elector of this State, and residing at the city of Neillsville, Wis., a sum in excess of $500 to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of said Lester Tilton to the assembly of this State from from Clark County, and did offer to give to said Lester Tilton a sum in excess of $500 if said Lester Tilton would become a candidate for the assembly from said Clark County if said Lester Tilton would support said Isaac Stephenson for the office of United States Senator, all of which is in violation of sections 4542b and 4543b of the statutes. 12. That said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, give and promise and pay or agree to pay to other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State other than those electors residing in the district wh^re said Isaac Stephenson resides. 13. That E. M. Heyzer and Max Sells, prior to said primary, being at such time employees of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., a corporation doing business in this State, did contribute and agree to contribute free services as such employees for the purpose to defeat the candidacy of former assemblyman E. F. Nelson, from the district embracing Florence, Forest, and Langlade Counties, for the nomination for assemblyman from said district, all of which was done with the knowledge and consent and under the direction of said Isaac Stephenson, his agents, and employees, contrary to chapter 492, Laws of 1905. 14. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above set forth said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, did, in addition to paying certain sums as above set forth, .offer and agree to pay to electors of this State, prior to said primary, a premium or bonus to those who in his employ carried their respective precincts in such primary for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate. 15. That said Isaac Stephenson, if claiming an election by virtue of receiving a plurality of votes at such primary, then said Isaac Stephenson has violated chapter 502 of the laws of 1905 by failing and neglecting to file his expense account as provided by said chapter. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XI If 16. Charging generally the primary nomination or election of said Isaac Stephenson was obtained by the use of large sums of money corruptly and illegally, by the viola- tion of sections 4542b, 4543b, and 4478b of the statutes relating to illegal -voting, brib- ery, and corruption, and other laws above set forth relating to elections and primary elections. John J. Blaine, a State senator, who made the said 16 specific charges, which constituted the basis of the legislative investigation, was examined in detail as to each of such charges and failed to sustain any of them, either by his own testimony or by reference to the tes- timony of others. The charges were made on information and belief according to his own testimony. He seemed upon examination to have no information upon which any belief as to their truth could be based. An inspection of his testimony (transcript, p. 592, etc.) will fully justify the conclusion of the subcommittee that such charges were not sustained. These charges were investigated by two legislative committees; first, by a joint committee which submitted a report which was not finally acted upon; second, by a committee of three members of the State senate, only one member of which was a member of the legisla- ture when l>he report of that committee was made. The time within which the joint legislative committee might take testimony and report was limited by the legislature to expire on the 13th day of April, 1909, and on that day the said committee met and adopted a resolution that each member make an outline of his pro- posed report and submit it at a later day for discussion before the committee. Said committee then adjourned subject to the call of the chairman of the senate or assembly committee. This ended the work of the joint investigating committee. The State senate, acting independently of the assembly and in view of the expiration of the time within which the joint committee might finish its work, adopted a resolution on March 25, 1909, authorizing the president of the senate to appoint a committee consisting of three members to complete the investigation that had been carried on by the joint committee and to u further fully, fairly, and thoroughly investigate the campaign and election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator, and the campaign and election of members of the legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or affects the election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator.” SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION. In the order of their importance the duties of the subcommittee may be classified as follows: First. To investigate the proceedings by the legislature, including the actions pf Senator Stephenson and those representing him, dur- ing the session of the legislature. Second. To investigate the campaign and election of members of the legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or affects the election of Isaac. Stephenson as a United States Senator. Third. The primary election and the campaign. XIV SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. ELECTION OF A SENATOR BY THE LEGISLATURE. The law providing for the election of Senators by the legislature is as follows, being chapter 1, title 2, of the Revised Statutes of the United States: Sec. 14. The legislature of each State which is chosen next preceding the expira- tion of the time for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organizing thereof, proceed to elect a Senator in Congress. Sec. 15. Such election shall be conducted in the following manner: Each house shall openly, by a viva voce vote of each member present, name one person for Sena- tor in Congress from such State, and the name of the person so voted for who receives a majority of the whole number of votes cast in each house shall be entered on the journal of that house by the clerk or secretary thereof; or if either house fails to give such majority to any person on that day, the fact shall be entered on the journal. At twelve o’clock meridian of the day following that on which proceedings are required to take place as aforesaid the members of the two houses shall convene in joint assem- bly, and the journal of each house shall then be read, and if the same person has re- ceived a majority of all the votes in each house he shall be declared duly elected Senator. But if the same person has not received a majority of the votes in each house, or if either house has failed to take proceedings as required by this section, the joint assembly shall then proceed to choose, by a viva voce vote of each member present, a person for Senator, and the person who receives a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present and voting, shall be declared duly elected. If no person receives such majority on the first day, the joint assembly shall meet at twelve o’clock meridian of each succeed- ing day during the session of the legislature and shall take at least one vote until a Senator is elected. Sec. 16. (Relates to filling vacancies.) Sec. 17. (Also relates to the filling of vacancies.) Sec. 18. It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which a Senator has been chosen, to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States. Sec. 19. The certificate mentioned in the preceding section shall be countersigned by the secretary of state of the State. PROCEEDINGS IN THE LEGISLATURE. The Forty-ninth Legislature of Wisconsin consisted of 33 senators and 100 assemblymen, and convened at the capitol at Madison on January 13, 1909, at 12 o’clock m. On Thursday, January 14, 1909, the organizing of both houses was complete, and the assembly adjourned until Tuesday, January 19, at 10 o’clock. The senate organized on January 13, 1909, and on January 14 Senator Husting introduced joint resolution 3, providing for the investigation of the primary election, which was laid over until the next session, and the senate adjourned until Tuesday, January 19, at 10 o’clock a. m. On Tuesday, January 26, the senate considered joint resolution 3, and a substitute was introduced by Senator Blaine. (Senate Journal, pp. 72-77.) This substitute contains the specific charges. On January 26, 1909, a vote was taken on the election of United States Senator, each house voting separately. In the senate the total number of votes cast was 17. Mr. Stephen- son received 12 votes, Brown 4, Rummel 1. (Senate Journal, pp. 78-79.) On the same day, January 26, upon the call of the roll in the assembly, the total number of votes cast for Senator was 84. Mr. Stephenson received 60, Neal Brown 16, Jacob Rummel 3, S. A. Cook SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XV 2, H. A. Cooper 1, J. H. Stout 1, and John J. Esch 1, which result was announced by the speaker. (Assembly Journal, pp. 74-75.) On Wednesday, January 27, resolutions were introduced in the senate, among others joint resolution 8, being an arraignment of the United States Senate and a demand for its abolition, introduced by Senator Gaylord. (Senate Journal, p. 86.) It was referred to the com- mittee on Federal relations. This is mentioned in passing only to show the temper of the legislature on the day of the first joint ballot for United States Senator. At 12 o’clock noon of January 27, 1909, the two houses met in joint convention. The lieutenant governor, presiding, stated: Gentlemen of the joint convention, you are assembled here for the purpose of expressing your choice for United States Senator. In order to comply with the Fed- eral law the clerk of the senate and the clerk of the assembly will read from the journal of each house, respectively, the proceedings of the preceding day with reference to the election of a United States Senator. The senate journal (p. 94) and the assembly journal (p. 80) records as follows: The chief clerk of the senate read the journal of the senate of January 26, 1909, and the chief clerk of the assembly read the journal of the assembly of January 26, 1909. The president then said: “ The clerk will call the roll. As your names are called you will arise from your seats and announce the candidate of your choice.” Senator Hudnall said: I rise to protest against ‘any other proceedings being taken in the joint assembly at this time except the announcement of the presiding officer that Hon. Isaac Stephenson is elected to the United States Senate for the term commencing March 4, 1909. I do that for the reason that it appears from the journal of the senate that the total number of votes cast for persons were 17, of which Isaac Stephenson received 12, Neal Brown 4, Jacob Pummel 1, and the journal of the assembly shows that of the members who voted for persons there were 60 for Stephenson, 10 for Brown, and 3 for Jacob Pummel; and it further appears from both journals of senate and assembly that Isaac Stephenson received a majority of all the votes cast in each house. It devolves then upon the president of this joint assembly to declare Isaac Stephen- son duly elected to the United States Senate, and then the duty devolves upon the president of the senate and speaker of the assembly to certify his election to the gov- ernor and to the secretary of state, and they to certify his election to the United States Senate. Any other proceeding is out of order and nugatory. Senator Hudnall stated that he made this statement as a protest and as a point of order. The president held the point of order not well taken and held that Senator Hudnall was out of order in his protest. The presiding officer then directed the nomination of candidates, and the joint assembly proceeded to vote for a United States Senator. There were 131 votes cast, of which Isaac Stephenson received 65, and the presiding officer announced that “it appears from the records of the convention that no person has received a majority of the votes cast for United States Senator.” Whereupon the joint convention dissolved. On no other day until the 4th of March, 1909, did anyone receive a majority of the votes cast in joint assembly. On that day (the 4th of March), upon the twenty-fourth ballot of the joint assembly there were 123 votes cast of which Isaac Stephenson received 63. Where- upon the chairman of the joint assembly announced the election of Isaac Stephenson, and the joint assembly adjourned sine die. At each session of the joint assembly the question as to whether any vote in the joint assembly was necessary was raised by protest against such proceedings upon the grounds that, Mr. Stephenson XVI SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. having received a majority of the votes cast in each house voting separately, no other or further duty remained for the joint assembly than that of reading the journals of the two houses of the proceedings in each relative to the election of a United States Senator on the day previous. These journals were read and the fact disclosed that in each house Mr. Stephenson had received a majority of all the votes cast. It remained only that “he shall be declared duly elected Senator.” The statute does not prescribe who shall declare the person receiving a majority of the votes in each house elected Senator, nor in what form such declaration shall be made. From the reading of the law it would seem that when the two Houses voting separately each gave Mr. Stephenson a clear majority and having met in joint session on the day following the vote in the separate houses, the journal of the proceedings of the two houses voting separately being read in joint convention and the result announced, the election was completed; the mere failure to declare him elected could not in any way defeat the will of the two houses as expressed in their separate votes. The failure to make a specific declaration of his election was not vital. The action of the governor and secretary of state in deferring the certificate of his election or in misstating the time of his election could not affect that election. If we are correct in assuming that the election of Isaac Stephenson was accomplished when the record of the two houses was read and announced in the joint assembly, then the failure or delay of the executive officers to perform their duty could in no way defeat his election as of the date of the meeting of the first joint assembly. ACTS OF BRIBERY CHARGED. Charges of bribery in the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s election had been freely made both before the subcommittee and before the legisla- tive investigating committee. Not one of these charges have been sustained by the testimony. The word “bribery” has been applied to many acts that do not constitute bribery. The procurement of advertising space or editorial comment in the newspapers upon the payment of money by or on behalf of a candi- date for office can not under any construction of law be held to be bribery. The procurement of the services of men to speak either publicly or personally on behalf of any candidate, or to canvass the electorate on his behalf, is not bribery under any reasonable construction of the law. If the testimony were true that money was offered to Assembly- man Leuch to go upon the floor and vote for the purpose of effecting a quorum it would not constitute bribery. It was the duty of such member to go upon the floor and vote. The charge of an attempt to bribe II. P. Pestalozzi utterly* failed of proof before your committee. The charge of unlawful dealings with the Milwaukee Free Press utterly failed of proof. It was conceded that Mr. Stephenson owned a controlling interest in that paper and he was certainly entitled to have its support and to sustain his interest in it. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XVII BRIBERY. The law of Wisconsin relative 1 to bribery is as follows: Sec. 39. Bribery of signers to petitions , etc. — 1. Any person who shall offer, or with knowledge of the same permit any person to offer for his benefit, any bribe to a voter to induce him to sign any * * * nomination paper * * * and any person who shall accept any such bribe or promise of gain of any kind in the nature of a bribe as consideration for signing the same, whether such bribe or promise of gain in the nature of a bribe be offered or accepted before or after such signing, or any candidate who shall knowingly cause a nomination paper, or papers, to be signed in his behalf by more than the maximum number of qualified electors provided for his district by subdivision 5 of section 11-5 of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon trial and conviction thereof be punished by fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail of not less than 10 days or more than 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable. — 2. Any act declared an offense by the general laws of this State concerning caucuses and elections shall also, in like case, be an offense in primaries and shall be punished in the same form and manner as therein provided, and all the penalties and provisions of the law as to such caucuses and elections, except as herein otherwise provided, shall apply in such case with equal force and to the same extent as though fully set forth in this act. Sec. 40. General election laws applicable (secs. 11-25). — The provisions of the statutes now in force in relation to the holding of elections, the solicitation of voters at the polls, the challenging of voters, the manner of conducting elections, of counting the ballots and making return thereof, and all other kindred subjects, shall apply to all primaries in so far as" they are consistent with this act, the intent of this act being to place the primary upder the regulation and protection of the laws now^in force as to elections. Sec. 263. Bribery at elections (sec. 4478).— The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery at elections: 1. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give, or lend, or offer, promise or promise to procure or endeavor to procure any money or valuable consideration, to or for any voter, to or for any person on hehalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, corruptly, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any elec- tion. 2. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, give or procure, or agree to give or procure, or offer, promise, or endeavor to procure any office, place of employment, public or private, to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, cor- ruptly, on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election.' 3. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to or for any person in order to induce such person to procure or endeavor to procure the election of any person to a public office, or the vote of any voter at any election. 4. Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement, procure, or engage, promise or endeavor to procure the election of any person to a public office or the vote of any voter at any election. 5. Every person who shall advance or pay or cause to be paid any money to or for the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who shall knowingly pay or cause to be paid any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election. Penalty.— And any person so offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for a term of not less than six months nor more than two years: Provided , That the foregoing shall not be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any legal expenses authorized by law and bona fide incurred at or concerning any election. Sec. 264 (sec. 4478a). The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery at elections: * Reference is to “Election Laws of Wisconsin,” published by .1. A. Frear, secretary of state, 1908. 15235—12 2 XVIII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 1. Every voter who shall, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receive, agree, or contract for any money gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place of employment, public or private, for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any election. 2. Every person who shall, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person in his behalf, receive any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election; and any voter or other person 60 offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than one month nor more than one year. Sec. 266. Office obtained by bribery , vacant (sec. 4481). — Any person who shall obtain any office or shall have been elected to any office at any election, at which election he shall have induced or procured any elector to vote for him for such office by bribery, shall be disqualified from holding said office, and he shall be ousted therefrom, and said office shall be deemed and held vacant, to be filled by election or appointment as other vacancies, according to law. Sec. 294. Bribery at caucas or convention (sec. 4479). — Any person being, or seeking to be, a candidate for any office at any election authorized by law who shall give, or promise to give, to any elector or other person any money or thing of value or any pecuniary advantage or benefit for the purpose of inducing or influencing such elector or other person to vote for him in any convention or meeting of the people held for the purpose of nominating any person or persons to be voted for at any such election to make him the nominee of any such convention or meeting and the candidate to be voted for for any office at such election, or who shall so give or promise any such thing to any such person for the purpose of inducing or influencing any person to sign any nomination paper which seeks to have him nominated as a candidate for any office to be so voted for; and any such elector or other person who shall ask, solicit, or receive any money or thing of value or any pecuniary advantage or benefit from such candi- date as a consideration or inducement for his vote at any such convention or meeting of the people, or his signature to any such paper, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500. Sec. 296. Bribery in connection with caucus (sec. 4542b). — Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any preliminary meeting or caucus mentioned in sections 11a to Hi, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention held under said provisions shall be punished as provided in section 4542a. Sec. 298. Bribery of voter; disturbance at caucus or convention. — Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any caucus mentioned in this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is created by this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or conven- tion, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any caucus or convention held under the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished in the manner hereinafter provided. (Ch. 341, 1899.) CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN THE LEGISLATURE. On page 2271 of the Report of the State Senate Investigating Com- mittee an attempt is made to summarize the corruption alleged to exist in connection with the election by the legislature, and the first objection is that Mr. Stephenson was elected by the legislature by a majority of three votes while the charges of corruption against him were being investigated by the legislature. This charge seems hardly worthy of serious consideration. It was admitted that he was elected by the legislature, and there is no law or rule that would invalidate the election because of the pendency of these charges. That was a matter for the members of the legislature to consider in determining whether or not they would vote for him. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XIX ABSENT MEMBERS ON MARCH 4. The next charge is that the election of Mr. Stephenson was made possible by three members, who, it is claimed, at the instigation of Mr. Stephenson’s managers and agents, absented themselves from the joint assembly when it became known that their presence would prevent the election of Mr. Stephenson, and it was charged that the absence of these three members had been procured by fraudulent or wrongful means by or on behalf of Mr. Stephenson. It was the only charge of corruption in connection with the election of Mr. Stephen- son by the legislature worthy of consideration. The result of the vote on March 4 consequent upon the absence of these three members is made plain in the testimony of Richard J. White (p. 1324) and by an examination of the journal of the joint assembly on March 4. On that day the total number of votes cast was 123, of which Isaac Stephenson received 63. The members of the legislature whose absence from the chamber on March 4 was questioned were Messrs. Farrell, Ramsey, and Towne. On March 3 Farrell voted for Neal Brown, Ramsey voted for George W. Peck, and Towne did not vote at all. On March 2 Farrell and Ramsey voted for Neal Brown, and Towne voted for Lucknow. On March 1 neither Farrell, Ramsey, nor Towne voted at all. On February 27 Ramsey voted for Wall, Farrell voted for Neal Brown, and Towne did not vote at all. On February 26 Towne voted for Thomas A. Stewart; neither Farrell nor Ramsey seem to have voted. These instances are cited to show that on the face of the trans- action there was nothing unusual in the absence of either of the three absentees on March 4, and nothing in their absence to raise the presumption of corruption therein. It is true that had these three members been present and voted the total vote would have been 126, and the 63 votes received by Mr. Stephenson would not have elected, but the evidence clearly establishes the fact that Mr. Ramsey, one of the three absentees, was paired with Mr. Fenelon and that such pairs had been univer- sally recognized, so that Mr. Ramsey can not be said to have been absent for any corrupt purpose, nor would his absence from the joint assembly affect the result of the vote. Being paired, he could not have voted. In that event, had Farrell and Towne been pres- ent the total vote would have been 125, of which Mr. Stephenson received 63. Sixty-three would have been a majority and would have elected Mr. Stephenson, so that the absence of Farrell and Towne did not affect the result of the election, and it can not there- fore be said that the election was brought about through corrupt practices so far as the absence of Farrell and Towne was concerned. It is not charged that any other member who voted for Mr. Ste- phenson did so either from corrupt motives or actions on his own part or that he was procured to do so by any corrupt action on the part of any person in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. The votes cast for Mr. Stephenson were those that had been con- sistently supporting him throughout the contest. There was no change in his favor upon which any presumption of corruption could be based. XX SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. Does the evidence show or tend to show that there were corrupt measures or unlawful methods adopted to secure the absence of either Farrell or Towne ? There has been much sensational testimonyintroduced before the sub- committee, which was heard largely because such testimony had been received by the legislative investigating committee for the purpose of showing bribery or corrupt methods in connection with the absence of Ramsey, Farrell, and Towne. It was not shown that any money had been traced to either of these men from any source in connection with the matter; but it was claimed that a fund had been raised to be used for corrupt purposes, and that, on the assumption that such fund had been raised, it must at least in part have been used to bring about the absence of these three members of the legislature. It was claimed that Senator Stephenson had entered into an arrangement with Edward Hines and R. J. Shields for using money for corrupt purposes to be furnished by Mr. Stephenson, and much hearsay testimony was introduced for the purpose of establishing such fact. There can be no question but what the effort to establish any such. charge utterly failed. There was no evidence upon which any reasonable conclusion that such corruption fund had been either raised or used could be based. . The charge as to a meeting between the three absentees or some of them and Mr. Regan and Mr. Puelicher at the Plankington House in Milwaukee centered about the testimony taken before the legislative investigating committee of a witness, Frank T. Wagner, who was utterly discredited both at the legislative investigation and by testimony introduced before the subcommittee. It was shown that he is now under sentence in the penitentiary for perjury for having testified to seeing these men in the Plankington Hotel and hearing a conversation upon which the charge that they had entered into a corrupt bargain at that time rested. All the testimony in regard to such a transaction fell to the ground, and was so manifestly "without foundation as to call for no consideration except its dismissal. CHARGE OF BRIBERY OF OTHER MEMBERS. There seems to have been some remark on the part of Mr. Damo- chowski and Mr. Lyons as to the tender of money being made them in connection with this election, but on the witness stand they both stated that whatever statements they made in that regard were made in jest and that there was no foundation in truth for them. Some sensational testimony was introduced in regard to state- ments made by Mr. R. J. Shields as to having received money or handled money in the interest of Mr. Stephenson in a corrupt manner in dealing with members of the legislature, and members of the senate legislative investigating committee had gone to the office of a certain attorney in Chicago and there met Mr. Wirt Cook of Duluth, Minn., who recited to them some hearsay statements as to conversa- tions and acts which were fully investigated by the subcommittee and found to be entirely without foundation. We may therefore safely dismiss the charges of corruption in con- nection with the action of the legislature in electing Mr. Stephenson, , whether such election is held to have been on January 26 or on March 4, 1909. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXI GENERAL CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION. It appears that Mr. Stephenson contributed $2,000 to the Repub- lican State central committee. Against this contribution no legiti- mate objection can be urged. It was not in violation of any law nor for other than general election purposes. It was also shown by testimony that Mr. Stephenson before the primary gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, Levi H. Bancroft, and Thomas Reynolds, who were candidates for the legislature. These men testified that they used the money in the interest of Mr. Stephen- son at the direct primaries. If we eliminate Mr. Stephenson from the direct primaries the contributions which he made to these candi- dates for nomination and election to the legislature would be in viola- tion of no law. It appears from the testimony that they w re at the time voluntary and ardent supporters of Mr. Stephenson regard- less of any money which they may have received or which may have been placed in their hands by him for any purpose. There is not sufficient evidence upon which to base a charge of bribery or any other charge that would affect the validity of the election of Mr. Stephenson in either of these cases. DIRECT PRIMARY. The subcommittee, in determining the scope of the investigation, was confronted with the question as to how far, if at all, the charges affecting the candidacy of Isaac, Stephenson before the direct primary should be considered. The State legislative committee had directed its attention prin- cipally to the direct primary and the conduct of the candidates therein. It was doubtless competent for the legislature to provide for direct primaries for the nomination of candidates for the legislature and to place legal restrictions about them to secure the integrity of their elections, but, as herein elsewhere more fully stated, it is not compe- tent for the legislature to provide for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate at direct primaries. The status of Mr. Stephenson at such primaries is not comparable to that of candidates for the legislature or for any State office. The language of the resolution under which the subcommittee acted directs it to report whether “in the election of Isaac Stephenson there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices,” and the lan- guage of the last paragraph of section 1 of the resolution, bringing the matter to the attention of the United States Senate, strictly con- strued, refers only to the election. When we speak of the election of a United States Senator under existing constitutional and legislative provisions we contemplate only the election by the legislature of the State. There is as yet no recog- nition to be given extra-legislative proceedings in the nature of what is termed “direct primaries,” no such method of selection being recognized by any law of the United States. The subcommittee has, however, brought to the attention of the Sen- ate in the record of its proceedings all the facts obtainable relating to the conduct of the primary. Should it be the judgment of the Senate that such facts are irrelevant, then the consideration would be limited XXII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. to matters concerning the election of members of the legislature, and the acts and conduct of members of the legislature and candi- dates in relation to the election of a Senator by the legislature. The direct primary, legally speaking, is no part of an election of a United States Senator. The duty of an election of a Senator does not under any law rest with the electorate, but is vested by the Consti- tution solely in the legislature. The legislature electing had no exist- ence until after the general election. The nomination of such mem- bers at the primary vested in the nominees not even an inchoate status. A State may give force and effect to a direct primary law providing for the nomination of candidates for State or minor offices to be elected under the laws of the State, but the legislature has no power to regulate in any manner or to any extent the election of a United States Senator, and there is no such proceeding known under any law of the United States as the nomination of a candidate for the United States Senate. The question arises, Can any act in contravention of a law that is absolutely void work a forfeiture of any right to an office vested through the compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States? Did the proceedings preceding and at the direct primary relative to a choice for United States Senator amount to more than a ‘‘straw vote”? The mere fact that the Legislature of Wisconsin had undertaken to include a senatorial selection within the provisions of its direct- primary law, in the absence of power to so legislate, could not affect the validity of an election by the legislature made pursuant to national law; this must be obvious from the fact that the legislature was not in duty bound to elect anyone or consider anyone a candidate for election because of the action of the direct primary. It might have ignored such action altogether, and its having done so would not in any way affect the validity of its action. There is no law of the United States recognizing such a thing as “candidacy” for the United States Senate, and no legal status is given to the frame of mind constituting an intention on the part of a man or his friends that he become a candidate before the legislature. The question also arises as to the period when a man can be charged with responsibility^ for his acts so as to affect the validity of his sub- sequent election by the legislature. It frequently occurs that none of the men who are avowed candi- dates are chosen. The matter rests solely with the legislature, and under existing laws one legislature can not dictate the rule governing a subsequent legislature in the manner of its procedure relative to matters resting entirely within its discretion. It would be entirely within the power of a legislature, charged with the responsibility of electing a United States Senator before proceed- ing to elect a Senator, to repeal any legislation enacted by a previous legislature which placed a limit upon or directed its action. It seems from this consideration of the question we must conclude that the direct-primary proceedings can not be held to affect the validity of an election by the legislature. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXIII FAILURE TO FILE PROPER EXPENSE ACCOUNT. The fifteenth specific charge is based upon the failure or neglect of Isaac Stephenson to make and file an expense account under the laws of Wisconsin. This requirement is under section 270 of the election laws which provides that every person who shall be a candidate before any convention or at any primary or election to fill an office for which a nomination paper or certificate of nomination may be filed, shall, within thirty days after the election held to fill such office, make out and file with the officer empowered by law to issue the certificate of election to such office or place, a statement in writ- ing, etc., and that any person failing to comply with this section shall be punished by fine of not less than $25 or more than $500. This being a penal statute, the validity of an election could not be affected by the failure to comply with it. GENERAL COMMENT. The rule adopted by the several candidates for said office seems to have been unanimous in regard to filing expense accounts. Senator Stephenson’s expense account was $107,793.05. S. A. Cook’s expense account was $42,293.29. William H. Hatton’s expense account was $26,413. Francis E. McGovern’s expenditure was $11,063.88. Neal Brown’s expense account was $1,075.87. The total expenditures of all candidates for the office of United States Senator before the primary election was about $225,000. Less than one-half of the voters at the general election voted at the primary. The total vote cast in the Republican primaries for the nomination of United States Senator was 182,915, being 81 per cent of the total primary vote cast by all political parties for Senator. The total vote cast in the Democratic Party for United States Senator was 37,479, or about 17 per cent of the total primary vote of all parties cast for Senator, and about 23 per cent of the total Democratic vote cast for governor at the general election. Mr. Stephenson, a Republican candidate, received 56,909 votes. Mr. Cook, a Republican candidate, received 47,825 votes. Mr. McGovern, a Republican candidate, received 42,631 votes. Mr. Hatton, a Republican candidate, received 35,552 votes. Mr. Brown, a Democratic candidate, received 24,937 votes. Mr. Hoyt, a Democratic candidate, received 12,227 votes. Mr. Rummel, Social Democratic candidate, received 4,047 votes. On the basis of the total vote received by each senatorial candidate and the total cost of each candidate’s campaign: Mr. Stephenson »pent $1.89 for every vote cast for him. Mr. Cook spent $0.88 for every vote cast for him. Mr. Hatton spent $0.85 for every vote cast for him. Mr. McGovern spent $0.26 for every vote cast for him. Mr. Brown spent $0.42 for every vote cast for him. Mr. Hoyt spent $0.16 for every vote cast for him. And there was spent in behalf of Mr. Rummel, the Socialist Demo- cratic candidate, about $1 per vote. XXIV SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. Were it possible to hold that Mr. Stephenson was subject to the same restrictions under the laws of Wisconsin as a candidate for a State office, we would feel compelled to enter more fully upon the nature and character of the expenditures made by him and on his behalf during the primary campaign. The amount of money expended by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hatton, and Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so extravagant and the expenditures made by and on behalf of these gentlemen were made with such reckless disregard of propriety as to justify the sharpest criticism. Such expenditures were in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our system of Government, which contemplated the selection of candidates by the electors and not the selection of the electors by the candidate. Regardless of any statute requiring that strict accounts be kept of money expended by and on behalf of candidates, a candidate and every man representing him should know that public opinion would expect the parties to place and maintain themselves in a position so that if any of their acts were questioned they could justify such acts .to the extent of giving every detail in regard thereto. While I do not believe that the law of Wisconsin could constitute any man a candidate or place him in the position of and under the responsibilities of a candidate for an office over which the State had no control and which was not to be filled under any law of the State, yet I feel impelled to criticize the acts of those in charge of the ex- penditure of the money of men who are called candidates for the Senate, and especially of Mr. Stephenson, in the irresponsible and reckless manner in which they disbursed the money furnished them by Mr. Stephenson during the period of the primary campaign. The failure to keep detailed accounts, the destruction of memo- randa, the shifting of records and papers concerning the campaign from one place to another, the adoption of mysterious methods and roundabout ways in regard to matters that might just as well have been performed in open daylight in the presence of the people, would go far toward creating the impression that there was some occasion for Mr. Stephenson’s representatives to avoid candor and to obscure conditions. The subcommittee has gone carefully through all of the letters and correspondence which had been in the hands of Mr. Stephenson and his managers and which had been shifted from Milwaukee to Marinette and from Marinette to points in Michigan, and back again, under most unusual and mysterious circumstances. These letters are not out of the ordinary political correspondence of campaign managers and citizens whose votes, influence, or services are solicited in behalf of a candidate. The letters transmitting and acknowledging the receipt of money have been considered separately from those giving information in regard to political conditions and instructions in regard to how pcditical work shall be done. There is nothing in the letters trans- mitting or acknowleding the receipt of money that would seem to add anything to the information given bv witnesses in explaining these expenditures so far as they could explain them. The subcommittee has not thought it necessary to print this correspondence, which is in evidence and might be held to constitute a part of the record of the investigation. In our judgment, it would add nothing in the way of SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXV assistance to the committee in ascertaining the facts necessary and proper to be considered in connection with the investigation. Were a candidate for a State office in Wisconsin to conduct a cam- paign in the manner in which the campaign of Mr. Stephenson, and of other men who sought election to the United States Senate, were conducted, it would be very difficult to justify such conduct under the laws of the State. The joint senatorial primary investigating committee in its report (submitted Mar. 18, 1910, but never acted upon), after reviewing the testimony, says: Your committee believes that the Republican senatorial candidates and their man- agers did not deliberately plan to violate the law, but in their desire to win these can- didates, particularly Stephenson, Cook, and Hatton, conducted their campaigns with the idea of getting results, and men were hired and money spent, and State officials and employees and members of the legislature were used without much regard to propriety. All of the Republican candidates probably spent all they could afford and the amount spent by the different candidates was probably limited more by their ability to spend than their appreciation of the moral effect of the expenditure of such large sums of money to secure the nomination. This committee evidently looked upon the result of the direct primary as shown by the vote cast therein for each of the men who sought election to the United States Senate as constituting a legal nomination. I entertain a different view of that matter and look upon the primary nomination as a mere expression of a choice with- out legal effect, and do not recognize such expression as binding upon the legislature. CONCLUSION. The testimony clearly shows that the candidates felt compelled to spend more money than they wanted to spend. The pressure upon them from those who were undertaking to manage their campaigns seems to have been very great and persistent, but I can find nothing in the testimony nor in the circumstances or conditions surrounding the senatorial contest which resulted in the election of Mr. Stephenson that in my judgment would justify the committee in recommending that the seat be vacated, or that he be declared not legally elected to the United States Senate; and therefore I recommend that the Senate find that the charges preferred by the Legislature of Wiscon- sin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, are not true, and that Isaac Stephenson be ac- quitted of such charges. W. B. Heyburn. . • . ■ VIEWS OF MR. POMERENE AND MR. SUTHERLAND. The Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections authorized and directed its subcommittee “ to investigate certain charges pre- ferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and to report whether ‘ there was used or employed corrupt methods or practices ’ in his election.” Without intending to specifically enumerate the charges made or to review in extenso the evidence in support or in refutation thereof, it will be sufficient for our purpose to classify the charges and evi- dence pertaining thereto, as follows : First, those connected with the proceedings of the legislature affecting the election ; and, Second^ those growing out of the primary election. PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE. Each house, pursuant to the Federal statute, convened for the election of the United States Senator on January 26, 1909. The senate consisted of 33 members and the assembly of 100 members. Thirty-three members of the senate were present, and, before ballot- ing, passed a resolution providing that “ any senator who does not wish to vote for a candidate may vote by answering 6 present.’ ” The roll was called, and IT senators voted for candidates, 12 of whom voted for Isaac Stephenson. The 16 other senators simply voted “ present.” In other words, a quorum, in the language of the statute, voted for “ one person for Senator in Congress,” and of this quorum Isaac Stephenson received a majority. While the vote “ present ” of the 16 senators was in accordance with the resolution passed, we do not believe it could either add to or detract from the requirements of the statute. All members, no doubt, should have voted for “ some person,” but 16 voted “ present,” which was equivalent to a blank vote. In the language of the majority of the committee in Ransom v. Abbott, “ Senate Election Cases,” page 400, “ The vote must be for a person , not a blank — in fact, not for a myth, but for a person.” Without intending to review the authorities it is clearly established that “ votes knowingly cast for a candidate who can not possibly ex- ercise the function of the office if elected are thrown away.” (State ex rel. Bancroft v. Frear, 144 Wise., 87.) And, if this be true, it must follow that a mere vote of “present” is nothing more than a vote for “ no person,” or, in other words, a “ blank,” and should not, therefore, be counted in determining whether Senator Stephenson received a majority of the quorum of those who voted for “one person for Senator,” and thereby complied with the letter and spirit of the statute. XXVII XXVIII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. For other authorities bearing upon this proposition see Sawyer v. Makie, 149 Mass., 269 ; “ Cooley on Constitution Limitations,” 932, Note 1; Rushville Gas Co. v. Rushville, 6 L. R. A., 315; Hopkins v. Duluth, 81 Minn., 189 ; and Commonwealth v. Cluley, 56 Pa. St., 270. On the same day in the assembly 82 votes out of the 100 assemblymen were cast, and Isaac Stephenson received 60 out of the 82 votes. He, therefore, received, in our judgment, “ a majority of the whole num- ber of votes cast in each house.” The vote thus cast was entered upon the journal of the senate and of the house. In conformity with the provisions of the Federal statute, the members of the two houses convened at 12 o’clock noon, on the day following, in joint assembly. The journal of each house was read, and showed the re- sult of the balloting on the previous day in each house separately, as hereinbefore stated. Having received a majority of all of the votes cast in each house, it was the duty of the presiding officer to declare Senator Stephenson duly elected. This w T as purely a minis- terial dut}^, and the mere fact that he failed to perform that duty could not, under any legal principle, undo that which was legally done in the separate and joint sessions, and, except for this failure of the presiding officer, was completely done. Instead of declaring the result, over the protest of Senator Hud- nall, a ballot was ordered and taken on that day and on each suc- ceeding day until and including the 4th day of March, 1909. Prior to March 4 no one in any of the sessions received a majority of the votes cast. On March 4 there were 123 votes cast, of which Isaac Stephenson received 63, and he wp^s then declared duly elected. CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN ACTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Charges of corruption were made to the effect that — («) Assemblyman Leuch was offered money to go upon the floor and vote for the purpose of effecting a quorum ; (b) That Assemblyman Joseph Damochowski had been offered $1,500 for his vote; and (c) That Assemblymen Farrel, Ramsey, and Towne absented them- selves from the joint session of the joint assembly on March 4 through corrupt influences. CHARGE AS TO ASSEMBLYMAN LEUCH. He testified that David H. Davies, on March 1, 1909, said : “ I have authority to tell you that you can have anything you want if you will stay in the joint convention to-day and vote.” Mr. Davies denied having any such conversation, and swore that he neither au- thorized nor was in a position to pay or promise Mr. Leuch anything whatsoever. Whether this conversation occurred or not, there is no evidence connecting it directly with Senator Stephenson, or even indirectly through an}^ authorized agent. CHARGE AS TO ASSEMBLYMAN DAMOCHOWSKI. There was testimony to the effect that Joseph A. Damochowski had said to several parties that he had been offered $1,500 for his vote in the assembly. Pie admitted that he had so stated upon several SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXIX occasions, but in explanation thereof said that any statements he made to that effect were in jest, and that no such offer was in fact made. Outside of these admitted statements, there was no evidence either that any bribe had been offered to or received by him, and no evidence tending to connect Senator Stephenson or his managers with this alleged attempt to bribe. MEMBERS ABSENTING THEMSELVES ON MARCH 4-. On March 4, 123 members of the joint assembly were present and voting. Sixty-three members being a majority of those voting, cast their ballots for Mr. Stephenson, and, having for the first time received a majority of those voting in the joint session, he was duly declared elected. We think it is fair to say that the record shows that an effort was made by some of the friends of Mr. Stephenson either to pair some of those who were opposed to Stephenson’s election with those who were absent and favorable to his election, or to secure the ab- sence of those who were opposed to his election, for the purpose of reducing the number who might be in the joint session and voting, and thereby enable those who were favorable to his election to have a majority of the votes cast. Richard J. White, a friend of Mr. Stephenson, succeeded in pair- ing Ramsey, a Democrat, who was opposed to Stephenson’s election, with Mr. Fenelon, who was a supporter of Mr. Stephenson and be- cause of sickness was not able to attend the session. Towne, a Democrat, left the chamber just before the voting began and was taken into a cloakroom by C. C. Wayland, one of Mr. Stephenson’s lieutenants, and there held in conversation while the balloting was going on, and we have no doubt that Wayland pur- posely detained him, and Towne — to say the least — was indifferent about the situation. Farrel left the assembly room before the roll was called and. went to a cafe for luncheon, and did not return until sometime after the result of the election had been declared. The absence of Towme and Farrel while the joint assembly was in session is not consistent with their duties as assemblymen, nor is their explanation satisfactory. But, whatever the facts may be, there is no evidence in the record, nor any obtainable, so far as the committee knows, which would justify the conclusion that the absence of any of these three men was secured by corrupt means. It was necessai^ for Ramsey, Farrel, and Towne all to have been present and voting in order to prevent Stephenson from having a majority vote in the session. The other seven absentees were satisfactorily accounted for, and no suspicion, so far as we know, attaches to them. We therefore conclude: First, that the election in fact occurred on January 26, 1909; and Second, that there is no evidence justifying the conclusion that corrupt “ methods or practices” were employed in securing the vote on March 4, 1909, even if it should be held that the election took place on March 4. PRIMARY ELECTION IRREGULARITIES. Senator Stephenson’s account filed with the Secretary of State shows that there was expended by him and through his committee XXX SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. in connection with the primary election $107,793.05. He received 50,909 votes, which cost him $1.89 for every vote cast. These expenditures, for the purpose of this report, may be divided into the following classes: First, moneys paid out to persons employed by him or in his behalf to circulate nomination papers in order to get the number of signa- tures required by the Wisconsin statutes before his name could be placed upon the ticket. Second, moneys paid out as follows : (a) to neAvspapers for political advertising; (b) for editorial support; ( c ) for lithographs, campaign material, postage, telephone, tele- graph, and express charges; ( d ) office expenses, including rent, clerk hire, and assistants. Third, payment for services of speakers, hall rent, music, and for men devoting their time and efforts in cultivating Stephenson senti- ment throughout the State; Fourth, moneys expended for workers at the polls, and for con- veyances and services in getting out the voters ; Fifth, for drinks and cigars; Sixth, money given to C. C. Wellensgard, L. L. Bancroft, and Thomas Reynolds, who were candidates for the legislature, to be used by them in the interest of Senator Stephenson ; Seventh, money paid to the game warden, John W. Stone, for use in the Senator’s campaign; Eighth, $2,000 contributed by Senator Stephenson to the State campaign committee for general election purposes; and Ninth, expenses incurred during the session of the general assembly in opening and maintaining headquarters at Madison from the beginning of the session until after March 4, 1909, and for hotel bills and traveling expenses. No part of the contribution to the general campaign committee or the expenses incident to the headquarters during the session of the general assembly were ever reported to the secretary of state. The above we believe to fairly represent the different classes of expenditure, which were disclosed by the evidence. There was no evidence before the committee from which it could be fairly concluded that any of this money was expended for “cor- rupt methods or practices,” unless those recited are to be construed as corrupt under the provisions of the Wisconsin statutes. MANAGEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN. The testimony showed that Senator Stephenson had on deposit in the Marshall & Illsley Bank $50,000, which was used in the cam- paign, with other added as required. His campaign was in charge of E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Puelicher, and Rodney Sackett. There are 71 counties in the State and 2,200 election precincts. The method of the managers was to employ a lieutenant or cam- paign manager in each of the counties. In several instances one man had charge of a number of counties. Arrangements were made with these managers by which sums of money would be placed in their hands varying from $100 or several hundred dollars to several thou- sand dollars. In some instances the manager Avas not given, and SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXXI would not accept, compensation for his services. In others definite arrangements were made for the amount of compensation the man- ager was to receive, and in many cases the manager would determine and retain for himself such sum or sums as he deemed proper. It is quite clear that a very substantial part of the money expended in the organization of the several counties never went beyond the pockets of those who received it. The money expended by these managers, so far as the testimony discloses, was for one or more or all of the purposes above described. WISCONSIN ELECTION STATUTES. The Wisconsin statutes defining election offenses are fully set forth on pages 10, 11, and 12 of the views submitted by Senator Hey- burn, chairman of the subcommittee, and it will not be necessary, therefore, to insert them here. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS NOMINATION PAPERS. Before a candidate for office is entitled to have his name placed upon the ticket at a primary, the Wisconsin statute requires that pe- titions or nomination papers shall be filed, signed by at least 1 per cent of the voters of his party in at least each of six counties in the State, and in the aggregate not less than 1 per cent nor more than 10 per cent of the total vote of his party in the State. The testimony shows that Senator Stephenson hired and paid men to circulate his nomination papers in order to get the required num- ber of signatures, but there was no evidence showing that any money was paid, in the language of the statute, to induce anyone to sign his nomination papers, and we do not think it was seriously claimed by those who were interested in the instigation of these proceedings that any money was unlawfully expended for this purpose. EXPENDITURES OF MONEY DURING THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN. Was it a violation of the statute to pay out money for political advertising in the newspapers, or for editorial support, or for litho- graphs, campaign material, or for telegraph, telephone, or express charges, or for office expenses, including rent and hire of assistants, or for the hiring of speakers, halls, rent, music, and for men devoting their time and efforts in cultivating Stephenson sentiment through- out the State, or to pay workers at the polls, or for conveyances and services in getting out the voters, or for money for drinks and cigars given in a social way during the campaign? A careful examination of the bribery statutes of Wisconsin wi 11 indicate clearly that the expenditures of money of the character re- cited only comes within the inhibitions thereof, when they are made corruptly, unless section 298 forbids it. This section reads : Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any caucus men- tioned in this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate, whose office is created by this act. or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a con- sideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or convention * * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc. XXXII SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. None of these expenditures can come within any of the provisions of this section, unless it be a violation of this language : “ or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or convention.” It should be stated that by sections 39 and 40 of the election laws of Wisconsin, the criminal penalties applying to a caucus and elec- tions are made applicable to primary elections. If the words “To give any valuable thing ” are to be given a com- prehensive and literal interpretation, and to prohibit the giving or offering of “ any valuable thing,” “ as a consideration for some act” to be done, it would not have been necessary to write into the statute the words “ or bribe,” because the former expression would include the latter. The purpose of the statute is evidently to prohibit cor- rupt giving. Words of a general import in tlie statute are limited by words of restricted import immediately following and relating to the same subject. (36 Cyc., 1110, Nance v. Southern R. R. Co.. 149 N. C., 366.) “ In interpreting a statute, where the language is of doubtful meaning, the court will reject an interpretation which would make the statute harsh, oppressive, inequitable, or unduly restrictive of primary private rights.” (Nance v. Southern R. R. Co., 149 N. C., 366.) To the same effect, State ex rel. v. Jackson, 168 Indiana, 389. Again, section 4543-C requires the filing of accounts of expendi- tures of a candidate. This must contemplate that there are expendi- tures which can not in any wise be regarded as a violation of the Wisconsin laAvs. If a literal interpretation is to be given to the words, “ any valuable thing * * * as a consideration for some act to be done.” and some expenditures be prohibited, whether mor- ally corrupt or incorrupt, would the legislature require the candi- date to convict himself by filing an account? This is a criminal statute, and it must be strictly construed against the State and in favor of the defendant when charged with its violation. Applying these rules, therefore, it would seem that the statute prohibited the giving of any valuable thing corruptly or in the nature of a bribe. We have no sympathy whatever with the expenditure of money in excessive amounts, whether in a senatorial or any other political campaign. That an expenditure of $107,793.05 is an excessive amount to be spent in the candidacy for the office of United States Senator, which pays a salary for six years’ service amounting to $45,000, goes without question; that it is demoralizing and should be prevented can not be denied ; that some of this money might have been spent corruptly may, for the sake of the argument, be conceded, but it is not sufficient that possible or even probable corruption or bribery exists. The evidence must show it, and this case, like all other cases, must be determined from the facts as they are disclosed in the trial and under the law as it then existed. The committee, proceeding upon the assumption that the expenditure of so large a sum of money required the fullest investigation and explanation, probed every rumor and followed every clue which was brought to its attention, with the result that no evidence was discovered which would justify the conclusion that any of this sum of money was corruptly or illegally spent. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXXIII At the time of this primary there was no statute, either State or National, limiting the amount of expenditures. There is no judicial or legislative decision, so far as we are advised, limiting the amount which may be legally expended. Can we, in the face of the fact that the Congress of the United States and the General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin prior to this election failed to limit election expenditures, now arbitrarily determine that because this sum was spent it was illegally and fraudulently expended, and therefore vacate the Senator’s seat? Can it be said that the expenditure of such a sum is in contravention of a public policy which must be given the force and effect of a statute? If so, where does public policy draw the line between what shall be a legal and an illegal amount? The situation is unfortunate, but the Congress and the State Legisla- ture are to blame for not having limited the expenses by statute. Laws can not be enforced retroactively, and surely this case must be decided in accordance with what the law then was and not in accord- ance with what the law ought to he. Since that election the State of Wisconsin has limited the amount of expenditure in a senatorial campaign to $7,500 and the Federal Government has limited it to $ 10 , 000 . EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY LAW. It is strenuously argued on behalf of Senator Stephenson that even if the primary law of Wisconsin was violated its provisions are unconstitutional, because section 3 of Article I of the Federal Con- stitution provides that Senators shall be chosen by the legislature and because section 4 gives Congress the right to prescribe the time and manner of holding elections for Senators and that this power has been exercised by the Congress in the manner prescribed by sections 14 and 15 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The Wisconsin primary law, in substance, provides (chap. 451, Laws of 1903) as follows: Party candidates for tlie office of United States Senator shall be nominated as other State officers. (Subdivision 3 of sec. 2.) Nomination papers for can- didates for the office of United States Senator shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. (Subdivision 1 of sec. 6.) The person receiving the greatest number of votes at the primary as the candidate of the party for the office voted for shall be the candidate of that party for such office (subdivision 1, sec. 18), and the secretary of state is required to publish in the official State paper a statement of the result of the canvass of the primary as soon as the same is certified to him. These are all of the requirements found in the Wisconsin law per- taining to the nomination of party candidates for the office of United States Senators. May the people of a sovereign State not provide for a method of expressing their sentiment in the selection of a Senator who shall represent that State in the United States Senate? May they not petition in such form and manner as to them may seem proper? And if it is their desire to so petition, may they not prescribe the method of petitioning so as to make the result of this petition, whether it be in the form of a letter to the members of the general assembly or in the form of a primary, an honest expression of their views ? The constitutionality of the above provisions of the Wisconsin law. was passed upon by the supreme court of that State in the case of 15235—12 3 XXXIV •SENATOR FROM AVISCONSIN. State ex rel. Van Alstine v. Frear (142 Wise., 320). On page 349 Barnes, J., in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, says : Our constitutions, Stnte and National, guarantee the right of petition. Every citizen of the State has the right to petition the legislature asking that the candidate of his choice be elected United States Senator. Every citizen of a senatorial or assembly district has the right to petition his local representative to the same effect. The lawmaker is thus advised of public sentiment, a potent factor for him to consider in connection with other matters in arriving at a conclusion. Wherein does the primary nomination for United States Senator differ from the exercise of the right of petition? The legislative candidate is thereby informed of something that he has the right to know and of something that it is his duty to heed. He may not regard the verdict at the polls as obligatory, but should treat it as advisory. Moral suasion may be a perfectly legitimate agency to employ even in the election of a United States Senator. That the electors in the exercise of their guaranteed right of petition might do in substance and effect what they now do at the primaries hardly admits of controversy. The framers of the Constitution could not have supposed that there was any impropriety in the people advising their representatives of how they desired them to vote on the senatorship, else an exception would have been incorporated in the clause guaranteeing the right of petition, restricting its application to matters other than the election of United States Senators. It will be conceded that while the result of a primary election, under the present constitutional provisions, could not control the State senators and representatives m their choice of an United States Senator, would not an expression of the will of the people at a primary election have great weight with their representatives in casting their votes? And, if this be so, ought not the primary elec- tion held to declare this choice be carefully guarded b,y suitable penalties? We have no hesitancy in saying that if the evidence dis- closed the use of corrupt methods at the primaries, it would affect the result of the election by the general assembly, and the Senate would be justified in taking cognizance of that fact and unseating any Senator who was thus delinquent. MONEYS GIVEN TO CANDIDATES FOR THE LEGISLATURE. The testimony disclosed that Senator Stephenson, before the pri- mary, gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, L. H. Bancroft, and Thomas Reynolds, who were then candidates for the legislature. They did not live in the same district or county with Mr. Stephenson. They were his personal friends. The money was given them to be used in behalf of Senator Stephenson for the nomination as the Republi- can candidate for Senator. It may be said that this money was probably used by these men to further their own interests, as well as to further the interests of Mr. Stephenson. But, whether it was so used or not, there is no evidence that it was so used, or that it was given to them for that purpose. On the contrary, the affirmative and uncontradicted testimony is all to the effect that this money was used strictly in the interest of Mr. Stephenson and none of it to further the interest of any of the legislative candidates. MONEY PAID TO GAME WARDEN JOHN W. STONE. Mr. Stephenson’s campaign managers gave to John W. Stone, the game warden of the State. $2,849.50 for campaign purposes. This was distributed among a number of the deputy game wardens; he SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXXV retained some portion of it himself, and in testifying before the legis- lative committee, falsely stated the amount he had paid out. Section 990-28 (sec. 28, ch. 3G3, 1905) provides: No officer, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the State shall directly or indirectly solicit or receive or be in any manner concerned in solicit- ing or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political service, whether voluntary or involutary for any political purpose whatever from any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. This statute makes it an offense for any officer , agent , clerk, or employee under the government of the Stale to solicit or receive any assessment, subscription, or contribution, or political service from any officer , agent , clerk , or employee of the State. It is clear that this statute was not violated by Senator Stephenson, since he was not an officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. Moreover, the statute makes it an offense on the part of the recipient of the fund only. No offense is committed by the donor. It is true, the money should not have been paid to the game warden, and the giving of it does not show that fine discrimination which ought to be characteristic of men who are engaged in a campaign of this character. No law was violated by the donor, and this election can not be declared illegal because this expenditure was made. FILING OF ACCOUNTS. Section 4543-C of the revised statutes of Wisconsin requires the making out, and filing with the secretary of state, a statement in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the candidate — setting forth in detail each item in excess of five dollars in money, or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him, and to the best of his knowledge and belief by any other person or persons for him, or in his behalf, wholly or in part in endeavoring to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination or election to such office or place, or in connection with the election of any other person at said election, the dates when, and the persons to whom, and the purpose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever. No account whatever was filed of the amount contributed by Mr. Stephenson to the State campaign committee, nor of the amount expended during the session of the general assembly. The account which was filed of the expenses incurred in connection with the primary did not comply with the law in that it lumped the expenses; gave the names of but very few of the persons to whom money was paid; did not give the dates when expended, nor as fully as con- templated by the statutes the purposes for which expended. The account as filed was approved by the general counsel of Mr. Stephen- son without any examination of the statute, and simply because it conformed with certain accounts, which had been filed by prominent candidates for other offices. A careful examination of this account justifies the belief that it was purposely drawn so as to give to the public as little information as possible. The penalty for failing to comply with this statute is a fine only, and it does not provide for the forfeiture of the office. If it did, the statute to that extent would be unconstitutional, but Mr. Stephenson, because of his failure to file a proper account, has violated the statute and is subject to a fine. However, he must be absolved from any moral delinquency, because in the preparation and filing of his ac- XXXVI SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. count he consulted with counsel, and followed their advice, and if it was not properly done they were to blame rather than he. In addition to this, the validity of the election which had already taken place could not be affected by the failure to thereafter perform some act enjoined by the State statute. The election was already an accomplished fact and its validity must be determined by the facts theretofore or then existing. Anything done thereafter can not be regarded as a substantive ground for invalidating the election. Its only evidential value would be in reflecting light upon or as giving color to the preexisting facts. After a careful consideration of all the evidence and the law, we had no hesitancy in joining in the report presented by the subcom- mittee. We heartily approve these w r ords of Senator Heyburn : The amount of money spent by Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hatton, and Mr. McGovern in the primary campaign was so extravagant, and the expendi- tures made by and on behalf of these gentlemen were made with such reckless disregard of propriety, as to justify the sharpest criticism. Such expenditures were in violation of the fundamental principles underlying our system of Government, which contemplated the selection of candidates by the electors and not the selection of the electors by the candidate. Regardless of any statute requiring that strict accounts be kept of money expended by and on behalf of candidates, a candidate and every man repre- senting him should know that public opinion would expect the parties to place and maintain themselves in a position so that if any of their acts were ques- tioned they could justify such acts to the extent of giving every detail in regard thereto. While I do not believe that the law of Wisconsin could constitute any man a candidate or place him in the position of and under the responsibilities of a candidate for an office over which the State had no control and which was not to be filled under any law of the State, yet I feel impelled to criticize the acts of those in charge of the expenditure of money of men who are called candi- dates for the Senate, and especially of Mr. Stephenson, in the irresponsible and reckless manner in which they disbursed the money furnished them by Mr. Stephenson during the period of the primary campaign. The failure to keep detailed accounts, the destruction of memoranda, the shifting of records and papers concerning the campaign from one place to an- other, the adoption of mysterious methods and roundabout ways in regard to matters that might just as well have been performed in open daylight in the presence of people, w T ould go far toward creating the impression that there was some occasion for Mr. Stephenson’s representatives to avoid candor and to obscure conditions. While we have no doubt as to the correctness of the subcommittee’s finding, we do not want it to be understood that we question the propriety of filing charges challenging the validity of the election or of the making demand for an investigation either by the General Assembly of Wisconsin or by the United States Senate. An enormous sum of money had been expended. Messrs. Ed- munds and Sacket, who were in charge of the campaign as Mr. Stephenson’s managers, knew of the statute requiring the filing of an account of their expenditures. They destroyed all original rec- ords of accounts, though they kept what purported to be copies. They grouped these items and amounts in such a way that they gave no knowledge whatever to the public except the totals of each class of expenditures. The account was not filed until the last moment permitted by the statute. Mr. Puelicher, a banker, acted as treasurer. He did not open an account as depositors usually do. He received remittances, kept private memoranda, paid out cash, and made disbursements of these SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. XXXVII funds, but kept no record thereof upon the bank's books. No other customer’s funds, either before or since, were received or disbursed in a similar way. There was an air of mystery about the entire affair. After the investigation by the committee of the general assembly was started Mr. Stephenson’s local counsel had such records and cor- respondence as had not already been destroyed moved out of the State for the purpose of keeping them beyond the jurisdiction of the general assembly. It may be said in passing, however, that the accounts were kept on card indexes, and Mr. Sacket gives as a reason for destroying them that they were made with lead pencil in many cases, and the writing was practically obliterated, so that he made copies and then de- stroyed the originals (Record, p. 161) because they were cumbersome and inconvenient (p. 523). And it may be further said that there seems to have been no substantial reason for moving the correspond- ence out of the State. It was all before the committee, and an ex- amination failed to disclose anything of an inculpatory or improper character which would render any concealment necessary. Can there be any wonder that the public became suspicious and the members of the general assembly, out of a decent sense of self- respect, should demand a thorough investigation? If Mr. Stephenson has been put to great expense and trouble, it is due, first, to the reckless expenditure of this large sum of money, and, second, to the studied and mysterious efforts of his managers and local attorneys to conceal the facts, up to and during the" in- vestigation before the joint committee of the general assembly, and the separate committee of the State senate. But out of all this scandal and trouble much good has come. Public sentiment was aroused. The unlimited use of money has been condemned, and stringent corrupt-practices acts have" been adopted, both by the General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin and by the Congress of the United States. Atlee Pomerene. Geo. Sutherland. HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE LIST OF WITNESSES. Page Bancroft, Levi H 701 Beyer, George 880,909 Blaine, John J 592 Bowman, H. A 984 Brown, Harry J 438 Dart, George W 974 Dolan, P. F 918 Edmonds, E. A 59,178 Epplingi F. J... Essmann, William L ... 696,740,806 French, Charles S 871 Gordon, George H 741 Haslam, William C 963 Hever, A. 0 890 Hulbert, A. I 953 James, Norman L 884 Johnson, Niels 909 Kingsley, G. L 571 Page. Kolb, Gustave C 970 Lewis, Hugh 912 Littlefield, E. C. (statement of)... 6 Morgan, H. H 925 O’Connor, D. J 817 Overbeck, Henry 830 Perrin, Solon L 652, 698 Fuelicher, J. H 128 Riordan, D. E 774 Sacket, Rodney 152, 374, 440 Stephenson, Isaac 23, 909 Thayer, L. W ... 934 Van Cleve, John A 136,568 Way land, Chellis C 725 Wellensgard, Christian C 835 Wheeler, William G 893 Wilcox, Arthur Nelson 993 « XX XIX SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, MONDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pome- rene, and Mr. Addison T. Smith, who had been designated as sec- retary. The Chairman. The subcommittee will enter upon its duties. Pre- liminary to taking up this question I will state that the subcommittee will hear a representative who may desire to appear on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, the State having submitted these charges through its governor to the Senate of the United States. I will inquire whether or not there is anyone here for the purpose of representing the State of Wisconsin ? Should anyone desire to appear and be duly authorized, the subcommittee will recognize him. [A pause.] The secretary of the subcommittee will be instructed to communi- cate with the governor and the attorney general of the State, advising them that the subcommittee is in session in Milwaukee for the pur- pose of investigating these charges which were submitted to the United States Senate by the governor, and to inquire whether or not the State desires to be represented at this hearing. The secretary subsequently, by direction of the subcommittee, sent the following telegram: Milwaukee, Wis., October 2 , 1911 . Hon. Francis E. McGovern, Governor of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.: A subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate, duly appointed, with instructions to investigate the election of Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wiscon- sin as recommended by the Legislature of Wisconsin as provided in joint reso- lution 58 of said legislature, has entered upon the investigation in the Fed- eral Building, in the city of Milwaukee. As the State appears to be unrepre- sented by counsel, you are requested to advise the committee whether or not it is the desire of the State to be represented by counsel before this committee, and if so, designate in writing such person to represent the State. W. B. Heyburn, Chairman. The Chairman. The subcommittee would inquire whether or not there are counsel who desire to appear for Senator Stephenson. If so, let their names be entered in due form. Mr. C. E. Littlefield. Yes ; Mr. W. E. Black, Mr. H. H. J. Upham, and I represent Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. The next proceeding will be the reading of the communication from the governor of Wisconsin addressed to the United States Senate. 15235°— vol l—li 1 2 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, The secretary read as follows: State of Wisconsin, Office of the Secretary of State, Madison, June 21, 1911 . President of the United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Herewith I am forwarding you by express, first, certified copy of joint resolution No. 58, regularly executed by the proper officers of the Senate and Assembly of the State of Wisconsin; second, certified copy of volume 2, part 1, Senatorial Primary Investigation; and, third, certified copy of volume 2, part 2, Senatorial Primary Investigation, all of which is in compliance with the terms of the joint resolution. Very truly, yours, J. A. Frear, Secretary of State. United States of America, The State of Wisconsin, Department of State. To all to whom these presents shall come: I, J. A. Frear, secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin, and keeper of the great seal thereof, do hereby certify that the annexed copy of joint resolu- tion No. 58 has been compared by me with the original joint resolution on file in this department, and that the same is a true copy thereof and of the whole of such original joint resolution. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State at the capitol in the city of Madison, this 27th day of June, A. D. 1911. [seal.] J. A. Frear, Secretary of State. No. 58 (Jt. Res. No. 10, S.). Joint resolution relating to the investigation of the primary and general election of 1908 and the election of United States Senator in 1909. Whereas the senate committee members of the joint investigation committee and the senate investigation committee ' appointed to investigate the manner, means, and methods by which the primary campaign and election of the year 1908 is claimed to have been corruptly and unlawfully conducted and to fully, fairly, and thoroughly investigate the campaign and election of Isaac Stephen- son to the United States Senate and the campaign of the primary and general election, and the primary election and election of the members of the last leg- islature, so far as the same in any way pertained to or affected the election of Isaac Stephenson to the United States Senate, have, in accordance with the resolutions adopted for said purposes, made and filed their report to the gov- ernor of the State of Wisconsin ; and Whereas the senate committee members of the joint senatorial primary in- vestigation committee and the senate investigation committee have in said report found that Isaac Stephenson did commit acts of bribery and attempted bribery and did commit other acts in violation of the corrupt-practices laws of Wisconsin relating to said matters ; and, further, that the managers and agents of Isaac Stephenson in said primary campaign and election and general elec- tion and senatorial election did, by acts of bribery and attempted bribery and other acts in violation of the corrupt-practices laws and penal statutes of Wis- consin relating to said matters, obtain for the said Isaac Stephenson votes without which he would not have been elected, and that for such reason the election of said Isaac Stephenson to the United States Senate was null and void, and such election of the said Isaac Stephenson to the United States Sen- ate should be annulled by the United States Senate; Whereas His Excellency Gov. Francis E. McGovern, on the 17th day of Janu- ary, 1911, transmitted to the consideration of the Legislature of Wisconsin such report and the appendices accompanying the same, together with a report of a majority of the assembly members of said joint senatorial primary investi- gation committee, together with the testimony taken by both of said committees: Section 1. Therefore he it resolved hy the senate ( the assembly concurring) , That the senate and assembly concur in the findings and recommendations of SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 3 said senate committee members of the joint senatorial primary investigation committee and the senatorial primary investigation committee as by them found and recommended and as above recited. Be it further resolved , That a copy of the report and appendices of said senate committee members of the joint senatorial investigation committee and of the senate primary investigation committee, together with a copy of this resolution embracing the preamble and section 1 of this resolution, be certified by the secre- tary of state to the United States Senate for its action thereon. And the United States Senate is hereby requested to investigate the manner, means, and methods by and through which Isaac Stephenson secured his election to the United States Senate. Sec. 2. Be it further resolved, That a copy of the report of the senate com- mittee members of the joint senatorial primary investigation committee and the senate primary investigation committee, and its appendices, together with a copy of this resolution, be certified by the secretary of state to the district attorney of Dane County, with recommendation from the senate and assembly that prosecu- tion be commenced against all persons shown by the evidence in said investi- gation to have committed perjury. And it is further recommended by the senate and assembly that prosecution be commenced in the proper counties of the State by the prosecuting officers thereof against all persons shown by the evidence in the said investigation to have been guilty of a violation of the corrupt-practices or bribery statute, or other penal statutes relating to the matters referred to herein. H. C. Martin, Acting President of the Senate. C. A. Ingram, Speaker of the Assembly. F. M. Wylie, Chief Clerk of the Senate. C. E. Shaffer, Chief Clerk of the Assembly. Received June 26, 1911, 4.05 p. m. Department of State. J. A. Frear, Secretary of State. The Chairman. The secretary will next read the authority under which the committee acts. The secretary read as follows : In the Senate of the United States, August 15, 1911. Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any sub- committee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson, a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, and to report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices ; that said committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during the recess of the Senate, to hold its session at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate, upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chairman of the subcommittee. Attest : Chas. G. Bennett, Secretary, By H. M. Rose, Assistant Secretary. The Chairman. In connection with the document just read the authentication by the Secretary of the Senate of the United States will appear in the record. The next document to appear in the record will be the certificate of the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate designating the subcommittee. 4 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN, The secretary read as follows : United States Senate, Committee on Privileges and Elections. I hereby certify that, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, I have appointed as a subcommittee to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin, connected with the election of Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin, under the terms of Senate resolution No. 136, adopted August 15, 1911, the fol- lowing-named members of said subcommittee: Hon. Weldon B. Heyburn (chair- man), Hon. George Sutherland, Hon. William O. Bradley, Hon. Thomas H. Paynter, and Hon. Atlee Pomerene. William P. Dillingham, Chairman Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections. Washington, D. C., September 2, A. D. 1911. The Chairman. The secretary will now read the specific charges that came from the governor of the State of Wisconsin to the United States Senate, on which action was taken. The secretary read as follows : specific charges. To the honorable Senate and Assembly of the State of Wisconsin: I, John J. Blaine, an elector of the State of Wisconsin and a member of the State senate, upon information and belief, do hereby specifically charge and allege : 1. That Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette, Wis., now United States Senator and a candidate for reelection, did, as such candidate for such reelection, give to one E. A. Edmonds, of the city of Appleton, Wis., an elector of the State of Wisconsin and said city of Appleton, a valuable thing, to wit, a sum of money in excess of $106,000, and approximating the sum of $250,000, as a consideration for some act to be done by said E. A. Edmonds in relation to the primary elec- tion held on the 1st day of September, 1908, which consideration was paid prior to said primary election, and that said Isaac Stephenson was at the time of such payment a candidate for the Republican nomination for United States Senator at such primary, and did by such acts as above set forth violate section 4542b of the statutes. 2. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to said primary, pay to said Edmonds above-mentioned sums with the design that said Edmonds should pay to other electors of this State out of said sums above mentioned and other sums of money received by said Edmonds from said Isaac Stephenson, prior to said primary, sums ranging from $5 per day to $1,000, in bulk, as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to said primary by said electors for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate, in violation of said section. 3. That with full knowledge and with instructions from said Isaac Stephen- son as to how and for what purposes said sums were to be expended said sums were so paid as above stated to said Edmonds by said Isaac Stephenson and that said sums were paid as above stated for the purposes above stated and also for the purpose of bribing and corrupting a sufficient number of the electors of the State of Wisconsin to encompass the nomination of said Isaac Stephenson at said primary for the office of United States Senator. 4. That in pursuance of the purposes and design above stated, said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one U. C. Keller, of Sauk County, an elector of this State, the sum of $300 as a consideration for some act to be done by said Keller for said Stephenson pre- liminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 5. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to one Hambright, of Racine, Wis., large sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by said Hambright for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, said Hambright being then an elector of this State, corruptly and unlawfully. 6. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one Roy Morse, of Fond du Lac, Wis., then an elector of this State, the sum of $1,000 as a consideration for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 5 7. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to divers persons, then electors of the county of Grant, Wis., ranging from $5 per day and upward, as a consideration for some act to be done by said several electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 8. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to divers per- sons who were at such time electors in this State a consideration for some act to be done for said Isaac Stephenson by such electors preliminary to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 9. That in further pursuance of such purposes and designs said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to electors of this State who were of a different political opinion and who held to other political principles than that of the Republican Party, more particularly Demo- crats, sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by such electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 10. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did offer to pay to Edward Pollock, of Lancaster, Wis., certain sums of money, as editor of the Teller, a newspaper published in said city of Lancaster, Wis., and to other editors of newspapers who were at such time electors of this State, for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support of such editors and as a considera- tion of some thing to be done relating to such primary, corruptly and unlaw- fully. 11. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to such primary, by and through his agents, promise and agree to pay to one Lester Tilton, a then resident and elector of this State, and residing at the city of Neillsville, Wis., a sum in excess of $500 to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of said Lester Tilton to the assembly of this State from Clark County, and did offer to give to said Lester Tilton a sum in excess of $500 if said Lester Tilton would become a candidate for the assembly from said Clark County, if said Lester Tilton would support said Isaac Stephenson for the office of United States Senator, all of which is in violation of sections 4542b and 4543b of the statutes. 12. That said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, give and promise and pay or agree to pay to other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State other than those electors residing in the district where said Isaac Stephenson resides. 13. That E. M. Heyzer and Max Sells, prior to said primary, being at such time employees of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., a corporation doing business in this State, did contribute and agree to contribute free services as such employees for the purpose to defeat the candidacy of former assemblyman E. F. Nelson, from the district embracing Florence, Forest, and Langlade Coun- ties, for the nomination for assemblyman from said district, all of which was done with the knowledge and consent and under the direction of said Isaac Stephenson, his agents, and employees contrary to chapter 492, laws of 1905. 14. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above set forth said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, did, in addition to pnying certain sums as above set forth, offer and agree to pay to electors of this State prior to said primary a premium or bonus to those who in his employ carried their respective precincts in such primary for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidates. 15. That said Isaac Stephenson if claiming an election by virtue of receiving a plurality of votes at such primary, then said Isaac Stephenson has violated chapter 562 of the laws of 1905, by failing and neglecting to file his expense account as provided by said chapter. 16. Charging, generally, the primary nomination or election of said Isaac Stephenson was obtained by the use of large sums of money corruptly and illegally, by the violation of sections 4542b, 4543b, and 4678b of the statutes relating to illegal voting, bribery, and corruption, and other laws above set forth relating to elections and primary elections. Respectfully submitted. John J. Blaine, State Senator , Sixteenth District. Dated January 26, 1909. 6 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. The Chairman. The subcommittee has summoned to appear to-day five witnesses. When their names are called they will come forward and be sworn. The names of Isaac Stephenson, E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Puelicher, J. A. Van Cleve, and Rodney Sacket were called. The Chairman. The chairman is advised that Mr. Sacket is not present, but he will be excused until noon. Isaac Stephenson, E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Puelicher, and J. A. Van Cleve responded to their names and were duly sworn by the chair- man. STATEMENT OF ME. LITTLEFIELD. Mr. Littlefield. May it please the subcommittee, before any wit- nesses are examined I should like to make a few suggestions with reference to two practical propositions. I do not suppose it is neces- sary for me to say that the resolution under which the committee is acting, and the subject matter of the resolution, present a matter of the greatest gravity. The Chairman. Will counsel desist for a moment, until Mr. Stephenson is called as a witness? When he is on the stand it will be proper to raise that question. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson has been sworn and is now before the committee for examination. Counsel may now make his statement. Mr. Littlefield. As I was about to say, it is hardly necessary for me to suggest that the subject matter of the investigation is one of the very first gravity and of the very greatest importance, so far as Senator Stephenson is concerned. Senator Stephenson is in his eighty-third year, and it is obvious that he is nearly at the end of a very long, a very useful, and a very successful life. By virtue of his extraordinary financial ability he has accumulated, during about 66 years in this community, what is popularly assumed to be a very large private fortune. He is un- doubtedly a man of wealth. The result of the investigation will either be a vindication of Senator Stephenson or will result, probably, in proceedings that will send him from the Senate of the United States covered with public humiliation, shame, and disgrace. The Constitution of the United States provides that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A seat in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Chairman, is not prop- erty in the sense of a corporeal matter, but I should be very much surprised if the right to retain a seat in the United States Senate is not surrounded by the same legal guaranties, and if the interests of a man therein are not protected by the same legal principles that obtain in the ordinary administration of the law in courts of justice. While it is quite true that in pursuance of the procedure of the Sen- ate it is the duty of this committee to investigate these charges, yet, ultimately, if an adverse report were made by the committee, the great body of which you are members will nass in a judicial capacity upon this right of Senator Stephenson to his seat; and at his age in life, especially bearing in mind the fact that during all this long period of his association with the business men and the public mat- SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 7 ters of this Commonwealth up to date his record is without spot or blemish, it is a matter of the first importance to him what the result here may be. This resolution directs this committee to investigate whether or not in his election to the Senate of the United States corrupt prac- tices and corrupt methods were used; so that, although the investi- gation is general in its character, it is without force or purpose ex- cept as ultimately it may affect him as a member of the greatest legis- lative body known to our civilization. I assume that if it were necessary to establish the fact that corrupt practices were so used as to invalidate Senator Stephenson’s title to his seat in the Senate, it would hardly be expected that in the first instance those facts could be established by interrogating him. For- tunately, Mr. Chairman, we are not here this morning in an atti- tude that will be in any way adverse or obstructive to the wishes of the committee. While we feel that if it were necessary for the protection of the Senator’s rights it would be our duty professionally as his legal advisers to instruct him that he had a perfect right to wait until such matters as might be charged against him were shown, in order that then he might, in the course of judicial procedure, appear and answer thereto, yet we have no occasion to assume that attitude so far as the Senator is concerned. Great as are the inter- ests involved and important as they are to him, there is nothing that the Senator knows about this election that we are not willing and more than anxious that the committee should know. So in the very outset I desire to say that we are not only quite willing but we are anxious that on the very threshold of this investi- gation, which involves rights that are extremely valuable to him, which will affect his name, fame, and reputation for all time, the committee shall in the first instance get from him everything he knows about these matters that may be in controversy. So we make no objection whatever to his examination as the first, the initial witness in this investigation. We understand that the committee have an idea that that is perhaps the better way to facilitate the progress of the investigation. I trust that we may in the course of these proceedings develop the fact that we are here for the purpose of facilitating, from every point of view, the action and progress of the committee. With that suggestion in relation to the examination of the Senator as a witness in these proceedings, I desire now to be heard upon what seems to me to be an important and vital considera- tion in connection with this investigation, and that is, What is its scope ? The precept under which this committee acts, and from which it draws its power, and under which only can it exercise authority, is the resolution of the United States Senate authorizing you to come here to investigate. Now, I desire to say that in my judgment a fair legal construction of this resolution confines this committee to an investigation of the election of Senator Stephenson by the Legis- lature of Wisconsin. In order that the committee may be advised of the chronology of the events here, so as to apprehend accurately the suggestion that I am about to make, and in order that I may make myself intelligible, I ought to say that we have advised Senator Stephenson, and I have no doubt as a matter of law, and I do not believe any good lawyer 8 SENATOR PROM WISCONSIN. has any doubt as a matter of law, that Senator Stephenson was elected by the Wisconsin Legislature to be a Senator of the United States on the 26th day of January, 1909, at which time the house and the senate of the Wisconsin Legislature were in legal session. The house, by a large majority, voted for Mr. Stephenson as its candi- date for Senator, and the senate, by a large majority of the senators voting, also voted for Senator Stephenson. There were 33 members of the Wisconsin senate. They were all present on the 26th of January, 1909. There were 17 who voted, and 12 of those 17 voted for Isaac Stephenson for United States Senator, being a majority of 5 of a legal quorum voting for Senator. It is true that something like 16 of the members of the State Senate of Wisconsin declared themselves to be “ present,” which was quite true; but it needed something more than a declaration that they were present in order to enable them to take any legal part in the election of a United States Senator, because the statutes of the United States expressly require the house and the senate to vote for a person for United States Senator. It is too obvious for discussion, and it would stultify any legal intelligence to argue, that an an- nouncement of “ present,” declaring that a man was there, was a “ vote ” for a “ person.” I will not stop to elaborate the legal propo- sition, but I desire the subcommittee to appreciate the full signifi- cance of the situation. There is not the slightest question, in my judgment, that on that 26th day of January Senator Stephenson received his title to a seat in the United States Senate. It is true that he did not receive a certificate thereof until after the 4th of March. I am going to call your attention very briefly as I go on to the condition that intervened. When the legislature met in joint session on the next day, and under the law of the United States it became the duty of the presid- ing officer of that joint convention when the records of the proceed- ings of those two separate bodies were read to declare the result, he declined so to declare, and they proceeded to vote. On the 26th of J anuary, after the vote had been taken electing Mr. Stephenson to the United States Senate, Senator J. J. Blaine — I beg the subcommittee not to confuse him with a gentleman by the name of James G. Blaine, formerly of my State of Maine — presented the charges which have been read here this morning, and I may say now that is about as far as those charges have ever gotten in the in- vestigation — that is, to be read. I say that in case it becomes neces- sary to go into that phase of the question. As I have stated, the presiding officer declined to declare the result, proceeding upon the assumption that no election had taken place, and an investigation was begun before a committee of the Wisconsin Legislature. To that committee was submitted what are known as the Blaine charges. That committee sat in almost continuous session until the 4th day of March, and then after that date a committee created by the senate, some time about April 1, proceeded to con- tinue the alleged investigation. It is quite true that what are known as the Blaine charges are alleged to be the charges here, but I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that, in my judgment, this committee has noth- ing whatever to do with the alleged Blaine charges, so far as they relate to the primary election or nomination. Our proposition is SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 9 that that primary nomination has no legal or constitutional connec- tion with or relation to the election by the Legislature of Wisconsin. Before I reach a discussion of that question I desire the committee to hear me Senator Sutherland. Mr. Littlefield, before you pass to that sub- ject, let me ask you a question. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. Senator Sutherland. Was the certificate which was presented to the Senate of the United States on Mr. Stephenson’s behalf based upon the vote that you have detailed — that was taken in the two houses separately? Mr. Littlefield. No; that was based upon what was alleged to be a subsequent election on the 4th day of March, 1909. Senator Sutherland. The certificate presented to the Senate and under which Senator Stephenson took his seat, was a certificate which recited his election subsequent to the circumstances you have detailed ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes ; you are perfectly right about that. Senator Sutherland. No certificate was issued to him based upon the proceedings in the two houses separately? Mr. Littlefield. No. All that was ever done in connection with that was to have transmitted to the Senate of the United States a certified copy of the record of that election, showing what had been done. Of course, my position in relation to that is simply stated so that it may be considered if it becomes necessary. It is hardly worth while to say that when a man has been elected by the legislature of a State, in the constitutional manner — the manner provided by the Statutes of the United States — it is scarcely within the power of a presiding officer, by a failure to declare the result, to deprive the Senator of his right thus acquired. But I am merely stating the chronology of the events. The governor of the State of Wisconsin certified to the Senate of the United States, under date of February 25, 1909, the fact of the vote, backed up by a copy of the record showing precisely what took place, and that communication became Document No. 753 of the sec- ond session of the Sixtieth Congress, being received and filed March 2, 1909. Senator Sutherland. But the governor in that document does not certify, does he, that Mr. Stephenson was elected ? Mr. Littlefield. No; he does not undertake to make a certificate that he was elected. He simply certifies the facts. Senator Pomerene. That is, the facts as you have stated them ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; precisely. There is no question about them. The facts are exactly as I have stated them, and this Senate document shows that. Now, I want to call your attention to a significant fact bearing upon the proper construction of this resolution, because I take it that a resolution of the United States Senate must be construed in connec- tion with the circumstances under which it was passed. I want the committee to bear in mind the fact that the Wisconsin Legislature, after the 26th of January, 1909, proceeded upon the hypothesis that no election had taken place. What did they do? They did not pro- ceed of course to investigate an election to the United States Senate, because under their hypothesis there had been no election. They did 10 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. proceed to investigate a primary election. I think a cursory reading of the testimony taken in that investigation, striking only the high spots of that testimony, would very amply disclose the fact that the main purpose of the investigating committee was to develop a condi- tion of affairs that would probably prevent members of the legislature, under the circumstances, from voting for Senator Stephenson as a candidate for the United States Senate; not altogether with the expectation of establishing charges of great gravity, but creating a condition that would perhaps justify some members of the legislature in drawing away from the result of the primary and leaving them in a position where they could prevent an election; not an investigation of the election, but undoubtedly an attempt on the part of the com- mittee to prevent an election. So the committee want to bear in mind distinctly that there have been practically two investigations on the part of the Wisconsin Legislature. First, there was an investigation by a joint committee of the legislature under a resolution relating altogether to the pri- mary. I am not going to stop to discuss the question whether that was within their legal scope or not, because it is perfectly immaterial for my purpose in this discussion. It is simply necessary to say that their investigation was confined to the matters that took place in the primary, and a little later I am going to discuss the legal relation or nonrelation of the primal to the election of a United States Senator by the legislature. I want to call the attention of the committee to the construction of the resolution under which the committee are acting, bearing in mind the distinction that exists between the action of the joint committee of the Wisconsin Legislature and the resolution under which you are now acting. I should go further and say that when the Wisconsin Senate appointed a committee, somewhere about the 1st of April, 1909, that committee, under its resolution, undertook to investigate not only the primary but the election by the legislature. At that time of course an election had taken place. Now, what does the resolution of the United States Senate authorize this committee to do? It is true that the resolution directs the com- mittee to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin. To what end, and for what purpose? It is specifically stated in the resolution : For the purpose of being able to report to the Senate “ whether in the election of Isaac Stephenson ”■ — I beg the subcommittee to note the language — To report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices. Bear in mind the fact that the Wisconsin Legislature had been in- vestigating the primary in which he was nominated, not elected, and afterwards undertook to investigate also the election. Now a resolu- tion of the United States Senate authorizes this committee to investi- gate and “report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson, as a Senator of the United States from the said State of Wisconsin, there were used or employed corrupt methods or prac- tices.” Will this committee, when it makes its report, find that cor- rupt practices were used in anything other than the election? Would it not be gratuitous to do that? What power has this committee SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 11 under this resolution to report in relation to any corrupt practices or methods that do not relate to the election of Senator Stephenson? None. There can not be any doubt, it seems to me, about the con- struction of the English language in that respect. That being the case, what occasion has the committee to investi- gate any charges that relate to anything other than the election of Senator Stephenson? By whom? By the Legislature of Wisconsin. To be sure, certain charges are referred to; but I submit that it would be worse than idle for this committee to investigate charges with reference to which they have no power to make any report. It does not do to say that because Senator Stephenson’s election to the United States Senate by the Legislature of Wisconsin is ques- tioned, it opens up all the antecedent history extending over any lengthy period of time. I submit, first, that the committee can not and will not report to the Senate of the United States, under this resolution, any alleged corrupt practices or methods that do not relate to the election. I take very great pleasure in being able to argue this question under these circumstances. I know this subcommittee, and I know the Committee on. Privileges and Elections; and it is our great good fortune that it is composed of able lawyers and distinguished men; men of character and integrity, who will see that these proceedings, from the beginning to the end, are conducted not only in accordance with the law of the land, where important rights are involved, but will also see to it that from the beginning to the end due propriety is observed; and I submit that this committee will never report to the Senate of the United States under this resolution, any alleged corrupt practices or methods that do not relate to the election. The Senate of the United States has not asked the committee to do that. That being the case, I submit there is no occasion for the investi- gation of any alleged charges that relate to anything other than the election of Senator Stephenson by the Legislature of Wisconsin. Now the history of this matter Senator Sutherland. Mr. Littlefield, may I ask a question here? Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. Senator Sutherland. Is it your claim that the committee ought not to inquire into any proceedings or any acts which occurred prior to the time of the election, or at least prior to the time of the elec- tion of the legislators who voted for Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that I could go quite so far as that. Of course, if there is anything here that can connect any act of Senator Stephenson, or the act of any member of the legislature, so as in any way improperly to affect his election, or in any manner that would improperly affect the vote, it is very possible that that would open up a proper subject of inquiry; but my position abso- lutely is that it is not competent for this committee, that this com- mittee has no power to examine into the conduct of the primary election which resulted only in a nomination, and has not the slight- est legal or constitutional connection with the election, which was by the legislature. Senator Sutherland. But suppose for the sake of illustration that it should appear that Mr. Stephenson, by himself or through his agents, had corruptly expended money at the primary, for the pur- 12 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. pose of influencing the election of legislators who would ultimately vote for him. Would you say that would not be a proper subject of inquiry ? Mr. Littlefield. Absolutely. Senator Sutherland. That it would not? Mr. Littlefield. I have not the slightest question as to the legal proposition that this committee has not the power under the resolu- tion, and in my opinion the Senate of the United States could not pass a resolution that would enable this committee, to investigate the pri- mary nomination. Senator Sutherland. Would you say, then, to do away with the primary entirely, to take that out of the case? Would you say that a committee investigating the election of a member of the Senate would not be empowered to take cognizance of the fact, if it be made to appear, that a year, say, prior to the actual election being had, the candidate for the United States Senate had paid to some individual money with the understanding that if he should become a candidate before the State legislature, then that individual should vote for this particular candidate for United States Senator? Mr. Littlefield. Our proposition does not carry me so far as that. Senator Sutherland. Would we not have the right to go back to that? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. My proposition does not carry me so far as that. Of course there you have a case where the candidate was bring- ing to bear upon a man who later became a member of the legislature corrupt and improper influences. That is an entirely different prop- osition. There you have a direct connection with the member of the legislature. But this proposition does not carry me anywhere near that distance. I will go a little further and demonstrate what the proper construction of this resolution is, and then I want to discuss a little more elaborately as to the absolute lack of legal connection between the two, and I hope before I am through to satisfy this com- mittee that we are confronted with a very important practical proposition, which not only concerns Senator Stephenson, but may concern the ultimate practice of the United States Senate in matters of this sort. Let me complete now our analysis of the resolution. I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the resolution that has been read, which was passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature, ex- pressly recognizes the legal distinction between the primary election and the election of a United States Senator. What do I mean by that? In the whereases they say : And the Senate investigation committee appointed to investigate the manner, means, and methods by which the primary campaign and election of the year 1908 is claimed to have been corruptly and unlawfully conducted, and to fully, fairly, and thoroughly investigate the campaign and election of Isaac Stephen- son to the United States Senate, and the campaign of the primary and general election, and the primary election and election of the members of the last legis- lature, so far as the same in any way pertained to or affected the election of Isaac Stephenson to the United States Senate, have, in accordance with the resolutions adopted for said purposes, made and filed their report with the governor of the State of Wisconsin, etc. So, Mr. Chairman, it is so obvious that it is unnecessary to discuss it, that the very resolution that presented these charges distinctly SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 13 recognizes the legal distinction between the primary election and the election by the legislature of a Senator of the United States. I could go further and say that after the report of this committee to the Wisconsin Legislature had been held off for two years after the alleged investigation was completed, the investigation having been completed on the part of both the joint and separate committee, about the 21st day of May, 1909, apparently they woke up for the purpose of having this resolution of inquiry adopted by the Wiscon- sin Legislature some time in June, 1911, two years after the investi- gation had been concluded. Having, as I say, distinctly recognized that in the joint resolution I want now to go back and to call the attention of the committee to this very significant fact, that we have this resolution two years after every fact that could be unearthed by the exercise of the greatest diligence and the most extraordinary in- genuity had been made public property and the people of Wisconsin were fully advised of the situation. What did the legislature do in its resolution? The Chairman. That report was made by only a part of the mem- bers of the joint committee? Mr. Littlefield. No ; I beg the chairman’s pardon. The chronology of events is this: I think the senate continued its committee, on the 1st of April, and the members of the committee are confined to those who were on the joint committee — I think Senators Marsh, Morris, and Husting. The house declined to continue the investigation fur- ther. The senate proceeded independently with the same members who were theretofore its members of the joint committee. That com- mittee, on the part of the senate, made a report to the Wisconsin Leg- islature ; that is, they made the report to the senate end of the legisla- ture, if I may so term it. About that time the house members of the original joint committee also made a report which appears in the pamphlet, that the committee has before it. That, I think, is the exact chronology of events. Now, having called your attention to the fact that in the very reso- lution submitting this question to the United States Senate, the Wis- consin Legislature distinctly and specifically recognized the distinc- tion between a primary election and a general election and the election of the United States Senator, I desire now to call attention to what, after the adoption of this preamble, the Wisconsin Legisla- ture asked the Senate of the United States to do. I read from the resolution : And the United States Senate is hereby requested to investigate the manner, means, and methods by and through which Isaac Stephenson secured his elec- tion to the United States Senate. The Senate of the United States is not requested to investigate how Senator Stephenson secured his nomination. What did they request the Senate to do? Although they had covered this general ground by their investigation, they were sufficiently good lawyers to know that there was only one thing that the United States Senate could investigate, and so they made this request — to investigate the manner, means, and methods by and through which Isaac Stephen- son secured his election to the United States Senate. I submit that the Wisconsin Legislature confined itself to the only legal scope of investigation upon the part of the United States Senate. It is 14 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. precisely in line with the senate committee ? the committee reciting in its resolution of investigation, the investigation they had had in connection with the primary, the investigation they had had in con- nection with the general election; and when they came to request the United States Senate to act they confined themselves to the con- stitutional scope of the power of the Senate and simply requested an investigation of the election of Senator Stephenson to the United States Senate. If the committee please, that is substantially all that I have to say about the construction of the resolution. I desire now to say some- thing about the legal and constitutional situation that confronts us and to call attention to what the Constitution of the United States provides in a section that is quite familiar to us all, it having been the subject of considerable legislative discussion both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives of the United States. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Littlefield, will it interrupt you if I ask you a question at this point? Mr. Littlefield. No; not at all. Senator Sutherland. I want to understand the position you take. Is it your position that the committee would have no right to in- quire into the expenditure of money by Senator Stephenson at the primary election ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Suppose that the lavish expenditure of money at the primary election was one of the means adopted for the purpose of bringing about his election ultimately. Mr. Littlefield. I am going on now to discuss and show the com- mittee why, in my judgment, that legal connection can not be made. I hope to be able to show the committee that it does not cre- ate a condition of legal connection between the two. It is necessary for me to establish that in order for me to maintain the position I take, and of course the Senator has in a sense anticipated a portion of the contention at which I am about to arrive. The Constitution of the United States provides that Senators shall be elected by the legislatures, that provision being Article I, section 3. My first proposition is that there is no action that the Congress of the United States could take or that the legislature of a State could take which can in the slightest degree impair, add to, or in any way affect that provision of the Constitution of the United States. I take the ground that the Congress of the United States could not pass a primary election law with reference to Senators of the United States that would in the slightest degree infringe that constitutional provision ; that would in any way control the exercise of the discretion of a member of a State legislature. If they could, if by enacting a primary law which could result in a nomination, a law that would be more than advisory or simply persuasive, that would be in a sense controlling, we would now have what some people believe should exist, viz, an amendment to the Constitution of the United States devolving upon the people the right to say who should be elected. I submit that as my first proposition. I will go further than that, and I will call the attention of the committee to the fact that the primary law in the State of Wis- consin does not undertake either by indirection or in any other way SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 15 to affect the election by the legislature of a Senator. The statutes of Wisconsin distinctly recognize the differentiation between a nomi- nation and an election. The committee will find by referring to the statute that the Legislature of Wisconsin, in order to make its legislation apply to the election and nomination, found it necessary to specifically define and refer to each case, for they say that no person shall directly or indirectly give, subscribe, or promise or agree to pay any sum or thing of value to procure or aid in procuring the nomination or election, and so forth — proceeding, of course, upon the familiar ground that in order to make the penal statute apply to the nominating campaign it was necessary on account of the legal distinction between the two to specify both. I give only this one illustration, but I think wherever the statutes of Wisconsin undertake to refer to both the nomination and the election they specify each. So that the legislature distinctly recognizes the legal distinction be- tween the two and the necessity of specifying each if they intend their penal legislation to apply to each. I have said that Congress can not add to or take from this con- stitutional provision. I desire to go further and call the attention of the committee to the fact that one of the ablest courts of the United States has elaborately discussed this question and established the legal proposition which I am now undertaking to demonstrate. I call the attention of the committee to the One hundred and forty- second Wisconsin Report, at page 346, to the case of State ex rel. Van Alstine v. Frear. Before I quote from that decision, in order that the committee ma} 7 fully appreciate the significance of it, I desire to state briefly what the facts were concerning which the decision is rendered. This happens to be the case of a taxpayer, brought for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of this very primary election law that I am now discussing, the taxpayer taking the familiar ground that it was unconstitutional; that it involved expense on the part of the State in order to put its machinery into operation, and that being unconstitutional and void the officers authorized by the law to incur the expense could not properly incur it; and in discussing it the court took occasion to discuss this provision that I am now calling attention to: The Constitution unequivocally vests in the legislatures of the several States the power to elect Senators. This can only mean that it is made the duty of the legislators to meet, consult, and exercise their conscientious judgments in making a choice, having in mind always that they are the agents and repre- sentatives of those who sent them and that the wishes of the people are entitled to grave consideration. But if it be the object and purpose of this law to shift the burden of, and the responsibility for, the election of United States Senators from the legislature to the electorate ; if our legislators are to play the parts of automatons and become mere passive instruments by and through whom the will of the voters is to be carried out; if to them is left the perfunc- tory duty of ratifying the action of the voters at the primaries, as the members of our electoral college confirm the result of a presidential election ; if the elec- tors in reality elect United States Senators, instead of the legislature, then the constitutional scheme has been superseded and the spirit of the Constitution has been evaded and disregarded. Performing the empty ceremony of recording the wish of some other body is vitally different from expressing and recording inde- pendent thought and judgment. ******* The foregoing excerpts embody all the requirements found in the law that pertain to United States Senators. Not a word is said in the act about requir- 16 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. ing legislative candidates to pledge themselves to support the nominee of the party. The law in terms imposes no duty upon any member of the legislature to vote for any person who was a candidate before the primary. Neither does it restrict the choice to some person who was voted for thereat. Should this court assume that the coercive power of a nomination for Senator at the prima- ries is so great as to destroy volition on the part of members of the legislature and convert them into mere voting machines? The first and only election of a Senator since the primary law was passed would indicate that very many mem- bers of the legislature did not so interpret the law, and we have little reason to suppose that any of them did. Certainly the fact that a majority finally voted for the nominee of the primary proves nothing. The same result might have followed if no primary had been held. The law on its face does not convey the impression that it contains a sin- ister assault upon section 3 of Article I of the Federal Constitution. On the contrary, the purpose of the provision relating to the nomination of United States Senators may not only be lawful but may be entirely praiseworthy. Formerly political conventions met principally for the purpose of nominating candidates and promulgating party platforms. These functions are now per- formed at the primaries and by the candidates nominated thereat. While con- ventions may still be held, the necessity for holding them has largely been obviated, and it was no doubt thought by the legislature that they would be of infrequent occurrence. Such conventions, when held, very often expressed a choice of candidates for the senatorship. Senatorial and assembly conven- tions usually passed resolutions requesting their nominees to use all honorable means to secure the election of a favorite candidate. They furnished the only available means by which a candidate might become advised of the wishes of his constituency on this important subject. It is not only permissible, but is proper, that he should receive such advice. That advice can now be con- veyed most effectively through the vote at the primary. It should always be borne in mind that the people are the masters and that the members of the legislature are their servants, and that the agent should always give due consideration to the voice of the principal. In order to regard it he must hear it. It is none the less true that the agent by his oath of office swears that he will defend the constitutions, State and Federal, and perform the duties of his office to the best of his ability, and when vox populi points in one direction and our organic laws in the other, we must as- sume that the agent will courageously obey the behest of his oath and his conscience. It is not apparent how our primary law can be held to be so coercive as to destroy judgment and discretion on the part of a member of our legislature when he comes to perform the duty of electing a United States Senator. Where the majority for some candidate is large, great deference should and no doubt will be accorded to its voice. When public sentiment does not materially preponderate in favor of a single candidate, it may have a comparatively slight influence in inducing a legislator to cast his vote in favor of a candidate who has received a bare plurality of the popular vote; and where the vote of the constituency of the individual member is decidedly adverse to the successful candidate, it may well have a tendency to lead him to oppose rather than support the nominee. Our constitutions, State and national, guarantee the right of petition. Every citizen of the State has the right to petition the legislature asking that the candidate of his choice be elected United States Senator. Every citizen of a senatorial or assembly district has the right to petition his local representa- tive to the same effect. The lawmaker is thus advised of public sentiment, a potent factor for him to consider in connection with other matters in arriving at a conclusion. Wherein does the primary nomination for United States Senators differ from the exercise of the right of petition? The legislative candidate is thereby informed of something that he has the right to know and of something that it is his duty to heed. He may not regard the verdict at the polls as obligatory, but should treat it as advisory. * Moral suasion may be a perfectly legitimate agency to employ even in the election of a United States Senator. That the electors in the exercise of their guaranteed right of peti- tion might do in substance and effect what they now do at the primaries hardly admits of controversy. The framers of the Constitution could not have sup- posed that there was any impropriety in the people advising their representa- tives of how they desired them to vote on the senatorship, else an exception would have been incorporated in the clause guaranteeing the right of petition, SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 17 restricting its application to matters other than the election of United States Senators. As is said in State ex rel. McCue v. Blaisdell (N. Dak., 118 N. W., 141) the action of the electors in reference to a candidate for United States Senator “ amounts to nothing more than the right of petition, a right which they can not be denied.” The North Dakota law involved in this case contained a pro- vision requiring nominees for the State legislature to sign a pledge to vote for the candidate of their party who received the nomination at the primary for the office of United States Senator. This provision was held to be uncon- stitutional and void, because it was an attempt to coerce the members of the legislature to abdicate their right to use their individual judgments in making a selection, but it was also held that such void provision did not affect the remainder of the act. Authorities elsewhere on the point under consideration are not numerous, but such as we have are to the effect that a law such as ours, providing for the nomination of candidates for the office of United States Senator at a pri- mary election, is valid. State ex rel. McCue v. Blaisdell, supra, and State ex rel. Labauve v. Michel (121 La. 374, 46 South., 430). We do not wish to be understood as indorsing all that is said in the opinions in these cases, but do coincide with the conclusions reached to the extent here indicated. The Chairman. What disposition did I understand the court to make of the petition for the writ ? Mr. Littlefield. They denied it. The court sustained the con- stitutionality of the law. The order was affirmed. The action was brought by a taxpayer and the relator demurred to the complaint. It is on the ground that the action was improperly brought or at least ill-founded in la¥/, and the lower court sustained the demurrer, and the upper court affirmed the order sustaining the constitution- ality of the statute, and expressly holding, by reason of the fact that the primary election had no legal or constitutional connection with the subsequent election of a United States Senator, that portion of the statute constitutional. The Chairman. They held that the law was constitutional, but that it had no effect ? Mr. Littlefield. Precisely so. It was tantamount to the exercise of the right of petition ; it was simply advisory or persuasive. The Chairman. They held that the legislature might enact a law providing the manner of exercising the right of petition at the ex- pense of the public treasury. Mr. Littlefield. Surely. That is all it did do, and that is all any primary law in connection with the election of a United States Senator can do. Senator Sutherland. Granting all that the court said, and all that you have said about it, yet it does not quite meet the point I had in mind about the matter. With regard to the direct primary, as a matter wholly gratuitous, in the sense that if every provision of the State law was violated, I understand you to claim that that would not be a matter that the Congress of the United States could take any cog- nizance of ; but suppose that in the primary, the machinery provided by the State, whether that machinery be recognized by the United States or not, the candidate for the United States Senate by the lavish and corrupt expenditure of money brings about his own elec- tion finally by the legislature of the State so that you can say that his election to the Senate of the United States stands as to corruption and bribery at the primary in the direct relation of cause and effect, would you then say that the Senate of the United States would be powerless to inquire into it? 15236 °— VOL 1—11 2 18 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. Mr. Littlefield. Absolutely, because the legal relation of cause and effect does not exist. Senator Sutherland. But the practical relation might exist. Mr. Littlefield. No; the practical relation does not exist in the sense that it gives you any right to investigate the connection. I submit that a vote that is cast by a member of the senate of Wis- consin for a Senator of the United States is a valid vote unless it is the result of corrupt influence. If it becomes simply a question of advice, and we say that it is now competent for the Senate of the United States to inquire into the reasons why every individual who took part in the election of a Senator of the United States at a pri- mary gave his advice, whether he gave it on a proper hypothesis or otherwise, whether his persuasion was properly inspired or other- wise, then we open up a tremendous area for investigation. Unless the relation of legal cause and effect exists I say the Senate has no right to investigate beyond the establishment of that relation. Senator Sutherland. Let us take an extreme case for illustration. Let us say that A is a candidate for election to the United States Senate. He goes to B and says to B, “ If you are finally elected to the legislature, I want you to agree to vote for me for United States Senator,” and let us say that he agrees to it. Then A, by the corrupt use of money at the primary election, brings about the election of B, with the knowledge and consent of B and the knowledge and consent of A. Would you say in those circumstances that that would not be a matter that we could inquire into? Mr. Littlefield. That does not happen to be the case before us. Senator Sutherland. I understand, but you say that you can not inquire into a primary election at all. Mr. Littlefield. That does not happen to be the case before us. Just exactly how far the State legislature can go in providing a primary in connection with a State office is one thing. How far it can go in connection with a primary with relation to the office of United States Senator is a different thing. Of course the legislature unquestionably has the entire control of the election of all of the State officers and of all members of the legislature, and unquestion- ably if the legislature saw fit to enact a primary law as to State officers it would have that power. By the way, in the decision which I just read to the committee a case was cited by the court wherein they held the agreement to vote for a certain candidate was void, and it is generally conceded, I think, that a man can not legally make such an agreement. The Chairman. Would it be an offense, then, to pay a man for agreeing to do that which he was not bound to do? Mr. Littlefield. That would depend, of course, on the language of the statute under which you are prosecuting a man. It is quite possible that the State legislature might do so. I do not know how far it might go in making it an offense to improperly influence a man in a primary election in connection with the nomination of a United States Senator, but that does not go so far as to show there is any legal connection between the two. This illustration proceeds upon the hypothesis that the corrupt influence is brought to bear on a particular individual, and as a result of that influence he receives his office. SENATOR, FROM WISCONSIN. 19 Senator Sutherland. I am simply giving you an extreme illus- tration for the purpose of trying to demonstrate that there might arise a case in which it would be proper to inquire into the conduct of a candidate for United States Senator at a primary election. To bring the matter down to the case under investigation, it is charged that Mr. Stephenson, in the primary and in the election gen- erally — I am not able to separate them now in my own mind — ex- pended a sum of money exceeding $100,000. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; $107,000. Senator Sutherland. Suppose that over $100,000 of that was ex- pended in influencing the primary election, with the understanding that that was to bring about the election of certain men who were pledged to vote for him if they were elected to the legislature. Would you say, then, that we could not inquire into that ? Mr. Littlefield. The money was expended by him for the purpose of bringing about the election of members of the legislature? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think my proposition carries me as far as that, because there you have the direct application of the money furnished by the candidate for the election of the man who later on as a member of the legislature is to pass upon his election. Senator Sutherland. Must we not inquire into the expenditure of this money before we can determine whether it was innocently or corruptly expended? Mr. Littlefield. In cases like the one which the Senator has in mind the investigation may be confined to those. Further than that, I do not think the investigation can go. Senator Sutherland. Of course, as I understand the functions of this subcommittee, we have no power to determine anything. We are simply to investigate the facts and report to the full committee. Mr. Littlefield. I take it the Senator agrees with me that the authority of the subcommittee to investigate the facts is defined by the resolution under which you are acting. Senator Sutherland. Undoubtedly that is true. Mr. Littlefield. My proposition there is that the resolution ex- pressly confines the committee to the election of the Senator. Senator Sutherland. The point I had in mind was this: It being the fact that we have not the power of judging in this matter, but only of investigating, we perhaps ought to indulge a little wider latitude in taking the testimony than we would if we could pass upon the ultimate effect of the testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Well, the inquiry was directed as to the extent of the action the committee may feel authorized to take. Senator Sutherland. In excluding testimony ? Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. Of course while I present this case as I believe it should be presented, I appreciate that in the last analysis it is for the committee to say how far the investigation shall go. This is a practical consideration. It is important for us and it is important for Senator Stephenson. Senator Stephenson has stood up in this community for two years with all of this testimony a part of the public prints, filling the public newspapers. This committee which was investigating upon the part of the Wisconsin Legislature repeatedly instructed its record to be submitted to the prosecuting 20 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. officers, and involved charges of bribery on the part of Senator Stephenson, and the resolution submitting this investigation to the Senate of the United States under the seal of the State of Wisconsin specifically calls the attention of the prosecuting officers of the State to these alleged charges, and that was done in June, 1911. They were public property for two years before that ; and while the prosecuting officers throughout this State wherever these alleged offenses have been committed, have had their attention called to the alleged crimes, as yet no man has undertaken on his responsibility under circum- stances where he was not immune by reason of a constitutional pri - vilege, to charge either Senator Stephenson or any man representing him with any offense against the laws of Wisconsin. I ought to say further also that the only man who has seen the inside of a prison and looked out through its bars in connection with this investigation is an unfortunate gentleman whom a jury found had deliberately committed perjury in undertaking to annex a charge to one of Senator Stephenson’s managers. So that either the prosecut- ing officers have been reprehensiblv derelict in their duty, or the public sense of this State has not been so awakened to the commis- sion of flagrant crimes as to compel or impel the prosecuting officers to discharge their duty, or no offenses like anything charged by this complaint have ever been committed. Unless the committee feel that a proper consideration for their power authorizes them to reopen an investigation, we feel that Senator Stephenson at his age should not be asked again to submit himself to having the matter reinflame the public press and reagitate the public mind under the circumstances. So firmly convinced am I, not only upon the general constitutional and legal principles, that there is no legal connection between the two, but generally, that I should not hesitate, did I think it necessary and were the case sufficiently desperate, to advise every witness before this committee to decline to answer any question relating to the primary, upon the ground that it did not and could not have any legal connection with the election of Senator Stephenson; and I submit, if the committee please, that I should not assume much hazard in so doing. I do not propose to pursue that course. Of course I appreciate the situation of the committee. I realize that the committee wants to discharge its duties in a manner that the members feel is free and full, so that it can be said by the Senate later on that the investigation was full and free. If the committee feels under all of these circumstances and conditions that it is proper to go into this field of inquiry, we shall not only bow to the com- mittee’s wish, but Avill facilitate the committee when it reaches that stage of the inquiry. The Chairman. Of course, I do not understand counsel to indicate that he would undertake to circumscribe the scope of the investi- gation by the committee. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no. What I mean by what I have said is simply that, so far as we are concerned, we shall cheerfully accede to the ruling of the committee. It may be that in my haste I used an expression not altogether appropriate. We shall facilitate the action of the committee. Now, if the Senator from Utah, Mr. Sutherland, will bear with me, I desire to call the attention of the committee to one very im- SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. 21 portant practical consideration bearing perhaps upon his suggestion. I appreciate, of course, the difficulty that arises in a man’s mind in connection with the charge of the corrupt use of money in a primary election which ultimately results in an election to the United States Senate; but I submit that when the courts have held that that is simply advisory and persuasive, no condition is created that legally connects it with a vote for a Senator of the United States. What is the equation that results in an improper vote for a Senator of the United States? It involves two factors, and I submit with great confidence that without the presence of the two factors you do not get a corrupt vote of which this subcommittee, or of which the Senate either, can take cognizance. What are they? First, a cor- rupt influence — for the purpose of illustration — moving from the candidate or from someone in his behalf; second, a concurrence of the man casting the vote with that corrupt influence, showing that his vote when cast was influenced by the corrupt motive and the corrupt purpose. Without the concurrence of the moving influence and the submission thereto on the part of the man casting the vote you do not get any corrupt vote. It is inconceivable that an honest, innocent, well-intentioned man can cast a corrupt vote, so that the vote will be void. So I submit that, in order to get an equation upon which the Sen- ate must finally pass, you must have the existence of those two factors. The primary is simply advisory and persuasive. If it be true that it is corrupt in its character, and so corrupt as to impregnate the vote cast thereby, then the man who cast the vote is also corrupt when he casts it ; and the absurdity of that conclusion simply demon- strates that there is no foundation for the proposition. If advisory and persuasive, you do not get the legal connection that ultimately results in corruption in casting the vote. I submit it is fundamental that there can not be a corrupt vote honestly and sincerely cast. In order to be corrupt in its result and in its effect upon the result, the man who casts it must participate in the corrupt purpose ; otherwise, there is an entire absence of legal connection. It is preposterous, may it please the subcommittee, to assume for a moment that any member of the Wisconsin Legislature was thus actuated by any corrupt or improper purpose as the result of the action of the primaries; and, in my judgment, that absolutely dis- poses of the legal connection between the two. Now I have in mind a rather important practical consideration, which I wish to submit, and then I shall conclude upon this proposi- tion, and I think, may it please the subcommittee, this is the first time this question has ever been presented to a committee of the United States Senate : Primary elections are rather a new feature of our body politic. There are a great many people who believe there is great virtue in a primary election for all offices. It is perfectly compe- tent — whether it is useful or valuable I do not propose to stop and discuss, because I presume that is a proposition as to which many of us may intelligently and honestly differ — for a State, in connection with every State office, to provide for a primary election and, so far as they can, to make the primary election controlling. It amounts practically only to this: That a man gets his name upon the ticket in the party column. It does not prevent anybody from voting for somebody else who has not been suggested in the primary. 22 SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN. Now the question is presented to the United States Senate whether or not a primary election or a primary nomination is a legal subject for investigation in connection with the question of the election of a Senator of the United States by the legislature. How can it be, un- less it have some controlling influence on the result? But if it be, the election of every Senator hereafter from every State that has a primary election law will open up for investigation this vast area of the conduct of the parties in connection with the primary election. Every Senator of the United States, while he will not receive any legal advantage from a primary, if it be true that the Senate has the power to investigate as to what was done in the primary, is from now on to be embarrassed, annoyed, harassed, and perhaps be deprived of his rights by reason of an investigation of the primary. In other words, you have all the disadvantages of the election of a Senator by the people, and you have none of the advantages. Of course, everybody concedes that you can not elect, but if every time a con- troversy like this arises it is open to everybody to investigate the primary by the people, irrespective of what the legislature has done, then every Senator later can be embarrassed by all of those disad- vantages. And this is an important practical consideration. It involves the inauguration of a new policy on the part of the Senate of the United States; and if it be true that the Senate of the United States from now on, in all of these cases where a primary law exists, give notice to the public that it proposes to open up for investigation and exami- nation the results in the primary nomination, while it has no con- nection whatever with the election by the legislature from a legal standpoint, then I submit that the election of United States Senators by the people, so far as disadvantages, so far as embarrassments, so far as hazards and dangers are concerned, is now here. We have it — if we are tied to it. Do we believe in it? Without an amendment of the Constitution can it be that the States in this Union have created an intermediary through which every Senator must pass, from which he can receive no legal result or no legal advantage, that does not land him anywhere, that the Constitution does not recognize, that it knows nothing about? And yet it exists. For what? To im- peach and invalidate his title. It may be that we have, to that un- fortunate and disagreeable extent, the election of Senators of the United States by the people ; or, perhaps, to put it in the other way, in the inverse order, we have a condition created by the State that will destroy the election of a Senator by the legislature, under circum- stances where he gets no legal title or legal right therefrom. Of course, this concerns a great many people other than Senator Stephenson. I have submitted these various considerations, if the subcommittee please, quite fully and perhaps somewhat emphatically. We feel very strongly upon this proposition. We submit the whole matter, of course, and will very cheerfully abide by any conclusion that the subcommittee may reach. I wish to say this : We shall feel — and I have no doubt the subcom- mittee will agree with us — that during the progress of this investiga- tion, while I do not expect that we can proceed with the technical ac- curacy with which we proceed in courts of law (the members of the committee are all lawyers) , we have a professional duty to discharge ISAAC STEPHENSON. 23 to our clients, and we, of course, expect to proceed fairly, within well- established legal lines, because we have vast rights at stake. I thank the subcommittee for its careful attention. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson, will you take the witness stand ? TESTIMONY OF ISAAC STEPHENSON. Isaac Stephenson, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Senator Stephenson, when were you first elected to the United States Senate from the State of Wisconsin? Senator Stephenson. Upon the 26th of January. The Chairman. What year? Senator Stephenson. 1909. The Chairman. When did you first become a candidate for such election ? Senator Stephenson. About the last of June, 1908. The Chairman. You were at that time a Senator of the United States by appointment, were you not? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Duly qualified and acting? Senator Stephenson. Elected. The Chairman. You were elected to fill an unexpired term? Senator Stephenson. I was elected on the 17th of May, 1907. The Chairman. Did you expend any money in connection with your nomination or election as a Senator — during the primary — be- tween the time that you announced your candidacy and the date when the primary was held? Senator Stephenson. Yes; I spent a hundred and seven thousand seven hundred and something. The Chairman. Tell the subcommittee how you spent the amount that you have named — a hundred and eleven thousand and odd dollars ? Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman excuse us? We have a memo- randum that he will have to use for the purpose of giving some details. The Chairman. I would like to take his memory first, and then, of course, he is entitled to use his memorandum. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. Senator Stephenson. I appointed Mr. E. A. Edmonds an agent to spend the money. The Chairman. That was the witness who was sworn this morn- ing with you ? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What authority did you give Mr. Edmonds in regard to expending money on your behalf? Senator Stephenson. Only to keep within the law, and The Chairman. For what purpose did you authorize him to ex- pend money on your behalf? Senator Stephenson. Well, we had no organization when we started, and we had to get that — advertise, newspapers, and have men. We have got 71 counties in our State. We had to get somebody in every county to work. 24 ISAAC STEPHENSON The Chairman. How did you proceed to place money in Mr. Edmonds’s hands? How did you do it — hand it to him yourself? Senator Stephenson. I appointed Mr. J. H. Puelicher, cashier of the Marshall & Illsley Bank, and Mr. J. A. Van Cleve, as treasurers, and they were to pay Mr. Edmonds the money when he called for it. The Chairman. Did you place a limit upon the amount of money which they were to furnish Mr. Edmonds? Senator Stephenson. No. No; it came along from time to time, exceeding far beyond what I expected that it would. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire, just simply as a matter of procedure, as we go along; there may matters occur to us that we may want to make suggestions with relation to: Would you prefer us to wait until you finish the examination or make the suggestions as you go along? The Chairman. I think the subcommittee prefer to have you make 3 r our suggestions as you go along ? Mr. Littlefield. Then once in a while we may have occasion to make a suggestion by way of explanation or The Chairman. Make the suggestions to the subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. When did you first give money to Mr. Edmonds for the purpose of conducting your campaign ? Senator Stephenson (producing memorandum). June 28, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Stephenson National Bank, $2,000. The Chairman. That is 1908? Senator Stephenson. That was 1908. Shall I read what I The Chairman. If you have a memorandum of the sums of money that you paid into Mr. Edmonds’s hands, you may read it. Senator Stephenson. As a rule the money went — I paid to Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve and they paid to Mr. Edmonds, except- ing $5,000 that I gave to Mr. Edmonds at one time and also $5,000 that I gave to Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. Proceed, and give the dates and the items of money which you furnished. Senator Stephenson. I will read them. July, 6, check to J. A. Van Cleve, on the Marshall & Illsley Bank, $10,000; July 18, check to E. A. Edmonds, Stephenson National Bank, $5,000; check, Eagle Printing Co. — that is my own city daily paper Mr. Littlefield. Was that, the $5,000 just referred to, the only money that was paid direct to Mr. Edmonds ? Senator Stephenson. That is as my memory is, yes. Senator Pomerene. You mean by the witness? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is what I mean — by Senator Ste- phenson. Senator Stephenson. July 18, check, the Eagle Printing Co., $16; July 30, check to J. H. Puelicher, Marshall & Illsley Bank cashier, $10,000; August 7, check to J. H. Puelicher, Marshall & Illsley Bank, $30,000; August 8, check to J. A. McLean, Corn Exchange Bank, $20; August 17, check to H. L. Peterson, Stephenson National Bank, $150 — that was for getting primary votes for the nomination. The Chairman. What was the amount? Senator Stephenson. $150. That was for getting — we had to have so many votes to get the nomination for the primary. That was what he got. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 25 Senator Sutherland. I do not understand you. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, if you will excuse me, perhaps I may explain it a little bit better than the Senator. I understand the primary law here requires, in order for a man to be a candidate in the primary, that he must have a certain percentage of the voters upon the nomination papers, and that when those are procured and filed he is voted for in the primary. He has to have not less than 2 per cent — is it not — and I think not more than 10. Senator Pomerene. In order to have his name placed on the ticket? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; in the primary. So that the first thing a man has to do when he goes into a primary campaign, or did at that time, is to circulate his papers and get them signed by the requisite number of voters, which are called the nomination papers; then they are filed ; then he is a candidate of the primary. The Chairman. I think we will go into these items separately after the witness has given us the memoranda. Senator Sutherland sug- gests that the witness is not speaking with sufficient distinctness to be heard. Mr. Littlefield. Speak a little louder, Senator Stephenson. Senator Stephenson. August 20, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Corn Exchange Bank — that is Chicago — $15,000; August 24, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Corn Exchange Bank, Chicago, $10,000; August 27, check to Rodney Sacket, Corn Exchange Bank, $5,000; August 31, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Corn Exchange Bank, Chicago, $2,000; September 3, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Corn Exchange Bank, $13,500 ; September 3, check to H. Stronach, Stephenson National Bank, $26 — that was for getting names in my own city — I paid him that much ; September 14, check to A. J. Settersten — I gave him 5 cents a name in my own city to get those names — $26.10; September 26, check to the Eagle Printing Co., Stephenson National Bank, $13.50 — that is our daily paper. October 10, check to J. H. Puelicher, Stephenson Na- tional Bank, $3,700; October 29, check to Walter Alexander, Corn Ex- change Bank, Chicago, $588.30; November 7, check to J. W. Howey, Corn Exchange Bank, Chicago, $100; November 7, check to J. Earl Morgan, Stephenson National Bank, $2,550; November 20, check to J. H. Puelicher, Stephenson National Bank, $200; November 21, check to L. S. Patrick, Stephenson National Bank, $190.99 — Patrick is my secretary. November 28, check to J. A. Van Cleve, Stephenson National Bank, $71.35; cash, J. A. Van Cleve, paid by H. J. Brown, $792.75; paid by the N. Ludington Co., which is one of my companies, $25; cash, D. J. McAllister — my foreman in my lumber mill, one of my foremen — D. J. McAllister, paid by the N. Ludington Co., which is one of my companies, $110.50 and charged to the I. S. account — that is my account; cash to Reynolds, $180; cash to Alfred Green- Avood, $125 ; making in all, $111,385.49 ; amount reported as expended, $107,793.05. That is all. The Chairman. Have you there a statement of election expenses filed, as you filed it under the law ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. We have a certified copy here that we will pro- duce. The Chairman. I will ask you the question, Senator, Did you file a statement as a candidate for nomination, as provided by the laws of Wisconsin, of the expenses of your primary election ? 26 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. I could not say as to that. You mean for the number of votes I would get as a nomination The Chairman. No. I have a copy of the statement; I think your counsel have it there. I merely desire at this time that it go in. Senator Stephenson. Yes; this hundred and seven thousand; I filed that. The Chairman. Have you a copy of it there ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; we have it here. Senator Pomerene. When did you file that, Senator ? Senator Stephenson. Let me see. When did I file Mr. Littlefield. Filed February 11, 1909. Does the chairman want that marked as an exhibit ? The Chairman. Yes; I want it made a part of the witness’s state- ment at this time. Mr. Littlefield. February 11, 1909. The Chairman. What is the paper you have there? State what it is. Senator Stephenson. Do you want me to read the items ? The Chairman. No; you may state what it is, and then we will receive it in evidence. Senator Stephenson. The gross amount is $107,793.05. The Chairman. Is that your statement? Senator Stephenson. That is my statement that I filed. The Chairman. Is that the statement that you filed pursuant to the law, as your expenses in the primary elections ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. It may be marked. Senator Stephenson. That was for the primary. (The document referred to was marked “ Exhibit Stephenson 1,” and is in words and figures as follows:) United States of America, The State of Wisconsin, Department of State. To all to whom these presents shall come: I, J. A. Frear. secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin and keeper of the great seal thereof, do hereby certify that the annexed copy of statement of election expenses of Isaac Stephenson, candidate for the office of United States Senator, has been compared by me with the statement on file in this depart- ment and that the same is a true copy thereof and of the whole of such state- ment. In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the great seal of the State at the capitol in the city of Madison, this 28th day of Sep- tember. A. D. 1911. [seal.] J. A. Frear, Secretary of State. STATEMENT OF ELECTION EXPENSES. Statement of Isaac Stephenson, a candidate for the nomination for the office of United States Senator from Wisconsin at the primary election held on the 1st day of September, 1908. 1. Total amount placed in the hands of E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Pue- licher. J. A. Van Cleve, Rodney Sackett, H. J. Brown, and others $111,385.49 2. Of the above amount, the following have been reported to me as expended : To L. Briethaupt Printing Co., Mandel Engraving Co., Whitehead & Hoag, Keystone Printing Co., Vandecamp & Larberter, and others, for printing sample ballots, lithographs, circulars, and other sta- tionery, etc 7, 347. 69 ISAAC STEPHENSON. 27 To paid for postage stamps $11, 339. 00 To C. M. Hambright, John C. Miller, E. H. McMahon, E. J. Rogers, U. C. Keller, and others, for services tendered in organizing out- side Milwaukee County- 53, 729. 56 To traveling expenses, contributions to associations, cigars, etc 1, 420. 63 To paid Koch Advertising Agency and others for newspaper adver- tising 16, 485. 24 To W. R. Knell, expenses incurred in organizing Milwaukee County, exclusive of items not otherwise accounted for, but including organization on primary day 8, 417. 36 Getting signatures to nomination papers 225. 06 For office rent, expenses, including employees’ wages 4, 070. 76 Posting and distributing lithographs 834. 00 Telephone, telegraph, and express charges 735. 10 Advertising, printing, etc., covering bills received after Sept. 15 3, 188. 65 Total 107,793.05 State of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, ss: Isaac Stephenson, being first duly sworn, on oath says that the amount placed in the hands of E. A. Edmonds, J. H. Puelicher, J. A. Van Cleve, Rodney Sackett, H. J. Brown, and others as set forth in paragraph 1 of the foregoing statement, is true and correct, to the best of affiant’s knowledge and belief. That of said amount there have been reported to affiant expenditures as set forth in paragraph 2 of the foregoing statement. Isaac Stephenson. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of February, 1909. [seal.] Wm. Kaumheimer, 'Notary Public for Wisconsin . My commission expires March 7, 1909. State of Wisconsin, Department of State, ss: Received and filed this 11th day of February, A. D. 1909. A. T. Torge, Assistant Secretary of State. Mr. Littlefield. It turns out that this document was filed at the time it was under the advice of the attorney general. Perhaps it would be as well to put in his letter at this place. The Chairman. We will take that up later. We merely want the items of the expense now. Mr. Littlefield. The committee have the other matter in mind. The Chairman. This will go in as a part of Senator Stephenson’s testimony, and will appear in the record. It will also be an exhibit. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. The Chairman. Senator, what was the sum of $2,000 expended for, which you paid to J. A. Van Cleve on June 28 by a check on the Stephenson National Bank? Senator Stephenson. He and Mr. Puelicher were my treasurers. I appointed them, and they wished to give to Mr. Edmonds, the manager, such sums as he required. The Chairman. Do you know what that was expended for ? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not. The Chairman. Do you know what the item of $10,000 was ex- pended for, which you paid by check on July 6 to J. A. Van Cleve? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not know about that. The Chairman. Do you know what any of the items that you have returned here, amounting to $111,385.49, were expended for? 28 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. A few. The Chairman. Then we will go through the statement and see which ones you know about personally. Do you know what the amount of $5,000 was expended for, which is represented by the check of July 18 to E. A. Edmonds? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not. He might have stated to me what he expended it for. The Chairman. Do you know and can you state to the committee what it was expended for? Senator Stephenson. No. The Chairman. You have no knowledge whatever on the subject? Senator Stephenson. No. The Chairman. Do you know what the $16 was expended for which was represented by the check of July 18 to the Eagle Print- ing Co.? Senator Stephenson. For some advertising in the paper. I do not know what it was. The Chairman. Did you pay that personally? Senator Stephenson. No. The Charman. Did you see the voucher for it? Senator Stephenson. No. The Charman. Can you state what service was performed for that ? Senator Stephenson. No, Mr. Chairman; I have so much business that those things are done through my clerks or secretaries. The Charman. The fact that we desire to adduce at this time is whether you know or not. Senator Stephenson. No; I do not. The Chairman. Now, taking the check to Puelicher, given July 30, for $10,000, have you any knowledge how that money was expended ? Senator Stephenson. He was to pay it over as Mr. Edmonds called for it. He was one of my treasurers, if you please, and Mr. Van Cleve was the other. I paid them the money, and Mr. Edmonds would call on them for the money. The Chairman. As to the check for $30,000 on August 7 to Mr. Puelicher? Senator Stephenson. That was all the same. The Chairman. Now we come to the check of August 8 to J. A. McLean for $20. What was that for? Senator Stephenson. For getting names. The Chairman. Where did he procure the names? Senator Stephenson. I think in Brown County. The Chairman. Who was Mr. McLean? Senator Stephenson. A man I never saw. The Chairman. To whom did you pay the money or hand the check ? Senator Stephenson. I do not know. I could not tell you that. The Chairman. You have no recollection of it? Senator Stephenson. No; perhaps my secretary handed him that money. The Chairman. Did you personally know the basis of that trans- action ? ISAAC STEPHENSON. 29 Senator Stephenson. Yes; I knew that he got names for me, and that is what he asked for, for getting the names. The Chairman. For getting names signed to your petition? Senator Stephenson. For the nomination. The Chairman. Your petition for nomination? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. You have no knowledge of how many names he procured for you? Senator Stephenson. No; I have not. The Chairman. Nor how long he was engaged in doing it? Senator Stephenson. We got a sufficient number, and more, I think. I do not remember how many we got. We more than complied with the law. The Chairman. Do you know how long he was engaged in procur- ing names? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not. The Chairman. You acted on the statement of your secretary, you say? Senator Stephenson. No; not particularly. But my secretary or somebody else may have paid him that $20. I can not remember that, because I am paying out different things in our business. You know there are a great many of them. The Chairman. You signed the check? Senator Stephenson. I presume I did if it was paid by check. I sign my checks. The Chairman. A check on the Corn Exchange Bank? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. The $150 paid by check on August 17 to H. L. Peterson, for what was that paid? Senator Stephenson. That was for getting names for the nomina- tion papers. The Chairman. Who was Mr. Peterson? Senator Stephenson. He comes from Door County, at Sturgeon Bay. The Chairman. Who was H. L. Peterson ? Senator Stephenson. He is a reputable citizen there who has held office in the county. He wanted to be postmaster there this year. The Chairman. What offices had he held? Senator Stephenson. I think he was chairman of the board of supervisors of the county. I am not sure about that, because it is not my county. The Chairman. Was he a candidate for any office at the primary? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. The Chairman. Or at the election? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; not to my knowledge. The Chairman. You say the $150 was paid to him for securing names to your petition for the nomination ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. How long was he engaged in procuring them? Senator Stephenson. That, of course, I do not know. The Chairman. You have no knowledge as to how many names he procured ? 30 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. No. The Chairman. Or how long he was in procuring them ? Senator Stephenson. No; I got a good many more names prob- ably than were necessary. Whether I returned them all to Madison or not I do not know. The Chairman. Now, you say you do not know what disposition was made of the larger items paid to Van Cleve and Sacket. There is on August 20 an item of $15,000 ; on August 20 an item of $10,000; on August 31, $2,000; and on September 3, $13,500, paid to Van Cleve. You do not know what he did with that money? Senator Stephenson. All of that money that was given to Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve was to be given to Mr. Edmonds, my manager, as he might need it. That is all they had to do with it. The Chairman. What were they to do with this money? Senator Stephenson. They were to give it to Mr. Edmunds as he needed it in the canvass. The Chairman. What was Edmonds to do with it? Senator Stephenson. He was to carry on the campaign. The Chairman. What do you mean by carrying on the campaign? Senator Stephenson. I might say that you know. You have got to advertise. You have got to get men to work. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ work,” when you say you have to get men to work ? Senator Stephenson. To get up sentiment and influence people, if you please, to vote for you. The Chairman. How did they influence people to vote for you? Senator Stephenson. To tell them that you are a good fellow, and so forth, and then to get them out. At the time of our primaries here on the first Tuesday of September the people are very busy. The farmers are very busy, and you have got to induce them to get out. Maybe you have to hire a team or something ; I do not know what. The Chairman. Was that the extent of the expenditure — for hir- ing teams? Senator Stephenson. Oh, no; there was advertising, and The Chairman. Stop at the advertising now. Senator Stephenson. There were buttons with my photograph on them; that cost a thousand or two thousand dollars. They were sent all over, and my photograph was sent, and the newspapers. It will show there in the summary what it was for. The Chairman. You speak of advertising. Senator Stephenson. I am only telling you what I think it was for. The Chairman. You speak of advertising. Let us get a little closer to that item. What do you include in the term “ advertising ”? Senator Stephenson. Setting forth my qualifications. The Chairman. In the newspapers? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. In what papers were your qualifications adver- tised ? Senator Stephenson. They got them into every paper in the State that they could. I do not know how many. The Chairman. Did you have a scale of prices for that class of service ? Senator Stephenson. I had nothing to do with that. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 31 The Chairman. Do you know how much was paid to newspapers for advertising in your canvass ? Senator Stephenson. No; only in the general statement. I guess I had better state how much part I took in it. Let me state this to you, Mr. Chairman: We have 71 counties in our State. I was only in 7 counties, a part of the last five days. That is all I had to do with the canvass. I did not see Mr. Edmonds, my manager, to exceed four times during the canvass. It only lasted about two months. I only ran two months. If you will let me make a statement right there, Mr. Hatton announced himself a candidate for the next primary on the 17th of May, 1907. Our primary law had not taken effect then, and did not take effect until 1908. He announced him- self on May 17, 1907, so that he ran fifteen and a half months. Mr. Cook was running a year. Another one of my opponents, Mr. Mc- Govern — The Chairman. I do not think we will at this time go into the candidacy of other persons. Senator Stephenson. I am only telling you what little I had to do with my canvass. That is what I want to explain. The Chairman. We do not desire at this time to go into the canvass of other men. You have spoken of advertising and sending out your pictures as explaining a part of the Expenditure of this money. I notice in your official statement — meaning the one filed in pursuance to the statute — that these items amount to $7,347,69. That includes all of your lithographic work and advertising in connection with sending out your pictures, does it not? Senator Stephenson. I will say right there that I know nothing about it only as that return was made to me. I had practically nothing to do with the canvass, and knew nothing about it only as he made that return to me. Senator Pomerene. You mean Mr. Edmonds? Senator Stephenson. Yes ; Mr. Edmonds. I had practically noth- ing to do with the canvass. If I had visited the 71 counties I would have had 75,000 or 80,000 plurality. The Chairman. It is quite as important that this testimony show that you do not know as it is that it show that you do know, in case you do. That is the reason I am asking these questions. It might be presumed that you knew if you were not given an opportunity to say whether or not you knew. Now, I will ask you as to the item of postage, which I think you mentioned. You state that you paid for postage and stamps $11,339. Have you any personal knowledge in regard to that? Senator Stephenson. No more than you have. That is the return Mr. Edmonds made. I have no personal knowledge of it. The Chairman. Is the item of traveling expenses, contributions to associations, cigars, etc., $1,420.63, intended to indicate your personal expenditures or those of some other person? Senator Stephenson. No; that is what Mr. Edmonds spent. Dur- ing the five days that I traveled I paid my own expenses. The Chairman. Are those expenses included in any statements of your expenses? Senator Stephenson. No; they did not exceed $100. The Chairman. Is what you have said in reference to those items, that you had no personal knowledge in regard to them, true of every item in the statement that you filed? 32 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. So far as I know and believe. The Chairman. You have no personal knowledge on the subject? Senator Stephenson. Will you please ask that question again ? The Chairman. Is it true as to every item in the expense account which you filed, that you have no personal knowledge as to the manner of the expenditures? Senator Stephenson. No; excepting a few of the small items there, not to exceed, I guess, $1,000 in the primaries around home, or something like that, which I paid out of my pocket; sums of $20 each, or whatever they were, for getting names. That is all that I had to do with, in my own town or county. The Chairman. The item of getting signatures to primary peti- tions outside of Milwaukee, do you know anything about that ? Senator Stephenson. I do not know anything about that. You say Milwaukee. I live in Marinette, you know. The Chairman. I refer to the item of C. M. Hambright, John C. Miller, E. H. McMahon, E. J. Rogers, U. C. Keller, and others for services rendered in organizing outside Milwaukee County, $53,729. Senator Stephenson. I know nothing about that only as you see it there returned by Mr. Hambright. The Chairman. You have your expense account there before you. What item in it have you personal knowledge about ? Senator Stephenson. I have not before me the statement that I filed — the money I paid out to Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve. The Chairman. I have a copy. State as to which of these items, if any, you have personal knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. What the Senator is inquiring about now is the return. The Chairman. The expense account. f Mr. Littlefield. That is not this. This detailed statement has been testified to, but the return is another paper. Of course I assume from the course of the examination that the committee overruled my proposition that they ought not to go into the question of the pri- maries. The Chairman. The committee had anticipated that when the first question was asked, counsel would raise the objection, and that would have afforded an opportunity to pass upon this question, and probably to give the reasons for the conclusion of the committee, and to state it so that it would appear in the record. Counsel did not interpose the objection. Mr. Littlefield. That is true. I rather assumed that the com- mittee had overruled my proposition. I will interpose the objection now, and ask the committee to indicate its ruling. The Chairman. The purpose of the first question asked was to afford counsel an opportunity to interpose an objection on the ground that it related to expenses during the primary. Counsel interposed no objection and the committee proceeded to the detail. Mr. Littlefield. I will interpose the objection now, so as to raise the question on the record, as to any further continuance of that line of examination. The Chairman. Perhaps a motion to strike out would be better. Mr. Littlefield. In order to raise the question I will move that the testimony so far taken in relation to the primaries be stricken out, for the reasons heretofore stated, and that the investigation from now on ISAAC STEPHENSON. 33 be confined to matters relating purely to the election by the legisla- ture. It was an inadvertence that I did not raise the objection before. The Chairman. It is near the hour when the committee intended to take a recess, and we will take a recess until 2 o’clock. (At 12 o’clock and 20 minutes p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.)' AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. The Chairman. The objection of counsel to interrogating the wit- ness, Senator Stephenson, in regard to the transactions during the primary contest seems to be based principally upon the form of the Senate resolution authorizing this investigation. That portion of the resolution to which counsel has called attention must be read in con- nection with the recital that precedes it. The resolution reads “ that the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections or any sub- committee thereof be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin against Isaac Stephenson.” That refers us to the charges that were preferred to the United States Senate for the determination of the scope of the in- vestigation. It is true that the Senate resolution afterwards uses the words : “And to report to the Senate whether in the election of said Isaac Stephenson as a Senator,” etc. We must read the word “elec- tion ” in connection with the recital preceding it, because we are in- structed by the Senate to gather information as to whether or not the election was procured by corrupt methods or practices, and in doing so we go to the charges upon which the legislature acted, and as the charges have already been read at length and are in the record, it will be only necessary to refer to them; they are specific. The document that was certified by the governor in connection with the resolution contains specific charges set out in detail, specifying and distinguishing between those that pertain to the primary election and those that pertain to the election by the legislature. In view of that fact, the committee are of the opinion that any transactions relating to the dealings between Senator Stephenson and the people of the State of Wisconsin during the primary election, from which transactions it might be gathered that wrong methods, corrupt practices, were indulged in by Senator Stephenson or by those authorized by him to represent him, may be taken into considera- tion. The committee does not desire to go further than that at this time. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand from the suggestions made by the chairman that it is the understanding of the committee that the investigation be limited to what are known as the Blaine charges, and that that is its scope? I do not know that the suggestion involved that, but I thought that was possibly the view of the committee. The Chairman. The committee does not desire at this time to ex- press its opinion on that. Mr. Littlefield. That is, you do not cross that bridge until you get to it. I should like to have the record show that my objection goes deeper than the suggestion of the chairman. Of course I do lay stress, as the chairman has very properly suggested, upon the language and the I5235 0 — vol 1—11 3 34 ISAAC STEPHENSON. scope of the resolution, but I go further than that in order to state my legal and constitutional proposition, and simply for the purpose of having the record show that I go further than that I say, even if the Senate in terms had instructed the committee to investigate the primary election or the primary nomination, the Senate would be transcending its constitutional powers and would be investigating a phase of the election that it had no power to investigate. The Chairman. I think the committee would prefer to reserve an expression of opinion on that until it makes a final report. Mr. Littlefield. Of course the committee will appreciate that I would not expect a subcommittee to undertake to rule down the reso- lution under which it is acting, but I desire to have before the com- mittee the full scope and the breadth of the constitutional and legal proposition on which we rely. We are very greatly obliged to the committee for the suggestions made in the ruling of the chairman. Senator Sutherland. The view that I take of this matter is this : This is a subcommittee of a full committee, and we are directed to make an investigation of these charges, with a view to determining whether there have been any corrupt methods or practices affecting the election of Senator Stephenson. I think the duty of such a com- mittee is inquisitorial. We have no power to determine anything. We are to gather the facts and report them to the full committee, finally for the use of the Senate, and in doing that, speaking for myself, I think it is the duty of the subcommittee, if there is a fair doubt as to the admissibility of any testimony, to resolve the doubt in favor of admitting it, because if the testimony is here there is no difficulty in disregarding it if in the end it ought to have no weight ; but if we do not take the testimony we can not do that. So that, speaking only for myself again, in taking this testimony I am not undertaking to say what should be the ultimate effect of it at all. It may be that when we get through it ought to be disregarded. Another thought about it is this. While I think you are entirely correct, Mr. Littlefield, in saying in effect that these direct primaries, which are provided for by the State law, are entirely voluntary so far as the United States Congress is concerned, in so far that if the laws of the State holding the primary were torn to shreds and tatters it would be no concern whatever of the Congress of the United States, unless the sitting Member whose right to the seat is being investi- gated had had some corrupt connection with the administration of that law, yet in investigating what occurs at the primaries, as I view it now, we have the right to inquire as to the action of Senator Stephenson and his authorized agents ; to ascertain what money was spent in the primaries, because the primaries, whether regarded as entirely voluntary or not, might have a very important relation to the election which followed, and therefore we should inquire as to what money was expended in influencing these elections. It may be that when we get all the facts it would be ascertained that the expenditure of the money was perfectly innocent and proper. It may be that the use of the money was corrupt. We can not tell about that in advance. We have simply to take the testimony, and after it is all in determine the effect of it. So I think that in this investigation we ought to indulge in the widest reasonable latitude. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 35 Mr. Littlefield. I presume we all agree that while the duties of the committee are, of course, inquisitorial, there is a limit to the exercise of that duty, and I would like to have the committee feel that I have not the slightest disposition to even indirectly criticize the duty suggested by the Senator as the reason for the ruling. Senator Sutherland. I have suggested there was a limit by saying that if there be a fair doubt as to the admissibility of any testimony, that doubt should be resolved in favor of admitting it. Mr. Littlefield. I am not disposed to complain of that ruling. I think that is a perfectly proper attitude for the committee to assume, for the reason stated, that if you do exclude it and it turns out to be important, you have done an irreparable wrong; but if it is admitted, and it is an error, that testimony can be disregarded. Senator Pomerene. Just one word. I felt this morning during the very able argument that was presented to us that the scope which counsel was disposed to give to the committee under this resolution was too limited. The Constitution of the United States provides that the Senate shall be th'e judge of the election and qualifications of its members. The resolution which was adopted provides, in effect, that because certain charges of corruption have been made this committee is instructed to inquire into the election of the Senator from Wisconsin. It seems to me we ought to construe that in con- nection with the provision of the Constitution rather than in con- nection with the resolution that was passed by the General Assembly of the State of Wisconsin. The investigation, it seems to me, must apply to those means which were adopted in securing the title to the Senatorship from this State, and for that reason it seems to me that this committee would subject itself to the grossest kind of criticism if it were to attempt to limit its inquiry to things which may have occurred after the legislature was elected. When I make this statement I do not mean to be understood, of course, as prejudging in any sense the weight which is to be attached to these evidentiary facts. The charge, in effect, is corruption and fraud. As lawyers we know that many things may be badges of fraud or may not be and may be entirely innocent. We must reach our conclusion after all of the evidence is in. We decide now simply that certain testimony is admissible. We determine later the weight that is to be attached to that testimony. Mr. Littlefield. I think the Senator states the situation very accu- rately and clearly. Perhaps I ought to make this further suggestion in connection with the general proposition — and I hope the discus- sion will prove at least instructive and perhaps valuable — to enable the committee to more accurately appreciate the weight of evidence on these various propositions. As to the effect of the primary itself, our contention is that every dollar of the one hundred and seven thousand and odd dollars ex- pended was expended solely and only for the nomination of Senator Stephenson in the primary, and that not a dollar of it can be said in any proper sense to have been contributed either to the nomination or election of any member of the legislature. Of course, if that is established, that is a significant fact. That is our contention. To be frank about it, I ought to say that there is something in the record that tends to indicate that there might be a claim that some money that was furnished to a Mr. Reynolds, a Candidate for the ISAAC STEPHENSON. 36 . legislature, a Mr. Wellensgard, and a Mr. Bancroft may not be within the statement which I have made. That is, there may be a contention respecting it. There is something in the record that shows that in connection with some other candidates who were not elected there was some money distributed and used by them. Of course, our con- tention is that all of this was used for and to promote the interests of Senator Stephenson, and as to those who were not elected the matter is not of any consequence, because their votes would not be counted, as they would not be cast. I would like to have the com- mittee have this particular phase of the matter in their minds as we go along. I think that covers the whole ground. I understand, then, the objection is overruled and the motion is denied. The Chairman. In connection with the ruling that has been made and the comments of the committee, I desire to call attention to a part of the official record, upon which we are called upon to act, in order that there may be no mistake about the scope of the committee’s ruling. On page 26 and page 27, in this paper certified to the Senate by the governor of Wisconsin Mr. Littlefield. Is that the Senate document? The Chairman. It was printed as a Senate document, but it is a part of the official record in this case, made so by a reference. To resume, on pages 26 and 27 of this document, it appears that certain members at the time they voted in the legislature for Senator Stephen- son stated that they did so under protest, claiming to do so only be- cause he had been nominated at the primary. Mr. Littlefield. Then I understand that the formal record will show that my objection is overruled and the motion denied. The Chairman. The record will show what has occurred. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, the chairman will see that all I desire to do is to have the record consistent all the way through so that these questions may be presented to whomsoever may hereafter have occa- sion to examine the record. The Chairman. Tlie ordinary procedure in regard to exceptions would not apply to a hearing before a committee. It is only necessary to note the objection and the ruling. Mr. Littlefield. Precisely, and that is the way I understood it. The Chairman. The Chair will ask Senator Stephenson to resume the stand. TESTIMONY OF ISAAC STEPHENSON— Resumed. The Chairman. The Chair will ask the reporter to repeat the last question which was put to Senator Stephenson before the recess. The reporter read as follows: State as to which of these items, if any, you have personal knowledge. The Chairman. I was referring, Senator Stephenson, to the items in the account which you had filed. You stated that you had personal knowledge only as to a part of them. State as to which of these items. Have you a copy of them before you ? Mr. Littlefield. I think the Chair will have to hand them to the witness. You refer now to the return per se? My impression is that they are grouped in such a way that he can not tell much about it. The Chairman. That is what I want to know. State as to which of these items you have any personal knowledge. ISAAC STEPHENSOK. 37 Senator Pomerene. Let the record show that the witness is re- ferring now to Exhibit 1. Mr. Littlefield. To what appears in Exhibit 1, if I may be per- mitted to add that to the question. Senator Stephenson. I have not any knowledge of The Chairman. Of any item ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; only as far as getting the names are concerned for my nomination papers. The Chairman. You referred to the item of $225.06 for getting sig- natures to nomination papers. Senator Stephenson. Well, that I know something about. The Chairman. To whom was that paid, that item of $225.06, for getting signatures to nomination papers? Senator Stephenson. To Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reynolds. Senator Pomerene. Give their full names, if you please. Senator Stephenson. Thomas Reynolds and Mr. Peterson. I do not know his initials. Then there was a Frenchman. What is the name of the Frenchman? Mr. Littlefield. That is your memorandum. That shows the de- tails as far as you can give them. Of course, the committee will notice that I am assisting the witness somewhat, but if that is not agreeable to the committee all it has to do is to indicate it. Senator Stephenson. A. H. Settersten, $26.10; Stronach, $26; Fred Hutchinson, $25; McAllister, $110.50; cash to Reynolds, $180; cash, Alfred Greenwood, $125. Mr. Littlefield. Just one moment, please. It is very obvious that Senator Stephenson, in making the detailed answer that he has, has lost the purport of the question, because some of the items that he has given have no relation whatever to obtaining signatures. The Chairman. I think his answer is germane to the question. The question was to whom was the $225.06 paid. He has stated that it was paid to E. J. McAllister, T. Reynolds, Alfred Greenwood, and Fred Hutchinson. Mr. Littlefield. As a matter of fact, the Greenwood payment was not for that purpose at all. The Chairman. The Chair would suggest to counsel that the mat- ter of fact ought to be developed by the testimony of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. The Chairman. The items that you have given amount to more than the sum of $225.06. In your statement made before the legisla- tive committee, in regard to the checks and sums paid, you say that you paid Fred Hutchinson, through Ludington Co., $25. That, you say, was for obtaining signatures to the nomination papers. Senator Stephenson. Yes; as far as I recollect. The Chairman. You say you paid E. J. McAllister $110.50, and that that was also for obtaining signatures to your nomination papers. Senator Stephenson. I think there is a little question about that. I think he went over into Oconto County and saw some of his friends — to vote for me, I guess. That is what I think. The Chairman. Then you would eliminate that item of $110? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. You say “ Cash to T. Reynolds, $180.” Do you charge that to obtaining signatures to your nomination papers? 38 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. All of it ? Senator Stephenson. Yes ; because he got some others. He did not make any charge, but I gave him that money. The Chairman. When you gave him that money was he a candi- date for the legislature ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; that is, I did not know that he was at the time. I did not, but he was a candidate and was elected. The Chairman. Shortly after you gave him the $80 of that money you knew that he was a candidate for the legislature ? Senator Stephenson. No ; I was not sure at the time I gave him the first $80. I gave him that in currency, out of my pocket. I asked him to get me some names and to employ others, and I afterwards sent him $100 because he was a poor man and employed others, and he was an honorable man and he would not have made any charges, and I gave it to him because he is a high-minded, splendid man. The Chairman. At the time you gave him $100 you did know that he was a candidate for the legislature, did you not ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; that was given not by me directly, but by my secretary; sent to him in currency. The Chairman. By j^our instructions? Senator Stephenson. I am not so sure about that. I would not say whether I instructed him or not. The Chairman. I think you testified on a former occasion that you knew shortly after you gave him the $80 that he was a candidate, did you not? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And that you instructed that the $100 be sent him subsequently and that at the time you gave that instruction you knew that he was an active candidate for the legislature; is that true? Senator Stephenson. Yes; but I gave it to him for names which he labored to get and employed several others to get them, and for nothing else, because I knew it was against the law to give a man running for the legislature any money. I knew that was against the law, but I gave it to him for getting those names originally. The Chairman. How many names did he get? Senator Stephenson. That I could not tell you. I got a lot of names, more than was necessary, perhaps. The Chairman. Did he do other work for you or in your behalf in regard to your nomination than to procure the names ? Senator Stephenson. I do not know. I can not say that. He is a friend of mine — good, true man. I suppose he wanted to see me win ; I presume so, but I do not know that. The Chairman. In the case of Alfred Greenwood, you gave him $125, according to your statement? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. For what was that sum given? Senator Stephenson. He went into Kewaunee County and others. He is a poor cripple and had been in our town for years, a French- man — dead now — and I sent him twice to Mount Clemens, years before that, for his rheumatism- The Chairman. Let us, in the interest of time, confine ourselves to the payment of this sum of money, Senator. Senator Stephenson. Yes. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 39 The Chaibman. What did he do for the $125 ? Senator Stephenson. He went to Kewaunee and got names. The Chaibman. How many names did he get? Senator Stephenson. I could not tell you that. The Chaibman. What was the basis upon which you fixed the sum of $125? Senator Stephenson. Not any. I gave him that partly out of charity, as well as for getting names, because I had been giving him money right along for a good many years. The Chaibman. Was he a candidate for any office? Senator Stephenson. No. Mr. Littlefield. Who is this? Greenwood? The Chaibman. Greenwood. Senator Stephenson. Yes — poor fellow. The Chaibman. You gave $250 to H. L. Bancroft, too; for what was that given? Senator Stephenson. As far as I know, it was for names, and nothing else. The Chaibman. Do you remember when you gave Mr. Bancroft that money ? Senator Stephenson. No; I can not tell now. The Chaibman. Was it before the primary election? Senator Stephenson. Before or during; I can not tell. The Chaibman. It would probably be u during ” if it was “ be- fore.” Mr. Bancroft was a member of the assembly, was he not? Senator Stephenson. Afterwards elected ; yes. The Chaibman. At that same election ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; became speaker, too. Mr. Littlefield. Elected speaker? Senator Stephenson. He was elected speaker. The Chaibman. Did you know at the time you gave him the $250 that he was a candidate ? Senator Stephenson. No; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand the record shows Senator Ste- phenson gave him $500? The Chaibman. The $250. You will find that at page 721 of the proceedings of the joint committee. Mr. Littlefield. What? That Mr. Stephenson gave it to Ban- croft ? The Chaibman. I would prefer that the counsel would just turn to the page. Senator Stephenson. No; I did not give him the — — Mr. Littlefield. I knew you did not. Mr. Black. I understand that the chairman is inquiring as to personal expenditures by Mr. Stephenson. The $250 was paid to^Mr. Bancroft by Mr. Puelicher, the record shows, not by Mr. Stephenson. The Chaibman. I think we had better just let the facts be de- veloped and use them afterwards. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. What page does the chairman have? The Chaibman. Page 721, joint committee; that is, the senate. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chaibman. The reference is to the four volumes. That is the joint committee; the other is the senate. I think, unless it is bound differently, counsel has the senate investigation. 40 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Mr. Littlefield. No; I have the joint committee. The Chairman. All right. The committee’s copies are bound in a different form. Do you find it? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is the testimony of Mr. Bancroft. The Chairman. The testimony of Mr. Bancroft, who was the speaker of the house and a member, of course, of the legislature. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; certainly. The Chairman. I am asking the witness for what he paid Mr. Bancroft $250. Mr. Littlefield. I beg the chairman’s pardon, but I think the chairman is perhaps laboring under a little misapprehension. The question rather assumes it was paid to Mr. Bancroft by Mr. Ste- phenson. That was not the fact. The Chairman. I was not assuming anything. I was asking as to the fact, for what this money was paid. Mr. Littlefield. I think inadvertently that was contained in your question. Senator Stephenson. No; I did not myself pay Bancroft any- thing, and I do not know anything about that. The Chairman. Do you know of him being paid $250 ? Senator Stephenson. Only as Mr. Edmonds reported did I un- derstand it. I do not know whether he — he does not report it [re- ferring to paper]. Is Bancroft’s name contained in your copy of it, Mr. Littlefield ? Mr. Littlefield. No ; it does not appear in the list. Senator Stephenson. That is a matter as to which Mr. Edmonds must answer. I know nothing about it. The Chairman. When did you first know that Mr. Reynolds was a candidate for election or nomination, as the Senator Stephenson. Some time during the primary; I do not know when. I was away on my fishing trip 10 days during the first part of August, and I did not have much to do with the election at all. I took very little part in it, only to furnish the money. They called on that pretty strong. The Chairman. On page 21 of the testimony before the joint committee you testified that you “ understood that Reynolds would be a candidate for the legislature” when you gave him the $80; is that correct ? Senator Stephenson. Well, I might; I am not sure on that. 1 met him over at Fish Creek, and I gave him in currency out of my pocket $80, and requested him to get some names and to employ others, and he objected to taking the money first; but he is a poor man, and I gave it to him. I afterwards — we sent him a hundred dollars afterwards. The Chairman. In August? Senator Stephenson. Yes; a hundred dollars afterwards. Rey- nolds would not charge me a cent for anything, now nor then. The Chairman. Now the case of C. C. Wollensgard? Senator Stephenson. I know nothing about him at all; that is, about any money question. The Chairman. He testifies, on page 2093, before the joint com- mittee that he received in connection with the Stephenson campaign $250 in the latter part of the primary campaign. Do you know anything about that? ISAAC STEPHENSON. 41 Senator Stephenson. Nothing about it, nothing. The Chairman. He testifies, on page 2116, that he was to go to work and organize the county and get nomination papers circulated and get men out to the polls to work; do you know anything about that ? Senator Stephenson. Nothing, nothing. The Chairman. You have no personal knowledge of any of the other items then than those that have already been brought to your attention ? Senator Stephenson. No. The Chairman. Items that were paid on your account ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. No; not as far as I can think now. The Chairman. I would like to inquire a little more particularly as to your understanding of the duties to be performed by your as- sistant, Mr. Edmonds. What did you expect him to do when you gave him these sums of money ? Senator Stephenson. To make the canvass; that was all. The Chairman. What do you understand by the expression “ mak- ing the canvass ”? Senator Stephenson. To make the canvass within the law. The Chairman. What do you mean ? What do you understand by “ making a canvass within the law ”? Senator Stephenson. Well, not to furnish any money to anyone that was running for the legislature that might vote for me. That was one thing. The Chairman. What was he to spend the money for? Senator Stephenson. To get the vote out, and circulate petitions and newspapers and get names. We had no names. It cost a great deal of money to get names, where we could send letters, send out The Chairman. I have understood you to say that you already had more names than you needed ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Now I am speaking about the canvass, after the names. The Chairman. Yes. Senator Stephenson. We had to circulate letters and posters and everything and find out who to send them to by mail. You see they spent about $11,000 for mail, and that was to write letters and things to the people in the different parts of the State; that is where the postage came in ; about $11,000 of postage business. The Chairman. Did you have a talk with Edmonds as to what he was to spend this money for? Senator Stephenson. Which? The Chairman. The money that you gave him ? Senator Stephenson. To make a canvass and keep within the law. The Chairman. That is very general, Senator ? Senator Stephenson. Well, that is as far as I went; to keep within the law ; and I charged them several times to keep within the law. The Chairman. But you left it to their own judgment as to what would constitute a compliance with the law? Senator Stephenson. Yes. That I had to do, because I had no — I was not personally in the canvass. I did not do any — practically no work. The Chairman. When you gave the $30,000 on August 7, which was less than a month before the election, by a check to J. H. Pue- 42 ISAAC STEPHENSON. licher, did he tell you that he needed that money for the expenses of your campaign ? Senator Stephenson. Who? The Chairman. Puelicher. You gave a check to him. Senator Stephenson. I presume he did. The Chairman. Check No. 6. Senator Stephenson. I presume he did. Mr. Edmonds was call- ing on him. Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve were my bankers, if you please, or treasurers. The Chairman. Did it not occur to you that a call for $30,000 at that time was rather an unusual demand in election expenses? Senator Stephenson. He probably did not pay it all to Mr. Ed- monds at one time. Mr. Edmonds called at different times for it, I presume. The Chairman. Eight days before he had received $10,000 and a few days afterwards he received $15,000 more. Were you not put upon inquiry as to the character of the expenditure that was being made in your behalf by the call for such large sums of money ? Senator Stephenson. I thought it was spending a good deal of money. They thought I had it, and they wanted it, I guess; some of it. Mr. Littlefield. I do not hear what you say, Senator. A little louder. Senator Stephenson. I thought it was calling for a good deal of money, but, of course, I did not know what he wanted it for, and I had confidence in him and in my treasurers, two treasurers; I had absolute confidence then and now, and I did not know anything about the detail or how they were using it, and did not know any of the time until they made their report. The Chairman. Did you ever ask them how they were using these sums of money? Senator Stephenson. My cashier talked with them how much it was costing, but not to any particular item. The Chairman. Do you remember the date of the primary elec- tion ? Senator Stephenson. The first Tuesday in September. The Chairman. What day of the month was that ? Senator Stephenson. I am sorry I can not answer you, because I pride myself on day and date, time and place. Senator Pomerene. Does counsel know the date? Mr. Black. The 1st of September, I think. Senator Stephenson. The 1st of September, was it not, this year? Mr. Black. The 2d day of September. Senator Stephenson. It was the first Tuesday in September. The Chairman. Were you not put upon inquiry upon September 3, the day after the primaries, when you were called upon for a check for $13,500? Senator Stephenson. No. The Chairman. That did not seem out of the ordinary to you? Senator Stephenson. They called for it, and I gave it to them. I had confidence in them ; I could not ask them what it was for. It is for Mr. Edmonds to show, perhaps, what he did with it now. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 43 The Chairman. On October 10, more than a month after the pri- maries, and after you had been nominated by a plurality vote, you gave Puelicher $3,700 after the legislative ticket had been nomi- nated ; what did you give him that sum for ? Senator Stephenson. I can not tell you that now. The Chairman. Did you not inquire what he wanted such a sum for? Senator Stephenson. He may have said what he wanted it for, but I do not know. He did not put it in writing to me. I had abso- lute confidence in him, as I say, now and then. He wanted it for something — I do not now know what ; I could not say. The Chairman. On November 7 you gave a check to J. Earl Mor- gan for $2,550 ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. The Chairman. What was that for? Senator Stephenson. Well, in the campaign he — Winnebago County, and I think maybe did some work in Waupaca County. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ work ” ? Senator Stephenson. To get out the voters and circulate docu- ments. The Chairman. That is, at the general election ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; that is, the general election, and the primaries, too, I guess; both included; both included, the primary and the — I mean the primary election; yes. The Chairman. This is two months after the primary. Senator Stephenson. He did not make his bill. He got his money. He is my son-in-law, and he has got money enough of his own, and I suppose he did not send his bill to me until he got ready. Mr. Littlefield. What were they? Was that relating to the pri- mary election? Senator Stephenson. I think he did some work during the pri- mary and during the general election. That is, that would be my impression now. In other words, I do not know much about the general election or the general primary; I left it to others. The Chairman. Were you at the State capitol during the legis- lative session at the time of your election ? Senator Stephenson. At the capitol? The Chairman. Yes. Senator Stephenson. I was only in Madison on the 16th of Feb- ruary and gave my evidence there in the forenoon and afternoon; the 16th dajr of February, 1909; that is all. The Chairman. You were not there again during the session? Senator Stephenson. No; at no time. The Chairman. Did you pay any person any money in connection with your campaign between the 2d day of September and the day of the general election for the purpose of influencing or working for you with the members of the legislature? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; not to my knowledge; not a cent. The Chairman. Did you pay or authorize to be paid anv money to any member of the legislature for voting for you for United States Senator? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; I never did that. 44 ISAAC STEPHENSON. The Chairman. Did you pay or authorize the payment of any money to any member of the legislature for absenting himself or re- fraining from participating in the ballot? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. Do you know of three members having absented themselves — three members who, had they been present, would have voted against you ; do you know of that fact ? Mr. Littlefield. One moment, may it please the subcommittee. I wish to interpose a formal objection here. The Chairman. I do not think any objection will lie to a question by any member of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. It is not formal. It is simply so that the record may show that our attitude is consistent. Of course, the chairman will bear with me, I trust, a moment The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. Littlefield. It is to show that our record is consistent with reference to the legal situation. I would like to have the record show that we object to the introduction of any testimony in relation to the election of a United States Senator subsequent to the 26th of January, 1909, when we contend the Senator was elected. And in connection with that, perhaps, I ought to say that the journal of the house shows, and we will introduce that before we get through, that on the 27th, when they first met in joint convention, a specific protest was made by a senator against any further proceedings, upon the ground that an election had already taken place; and on every day thereafter when the joint convention occurred, for the purpose of the election of a United States Senator, the same protest was made. Now, of course, the subcommittee understands that I am not insisting on circumscrib- ing the scope of the inquiry, but I would like to have the record show that we interposed the objections at the proper time, for the purpose of maintaining our consistency upon the legal propositions. The Chairman. The legal proposition will not be affected by the question, having been already passed upon and its status established. I think there will be no difference of opinion in regard to my state- ment that an objection does not lie to a question asked by a member of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. Oh. I do not intimate that it does, but I desired to have the record show that when this part of the examination was reached we simply asserted our legal position and would not be under- stood in any way as waiving it. Senator Stephenson. I will answer that question, Mr. Chairman, if you will The Chairman. Yes; I desire the question to be answered. Eead the question. (The reporter read as follows:) Do you know of three members having absented themselves, three members who, had they been present, would have voted against you; do you know of that fact? Senator Stephenson. Only through the newspapers. The Chairman. You were not there at the time ? Senator Stephenson. The men I never saw, had nothing to do with in any shape, name, or nature at all. Senator Sutherland. Senator Stephenson, I want to ask you one or two questions. How long have you known Mr. Edmonds? ISAAC STEPHENSON. 45 Senator Stephenson. Oh, perhaps 15 or 20 years. Senator Sutherland. Has he been in your emplo}^ in any way? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Sutherland. What is his business; what does he do? Senator Stephenson. Paper business. Senator Sutherland. Has he been active in politics? Senator Stephenson. He was once in the legislature, from Oconto County. He afterwards was at conventions — in 1904. Senator Sutherland. How did it come about that you employed him as your manager? Senator Stephenson. Well, in an earlier day, probably 25 years ago, or 30, we started a paper mill in our place, and his brother had charge of it, and also his brother-in-law, Mr. Brokaw, now dead, and 1 used to meet Mr. Edmonds, and I think he got a horse from me, where I raise horses, and I met him several times. He was interested with Mr. Merriman and Mr. Gram. Mr. Gram was my engineer 50 years in one of our mills, and they were in with him at Oconto Falls, and I used to meet him occasionally. Then on my yacht, when we were Senator Sutherland. I do not care about the detail. Did you seek him out or did he seek you ? Senator Stephenson. What? Senator Sutherland. Did he come to you and ask employment or did you seek him ? Senator Stephenson. No; I met him about that time, just after I announced myself as a candidate, and talked with him, and then I asked him if he could take charge of it, and he came to Milwaukee and met Mr. Van Cleve and Mr. Peulicher, and they talked the matter over, and they thought he would be a good man, and he took charge of the campaign. Senator Sutherland. Do I. understand, then, that you suggested to him that he should become your manager? Senator Stephenson. Yes ; I think that is true. Senator Sutherland. You made the first suggestion with reference to that? Senator Stephenson. Yes. He did not offer his services to me. I think, in talking the matter over, I thought that he would be a good man, as his reputation was good, and he is connected with some of our best men in business. Senator Sutherland. Did you make any suggestion to him about compensating him for his services? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Sutherland. Or he to you? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was there ever any suggestion of that kind as you went along? Senator Stephenson. No ; never. Senator Sutherland. Was he compensated? Senator Stephenson. I do not know wdiether he was or not. I think — I do not know whether I paid him anything or not, or whether he paid himself, or otherwise; I do not know that. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay him any money for the pur- pose of compensating him ? 46 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. I gave him $5,000 for his own, for to do what he pleased with, and he spent it in the canvass, as I understand, and he put some back to me now. I can’t tell what Senator Sutherland. How long was he working for you — several months altogether? Senator Stephenson. Well, might say August and September, and I guess that is all that he worked, maybe. Senator Sutherland. Two months, you mean? Senator Stephenson. Yes; or more. He probably — and when the legislature was in session I do not know whether he was there or not. Senator Sutherland. Was he devoting his entire time to it? Senator Stephenson. I think most of his time; yes. Senator Sutherland. You gave him the first check of $5,000 in July; was that the time you made the employment? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And Mr. Littlefield. Well, the Senator will excuse me. That is the only check. Senator Stephenson. That is the only check I gave him direct. Mr. Littlefield. That he gave Edmonds. Senator Sutherland. Well, you gave him the check? Senator Stephenson. I did not give him that for service, but he wanted it so that he could get it if he needed it in the absence of Puelicher. Mr. Puelicher was cashier of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, and he travels a good deal and was not always in the bank. Senator Sutherland. Yow, I do not remember whether you an- swered my question. Was he devoting his entire time to your interests ? Senator Stephenson. I think most of it ; yes ; I think most of his time. Senator Sutherland. You do not know whether he was com- pensated for it or not ? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not. I do not. I do not think he was, to any — I do not know that he was to any extent. Senator Sutherland. Why was he doing it? Senator Stephenson. What? Senator Sutherland. Why was he rendering this service to you? Senator Stephenson. Oh, I have a good many friends in this State that would do almost anything, as far as service is concerned. Senator Sutherland. Was he sufficiently close to you that he would put in two or three months of his time without any compensa- tion? Senator Stephenson. Well, that I could not say. I do not know whether he paid himself anything or not. Senator Sutherland. Is he a wealthy man ? Senator Stephenson. No; not — well, to a certain extent; yes. He was in a good deal of business then. I do not know what his wealth is. Senator Sutherland. He was in* business at the time ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. To a certain extent; yes; had been in more, but he was relieved, I guess; his brother and others relieved him at that time. Senator Sutherland. Did he make you any statement as to what he had done with the $5,000? ISAAC STEPHENSON. 47 Senator Stephenson. Only verbally. I won’t be clear on that. He can probably tell. I won’t be clear on that. Senator Sutherland. Who was Mr. Van Cleve, your other agent? Senator Stephenson. Mr. Van Cleve is engaged with me in several things, now and then. Senator Sutherland. In business together? Senator Stephenson. No; only as our companies — he was presi- dent of a company that I am interested in and he is president of the Stephenson National Bank, and he is on the committee that is building our capitol at Madison. Senator Sutherland. You were connected with him in business in that way? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You were extensively interested in these companies you mention? Senator Stephenson. Oh, yes; yes. Senator Sutherland. And he was treasurer of one, you say ? Senator Stephenson. No; he was president of the Stephenson National Bank, and he is also president of the chemical works that I am interested in — chemical works up near Escanaba. Senator Sutherland. I thought you said he was treasurer — per- haps I misunderstood you. Senator Stephenson. No. Well, he was treasurer — he and Mr. Puelicher — for this money that I turned over to be paid to Mr. Edmonds in the campaign ; you might call him treasurer or custodian of the money that I paid them to use in the campaign. Senator Sutherland. Who was the other? You mentioned some- body else that had handled some money. I have forgotten the name now. Senator Stephenson. Mr. Puelicher, cashier of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, then and now. Senator Sutherland. Who is he; what relation does he bear to you in business or otherwise? Senator Stephenson. Not any in particular. I have some stock and we do a great deal of business in that bank, and I have known him a good while, and when I was elected in 1907 he was with me. Mr. Littlefield. Was he managing your campaign in 1907? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Before the legislature? Senator Stephenson. Before the legislature; yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is, your first election? Senator Stephenson. Had four candidates against me, and we finally won out after 9 or 10 weeks. Senator Sutherland. I notice among these items of expenditure one of something over $11,000 for postage. Senator Stephenson. That I know nothing about. Senator Sutherland. You know that item is in the Senator Stephenson. Yes. Mr. Edmonds Senator Sutherland. Did you know what things were being sent through the mail that required postage? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not; I did not. I knew very little, as I say, about the campaign. I was only in seven counties a piece of the 5 days, and in the 2 months that I ran I was on my fishing trip 10 days. 48 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Sutherland. $11,000 would send a good many letters or good many documents? Senator Stephenson. I think they had 15 or 20 persons in the Wells Building here sending out letters. Senator Sutherland. Do you know about that? Senator Stephenson. I have heard that; yes. I was in there and I saw a good many there ; I was in there, I guess, in the Wells Build- ing, as Mr. Edmonds’s headquarters, I presume, about an hour and a half. I was in there twice, and that is all. Senator Sutherland. Was that pending the primaries? Senator Stephenson. Yes; during the primaries. Senator Sutherland. Did you have some headquarters or office here where clerks were employed? Senator Stephenson. No ; I had no headquarters, only as I am con- nected with the several companies, and Cary, Upham, and Black. Mr. Littlefield. The question was, did they have a headquarters where these people were at work, and from which they were sending out literature ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; in the Wells Building. Mr. Littlefield. Was that under the direction of Mr. Edmonds? Senator Stephenson. Yes; solely. I was only in there twice, and I think I stayed only an hour and a half. Senator Sutherland. You did go in on one occasion? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Sutherland. You were there, and did see the men at work? Senator Stephenson. Yes ; I went in and saw them, in a casual way. Senator Sutherland. Did you know anything about what they were doing? Senator Stephenson. Sending letters, as I understood. Senator Sutherland. What kind of letters? Senator Stephenson. Well, I do not know. Senator Sutherland. Letters advocating your nomination? Senator Stephenson. I presume that was what they w^ere there for. I would state, Senator, that I have 10 or 12 very active com- panies, and the details I know very little about. I think I am president of 10 or 12 very active companies besides some others, and I can not look after them all. I have between two and three thousand men at work for me, in our different businesses, and I do not know anything about the details. I have some men that have been with me for 50 years, m whom I have confidence, and our busi- ness runs in that way, so that I can not look after details. Senator Sutherland. I think that is all. Senator Pomerene. Senator, you determined to be a candidate in June, 1908. I believe you said? Senator Stephenson. Yes; in the latter part of June, 1908. Senator Pomerene. When did you first talk with Mr. Edmonds with reference to this matter? Senator Stephenson. About the first part of July some time. Senator Pomerene. And where did you meet him ? Senator Stephenson. I met him first at Marinette. Senator Pomerene. What was said between you on that subject? Senator Stephenson. We talked in a general way, and I asked him, perhaps — I can not tell just exactly — if he would take charge of the ISAAC STEPHENSON. 49 campaign. Then I asked him to go to Milwaukee and meet Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve; said that I would give the money to them, and they would Senator Pomerene. What else was said during that conversation? Senator Stephenson. Nothing in particular, only to take charge of the campaign. Senator Pomerene. Did he say then that he would take charge of the campaign? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And you said you would furnish him the money ? Senator Stephenson. I said I would furnish the money to Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve, and he could call on them. Senator Pomerene. Did you say how much money you would furnish ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Was there anything said in that conversation as to what it would probably cost ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Did you discuss the method of the campaign? Senator Stephenson. Not particularly; no. Senator Pomerene. You asked him to go and see Mr. Puelicher and somebody else? Senator Stephenson. Mr. Van Cleve, and they would meet him in Milwaukee. Senator Pomerene. Did you meet with them? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. When did you have the next conversation with Mr. Edmonds on this subject ? Senator Stephenson. I can not state that. I think I was in Mil- waukee twice, and I went into the office both times, but not to exceed an hour and a half. Senator Pomerene. Tell us what was said between you at that time. Senator Stephenson. Pie told me how he was progressing, and so forth. Senator Pomerene. What did he tell you he was doing? Senator Stephenson. He was sending out literature, and getting buttons, and he was sending my photographs all over the State. He was getting names that he could write letters to. Senator Pomerene. You gave him $5,000. Was that before or after this meeting? Senator Stephenson. Afterwards. Senator Pomerene. How long afterwards? Senator Stephenson. To guess at it, a couple or three weeks. Senator Pomerene. Did he tell you at the time of this second con- ference that he would need some money ? Senator Stephenson. He wanted me to give him some money, so that he could have it. He would put it in the bank himself. Senator Pomerene. Tell us what was said on that subject. Senator Stephenson. He wanted I should give him some money, if he wanted it, for current expenses; and I gave him my check for $5,000, and I think he put it in the National Exchange Bank. 15235 °— vol 1—11 4 50 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Pomerene. Was anything said as to how that was to be expended ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you say anything to him as to the method of expending it? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or the purpose for which it was to be ex- pended ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir; nothing. Senator Pomerene. When was it you said to him that you wanted him to keep within the law ? Senator Stephenson. At different times — to keep within the law. Senator Pomerene. When was the first time? Senator Stephenson. I think when I first talked, that it must be in accordance with the law. Senator Pomerene. What did you mean by that? Senator Stephenson. In our primary election, if a man was run- ning for the legislature in the primary election, you understand, that he should not help him for his nomination. Senator Pomerene. Did you have anything else in mind ? Senator Stephenson. No; nothing in particular. Senator Pomerene. At that time I believe your law provided that an account should be kept of the amount expended, the persons to whom it was paid, and the purpose for which it was paid. You had that in mind, did you ? Senator Stephenson. Oh, yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you speak to him on that subject? Senator Stephenson. Oh, yes; 1 told him to keep a correct account of everything. Senator Pomerene. Did you tell him that he must be specific as to the amount that was paid to each person? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And the persons to whom paid ? Senator Stephenson. I charged him with that several times, be- cause I thought maybe he would be pretty liberal with my money. Senator Pomerene. Did you tell him how he should keep his account ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Whether he should keep it in the form of a book account? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or on slips, or cards, or something of that kind? Senator Stephenson. No. He is a business man, a man of edu- cation, and I felt that it was not necessary. Senator Pomerene. Had he had any experience in the conduct of campaigns of this character before this? Senator Stephenson. Not as far as I know, only he was elected once to the legislature. I was not very dose to him then. Senator Pomerene. From time to time after that you knew he was getting money from Mr. Puelicher, did you ? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you kept in touch with the amount that he was receiving from time to time. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 51 Senator Stephenson. No; not very close. Mr. Puelicher would call on me for money, and I would give him that money. I would give it to him and Mr. Van Cleve, and Mr. Van Cleve and Mr. Puelicher would pay it to Mr. Edmonds as he called for it. Senator Pomerene. Did you yourself keep any account, showing the persons to whom you paid this money from time to time and the purposes for which it was paid ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You knew that would be required, did you not? Senator Stephenson. Well, in a way. He was to keep it straight, and I had confidence in him that he would. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep any account? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. You said that from time to time you would give Mr. Puelicher a check. Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You gave one check to Mr. Edmonds and you gave some checks to some other persons. Now, did you keep any account yourself, showing the persons to whom you paid the amounts or the purposes for which they were paid ? Senator Stephenson. Nothing; only my check book. Senator Pomerene. Only your check book? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Puelicher was acting as your treasurer from time to time? Senator Stephenson. And Mr. Van Cleve. Senator Pomerene. When did you first give money to Mr. Pue- licher ? Senator Stephenson. That I can not say. Senator Pomerene. What was the amount you gave him first ? Senator Stephenson. It appears here — $10,000. Senator Pomerene. When was that ? Senator Stephenson. That was given to him on the 30th of July. Senator Pomerene. How did you give that to him, by check or in cash, or how? Senator Stephenson. By check. In the first place, I had $50,000 in their bank. Mr. Littlefield. Just state what bank that was, because “ their bank ” is a little uncertain. Senator Stephenson. The Marshall & Ilsley Bank. Senator Pomerene. In what form was that ? Senator Stephenson. It was on deposit. Senator Pomerene. A certificate of deposit? Senator Stephenson. No; I do not know that this will cut any figure, but it was a loan that was made. Senator Pomerene. Perhaps my question was not clear. Did you have a pass book of the bank or a certificate of deposit, or what, to evidence the fact that you had a credit? Senator Stephenson. No ; an open-account deposit there. Mr. Littlefield. What the Senator wants to know is whether it was a deposit subject to check. Senator Stephenson. Oh, yes. It was just lying there. The way that $50,000 was lying there was that it was loaned to a flour man at 52 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Minneapolis and he paid it. It was a loan, and they paid the loan to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, and that $50,000 was lying there. Senator Pomerene. When was it you first made your arrangement with Puelicher tc act as your treasurer? Senator Stephenson. Right after Mr. Van Cleve came down to Milwaukee and met Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds and they made their arrangements — that they would keep the money and Mr. Ed- monds would go on with the campaign and they were to furnish the money as he called for it. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator wants the date, as nearly as you can fix it, is not that it? Senator Pomerene. Yes; I would like that. Mr. Littlefield. Give as near as you can the date when you made your first arrangement with Mr. Puelicher. Senator Stephenson. I think about the 28th, or along there, of June. Senator Pomerene. The 28th of June? Senator Stephenson. To guess at it; yes. Senator Pomerene. What was said between you at that time? Senator Stephenson. As to what? Senator Pomerene. Between you and Mr. Puelicher as to what he was to do. Senator Stephenson. I did not see Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Van Cleve came down. I was not here. Mr. Van Cleve came down, and I pre- sume I wrote to Mr. Puelicher to meet Mr. Van Cleve to talk over with Mr. Edmonds and arrange about the campaign. Senator Pomerene. You were not there at that time? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any talk with Mr. Puelicher as to what his duties were in connection with that fund? Senator Stephenson. To pay to Mr. Edmonds, as he needed the money. Senator Pomerene. What was said as to how this was to be paid or what account was to be kept of it? Senator Stephenson. Nothing about that, because I had perfect confidence in him. Senator Pomerene. Did you say to him that he should keep account of the several amounts ? Senator Stephenson. No; because my checks were here that 1 drew. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator’s question is whether you suggested to Mr. Puelicher that Puelicher himself keep accounts of the sums that Puelicher disbursed. Is that right ? Senator Pomerene. That is the substance of it. What talk did you have with him on that subject? Mr. Littlefield. If any? Senator Stephenson. Really not anything; only that he was to give Mr. Edmonds money when he called on him for it. Senator Pomerene. Did you not say to Mr. Puelicher that you wanted him to keep within the law? Senator Stephenson. Oh, yes. Senator Pomerene. And that it was necessary to keep an account? Senator Stephenson. I told him to keep within the law. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 53 Senator Pomerene. Did you say to him, in effect, that the iaw required him to keep an account of the persons to whom this money was paid? Senator Stephenson. I would not say that it went as far as that, but I told him to keep within the law. Senator Pomerene. You knew you would have to file an account of your expenses afterwards, did you not? Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you say anything to Mr. Puelicher on that subject? Senator Stephenson. Not particularly. He knew and I knew that I would have to file an account. Senator Pomerene. You say he knew that. Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. From what did you draw that conclusion? Senator Stephenson. Because he knew what our primary law was. I assumed that he did. Senator Pomerene. That was a matter of common knowledge here among your people? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Were you advising with anybody during this primary campaign as to the legal features of it? Senator Stephenson. It was not necessary. I knew what the law was ; had a general idea. Senator Pomerene. In other words, you knew that the law re- quired, among other things, that he should not pay any money to candidates for the legislature. Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir; and I charged and cautioned all of them that were doing anything for me to be careful about that and to keep within the law. Senator Pomerene. You knew also that the law required you to make an account showing the amounts you paid ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. The persons to whom it was paid ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And the purposes for which it was paid ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever consult anybody as to the details of that law? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. As to what it required him to do ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. But you did tell these gentlemen, Mr. Pue- licher and Mr. Edmonds, that the law did thus require? Senator Stephenson. Yes, and to keep within the law. Senator Pomerene. Your primary, I believe, was in September? Senator Stephenson. Yes; the 2d of September. Senator Pomerene. And you filed your account when ? Senator Stephenson. In February, I think. It shows when I filed it. Senator Pomerene. Some time in February. Mr. Black. February 11 was the date. Senator Pomerene. What reason did you have for not filing your account within the 30 days subsequent to the primary? 54 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. Not until after I was elected, not until after the legislature elected me. Senator Pomerene. The other candidates filed their accounts, did they, within the 30 days ? Senator Stephenson. I do not know that; but a United States Senator is not elected until after the legislature meets. They do not vote for him until after they meet, and I believe I understood the law, that it was within the law that it could go. until the time when I did file it. Senator Pomerene. Did you consult anybody about that? Senator Stephenson. Only in a general way. Senator Pomerene. Did you have knowledge of the fact that the other candidates had filed their accounts within 30 days subsequent to the primary ? Senator Stephenson. In a general way ; yes. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you then that perhaps there would not be one law in refrence to your filing your account and another with reference to the other candidates filing their accounts ? Senator Stephenson. I heard from lawyers in a general way that I need not file until I filed within the law. Senator Pomerene. What amount have you expended Mr. Littlefield. Will it be proper for me to suggest that the Senator had the written opinion of the attorney general, advising him when to file his account. I suggest that, so that it will go right along with this subject. Senator Pomerene. The questions have been broad enough to call forth that information. Mr. Littlefield. The fact is that he did have such a letter, and I suggest it because it is upon this subject matter. Senator Pomerene. I have no objection to it being filed. Mr. Black. It is at the office. Mr. Littlefield. Then we will put it in later. I have not seen the letter, but I am advised that that is the fact. Senator Pomerene. Up to the September primary what amount had you expended ? Senator Stephenson. By Mr. Edmonds’s statement here, $107,000. Senator Pomerene. Did the fact that you had expended this large sum of money in your effort to secure the indorsement at the primary have anything to do with your withholding your account? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. That had no influence with you at all ? Senator Stephenson. The attorney general said I need not file it until the time when I did file it. Senator Pomerene. You felt, did you not, that if it were generally known throughout the State that you had expended over $100,000 in securing the indorsement at the primary it would have some infiuerite with the legislators? Senator Stephenson. No; I did not have anything like that, be- cause the man who ran for governor this year, who was not elected, returned $77,000, and Mr. Cook, who ran against me, came on the stand and showed that a man can spend $500,000 legally in one of these primaries here. ISAAC STEPHENSON. 55 Senator Pomerene. You felt that the expenditure of this money did have some influence when it came to the matter of the primaries, did it not? Senator Stephenson. Inasmuch as I carried the primary by some 10,000, that showed that I was nominated and that I was the legal candidate under the primary, and that might have had some influence afterwards, probably. Senator Pomerene. When you were expending this money you did it for the purpose of aiding you in securing the nomination did you not? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And you felt that it would influence the result, did you not ? Senator Stephenson. Oh, I do not know. I would say now, per- haps, that it would have some influence, of course, because a majority of our people enacted the primary laAv; and I suppose I had more to do with it, as I furnished most of the money to get that law. Senator Pomerene. If you expected the expenditure of this money to have some influence in securing the indorsement at the primary, did it not occur to you that the knowledge that you had expended that amount might have had some weight with the legislators, in making public opinion, as to whether or not they should vote for you ? Senator Stephenson. Of course, the fact that under the primary election law I had won out by some 10,000 or more plurality would have some influence, if they believed in the primary law, and of course they would stand by my nomination. It would fee natural for me to think that. Senator Pomerene. Senator, you have said here, in answer to some questions which were put to you, that as these demands were being made on you from time to time it occurred to you that it was requir- ing a good deal of money ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you say anything to Mr. Edmonds on that subject? Senator Stephenson. Yes; I cautioned him to get along as cheap as he could. I did not want to throw my money away any more than was necessary. Senator Pomerene. Did you ask him what he was expending this money for? Senator Stephenson. Oh, well, he told me in a general way in some cases. Senator Pomerene. No; but did you first ask him? Senator Stephenson. I can not say that I did, in particular. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to say that any information he gave you on that subject was given voluntarily and without being elicited by a question from you ? Senator Stephenson. Oh, I asked him why he was spending so much money ? Senator Pomerene. What did he say ? Senator Stephenson. He told me he had to do it to get the vote out, and so forth, and to get the literature before them; and they had to get the names, and it cost a good deal to get the names, and the postage, which the $11,000 paid lor postage shows. 56 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Pomerene. In answer, I think, to the chairman of this committee, you said you had confidence in them — meaning Mr. Ed- monds and Mr. Puelicher and others ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And then you added, “ I could not ask them what for,” referring to the expenditures of the money. Senator Stephenson. Not all the details, no; but in a general way I would say to them, “ Well, you are spending a good deal of money, and I would get along with less,” or some remark of that kind. Senator Pomerene. Then you never asked them for the details, or any of them ? Senator Stephenson. I did, for this account. Senator Pomerene. For the account ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. But before the filing of that account? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. In order that you might be the better advised as to how the campaign was being conducted ? Senator Stephenson. It took them some time to get it up, after- wards. Mr. Littlefield. The question of the Senator is whether you asked him for details pending the expenditure of the money. Senator Pomerene. Yes, and prior to the time of filing the account. Senator Stephenson. No, I do not do business in that way. I am doing too much business. If I asked my men who work for me, and all my foremen and these other men, what they are doing, I would not sleep any at night, because they would not have time to answer me. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you that this was a little bit different from your ordinary business transactions — that this was a matter in which the public was interested? Senator Stephenson. Yes, it was politics, and my other business was not politics, as far as that is concerned. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you that the State was in- terested in knowing whether or not there had been any expenditures, and if so in what amounts, and the purposes for which the expendi- tures were made? Senator Stephenson. I covered that in this way, that I told them to keep within the law, and to spend as little as they could. I made that remark several times. That was about as far as I could go. I could not question them on details, because I did not know them. I told them to keep within the law. Senator Pomerene. You at no time asked them to keep a book account showing in detail what they expended ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Or to whom it was given ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Or the purpose for which it was given ? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. You said you gave Mr. Edmonds a check for $ 5 , 000 . Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And you also stated that he paid back a part of it? ISAAC STEPHENSON. 57 Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. What amount did he pay back? Senator Stephenson. I can not tell you that now. I can not give that because I do not know. Senator Pomerene. He had received large amounts of money, as I understand from Mr. Puelicher? Senator Stephenson. Yes. Senator Pomerene. When he paid you back a given sum, whatever it was, are you able to say now that it was a part of that $5,000, or that it was the balance after his expenditures ? Senator Stephenson. I think maybe both. The reason that Mr. Edmonds wanted the $5,000 to put into the National Exchange Bank was that if he wanted some money that he could call his own, if you please, for different small amounts, he could draw against it ; so that he could draw his own check on the bank. Senator Pomerene. You have stated that you paid money in con- siderable sums to Mr. Edmonds and to Mr. Puelicher, and perhaps to Mr. Van Cleve. Did you pay any substantial amounts to any other persons ? Senator Stephenson. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did anybody else expend any money for you to your knowledge ? Senator Stephenson. No, only around home; a small amount. Senator Pomerene. No substantial amount ? Senator Stephenson. No; not any. The Chairman. Senator, on your examination before the legis- lative committee you were asked whether or not you kept letterpress copies, and you said at that time that you had not examined your files to see whether or not you had written any political letters dur- ing the campaign, or letters relating to the campaign. Have you since made an examination of your letter books and files? Senator Stephenson. No; but I would say that I have not written any political campaign letters. I might write to a friend somewhere asking him to do what he could for me, but not in relation to any expenditure. The Chairman. You say you wrote nothing in regard to any ex- penditure ? Senator Stephenson. No; not any, as far as I can recollect or know ; not any. The Chairman. That is all. Senator Pomerene. Just another question or two, please, Senator Stephenson. You say that Mr. Edmonds furnished you the informa- tion from which you filed your account. Senator Stephenson. Yes, sir. He made up the account and gave me this list [indicating]. Senator Pomerene. In what form did he give that to you? Senator Stephenson. In about the same form as it is here; the same as I filed it. Senator Pomerene. That is, it was a typewritten copy, was it ? Senator Stephenson. Yes; I will not be clear on that. Senator Pomerene. Very well, I will get at w T hat I want in another way. Did he bring you any book showing this account? 58 ISAAC STEPHENSON. Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Or any cards or slips of paper or memoranda showing it? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. You do not know then, do you, whether the account that he furnished you was the original account that he had kept? Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Or whether it was simply a copy Senator Stephenson. No. Senator Pomerene. Of something that he may have kept? Senator Stephenson. I will say to you, Senator, that in my busi- ness I have what I think are good men, and I have confidence in them. I do not examine them. There is so much that I could not do it if I wanted to, and I have never had anybody rob me yet, only I might say politically. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all I desire to ask. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, if we have occasion, we will examine Senator Stephenson later in the course of the proceeding. Senator Pomerene. We may want to ask him some questions. The Chairman. Do you desire to interrogate Senator Stephenson, Mr. Littlefield ? Mr. Littlefield. Not at the present time. If we have occasion later, we will ask permission of the committee. That is all, Mr. Stephenson, now. The Chairman. Call Mr. E. A. Edmonds. Mr. Littlefield. The original letter from the attorney general, I think, is at Mr. Stephenson’s home at Marinette. We have a copy. Of course, if the subcommitte would like to see the original, I will have it brought here. Otherwise I will simply put the copy in and use it as the original, but I wish to consult your preference, and I will have it inserted in the record at that place. Senator Pomerene. If we should decide we want to see the original letter, you may put it in. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. I will put the copy in the record at that place, and if you want the original letter I will see that it is produced. The Chairman. The copy is offered now ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. So it will be in direct connection with Senator Stephenson’s examination? Mr. Littlefield. It is at Mr. Black’s office. We will hand it to the reporter. We will have it so that it will be a part of the record. Just mark it “ Exhibit 2.” Senator Pomerene. I would ask whether you could send for it now? Mr. Black. I do not know whether there is anyone there now who would know where to find it. Senator Pomerene. Very well. Mr. Littlefield. We will see that it is furnished to the reporter so he can have it transcribed, and we will have it in the minutes in the morning. We will call it Exhibit 2. E. A. EDMONDS. 59 TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS. E. A. Edmonds, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, where is your place of residence? Mr. Edmonds. Appleton, Wis. The Chairman. How long have you resided there ? Mr. Edmonds. Four years. The Chairman. What is your business or occupation? Mr. Edmonds. Paper manufacturer. The Chairman. What kind of paper manufacturer? • Mr. Edmonds. Print and wrapping. The Chairman. Are you chairman of the Republican State cen- tral committee? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Were you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When? Mr. Edmonds. From 1908 to 1910. The Chairman. What time in 1908 ? Mr. Edmonds. I think the 22d of September, if I remember cor- rectly. The Chairman. How were you selected? Mr. Edmonds. According to the law of the State, which provides that the nominees of the Republican Party for members of the as- sembly and senate shall meet in Madison and select a chairman. The Chairman. Had you held an office prior to that time under the State? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What office? Mr. Edmonds. Elective office? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. I was a member of the assembly at one time. The Chairman. At what time? Mr. Edmonds. In 1892 I was elected to serve two years. The Chairman. In 1892? Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; to serve two years — one term. The Chairman. Had you held an appointive office? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. What office? Mr. Edmonds. Member of the board of regents of the university. The Chairman. At what time? Mr. Edmonds. In 1900; for three years. The Chairman. Were you associated in business or in any way with Senator Stephenson prior to your undertaking the manage- ment of his campaign in 1908? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. The Chairman. Had you had business relations with him or with the institutions with which he is connected ? Mr. Edmonds. Possibly. The Chairman. You mean by that not directly? Mr. Edmonds. It is possible that the paper company of which I was manager might have bought wood from some concern in which he was interested. 60 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Or sold paper to some company Mr. Edmonds. Something of that kind. The Chairman. But only the ordinary casual business transac- tions ? Mr. Edmonds. That is all. The Chairman. Did you know Senator Stephenson personally prior to June, 1908? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How intimate was your acquaintance? Was it ordinary business acquaintance or was it especially close? Mr. Edmonds. I should say — I do not know T how the Senator re- garded it. I hope it was closer than a business relation. The Chairman. Are you related either by blood or connection of any kind with Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Not at all. The Chairman. How long a time had elapsed since you had seen Senator Stephenson prior to the telephone communication which you had with him vffiich resulted in your accepting the management of his campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I think less than 48 hours. The Chairman. You had seen him 48 hours prior to that time? Mr. Edmonds. I think I saw him Friday night. The Chairman. Where did you see him? Mr. Edmonds. At his home. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with him about his campaign at that time when you saw him at his home ? Mr. Edmonds. I might say — no, sir. A reference was made as I was about to leave to the fact that I was living in Appleton and if I could be of any service to him I should be glad to have him call on me. The Chairman. Was the occasion of your visit to him at that time political or business ? Mr. Edmonds. Political. The Chairman. What was the occasion ? Mr. Edmonds. I wanted him to take no hand in the congressional fight for the nomination of Congressman from that district. Apple- ton is in the same district with Marinette. Senator Stephenson had been very instrumental in helping to secure the nomination two years before of Congress Kiistermann. Senator Pomerene. Of whom ? Mr. Edmonds. Congressman Kiistermann. Mr. Littlefield. Was that Minor’s district ? Mr. Edmonds. Minor’s. Mr. Littlefield. Minor’s old district ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. This year Minor was to run against him. I went up to see Senator Stephenson on my own initiative in the effort to get him to agree to take no hand in this campaign. I was in favor of Minor. I believed that if Senator Stephenson would take no hand in the campaign that Minor would be nominated. The Chairman. Did he agree to take no hand in the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. He said that was his intention. The Chairman. At that time did he mention his candidacy for election to the United States Senate ? E. A. EDMONDS. 61 Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; except in the way I have mentioned. I think he thanked me at the time I made that suggestion. The Chairman. Were you representing any other person as candi- date for nomination at the time you were at Senator Stephenson's house ? Mr. Edmonds. No one. The Chairman. So that you were politically free ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. About 48 hours later you had a communication from Senator Stephenson by telephone, did you, asking you to come to Milwaukee for the purpose of considering the question of your taking the management of his campaign? Mr. Edmonds. That is it, exactly. The Chairman. You came to Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Have you a business place in Milwaukee ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. To what place in Milwaukee did you come? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I presume the Pfister Hotel. I have stopped there for several years. The Chairman. Did you send for others to meet you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. When did you come in contact with your asso- ciates? Mr. Edmonds. I think I was asked to meet them Monday morning. I know the telephone communication from Senator Stephenson was on Sunday. I think it was the next day. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson telephoned you after you ar- rived in Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; he telephoned me on Sunday. I think it was the next day I was to meet those gentlemen. I am not positive about that, but I met them here. The Chairman. Whom did you meet? Mr. Edmonds Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve. The Chairman. Mr. Peulicher resides in Milwaukee, does he ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he does. The Chairman. And is connected with a bank here ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What is his connection with the bank ? Mr. Edmonds. Cashier. The Chairman. What bank? Mr. Edmonds. The Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. Had you known him personally before? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you been associated with him in business or political matters? Mr. Edmonds. I had some stock in the bank. The Chairman. Now, as to Mr. Van Cleve; where does he reside? Mr. Edmonds. Marinette. The Chairman. Did he meet you here in Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. By appointment? 62 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I suppose so. The Chairman. Do you know who asked him to meet you ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I presume Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Now, the three of you are together in Milwaukee. This I think you have said was about the 22d or the 23d of June, was it? Mr. Edmonds. I could not recall that date. The Chairman. You became interested in the campaign actively about the 4th of July, 1908, did you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think it was very close to that date, either before or a little after. I am not positive. The Chairman. You said here [referring to previous testimony] from the 4th to the 15th. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonds. That is still my recollection. The Chairman. The telephone communication was about a week before that time. In other words, about a week elapsed after that time. Mr. Edmonds. About two weeks, I think. The Chairman. Yes; two weeks. What was the first act which you did as manager for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Have you no recollection? Mr. Edmonds. No ; I could not tell what the first act was. The Chairman. Well, this was an unusual employment, was it not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. And yet your mind does not go back to it with sufficient distinctness to enable you to say what was the first act that you performed in connection with your duties as the manager for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. My mind certainly does not go back to the first act, and I do not know what I did the first thing ; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive the $5,000 about the first thing? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; absolutely not. The Chairman. Had you entered actively upon the management of his campaign before you received that $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. I had. The Chairman. What had you done? Mr. Edmonds. What had I done? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. I had gone over to headquarters in the Wells Build- ing, which had already been opened, and had taken charge of an office and desk there, and started in to work. The Chairman. Who opened that headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. It was opened and in the charge The Chairman. You found headquarters established when you came here? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you came here you went to the headquar- ters ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you received the check on July 18 for $5,000, was that after you had moved into the headquarters and taken pos- session? E. A. EDMONDS. 63 Mr. Edmonds. I think it was about 10 days after. I am not sure. The Chairman. You did, then, take charge of or move into the headquarters as early as the 8th of July? Mr. Edmonds. Possibly. The Chairman. What were you engaged at between the 8th and the 18th of July in connection with the Stephenson campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Why, I was trying to learn where I was at. This was a new business to me entirely. I was trying to learn something about the methods and trying to formulate a policy in conducting the campaign. The Chairman. Yes. You really commenced work as his manager as early as July 6, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that. I said I thought it was after the 4th. The Chairman. In the account filed in connection with your testi- mony at page 588 of the proceedings of the joint committee I find that on July 6 you charged the account with the payment of $50 to E. H. McMahon, organizing. Do you remember that item ? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Do you remember making that payment? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. You have no recollection whatever of the first act that you performed? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I do not presume that that was an amount that I paid, though I am not sure. Mr. McMahon was there before I came. Senator Pomerene. Mr. who? Mr. Edmonds. McMahon. Was that the name? The Chairman. McMahon. I find on the same day you charge the Stephenson fund with a payment of $50 to J. C. Miller, or- ganizing. Do you recollect anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know who these men are — either of them? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. On the same day I see you have an item, general expense, organizing, $100. Can you throw any light on that item? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who made these entries? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Were they made under your direction? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not know whether those men were paid — ■ whether that $100 was paid before I took charge or not. The Chairman. On that same day we find the fund charged with $50 to C. M. Hambright for organizing. Mr. Edmonds. The same reply. The Chairman. All on July 6, 1908. Have you no recollection of any of those items, as to the character of work for which the pay- ment was made ? Mr. Edmonds. Now, that is a different question. The Chairman. Well, answer it as a different question. Mr. Edmonds. What I know as to the payment of those items — I do not know anything about it. I do not remember whether they were paid before I took charge or paid after I took charge. Those gentlemen were all employed, or those three men were all employed 64 E. A. EDMONDS. before I went to Milwaukee and took charge of the campaign. Now, this may have been paid for their services, for work done before I got there or after I got there; I am not sure. I remember all three of these gentlemen and what they were doing at different times during the campaign. The Chairman. I was reading from Exhibit 49, on page 588 of the proceedings before the joint legislative committee. The items are contained in the account with which you charged yourself against the moneys received by you for the conduct of the Stephen- son campaign. I should like you to be as definite as it is possible for you to be in regard to the purpose for which those sums of money were paid. What did McMahon do that you term organizing ? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. McMahon was employed before I came there. I do not know what his duties were and when he was employed, but he had various duties afterwards. He went around in different parts of the State. The Chairman. But you credit yourself with paying him the money. Mr. Edmonds. No, Senator, I want to correct that statement, if you please. That is not my statement. I did not make that state- ment out. I never made it. The Chairman. Who made it out? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. It was made out from your testimony, was it not? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Is this statement correct ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know. I believe it to be correct; yes, sir. The Chairman. This is a correct statement of your expenses chargeable against the moneys received by you for the conduct of the Stephenson campaign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; absolutely not. The Chairman. It is not correct? Mr. Edmunds. No, sir. The Chairman. Have you a statement which is correct? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I received but $5,000 in money. That I accounted for. The Chairman. Were any of these items paid out of the $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. Why, certainly. I assume that they were. I as- sume they were all in it. The Chairman. Were these four items paid out of the $5,000, the items I have read ? Mr. Edmonds. They could not have been, because I did not re- ceive the check until later. Senator Pomerene. Did you advance any money of your own ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know what services J. C. Miller per- formed for which he was paid $50? Mr. Edmonds. Not at that time, and the same as to the other men. But I know he was out in different parts of the State. The Chairman. The same answer, I suppose, applies to each of those four items? Mr. Edmonds. As to that particular expenditure; yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 65 The Chairman. Now we come to July 20. On July 20, the day after you received the check for $5,000, I find an item, u T. J. Sexton, organizing, C. D. No. 93,677, $50.” Do you know Sexton? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did he do? Mr. Edmonds. He was helping organize in Dane County. The Chairman. That is an item that was paid out under your administration, is it, after you had received the $5,000 and had full control and management of the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. But not necessarily from that $5,000. The Chairman. I am not inquiring as to the fund from which it was paid. I am inquiring as to the purpose for which it was paid. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ organizing,” as it is used in this statement ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that he was a railroad man, though I am not certain, and that he was sent out and given $50 to see if he could not line up the railroad men for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What do you mean by lining them up for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. Getting them interested in his election. The Chairman. Discussing his election with them? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Paying any money to them for any purpose? Mr. Edmonds. That was up to the man’s judgment as to whether that was necessary or advisable in the conduct of the campaign for Senator Stephenson’s election. The Chairman. Was that money given to him to expend among the railroad men for cigars or treats of any kind if he saw fit to so expend it? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know he might have expended it in that way. The Chairman. There was no restriction placed upon it? Mr. Edmonds. I think not ; not in that manner. The Chairman. You gave Sexton the money, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I do not presume that I did. I gave very little of the money that was expended in that campaign in money or checks or otherwise. The Chairman. On the next day I find the fund charged with general, organizing, $250. Who expended that money? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. The Chairman. Have you any vouchers or memoranda that would explain it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever have? Mr. Edmonds. Not for that particular item ; no, sir. The Chairman. Plow do you recollect and distinguish that item? Is there anything peculiar about it ? Mr. Edmonds. No. sir. I do not know to what it refers at all. The Chairman. What enables you to say that for this one par- ticular item $250 was expended if you never had any memoranda or voucher or evidence to indicate for what the expenditure was made? Mr. Edmonds. I did not keep the record. 15235 °— ' vol 1—11 5 66 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sachet, the office manager. The Chairman. Mr. Saxton? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. Was he keeping your books during the time of the expenditure of these sums of money that you received from Mr. Stephenson directly or indirectly? Mr. Edmonds. Senator, I want to repeat that I did not receive any money but $5,000 for expenses. I received $100 and $200 at dif- ferent times in money or by check from Mr. Puelicher for expenses. I was stopping at the hotel. Out of the general fund were paid my expenses and nothing else. With the exception of those amounts received and expended by me I spent but the part of the $5,000 that I did not return to Senator Stephenson later. The Chairman. Did you expend or pay out any of the sums of money that are charged against Mr. Puelicher or Mr. Van Cleve — the large sums of money ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say, in explanation, that I did not expend them. I contracted the liability; but so far as the payments are concerned, I did not make them. The Chairman. How was it paid? Mr. Edmonds. By cashier’s check or otherwise from the bank. The Chairman. Each item? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Van Cleve received certain checks from Mr. Stephenson, which he indorsed over to Mr. Puelicher. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did he indorse any over to your credit? Mr. Edmonds. None at all. The Chairman. When you say you paid by cashier’s checks, against what fund were they drawn? Mr. Edmonds. I did not pay by cashier’s check, Senator. I con- tracted the bills, and made an agreement with the man, and he went to the bank and collected the money. The Chairman. So that you handled no money during the Stephenson campaign except the $5,000. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. That and the $100 and the $200 at a time that I might draw for my personal expenses and nothing else, and out of that, in several instances, there were expenditures of $25 or $50. I remember two or three times when men were sent out, and whom I gave cash out of my pocket. That is all. The Chairman. Then, is it true that all of these items which are found from page 588 to page 612 in the proceedings of the joint committee were merely items contracted by you but not paid by you ? Mr. Edmonds. None were paid by me. The Chairman. None of them, except Mr. Edmonds. Of course I have not gone over that item by item, so that I do not know positively, but I should say that statement is true, unless the $5,000 is in there. The Chairman. Well, it appears here that up to the 18th of Au- gust you had contracted, whoever may have paid them, for $22,969.99. That includes items running up to $2,500. For instance, in the case of J. W. Stone. What was the nature of that contract? What did you contract with Mr. J. W. Stone to do ? E. A. EDMONDS. 67 Mr. Edmonds. I did not contract with Mr. J. W. Stone. I acted on instructions to see that he received The Chairman. What were the instructions, and what was the transaction ? Mr. Edmonds. I think Senator Stephenson telephoned me or sent word through Mr. Stone to give him $2,500. The Chairman. To give you $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. To give him $2,500. The Chairman. To give Stone $2,500 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. F or what did you give it to him ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not give it to him. The Chairman. You did not? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Where did Mr. Stone get the $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. I assume from the bank — a cashier’s check. The Chairman. Did you give him an order? Mr. Edmonds. That is my recollection, though I am not positive. The Chairman. That you gave him an order on the bank ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. That may have been one of the $5,000 items. I have not seen my checkbook for two years. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Edmonds. It is in the hands of that committee that took what they could get their hands on and kept. The Chairman. Did you inquire why you should give J. W. Stone $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. I did that on instructions from Senator Stephenson. I do not know what arrangement he made with Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. As manager for Senator Stephenson, what were your duties? Mr. Edmonds. To conduct the campaign and to see if we could get votes enough to nominate him. The Chairman. What do you mean by conducting the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Why, I do not know* that I can give you any par- ticular items, except to say that it was necessary in order to get votes for Senator Stephenson’s nomination to interest a plurality of the people of the State in his election and get them out to the polls. The Chairman. That is what you were doing in calling it the con- ducting of the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How did you interest them? Mr. Edmonds. My idea at first, without very much knowledge of conducting campaigns, was that advertising was the best means of placing before the voters of the State the qualifications of our can- didate. The Chairman. How did you advertise? Mr. Edmonds. In every conceivable way I could think of. The Chairman. Have you any copies of any papers, documents, or circulars that you issued in advertising? Mr. Edmonds. No ; I do not think so. The Chairman. Is there any trace of them to be found now ? Mr. Edmonds. I should imagine that if the State were examined thoroughly there are on telephone poles probably five or ten thousand of his lithographs even to-day, and on barns. 68 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Advertisements? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and pictures. The Chairman. Did you draw up the matter for the advertise- ments ? Mr. Edmonds. Some of them. What I did not draw myself I had somebody else draw. The Chairman. What did you say on those that you drew ? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, heavens, I do not remember. The Chairman. What did you say? Mr. Littlefield. He says he does not remember. The Chairman. Have you any recollection of anything you said in any one of those advertisements right now ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall any particular one. We tried to bring out the good points of the Senator. The Chairman. How much money did you expend in that way? Mr. Edmonds. Roughly I should say something in excess of $40,000, including the bills for express and printing, and bills for putting up these posters, and so forth, and advertising in the news- papers. The Chairman. About $40,000? Mr. Edmonds. That is my recollection. The Chairman. What papers did you advertise in? Mr. Edmonds. Every one in the State that did not refuse to take the advertisement. The Chairman. I find in the account here attributed to you that the newspaper advertising cost $12,696.76. What other items or class of items would bring that sum up to about $40,000? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall what items are included in that, or what the other large items of expenditure in making up that total are. For instance, I should say one The Chairman. For instance, the Koch Advertising Agency, voucher No. 34027, $3,304.17. What was the nature of that adver- tising ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall definitely, but I think that was the advertising — I think the Koch Agency was employed by us through a representative of mine, to, in the cheapest manner possible, get that advertising into the newspapers. The Chairman. That is one item, and there is another item of the same party, $3,000, on August 26, making altogether $6,304.17. They were merely advertising agents, were they ? Mr. Edmonds." I am not familiar with their exact methods of doing business, but the man that got up the advertising for me took it to them and made the deal with them, and when those bills came in they were O. K’d and paid. The Chairman. You O. K’d them. When a bill like that would come to you as manager of the campaign you would O. K. it, and then what would you do? Mr. Edmonds. Usually when those bills were O. K’d, quite often Mr. Sacket was present, and sometimes Mr. Puelicher, and if they were present they took them The Chairman. They did what? Mr. Edmonds. They "took them, and I assume paid them. The Chairman. But you did nothing in regard to paying them? Mr. Edmonds. I did nothing. E. A. EDMONDS. 69 The Chairman. You did not draw checks for the payment of any of these bills, did you? Mr. Edmonds. Except in — it is possible that out of the $5,000 The Chairman. Except to the extent of the $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. In no other way. The Chairman. You did not give any check or anything upon which money might be drawn ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay all the bills you contracted? You O. K’d the bills that you contracted? Mr. Edmonds. Why, I think so. The Chairman. And then they went to Mr. Sacket or Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. You do not know what they did when they re- ceived those bills O. K’d by you ? Mr. Edmonds. I assume they were paid or else I would have heard from them. The Chairman. Were any bills paid by them that you did not O. K. or that had not been approved by you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you personally spend any money for Senator Stephenson to procure or assist in procuring his nomination or election ? Mr. Edmonds. Did I The Chairman. Did you personally expend any money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; this $5,000, or part of it. The Chairman. That was Senator Stephenson’s money. Mr. Edmonds. Oh, of my own money? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. Not that I know of. The Chairman. So that whatever you expended was chargeable against the $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay anyone for what you call organiz- ing; did you personally pay anyone? Mr. Edmonds. I may have done so, out of funds in my pocket. For instance, if I had drawn $100 or $200 for personal expenses and one of the boys in the office would come in and was short and wanted me to pay him and I happened to have it, I let him have it. I do not recall a single instance of that kind, but there may have been some. Otherwise I paid nothing except the $5,000. The Chairman. You employed Puelicher to act as a banker? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson, at page 22 of this record, says, in response to the question “ Now, are there any others that you employed yourself? ” A. I haven’t anybody now in mind; no. Q. Either in your county or any of the other counties of the State? — A. No; I don’t now know of any that I did. Q. Now, Mr. Edmonds was employed by you and given authority to employ others to carry on your campaign, was he? — A. Yes. Q. In your account which you filed you gave the name of Puelicher? — A. He acted as banker. 70 E. A. EDMONDS. Q. Did he employ Mr. Puelicher? — A. As a banker; yes — referring to you, that you employed Mr. Puelicher as a banker. Q. Well, I mean in connection with your campaign did you employ Mr. Puelicher? — A. No; only as a banker. The money would come from him to Mr. Edmonds, that’s all. Q. In what way did you employ Mr. Puelicher — what was the talk between you and him? But he says here the money would come from Mr. Puelicher to you. Did you receive any money from Mr. Puelicher during that cam- paign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; except as I have stated. The Chairman. Except the $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. I did not receive The Chairman. You received that from Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The other items that I spoke of, I do not know whether that aggregated five hundred dollars or whether it aggregated seven or eight or nine hundred dollars or what it might have been, but during the six or eight weeks that I was here, I was given a check as I ran out, by Mr. Puelicher, or money, and I used that out of my pocket. That was Senator Stephenson’s money which was paying my expense at the hotel and my bills at the hotel and such other traveling expenses or others that I might have. Other- wise, I received no money from anyone. The Chairman. And you do not know what the money was used for that is mentioned in this account published as a statement of your expenditures, do you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not, because I did not make it up. Mr. Littlefield. What was that question? I did not get it. The Chairman. It is the statement found in connection with Mr. Edmonds’s testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Exhibit 49, on page 588? The Chairman. Yes; 49; running over to 612. Mr. Littlefield. Let me get the significance of the question. Will the reporter read the question and answer ? (The. reporter read as follows:) The Chairman. And you do not know what the money was used for that is mentioned in this account published as a statement of your expenditures, do you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not ; because I did not make it up. Mr. Edmonds. I want to correct that. I did not understand your question. I contracted bills, but so far as knowing the particular items, I did not make up those items in this report. Now, just how those are grouped — some of them, I think I would remember, others I would not. The Chairman. You say you contracted these items? Mr. Edmonds. Some of them. The Chairman. What contract did you make with Mr. J. C. Miller on July 24 for organizing? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. J. C. Miller was one of the men, as I stated earlier, who was employed before I came there. The Chairman. But he seems to have been employed after you were there. Mr. Edmonds. He continued right through. E. A. EDMONDS. 71 The Chairman. I find him there after Mr. Edmonds. He was paid regularly. The Chairman. What contract did you make with him in regard to organizing; what was he to do? Mr. Edmonds. I did not make any with him. He was employed when I came, and when I came and was introduced to me after I took charge I sent him out again. The Chairman. What contract did you make with H. Lewis on July 28, pursuant to which he was paid $200 for organizing Dane County ; what was your contract ? Mr. Edmonds. There was no — when I say “ contracted ” bills they were “ contracted ” ; there were no written agreements. But I saw Mr. Lewis. I presume I invited him to come in and talked with him about it. Senator Pomerene. Not what you presume — what was said? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what was said. Senator Pomerene. Or the substance of it? Mr. Edmonds. I am trying to get at that, Senator. I presume that I called him in and talked the situation over with him in Dane County and he suggested that he could use $200 to advantage in organizing Dane County. Mr. Littlefield. What was he to do? What, in a general way, were the details of the organizing? That is what the subcommittee would like to know, I take it. Senator Pomerene. I want to know what was said, merely, and we can guess at the rest, from what you say, if you will give us what was said. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what was said now. I do know that when men would come in and I would employ them to work in their counties, I did not employ them until after I believed that they were fit men to conduct a campaign in their counties and knew the condition of affairs there. When they talked with me and if I decided that the amount they thought was best to be expended there was sufficient, I gave an order on the banker to pay that money ; they took it. We talked the situation over in different ways, discussed the phases of the campaign, and they used that money to their best inter- est — the best interests of the candidate — to secure his nomination. The Chairman. You say you gave him an order on the banker. What was the form of that order — was it a check ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Was it a printed form? Mr. Edmonds. Sometimes I telephoned; sometimes the man was known; more often the man was known to the banker; better known to him than to me, and I would telephone him or go there. The Chairman. And the banker would pay, on your telephone, to a man? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. The Chairman. Against what fund did he pay ? Mr. Edmonds. I assume against this fund that Senator Stephenson had furnished, which had been furnished, in his hands, for that pur- pose. The Chairman. Mr. Puelicher would make that Mr. Edmonds. Yes. 72 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. You know Mr. Bancroft, who was speaker, do you? Mr. Edmonds. I do. The Chairman. Did you know him personally before this cam- paign commenced? Mr. Edmonds. I had met him ; yes, sir. The Chairman. You paid him $250 on the 31st of July? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you give him an order for it ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. What did you give him for it ? Mr. Edmonds. Nothing whatever. The Chairman. How did he get the $250 ? Mr. Edmonds. He did not get it from me. I did not know that he got it. The Chairman. It is right in this account ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not make the account. I did not pay him the money. I do not know, to a positive statement, that he got it, except on this The Chairman. Who made this account ? Mr. Edmonds. I was not present when it was made, but I think, from what I heard — it is only hearsay — that Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Sacket made it. The Chairman. It is the account of your associates, is it not? Mr. Edmonds. They w T ere the custodians of the fund ; yes, sir. The Chairman. You did not mean to be understood as throwing discredit upon this account Mr. Edmonds. None whatever. The Chairman. When you say you do not know anything about it ? Mr. Edmonds. None whatever, except to say that I do not know that he got the money. The Chairman. In the account that is made by Mr. Puelicher and whoever is associated with him,- on page 589, July 31, 1 find the item: “ Bichland County, cash, L. Bancroft, $250.” That is the man who was speaker of the assembly, is it not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. And that item was paid by your bankers, was it ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. It is in this statement? Mr. Edmonds. I assume that is true. The Chairman. What was it paid to him for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you ever hear of that payment before to-day? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. When did you first learn that that sum had been paid to Mr. Bancroft ? Mr. Edmonds. Several days after it had been paid. The Chairman. Who told you? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Puelicher, I think. The Chairman. What did he tell you that he had paid it for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Well, can you recall? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I recall this statement that — I can not repeat his exact words, of course — but I recall that the money was given him E. A. EDMONDS. 73 nfter I had left on Saturday night, after I had left my home at Appleton to spend Sunday. Mr. Puelicher said Mr. Bancroft was in and he had made arrangements with him to work for Senator Stephen- son; look after Senator Stephenson’s interests in — what county — - Richland County. The Chairman. Richland? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I remember The Chairman. That is all you know about that item, $250? Mr. Edmonds. I remember this item : That we, knowing that Ban- croft was a candidate for member of the assembly — that I discussed that situation with Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. At that time? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You discussed it with Puelicher? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The man who had paid it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Your financial associate? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And the man that you employed on behalf of Mr. Stephenson to attend to the banking end of this campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I want that corrected. I did not employ him. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson was mistaken, then, when he says in his testimony, which I have just read Mr. Edmonds. He certainly was. Mr. Puelicher, you will recollect from testimony The Chairman. I was just reading Senator Stephenson’s testimony. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. But you will recollect from the testimony that Mr. Puelicher was the man that made arrangement with me finally — - Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve. So they were in charge before I was. The Chairman. We will not spend any time over it. I read the testimony in which Senator Stephenson says that you employed Puelicher. Mr. Edmonds. Senator Stephenson is mistaken. Mr. Littlefield. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I do not feel that that is quite the construction the Senator wants to place on it. The Chairman. Does not need any construction. It is on page 22 of the testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Let me get page 22. Senator Sutherland. The testimony will bear the construction both ways. Mr. Littlefield. At one point. At the next succeeding point this bears an entirely different construction, and it is a little vigorous to hold the Senator on a slip of the tongue like that. The Chairman. Did I make a slip of the tongue? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no. Senator Stephenson made a slip of the tongue. The Chairman. Of course, you can explain that afterwards. Mr. Littlefield. I have not seen any signs of any difficulty of that sort with the chairman of the subcommittee, but, in my judg- ment, Senator Stephenson very clearly did, and the context shows it. The Chairman. Of course I have no way of knowing whether Senator Stephenson made a slip of the tongue or not. He makes 74 E. A. EDMONDS. that statement in the exact language that I have quoted. I have written it down. But it is a mistake that is easily understood. Mr. Littlefield. It is not very material. The Chairman. I want to have a proper foundation for inquiring for a conversation between this representative of Senator Stephenson and another in regard to it. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. We have no objection to that, not the slightest. The Chairman. Upon what date did you have the conversation with Mr. Puelicher in regard to the propriety of paying this $250 to Mr. Bancroft ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall just when. I should say some time during the next week after I got back — as soon as we could get together. I presume it came up the first conversation. The Chairman. Was any effort made to recall the money that had been paid to this candidate ? Mr. Edmonds. Not by me. The Chairman. Was there by anybody? Mr. Edmonds. Not that I know of. The Chairman. Did he proceed to do the things that he had agreed to do in consideration of the $250? Mr. Edmonds. That I don’t know. He didn’t make any agreement with me. The Chairman. Did you never inquire as to whether or not men delivered the goods under the contracts you made with them or that were made by those associated with you? Mr. Edmonds. I most assuredly made inquiries as diligent as I could relative to carrying on the contracts that I made with him; yes, sir. This was a contract or an agreement not made by me. The Chairman. Merely because of your temporary absence, was it? Had you been in the office this would have been within the legitimate scope of your duties to make this contract, would it? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. The Chairman. And it would have been madeby you, had you been at home? Mr. Edmonds. It would not. The Chairman. Would you have refused to make that contract because that Mr. Bancroft was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Edmonds. Well, now, Senator, I do not want to carry the idea here that Mr. Puelicher would not be as careful as possible and, possibly, as careful as I. But I had no intention and no thought and did not — except in one instance, which I am perfectly frank in mentioning — pay any money to any candidate for the office of assemblyman or senator. I thought that was too close a point, too close to the law which provided that money should not be paid by a candidate for the United States Senate to a candidate for the State senate or assembly, for the purpose of influencing his vote. That is what would be assumed. The Chairman. What position did Mr. Puelicher take when you called his attention to this? Mr. Edmonds. This: That Mr. Bancroft was probably the best posted man in Richland County, that he would know best how to expend money for Senator Stephenson’s election, could best organize E. A. EDMONDS. 75 and bring out the votes there, could best look after the interests, of any man in that county. He further stated, that there could not be any question as to the propriety of paying that money to Mr. Bancroft for the purpose of aiding Senator Stephenson, because in * the campaign two years before and in the election of Senator Stephen- son, Mr. Bancroft was one of his warmest supporters. The Chairman. You said, or I understood you to say, that there was only one case in which you knowingly paid money to a man who was a candidate for the legislature, what case was that? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Shauers, of Oconto County. Mr. Littlefield. Was he elected? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What was his name? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Shauers. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him money? Mr. Edmonds. He was a railroad man, and for the purpose of or- ganizing he went in different parts of the State to see railroad men. The Chairman. Was he in employment then or out of employ- ment? Mr. Edmonds. Out of employment. The Chairman. Then he went from his home to different parts of the State, outside of the legislative district where he was a candidate? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. It w T as distinctly understood that he was to spend no time, no money, in that district. The Chairman. Well, but did he? Mr. Edmonds. He did not, to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. That is, in his own district? Mr. Edmonds. In his own district. Mr. Littlefield. So that nothing that was expended by him had any relation to the campaign pending in his district? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely not. Mr. Littlefield. Either directly or indirectly. The Chairman. How much did you pay Shauers? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t recall. I should think it might range from $50 to $100 or $125. I don’t think more than that. I paid him, I think, two or three different times $25. Senator Pomerene. How do you spell that name? Mr. Edmonds. S-h-a-u-e-r-s. The Chairman. How many organizers did you employ in this State? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t remember. A lot of them. Mr. Littlefield. Give the number approximately. The Chairman. He says he does not know. Mr. Edmonds. Oh, there are 71 counties. There were in some in- stances more than one man in a county — ordinarily not — and then there were a good many or several other men who went around from County to county. The Chairman. Do you know C. E. Brady, of Manitowoc — is that the Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Brady? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you pay Mr. Brady $500 for ? 76 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. For organizing and looking after Mr. Stephenson’s interests in Manitowoc. The Chairman. What did he do? Mr. Edmonds. To my personal knowledge I don’t know. He made^ the statement, I think, before the committee. The Chairman. But the petitions had all been filed before August 21, had they not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I think that was the date. The Chairman. What was the date within wdiich petitions were required by the statute to be filed ? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t recall now. I think about the 1st of August — no ; it must have been earlier than that, I guess. Mr. Black. Thirty days before. The Chairman. Thirty days before September 2. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. You were not getting men to circulate petitions after August 2? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly not. The Chairman. Well, I find here items — they are too numerous to undertake to take up all of them, but take a few. I find here, “ S. L. Perrin, $500, August 14.” What did you pay him $500 for? Mr. Edmonds. Organizing in Douglas County and in surrounding counties there. The Chairman. You paid him altogether $3,000. Was that all for organizing? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Of course, you do not intend to be understood as including the getting of petitions, because that is in the middle of August ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ organizing,” now, besides the distinct getting of petitions ? Mr. Edmonds. I mean this, Senator: When Senator Stephenson asked me to run his campaign it was with the idea of managing the campaign in the State. The only method I knew of, of organizing and running a campaign, was to divide the State in certain units, and the units of counties was the best, and to select some man in that county. A number of the counties I had never been in; I knew nothing about them. The way to do, as I thought, was to select some man out of each county and ask him to look after Senator Stephenson’s interests in that county. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ looking after ” ? Mr. Edmonds. Endeavor to get out the vote — to endeavor to inter- est people in Senator Stephenson’s campaign. The Chairman. They were not getting out a vote along from the 1st to the 15th of August, were they ? Mr. Edmonds. But I don’t know that he spent that $3,000 in this particular instance, at any particular time, that was given to him. The Chairman. I find it charged here as paid under that Mr. Edmonds. I understand he was paid when the agreement was made, and then he conducted the campaign in that county under his best judgment. The Chairman. I find, say, $18,000 was spent between the date when the time expired for filing petitions and the 18th of August ; E. A. EDMONDS. 77 the items are generally indicated only by the amount, the date, and the name, the county. Were those all organizers? Take, for in- stance, in Milwaukee County, “ J. T. Kelley, $500”; what was that for ? Mr. Edmonds. I had nothing to do with Milwaukee County. That was attended to by Mr. Knell. The Chairman. I mean that was paid on September 6; what was it; what was the $500 paid J. T. Kelley for? Mr. Edmonds. I am telling you I have not the slightest idea. Mr. Knell The Chairman. You gave an order for its payment, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Knell was running the campaign here in Milwaukee County, and I had nothing whatever to do with it. He contracted any bills in Milwaukee. The Chairman. Then I will go outside of Milwaukee County. Take Dane County, “A. R. Ames, $350 on August 8.” What was Ames doing? You were not getting signatures then; the time had exjiired. Mr. Edmonds. I have always assumed there was something for a man to do in a campaign besides getting signatures. I have not intended to convey the idea that the money was spent in getting sig- natures — only a small amount of the money. The Chairman. I want to know what you mean by the word “ organize.” What constituted organizing the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. For instance, Mr. Ames, in Dane County, came in here and we talked over the situation in Dane County and discussed the best method of getting out a good vote for Senator Stephenson, and I The Chairman. Well, you discussed it? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I am getting to that Mr. Littlefield. Excuse me. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I think if the witness goes on and states fully — I have been watching him very frequently, and I do not think he has stated fully his defi- nition of “ organizing.” The Chairman. That is what I am trying to get. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator will excuse me, of course, but I think if the witness is allowed to go right along in his own way and com- plete his answer in full we can perhaps draw out other details. The Chairman. I think that is probably intended as a criticism upon my interruption of the witness. That the attorney will have to leave to my judgment. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, sure. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I appreciate that; certainly. And I think that the witness, however, will get the result better The Chairman. That may be, but I will have to use my judgment about that. I make that suggestion for the guidance of counsel. [To the witness.] Now, what do you mean by “ organize ” when you use the term in connection with the payment of this money? Mr. Edmonds. I mean that the man employed by me to look after Dane County and get out the vote — the largest possible vote — for Senator Stephenson was given latitude, usually guided by his judg- ment alone, as to what was to be done. 78 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Now, I want to know what you mean by “ looking after ” ? I will exercise the judgment as to the manner of the answer. What do you mean by the words “ look after ” ? Mr. Edmonds. “ Look after ” ? The Chairman. Yes. You say you employed a man to look after Senator Stephenson’s interests? Mr. Edmonds. I refer to that in the same way that Senator Stephenson is supposed — asking to look after the interests and run the campaign. These men would run the campaign in the county for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. That is too general. What do you mean by “ look after ” ? Mr. Edmonds. Whatever he thought, in his judgment, would bring about the best result for Senator Stephenson in his county. The Chairman. Anything that would bring about the best results for Senator Stephenson, regardless of the nature of the act? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; anything within the law, of course. That is presumed. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ within the law ” ? Mr. Edmonds. Why, within State laws. There are certain provi- sions or prohibitions as to what men may do and may not do in run- ning a campaign. I assumed that a man that I employed would be just as well informed regarding that as I would be. The Chairman. Particularize the word “ organize,” and tell me what constituted organization ? Mr. Edmonds. My idea, in a county that was thoroughly organized, would be, in the first place, to get out the advertising that we sent to the county — have it fully distributed and posted — and after that was done he was to put in his full time going around the county, and he was paid for his services going around the county and interesting men of influence in the different localities to interest their friends, so as to get out a full vote for Senator Stephenson election day. In some in- stances still further organizing, if in their judgment that was wise, by getting out the vote by hiring teams, and so forth, for getting men to the polls. The Chairman. Do you know how many days A. R. Ames was en- gaged, for which he was paid $350 ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I assumed, however, that the amount of $350 that was paid him then was paid at the time the agreement was made, and he thought that was about the amount that he ought to have to do such work as he deemed necessary for Senator Stephenson and to reimburse him for his services. The Chairman. Now, I go to August 12, general cash, J. W. Stone, $2,500. What was J. W. Stone paid $2,500 for doing? Mr. Edmonds. Because Senator Stephenson told me do. The Chairman. Do you know what services he performed for the $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You have no knowledge on that subject? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever talk with Senator Stephenson about it ? E. A. EDMONDS. 79 Mr. Edmonds. At the time he told me or sent word — I do not re* call whether he sent word to me through Mr. Stone, or telephoned me. The Chairman. What was the conversation? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. None of it? Mr. Edmonds. As to that, no, sir. I do not even remember whether Senator Stephenson telephoned me, or whether the man brought the word himself. The Chairman. How did you pay it? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that I told him to go over to Mr. Puelicher and get the money. I may have given him a slip, telling him to get it. The Chairman. On the same day, August 12, you paid $1,800 to L. B. Dresser. What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. He was to look after seven counties, to organize seven counties up in the eleventh district. Senator Sutherland. Was this $1,800 for his personal services? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; that would include any services that he might have; for his own work, and for organizing, or for any pur- pose whatever. Those seven counties were left entirely to his charge. I think he did good work, because he got a big vote up there. The Chairman. Do you know what you paid C. C. Wayland $300 for on August 31 ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. He was working for us in Outgamie County. The Chairman. What was he doing? Mr. Edmonds. Organizing. The Chairman. Did you pay up all the bills contracted for in connection with the primary election work, prior to the day of the primary election? Mr. Edmonds. My judgment is that every bill that I had con- tracted, I had paid or had arranged to pay at that time. The Chairman. So that these payments after September 3 are for a different class of services, are they? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what they were paid for, but my judgment is The Chairman. I will call your attention to September 5. That would be the third day after the election. E. H. McMahon, $300. What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. I think I would like to correct my statement in this, not that my work was completed on the day of the election, but within three or four days after that. I assume that this particular bill you speak of was in payment of the final amount due Mr. Mc- Mahon. Senator Pomerene. You say you “ assume.” Have you any recol- lection about it? Mr. Edmonds. I know he was one of the men who had been in the office in Milwaukee with us here during the whole campaign. I do not recollect, because I do not remember the amount. The Chairman. You paid out about $4,000 in the 10 days between September 5 and September 15. What sort of expenditures was that Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. Do not the bills show 80 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. I will call your attention to some. Take J. R. Jones, of Racine County, $183.50. Mr. Littlefield. On what page is that ? The Chairman. On page 595. Mr. Littlefield. Is there any objection to handing the witness this, so that he can follow you ? The Chairman. I should rather have his recollection, and then you can ask him afterwards. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what that was for. The Chairman. You have no recollection? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You were still paying the bills? Mr. Edmonds. I did not get that question. Mr. Littlefield. He is asking about the item of J. R. Jones, $183.50. The Chairman. Yes; J. R. Jones. Mr. Edmonds. Mr. J. R. Jones was from Racine County. The Chairman. The amount was $183.50. Mr. Edmonds. I assume that was the amount he called for at that time as having been expended by him in excess of any amount he may have received before, and he was paid. The Chairman. Do you think that was for services performed be- fore the primaries? Mr. Edmonds. Without any question. The Chairman. August 26, advertising bartenders’ program, $4. What was that item? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. Mr. Littlefield. What page is that ? The Chairman. Six hundred and one. I suppose that was for ad- vertising his candidacy on the program. Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. The Chairman. Tickets to baseball game, Milwaukee Baseball League. $2. Do you remember that item? Mr. Edmonds. That was not put in by me. Mr. Littlefield. Advertising bartenders’ program. That is terra incognita to me. That is why it struck me as unusual. The Chairman. Three citizenship papers, $3. What was that ? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. It was not contracted by me. The Chairman. This was on August 7. Mr. Edmonds. I understand Mr. Knell was running the Milwaukee County campaign. Those were accounts in Milwaukee County. The Chairman. One team, primary day, town of Wauwatosa. Here are a number of items of teams on primary day in a number of places other than Milwaukee. Those were paid out of the general fund in your hands, were they ? Mr.‘ Edmonds. I do not remember any such. The Chairman. I find here an item, expenses of ward and town managers, including conveyances, primary day workers, etc., $5,833. Then there is a note at the foot of the page, which says, “This sum was not expended in one day, but was gradually paid out to the vari- ous ward managers as the work progressed.” Do you know anything of that item ? E. A. EDMONDS. 81 Mr. Edmonds. No; I think that was in Milwaukee County. We did not go into the organization of wards in the State. The Chairman. I notice the items under this head of August 30, which seems to have been the Saturday before the election, three days before election, expenses of Hebrew manager and primary day Avork- ers, $45. Did you authorize that payment? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Who did authorize these payments? Mr. Edmonds. I think these are all Milwaukee County. The Chairman. Expenses of Greek manager and primary day workers, $110. What was the nature of that item? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. I did not contract it. The Chairman. Advertising in Italian paper, $10. Was that ad- vertising the candidacy of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I presume so. Mr. Littlefield. Is that a Milwaukee paper? Mr. Edmonds. I have no idea. The Chairman. Advertising in colored men’s paper, $5. Was that under your direction? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether I paid it or Mr. Knell. I would not have hesitated at all to contract that kind of a bill. The Chairman. The three citizenship papers you do not know about? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. I do not desire to dwell upon these small items, ex- cept simply to see whether or not you have any definite information in regard to these expenditures. I am not criticizing the character of the items, but I want to test your recollection. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that I am familiar* enough with this matter to make an intelligent suggestion, but I think you will find on page 596 that these items ail follow a heading entitled “ Expenses in Milwaukee County as reported by W. 14. Knell.” The Chairman. I passed that item because the witness said he did not know of that. There is the postage item. I think I will not go further into these items, inasmuch as you seem to have paid through the medium of telephone communications, orders, and so on. Senator Sutherland. Let me suggest that if the witness will take this copy and look it over between now and to-morrow morning, and will come in and tell us which are the particular items of which he has personal knowledge, it will shorten the examination. Mr. Littlefield. I will go over that with him to-night, if the com- mittee would like to have that done, and see how far he can localize the items. The Chairman. Yes. He can mark a copy of it or indicate it in some way. Senator Sutherland. I should like to ask some questions. How long had you known Senator Stephenson before you took this em- ployment? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, I can not tell ; something like 15 years, I should say. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any arrangement with Mr. Stephenson to be compensated for your services? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 15235 ° — vol 1 — 11 6 82 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. How long were you conducting this work for him ? Mr. Edmonds. I should think about six weeks. Senator Sutherland. Taking your entire time ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Were you obliged in any way to neglect your own business during that time ? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. Senator Sutherland. It was something of a sacrifice on your part? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Were you compensated for your services in any way ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely in no way whatever. Senator Sutherland. Did you expect any compensation? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Why were you doing it? Mr. Edmonds. For Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. But why ? Merely through personal friend- ship? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. He asked me to. I had gone up to see him two or three days before to ask a favor of him. Senator Sutherland. That was the favor you spoke about — that he should keep out of a political contest? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And he had assented to that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Then he asked a favor of me. Senator Sutherland. That is, to give him six weeks of your time? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And to neglect your business? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. He did not put it in that way, of course. Senator Sutherland. And you expected absolutely no compensa- tion for it, and got none? Mr* Edmonds. I expected none and got none. Senator Sutherland. Senator Stephenson was a man of wealth ? Mr. Edmonds. You understand that I mean no compensation in excess of my actual expenses. Senator Sutherland. Yes; I understand you got your actual expenses. Mr. Edmonds. Actual expenses. Senator Sutherland. But absolutely not a dollar for that six weeks’ time you put in? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. Senator Sutherland. Did it occur to you that while everybody else was being compensated somewhat liberally you ought to have something yourself for your services? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think that appealed to me. Senator Sutherland. It did not appeal to you? Mr. Edmonds. I thought I was able to get along without it. I would not have taken any money if he had offered it to me. Senator Sutherland. You would not have taken it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. May I just make a statement here, Senator, in connection with that employment and the question of compensa- tion? I do not like to have the matter left just as the testimony of the Senator would tend to leave it. The question in your mind, or E. A. EDMONDS. 83 in the minds of those reading this testimony, might arise as to whether I did not in some way get some compensation. I could not possibly have gotten any compensation out of the $5,000, because I received that $5,000 check and deposited it in the bank. I kept my check book and returned to Senator Stephenson the checks and the stubs with the balance of $459, if I recall correctly. There was no chance for me to get any of that money. The only way I could have gotten any money in the way of compensation was out of these items of $100 or $200 or $150 at a time, given to me by Mr. Puelicher for expenses. If I knocked down on Senator Stephenson, I got some pay out of it. If I did not, then I did not get any pay, and I did not knock down. I want to make that perfectly clear. Senator Sutherland. You got no compensation from him in any way, shape, or form? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. And expected none? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Let me say. Senator, that when I agreed to take the management of that campaign I am sure I did not realize the duties and the hard work that would be required. I thought more perhaps of the honor of being called upon by Senator Stephen- son and the trust he was willing to repose in me, to call on me as his manager, to be manager of his campaign. Senator Sutherland. Did you have charge of the people who were sending out the mail matter, the clerks, and so on? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. That is, I was manager of the campaign; but the office manager, as I should perhaps designate him, was Mr. Sacket, and in a way he was looking after that. Senator Sutherland. Where were the headquarters for the State? Mr. Edmonds. In the Wells Building on the thirteenth floor. Senator Sutherland. Here in Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. Here in Milwaukee ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you have a number of clerks employed ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. That was headquarters for everything except Milwaukee. They had another headquarters in another part of the city. Senator Sutherland. Do you know about this expenditure of $11,000 for postage? Mr. Edmonds. No; except that I know there were very large items for postage at different times. Senator Sutherland. The entire amount, as I recall it, stated in the account, was something over $11,000. Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Senator Sutherland. Just a lump sum, in that way. That would pay postage on something like half a million letters. Mr. Edmonds. If you had seen the hundreds of sacks of mail that left the Wells Building, and I presume the other building from the Milwaukee headquarters, you would see that it would be possible. Senator Sutherland. What was the nature of the matter that was sent out ? Mr. Edmonds. Of course a great deal of postage would be required in sending out posters, lithographs, and that kind of thing; but as much as possible we tried to get close to the voters, and wrote personal letters to those whose names we had. 84 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. Did you try to get into communication in that way with all of the Republican voters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You had lists? Mr. Edmonds. No ; that is where we were so terribly lame. That is why we expended so much money, why the expenditure of so much money was made necessary. Later I ran the State campaign of the Republican Party, and I think the expenditure of money in that cam- paign was about a quarter of the amount expended in this campaign for one candidate, and so far as the w T ork was concerned, it was in- finitely easier to run the last campaign than it was the first, for this reason : In each community there are a number of Republican voters. It was safe for the chairman of the State central committee in the general campaign to call on any one of those Republicans for assist- ance in the campaign, and to assume that they were all with him. Mr. Littlefield. And you have local Republican committees, do you not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes: but in the primary campaign there is no nucleus, unless you send somebody to find out where the nucleus is. You do not know what Republican is with you and what Republican is against you, and in six weeks it was necessary to gather that infor- mation in order to make a working campaign. Senator Sutherland, That is, the State chairman had a right to call upon the local chairmen and the Republicans generally, because they are all a part of the general organization? Mr. Edmonds. That is it. Senator Sutherland. But in the case of Mr. Stephenson, he was simply a private individual desiring an office, and he could not call upon them in that way. Mr. Edmonds. No; and there were four candidates, and his man- ager, in hundreds of instances and localities, did not know the name of one man to whom he might write, and he had to get that information in order intelligently to conduct the campaign. Senator Sutherland. Was this the first time that the primary law had been tried out in the election of United States Senator? Mr. Edmonds. I think it was. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; as to LTnited States Senator, I think that is right. Senator Sutherland. That was the first case that had arisen under the law, so far as United States Senator was concerned? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and for the reason that I knew so few people in different localities in the State, I considered that the best way to conduct the campaign was to divide the State into counties and em- ploy a manager you might say in each county to run the campaign, and have as little to do with the details of the work in that campaign in that county as possible. Senator Sutherland. You were breaking new ground? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. You say you employed some man to take charge of the work generally in each county in the State? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. How was he compensated? Was it accord- ing to any fixed rule, or was that arbitrary? E. A. EDMONDS. 85 Mr. Edmonds. That was what I meant to explain. In some in- stances it was understood that the man was a friend of Senator Stephenson, sufficiently so that he would be willing to work without any compensation. In other cases, depending on the man and his financial condition, he was paid for his services. There was no fixed rule. We tried to get the best man in each county. Senator Sutherland. In the case of a man who was paid $350, that would be for about six weeks’ work ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was not that pretty liberal compensation? Mr. Edmonds. Understand, Senator, that that $300 would be given to him at the time that the agreement was made with him, and he used his own judgment. In all probability I would make an agree- ment with him as to how much of that he would keep for his own services. Senator Sutherland. Did you do that ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think in every instance. Senator Sutherland. In this case of $350, I have forgotten the name, do you remember how much that man was to keep for his per- sonal services ? Mr. Edmonds. I should presume about $100. I am not positive. Senator Sutherland. When you say you “ presume ” or “ assume,” do you mean that is your best recollection about it ? Mr. Edmonds. That is my best recollection. Senator Sutherland. Or are you simply guessing at it? Mr. Edmonds. That is my best recollection; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And he would keep about $100 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And the other $250, how would that be ex- pended ? Mr. Edmonds. In organizing the county. Senator Sutherland. Can you give me an illustration of what he would do with the money? What would he expend the $250 for? Mr. Edmonds. I would say that in all probability he would go out into the different towns in the county and organize those dif- ferent towns. That is, he would find some person in each of those different towns or voting precincts who was for Senator Stephen- son and would get him to put in so much time, and out of the $250 he would in some instances pay him; sometimes he would employ a man and pay him to get the voters out for election day — to have a team; and as he could not make two or three trips around to make those agreements and then later pay the money, usually he would pay the money when he made the agreement, the same as I did. Senator Sutherland. That is, having general supervision of the county he would employ others to cany out the work in detail. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And pay them? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. In what other way would he spend money, if you know? Mr. Edmonds. He would be the man to whom we sent the adver- tising matter. He would be the man to get the list of names to whom we could send personal letters. 86 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. That was a part of his own personal duty, for which he was paid the $50 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Now, speaking of the $250, in what other ways would he expend that money? You say he would keep a hundred dollars for himself and would expend a part of the $250 remaining to employ others to carry out the details of the work. In what other way would he expend it ? Mr. Edmonds. We would send to him this advertising matter, and he would have to distribute that. That would be a part of the expense, in addition to the hundred dollars. He would employ some one. Senator Sutherland. That is, he would employ others to dis- tribute it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. You realize that in these counties they would average probably 36 towns to a county, and $5 to a man in a town would not be a very large sum to pay him. Senator Sutherland. In the case of the $1,800 payment to the man who had seven counties under his charge, do you know whether or not he did employ somebody in each of the seven counties? Mr. Edmonds. I think he did ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you know anything about it? Do you remember anything about it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the names of the persons, but I am sure he did in every instance, because I saw him and talked with him at the time the agreement was made, and I know he gave me the names of men, but they were not men whom I knew, because that was in the eleventh district, where I was not at all acquainted. Senator Sutherland. He paid each of those seven men ? Mr. Edmonds. He may have hired more than one man in a county. Senator Sutherland. You do not recollect that he made any statement of what he spent the money for? Mr. Edmonds. I think that is included in his statement. Senator Sutherland. No details? Mr. Edmonds. I think he made a detailed statement at the time of the investigation. Senator Sutherland. What became of those detailed statements? Mr. Edmonds. Those detailed statements were made to this in- vestigating committee, and that committee kept them. Senator Sutherland. Was there a detailed statement of how this $1,800 was expended? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is what I meant. Mr. Edmonds. I did not understand the question. Senator Sutherland. There was no detailed statement of that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. And you did not send any ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Simply a payment of $1,800, and left the man free to do as he pleased with it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Without accounting to anybody? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Now, that may seem to be a very unwise way to do. Probably it was. Undoubtedly, in my judgment, there E. A. EDMONDS. 87 was money wasted in that campaign. I conducted it to the best of my ability; but when you realize that Senator Stephenson was a man known to be wealthy, a man who had always been in campaigns, and had in the campaigns in which he was interested expended his money liberally, and some people even said extravagantly, it is no wonder Mr. Littlefield. You mean that he had expended his money for other people ? Mr. Edmonds. For other people; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Not for himself. Mr. Edmonds. It is not strange that, having that reputation, for being a good spender in campaigns, men who otherwise would work for a man who was poor, for nothing, would demand pay for their services for Senator Stephenson, because they would say “He is able to pay it.” Senator Sutherland. And they would demand rather more than living wages for what they did? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I think you will find that is true always in campaigns, however. Mr. Littlefield. At least that has been the experience of most of us. Senator Sutherland. You have mentioned one or two men who received money, who were candidates for the legislature. Do you know of any others except those you have mentioned ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Or have you heard of anybody else except those mentioned? Mr. Edmonds. Have I heard of anybody else ? Senator Sutherland. Do you remember any other man who was a member of the legislature who received any money out of this Stephenson fund? Mr. Littlefield. You mean any man who was a candidate for the legislature. Of course, at that time there were not any of them members. Senator Sutherland. Anybody who afterwards became a member ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any. I am sure I did not pay any others. Senator Sutherland. Let me ask you another question: Were you in Madison while the legislature was in session at the time and before the time that Mr. Stephenson was elected ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. What were you doing there ? Mr. Edmonds. I was not there at the time that Senator Stephenson was elected. Senator Sutherland. What were you doing there? Mr. Edmonds. I suppose I may be said to have been looking after Senator Stephenson’s interests there. Senator Sutherland. How much time did you spend there? Mr. Edmonds. Most of the time for that three weeks. Senator Sutherland. You were there about three weeks? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you talk with members of the legisla- ture? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 88 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. Did it become apparent to you that Senatoi Stephenson had not a majority of the members of the legislature who were prepared to vote for him? Mr. Edmonds. This matter Senator Sutherland. What I mean by that is that there were sev- eral ballots cast in which he failed of election. It became apparent to you, did it not, that he did not have enough votes in the legislature under those conditions? Mr. Edmonds. I felt that he was legally elected in January, when the first vote was taken, and that it was a farce to continue this con- tinual balloting every day. On the other hand, I did not know of any means or method by which that balloting might be done away with. There were not votes enough there after that day to elect him. The only possible way that he could be elected would be by reason of the fact that some men who were voting against him, having to come up there every day to vote, would get tired of that kind of thing, and say, “ Here, we might as well elect him and get through with this ”; or that on some particular day all of the friends of Sen- ator Stephenson might be there, and some of those who were opposing him might be away, and in that way he might get a majority of the votes cast. Senator Sutherland. You had thought of that contingency. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; it was very close for several days, and we hoped every day that that might occur. Senator Sutherland. Was anything done by anybody else to bring about a realization of that contingency ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; it was done by me. I was trying my best, and all the fellows who were working with me, interested in Senator Stephenson’s campaign, were looking after every man who was a friend of Senator Stephenson so that he would be there every day. Senator Sutherland. Finally, when Senator Stephenson was elected, I understand it is said that three members of the legislature, three Democrats who were opposed to him, absented themselves on that day. Do you know anything about that ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. That is, I know it in the way that you do, having heard it. Senator Sutherland. You know that has been said? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. But you know nothing about that yourself? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I had left Madison ; I had not been in Madison at that time for, I think, three weeks. Senator Sutherland. That was after you left? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You knew nothing about the circumstances, then ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Nothing about the charge that they had been paid to absent themselves on that day ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I know absolutely nothing of that. Senator Sutherland. That is all. The Chairman. The hour of 5 o’clock having arrived, the com- mittee will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock. E. A. EDMONDS. 89 Before adjournment is had, I desire that Mr. Sacket, who was not present earlier to-day, but who was subpoenaed to be here, and who is now present, be sworn. (Mr. Sacket appeared and the chairman administered the oath.) The Chairman. The witnesses that have been examined to-day will remain for to-morrow, and the witnesses who have been sub- poenaed for to-morrow are H. J. Brown, S. L. Perrin, H. H. Morgan, C. C. Wayland, and Henry Overbeck. All of the witnesses who have been subpoenaed and have not been examined to-day, of course, will remain, and those who have been examined will also remain, as the committee may desire to ask further questions. Witnesses will remain in attendance until excused. Mr. Littlefield. That will be the general rule ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. So that we can all know that until excused the witness will be here to be reached by any of us. Mr. Black. Mr. Chairman, we have here a copy of a letter from the attorney general to Senator Stephenson in relation to the filing of his expense account, which I will hand to the reporter to have it in- corporated in the record. Senator Pomerene. Do you know that to be an exact copy? Mr. Black. It was furnished to me as an exact copy. Senator Pomerene. By whom? Mr. Black. By Senator Stephenson’s secretary. I have not the original, but we can produce that if necessary. Senator Sutherland. Let it go into the record. It can be com- pared with the original hereafter, and if it is not an exact copy, be corrected. Mr. Littlefield. If it turns out that it is not an exact copy, we will have the record corrected to agree with the original. (The letter is as follows:) [Copy.] Office of Attorney General, Madison, Wis., September 28, 1908. Hon. Isaac Stephenson, Marinette, Wis. Dear Sir : In your letter of the 23d instant you say that you “ understand that a candidate for United States Senator is not under the law obliged to file an expense account until after the legislature elects in January,” and you ask for my interpretation of the law. Section 1 of chapter 502, Laws of 1905, is in part as follows : “ Every person who shall be a candidate before any convention or at any primary or election to fill an office for which a nomination paper or certificate of nomination may be filed shall, within thirty days after the election held to fill such office, make out and file with the officer empowered by law to issue the certificate of election to such office or place a statement in writing, sub- scribed and sworn to by such candidate, setting forth in detail each item in excess of five dollars in money or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him and, to the best of his knowledge and belief, by any other person or persons for him or in his behalf, wholly or in part, in intending to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination to said office or place, or in connection with the election of any other person at such election, the day when and the persons to whom and the purpose for which all such sums were paid, expended, or promised, and the total aggregate sum paid, expended, or promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever. Such statement shall also set forth that the same is as full and explicit as affiant is able to make it.” 90 E. A. EDMONDS. The question here presented is this : Which election — the primary, the Novem- ber election, or the election by the legislature — is the election “ held to fill such office”? The primary-election law is entitled “An act to provide for party nominations by direct vote.” The primary is not an election for the purpose of filling an office. It is an election for the purpose of choosing party candidates, and no offices except precinct committees are filled at the primary. The Novem- ber election is not an election held to fill the office of United States Senator. That office is not filled until an election is held in the legislature. I am, therefore, of the opinion that you are correct in your understanding that a candidate for the office of United States Senator is not required to file an account of his expenses in the primary campaign until after the election by the legislature in January. Very truly, yours, F. L. Gilbeet, Attorney General. Mr. Littlefield. I desire to read now two letters from a letter-press copy book, the first letter in which is dated February 3, 1905, and the last letter in which is dated July 1, 1909. This is Senator Ste- phenson’s personal letter-press copy book. The first letter that I want to put into the record reads as fol- lows, and is found on page 807 of this letter book : Marinette, Wis., September 23, 1906. Hon. J. A. Frear, Secretary of State, Madison, Wis. Dear Sir : I have not received any blanks for filing expenditures in senatorial canvass for nomination at the primary. Will you kindly send me some at once? What is the law in this matter, and when must I file my papers in order to comply with the law? Kindly post me in the matter. Yours, truly, Isaac Stephenson. P. S. — Please let me know what the law is in my case. I have been told that I do not have to report until the legislature acts. I. S. Under the same date, on page 808, immediately following, on the next page, is the following : Marinette, Wis., September 23, 1908. Hon. Frank L. Gilbert, Attorney General, Madison, Wis. Dear Sir : I understand that a candidate for the U. S. Senate is not, under the law, obliged to file expense account until after the legislature elects in January. Kindly let me hear from you regarding this law. Yours, truly, Isaac Stephenson. The attorney general’s letter, as I understand it, was in answer to this inquiry. Senator "Pomerene. Was there a reply to the letter to the secre- tary of state? Mr. Littlefield. I have not seen any. I do not know whether there was or not. Do you remember whether there was, Senator? Senator Stephenson. I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know how that may be. Senator Pomerene. I thought if there was it might be well to put it in and make the record complete. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator says he does not remember. I do not know how it was. At 5 o’clock and 4 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, October 3, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m. E. A. EDMONDS. 91 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , W is. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Hey burn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pome- rene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS— Continued. E. A. Edmonds, the witness under examination at the time of ad- journment yesterday, resumed the stand and testified as follows : The Chairman. Before adjournment yesterday you were requested to make some examination of an expense account. Have you done so? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What have you to say now ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe I was asked to check over Exhibit 49 in the senatorial primary investigation and pick out such items as I have some recollection of. The Chairman. Proceed, now, and state the items and what your recollection of them is in regard to their payment and the purposes for which they were paid. Mr. Edmonds. In some instances I have quite a distinct recollec- tion, and in others some recollection. The Chairman. Pick out the items and state your recollection. Mr. Edmonds. The item of $200, July 18, Dane County, organiz- ing. That item is found on page 588 of the printed record of the senatorial investigation, in Exhibit 49. This was the first money, I believe, paid to Mr. Ames, our organizer in Dane County. The Chairman. I asked you about that item yesterday. What fur- ther recollection have you to-day than that which you had yesterday ? Mr. Edmonds. None, except that he was employed by me to look after the interests of Senator Stephenson and organize in Dane County. The special organizing that he was to do was left largely to his judgment, since he was represented to me as a man well known in the county and well acquainted with the conditions there. The Chairman. You have a distinct recollection of that employ- ment, have you ? Mr. Edmonds. I have a distinct recollection of meeting Mr. Ames and employing him for that purpose ; yes, sir. The Chairman. I will examine yesterday’s record to see how fully we went into that. Mr. Edmonds. He was paid, at different times, amounts as called for. Mr. Black. What is the date of that item ? Mr. Edmonds. July 18, on page 588. It is on page 588 of the printed record of the primary investigation. The Chairman. Have you any clear recollection this morning as to the conversation that was had between you and Mr. Ames when you paid him the money, as to the purpose for which it was to be expended ? 92 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. As to how he should organize ? The Chairman. Yes; the conversation. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I could not recall the conversation. T do remember that Mr. Ames was one of the first men who came in, and with whom I made arrangements for county organization; and I remember that I did not know at that time how far to go into the organizing — how far our funds would permit us to go into the organizing of counties ; into how great detail. I remember he asked the question in inquiring what it would cost or in answer to my inquiry as to what it would cost him to organize that county— -he asked whether I wanted him to go into each precinct and get a list and organize thoroughly or do what he could without going to that added expense, and that was left open for some little time as I recall. Mr. Littlefield. Finish your statement as to whether it was ever concluded with him. Did you ever have any further talk with him? That is. clean that subject right up. Mr. Edmonds. At a later time it was decided that we would not organize so completely as that because it would cost too much. Mr. Littlefield. What would that detailed organization involve? Explain that to the committee — that detailed organization that you decided you had not funds enough to go into. Mr. Edmonds. Well. I do not know that the suggestion was made by him as to how great detail we should go into. Mr. Littlefield. I know, but you know the details. Mr. Edmonds. My idea of a detailed organization is a pretty expensive proposition. Mr. Littlefield. Explain what the details are. Mr. Edmonds. I should want in each town at least three men, and those men to look after the expenditure of such funds as were neces- sary, or those men to be employed rather to do the work necessary — advertising, distributing posters, looking after The Chairman. Before proceeding to the cross-examination I should like to conclude my question. I did not have the book before me when I asked the question, but I have it now. Referring now to the page and item that you are considering, what is it? Mr. Edmonds. It is the seventh item on page 588, Dane County organizing. The Chairman. What is the name of the party to whom you paid that money? Mr. Edmonds. A. R. Ames. The Chairman. Did Mr. Ames render you a statement of the pur- poses for which the money had been expended? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ask him to? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you see him again during the campaign after you had given him this money to expend ? Mr. Edmonds. I think I saw him during the campaign at two or three different times. The Chairman. Did you discuss the use that had been made of the money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you inquire of him at any time what use he had made of this $200, or how much of it he had expended? E. A. EDMONDS. 93 Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain as to whether I did or not. When he would come in we would talk over the situation in that county. The Chairman. What do you mean by the “ situation ”? Mr. Edmonds. As to how the Republican voters who would prob- ably get out to the polls felt as to the election of Senator Stephenson, whether a majority of them, or a plurality of them, would be for the Senator or not. Whether he thought it would be advisable The Chairman. You gave him this money on July 18. That was while you were yet securing names to the petition for the nomination of Senator Stephenson, was it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. You do not know whether he used this money for that purpose or not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not. The Chairman. Where is he now ? Mr. Edmonds. In Madison, I believe. He was the last time I knew. The Chairman. What is his business? Mr. Edmonds. I think he is a real estate man. The Chairman. Have you seen him recently? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Then at no time have you had any knowledge as to the use made of this money ? Is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. Except in a general way; no, sir. The Chairman. What knowledge did you have in a general way? Mr. Edmonds. Just as I have said. When he would come in — lie came in at two different times, I think, after this, either two or ‘three — and I paid him on the amount that I had agreed to pay him, and at that time we would talk over the situation, but I do not recall just what was said. The Chairman. As I understood you in regard to a former ques- tion which I asked you, the conversation w^as merely as to the general political condition or sentiment in regard to Senator Stephenson. Would you call that services for which you would pay money? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly did not call him in to inquire, and have him make a definite statement as to why he had expended any money; but I have no doubt that in our conversation something of that kind was mentioned. The Chairman. But you have no recollection? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection, no, sir, as to what was said. The Chairman. It would have been quite natural, would it not, for you to have asked him to what purpose he was devoting this money ? Mr. Edmonds, Certainly, it would. The Chairman. Did you ask any of these men to whom you gave money during the campaign what use they were making of it? Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain that in any particular instance I called a man in and said, “ What have you been doing w T ith that money? ” But I am sure that after I gave a man money to conduct the campaign in his county whenever I saw him after that and there was opportunity to discuss what was being done with it, certainly I tried to keep track of affairs. The Chairman. Did you admonish these men when you gave them money that they were to keep within the law in its expenditure or use? 94 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that I did. The Chairman. Never on any occasion ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I ever did. I did not employ men who The Chairman. What did you tell them you were giving them money for? Mr. Littlefield. What did you say — that you w did not employ men who ” Mr. Edmonds. I did not employ men whom I thought it was neces- sary to caution in those matters. The men who were employed by me were in almost every instance men who were better acquainted with politics and the political situation in their counties than I, and they were men who knew the law as well or better, probably, than I. The Chairman. I was trying to get at facts rather than your judg- ment in regard to the method of conducting the campaign. I will resubmit that question. When you paid out these sums of money to men to organize, as you term it, did you have any conversation with them in regard to the manner of the expenditures to be made ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not now recall that I did in any partcular instance. The Chairman. Did you interest yourself to know as to the man- ner of the expenditure to be made ? Mr. Edmonds. I most assuredly did. The Chairman. Or the character of it, rather? Mr. Edmonds. I most assuredly talked the matter over with them when they were employed. The Chairman. I just understood you to say that you did not. I will resubmit that question. I want a definite answer. When you gave money to these several men for the purposes of organization, did you have a conversation with them in which you admonished them or discussed with them the manner of the expenditure to be made or the character of the expenditure to be made ? Mr. Edmonds. You are asking me a question that I do not know that I can answer. The Chairman. It is a most important question. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. There is no question but that in employing a man I talked with him about what he was to do, and he discussed the situation with me ; but in almost every instance- Senator Pomerene. Are you simply reasoning this out, or are you giving your memory about it ? Mr. Edmonds. I have told you that I do not remember to have in any particular instance given definite instructions. The Chairman. In other words, are we to understand that you paid out these large sums of money wbthout stating any restrictions as to the character of the expenditure ? Mr. Edmonds. I would not make that statement ; no, sir. The Chairman. I would like to have you make a statement on that subject. It is material. Mr. Edmonds. I am endeavoring to recall some particular instance and what was said, but I can not do that. I know that in employing a man and in turning over to him any sum of money for the purpose of organizing in his community, I certainly; went over the situation with him as thoroughly as I could in the limited time. E. A. EDMONDS. 95 The Chairman. Suppose we get more definite about that. You have stated several times about u going over the situation.” That is a very indefinite phrase. Give us your recollection, if you have any, as to. whether or not you discussed with him the propriety of the ex- penditure to be made. Mr. Edmonds. I can not remember any particular instance where I did, but I am sure I did. The Chairman. You are sure that you did ? Mr. Edmonds. I must have discussed the conditions in the county as to how The Chairman. That is only cumbering the record — as to the dis- cussion of conditions in the county. I presume men talk over those things in a general or specific way, but you being the responsible financial representative of Senator Stephenson we want information as to what you did and said, and the conversation between you and the persons to whom you gave money to be expended in the campaign. We want some definite information, or else a statement from you that you have none. Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall any particular instance where I said any particular thing as to the expenditure of money. Mr. Littlefield. State the substance of what you said. The Chairman. Can you remember any particular man to whom you made any such statement? Mr. Edmonds. No ; I say that I can not. The Chairman. You can neither remember the individual, nor can vou remember the conversation in any instance. Is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly do not remember the conversation so that I could repeat it. The Chairman. Do you remember the substance of the conversa- tion? Mr. Edmonds. In any particular instance? The Chairman. Do you remember the substance of the conversa- tion, confining yourself now to the question as to the character of the expenditure to be made? Do you remember any conversation of which you can give the substance? Mr. Edmonds. I should say, if I may be permitted, that in my talks with Mr. Wayland, who was with me at Appleton The Chairman. Let us turn to his item. Mr. Edmonds. C. C. Wayland. You will find amounts paid at several different times. The Chairman. See if you can get the items, so as to be definite. ■ Mr. Edmonds. Here is one, at the top of page 590 of the printed record of the senatorial investigation, $49.18. The Chairman. That is Mr. Wayland. Mr. Edmonds. And there are others. The Chairman. Now, what conversation did you have with Mr. Wayland when you gave him that money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that at that particular time, but Mr. Wayland was associated with me in business at Appleton. He was to run the campaign in Outagamie County, and I had talks with him about the amount of money that was to be expended. He consulted with me as to what he proposed to do. The Chairman. What was agreed upon? 96 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. It was agreed that he should advertise that county thoroughly, putting up Senator Stephenson’s pictures all over the county, and such advertising matter as was thought best ; if he could get speakers in the different localities, he was to employ them, and arrange for the employment or the renting of halls, and in some cases the employment of bands, etc. He was to get as complete an organi- zation in each one of the towns in that county as was possible. The Chairman. This was after the time had expired for filing petitions, being August 5, that you paid him $49.18. Had you paid him any sum of money prior to that time ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I had overlooked the item which appears near the top of page 589, $100. I had overlooked that. The Chairman. Now, the $100 on page 589, paid on July 27, was for what services? Mr. Edmonds. I think services in advance, for expenditures that he would make. He was the organizer for that county. The Chairman. Was the payment on August 5 of $49.18 to close the account of the moneys that he expended ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. How did it come that there was an odd sum in that payment? Mr. Edmonds. I assume he rendered a bill for some particular item, though I do not recall, because he was paid at different times after this. The Chairman. You made other payments later? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. What was the total amount that you placed in the hands of Mr. Wayland for election purposes? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall without going over this and adding the items up, but I should say something like $800. Mr. Littlefield. We can state the amount if the chairman would like. Mr. Wayland is sitting right here. It is $1,142. The Chairman. Did Mr. Wayland render an account of any por- tion of that money that had been paid out by him? Mr. Edmonds. I think I went into detail with Mr. Wayland prob- ably more than any other man as to expenditures, because I saw him oftener; when I would go home for Sunday he would talk mat- ters over with me. The Chairman. You paid him $500 on August 22. That is an item that appears near the bottom of page 592. • Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you remember what that was for? Mr. Edmonds. It was a part of the amount that I had agreed to The Chairman. What conversation did you have with Mr. Way- land in regard to that item of $500 ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I do not remember whether it was sent to him by mail or whether I gave it to him when I was in Appleton. The Chairman. Where is Appleton? Mr. Edmonds. It is about 100 miles north of here. Mr. Littlefield. That is, north of Milwaukee. E. A. EDMONDS. 97 Mr. Edmonds. North of Milwaukee. The Chairman. Is your recollection as distinct as to the con- versation with Mr. Wayland as it is with reference to any other of these parties to whom you gave money ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say more so. I saw him oftener and talked with him oftener. The Chairman. Are we to understand that your recollection with regard to other sums of money paid out for organizing is no more definite or detailed than it is in respect to Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. This is the situation : Whenever I made a contract or an agreement with a man to organize and look after Senator Stephenson’s interests in his particular county the sum was agreed upon. Usually at that time I paid him the amount agreed upon, and he immediately went to work in the interest of Senator Stephen- son. If ever I saw him again after that time undoubtedly we talked the situation over. The Chairman. You speak of paying money to these men. I understood you yesterday to say that outside of the $5,000 you did not pay money to anybody. Mr. Edmonds. When I say paying the money I mean to state that I contracted the bills and I gave instructions either to Mr. Sacket, the office manager, or to Mr. Puelicher, the custodian, to turn the money over to them ; so that while I did not myself pay the money, virtually I did. I contracted the bills. The Chairman. Your act was equivalent to the payment of the money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I undertook yesterday to get you to say that, but you declined to say you paid any money outside of the $5,000. Mr. Edmonds. Now, Senator, a moment The Chairman. Since you now look at it from a different stand- point, I will ask you as to other parties to whom you paid money, in the sense that you paid it to Mr. Wayland. Mr. Littlefield. Will the Senator excuse me. I would like to ask whether the witness may not be allowed to make an explanation that he desires to make ? The Chairman. The witness is perfectly safe in the hands of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. I have not any doubt of that, but I ask it as a favor to the witness. The Chairman. I will say to counsel that when in the judgment of a member of the committee a witness is going into extraneous matter, beyond the scope of the inquiry, the committee will exercise the privilege of stopping him and bringing him back into the line where it desires to examine him. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose the Senator has not any objection to my making a suggestion. The Chairman. Oh, no; I do not object to any suggestion by counsel. I will now ask you to answer the question, Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I understand the question. The Chairman. The reporter will repeat the last question. 15235 °— VOL 1—11 7 98 E. A. EDMONDS. (The reporter read as follows:) Since you now look at it from a different standpoint, I will ask you as to other parties to whom you paid money, in the sense that you f)aid it to Mr. Wayland. The Chairman. I will finish that question which I was proceeding to ask you. Did you have any conversations with any others in the sense that you had conversations with Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe I know how to answer the question. I have not changed my method of reasoning — you assume there that I make some change, that I think differently now from what I did. I do not. The Chairman. The witness evidently misunderstands the chair- man. Yesterday we understood you to say that you had not paid out any money except the $5,000, and on further examination you insisted that you had made no payments; that you had merely tele- phoned or given an order on somebody else. In regard to Mr. Way- land you say now that you did pay him this money, and you state what you mean by the word “pay” as you use it. We will adopt that meaning as to the other transactions; that is, transactions with other men. At the time you gave them the money or the order for the money, or paid it, using those as synonymous terms, did you have any conversation with them as to the manner of the expenditure to be made ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any particular conversation I had with any particular individual, but I am sure that I did. I would not have made an agreement to pay any man any money without going into details, more or less. I can not recall what was said. The Chairman. Did you admonish them with regard to keeping within the law in the expenditure of this money ? Mr. Edmonds. It is quite possible I used that term. That is the term Senator Stephenson used with me, I know, 44 to keep within the law.” The Chairman. Did you discuss the question how far under the law you might go in making expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not think I discussed the legal limits of the expenditure of money. The Chairman. With no organizer ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall having done so. The Chairman. Your business, then, was to make contracts or ar- rangements with persons for their services in working for Senator Stephenson, was it, and to leave the financial transaction to some- body else? Mr. Edmonds. I think Senator Stephenson’s arrangement with me was to conduct the campaign for him, and he left the details to me. In the interest of time, since the time of his primary campaign was so short, I turned over to two men in different counties the conduct of the campaign in those counties. The Chairman. Without restriction as to the manner in which they should conduct the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I think we discussed it; but as to whether in every instance I asked a man or told him to keep within the law, I do not remember. The Chairman. Did you in any instance? E. A. EDMONDS. 99 Mr. Edmonds. I should say it was quite probable that I did. The Chairman. Say whether or not you did. Mr. Edmonds. I can not say. I do not remember. The Chairman. You are not willing to state, then, whether or not you advised or instructed your agents or representatives as to the manner in which they should expend the money that you gave them. You are not willing to say whether you did or not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I am not willing to say that in any partic- ular instance I said to a man, “ Keep within the law,” “ Do this or do not do that.” I do not remember that that was ever discussed. The Chairman. I will ask you to get outside of these expressions and the different forms of language that you may have used. Did you either directly or indirectly, specifically or in effect, state to any of your agents the manner in which they should expend the money, and admonish them that they should make no unlawful use of it? Mr. Edmonds. In many instances, quite probably in all, I discussed in more or less detail the expenditure of the money, but as to whether 1 admonished anyone I can not say. The Chairman. I think that is all. Senator Sutherland. Do I understand that while you do not re- member the name of the person or the particular conversation in any instance, in a general way you do remember that you admonished the people you employed, or rather, that you agreed with different people whom you employed as to the way the money should be expended ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say this was more likely to have been the case, as I remember it. In talking with these men whom I employed — I would say they were men who were familiar with conditions, and familiar with the political situation and the laws of the State regard- ing the expenditure of money— I would hardly have told them not to expend money unlawfully unless in discussion they had suggested something that was unlawful, in which case I would have said so. It was not our wish or intention that any man should expend any money except in a lawful manner. Senator Sutherland. Did you, in a general way, state to the peo- ple what the money was to be used for ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. You say in the case of Mr. Way land it was understood that he was to employ speakers, to hire bands and halls, etc. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Now, while you do not remember the par- ticular talk with any other particular individual, do you remember that, in a general way, you did state that ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say in every instance I did go into the details of what would be done in this way. I remember conversations not with any particular individual, but with some one who was em- ployed, as to whether we should go into the organization of every precinct in the county, employing men to go out and get out the voters, employing men to look after the polls in the precincts on election day, etc. I remember discussing that with people for a time, not knowing whether we would do that or not. We later decided we could not go into the organization so completely. 100 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. I understood you to say that when you em- ployed a man you asked him how much he needed to organize that particular county. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. How did he arrive at the amount that he was to ask you to pay? Mr. Edmonds. Quite often the number of counties or the number of townships or precincts would be referred to by him, and he would figure that in each precinct I needed to do some advertising, and I hired a man to look after that part of the work, and to get out the vote. If we went into it that far in any particular instance, the man who might be employed to travel around over the township, talking with farmers, getting them interested so as to be sure to get them out at the polls, and representing the good qualities of our candidate — I would go into that matter quite thoroughly. I lost the thread of my sentence there. Senator Sutherland. And that in that case would be the basis of the amount he would charge? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Was there any other basis than that? Mr. Edmonds. Usually the only thing brought up would be the amount of his compensation. In many instances they spoke of no compensation for themselves, but where there was to be compensa- tion for them, that was agreed upon, and then they thought, in addi- tion to that, it would cost about so much to organize in such a manner as they felt would be beneficial to the candidate. Senator Sutherland. Then you would, in the beginning of the employment, simply make an estimate of what the work would cost in that particular county? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And that amount of money was paid to the organizer in the first instance? Sir. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And he was not required thereafter to make any accounting as to the way in which he had expended the money or to furnish you with an itemized statement ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. It was left entirely in his hands? Mr. Edmonds. Entirely in his hands; yes, sir. I do not mean by that that I would never see him again or ask him about it again, but he was never authorized to make any detailed statement of his ac- count. Senator Sutherland. In the case of fixing the compensation, leav- ing out the question of the money for expenditures, what was the basis of fixing that compensation for the organizers? Mr. Edmonds. I think there was no basis ; I think that each indi- vidual case was determined upon by itself. The amount to be paid was determined upon, according to the ability of the man and the amount that the man demanded. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean to say by that that the par- ticular organizer you were talking with would himself say what he ought to have and you would assent to it ? E. A. EDMONDS. 101 Mr. Edmonds. In some instances, and in some instances that was thought to be too much, and we arrived at a satisfactory amount in that manner. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds, when was it that Senator Stephenson first said to you that you should keep “ within the law ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I could not be positive. I should say that in the conversation with me by phone from Marinette the night he asked me if I would assume control of the campaign, I wanted to know how far I should go into that, and I think at that time he mentioned it. Senator Pomerene. What was said. Give us that conversation ? Mr. Edmonds. Those were his words — “ to keep within the law,” if he used that term at that time, and I think probably he did. Senator Pomerene. You talked with him later on that subject? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any particular time, but I think without question that phrase “ to keep within the law ” has certainly been used by him a good many times. Senator Pomerene. He told you at least once, did he not, that the law required him to file an account showing the persons to whom the money was paid Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. Senator Pomerene (continuing). The amount paid and the pur- pose for which it was paid? Did he tell you that at any time? Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain. At any rate, I knew it. Senator Pomerene. Or the substance of it at any time ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that he did, though it would not be surprising if he didn’t, because the accounts, as later developed, were kept by the office manager and the custodian. Senator Pomerene. You have just said that you knew the require- ments of the law in that behalf, if I understand you correctly. Mr. Edmonds. I knew that we had to make a report ; yes. Senator Pomerene. And you knew that before you undertook this management, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Senator Pomerene. When you opened up this office or headquarters what arrangements did you make so as to enable you to comply with this law ? Mr. Edmonds. The arrangements for the bookkeeping and the office management had already been made and started. Senator Pomerene. By whom and with whom? Mr. Edmonds. I think Mr. Sacket opened the headquarters, at least he was in charge when I came to Milwaukee. Senator Pomerene. Did he keep the memoranda or the book ac- count of these expenses? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so, because he made up this itemized state- ment from that. Senator Pomerene. Did you make any inquiry as to whether he was preparing or providing books which would enable him to make this account from time to time? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t know that I made any inquiry, but at any rate I knew that he was. Senator Pomerene. Did you give that matter of filing an account and keeping the necessary data any attention at all during the cam- paign ? 102 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; except that I knew that those employed to do it were doing it. Senator Pomerene. When you would make an arrangement with a manager in any one of these counties — for instance, take this man Ames, after you had made your arrangement with him as to what he was to do and what he was to receive, what then did you do which would enable them to keep proper account? Would you report to them what arrangement you had made? Mr. Edmonds. To Senator Pomerene. To anyone? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly; to Mr. Sacket. Senator Pomerene. In the office? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. In very many instances, Senator, almost every instance, the office manager would get the funds from the bank and either mail them or give them to the person; sometimes by phone, but very often in the other manner. Senator Pomerene. Was Ames one of the men who was to receive compensation for his personal services? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And what amount was he to receive ? Mr. Edmonds. I could only — I don’t know. Senator Pomerene. Can you give us approximately the amount? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t want to do any injustice to him, because he will remember Senator Pomerene. We do not want you to. Mr. Edmonds. But I will say that it was $200. That is my recol- lection now. Senator Pomerene. When you would report that to Mr. Sacket would you report to Mr. Sacket that Mr. Ames was to receive $200 for his personal services and so much to pay his assistants in the county ? Mr. Edmonds. I think I did, in every instance, explain to Mr. Sacket that a certain amount was to go for salary and the rest for organizing the county. I do not know that I did. Senator Pomerene. You say you think you did; did you, as a matter of fact? Mr. Edmonds. In every instance I do not believe, at least I do not presume I did. Senator Pomerene. Are you speaking now from any recollection that you have on the subject or are you simply reasoning it out? Mr. Edmonds. I am not reasoning or guessing at anything I am testifying to. Senator Pomerene. Is that your recollection of it now — that you did, in the case of Mr. Ames, tell Mr. Sacket that he was to receive $200, or whatever the sum w T as, for his personal services ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember any conversation that I had with Mr. Sacket regarding this particular transaction; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. How many of these managers — call them local or county managers ; is that what you called them ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that we had any name for them, but I should think that would be a good name — county managers. Senator Pomerene. You understand what I mean? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 103 Senator Pomerene. How many of these managers were to receive compensation for their personal services? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. Are you able to go over the account which was filed and thereby refresh your memory so as to give us the names of the persons? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not to a certainty. Senator Pomerene. With about how many of them did you have an arrangement of this character? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps half of the men; that would be my judg- ment now ; half of the men with whom I made agreements. Mr. Littlefield. Give the number. Mr. Edmonds. There are 70 counties — I should think 35. Senator Pomerene. You would say, then, probably 35, would you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How much were you to pay these 35 local managers as their personal compensation? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember. Different amounts as the Senator Pomerene. Did you keep any memorandum of the amounts which you were to pay or which they were to receive? Mr. Edmonds. Did I keep it ? It w r as kept ; known in the office. Senator Pomerene. Did you personally? Mr. Edmonds. No; I did not keep a record. Senator Pomerene. You made these arangements, I take it, some- times at your headquarters or sometimes throughout the State, wherever you might meet these managers? Mr. Edmonds. I think always here in the office. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any memorandum of any ac- count on your desk or in your pocket which would enable you to give later, if called upon, the amounts which each of these men was to receive for his personal services or the amount which they were to receive for the general purposes of organization? Mr. Edmonds. I am very sure that since that, on different days, there would be perhaps four or five men come in with whom I had made arrangements, that in order to keep myself straight on it I would probably make some notation. Senator Pomerene. In a memorandum book? Mr. Edmonds. No. I never kept any memorandum. Senator Pomerene. On a loose sheet of paper? Mr. Edmonds. In all probability; some paper on my desk; in order that I might report. Senator Pomerene. Have you got any of those papers ? Mr. Edmonds. I haven’t any ; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. What did you do with them ? Mr. Edmonds. Anything that i had was turned over to the investi- gating committee appointed by the Senate. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any such papers? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that I did. Senator Pomerene. Do you recall now that you turned over any papers to the committee which contained any of the memoranda of which you are speaking? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. Senator Pomerene. I do not ask you to do it now, but can you go over this account which was filed and which is contained in the report 104 E. A. EDMONDS. of the legislative committee and tell us the names of the persons with whom you made the arrangement for personal compensation? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Can you as to a part of them? Mr. Edmonds. I should think I could ; part of them ; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Will you do it? Mr. Edmonds. Willingly. Senator Pomerene. And can you give us the amounts which were paid to any of these men ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe I could in a single instance. Senator Pomerene. Can you give us approximately the amounts which were paid to them for personal services? Mr. Edmonds. I wouldn’t like to do that, because those men, if they are asked to testify, will know, and my statement would simply be my recollection, and I don’t like to Senator Pomerene. We will receive it with that understanding, and, as one member of the committee, I would like to have you do that, if you can; give it as definitely as you can. In talking with these different managers, did you tell any of these men to keep an account of the expenditures which they made of this money which you gave them ? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t recall in any particular instance that I did, but I am sure that was discussed ; that was understood by the men. Senator Pomerene. Can you remember any one? Mr. Edmonds. To whom I gave those instructions? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No. That would be the most natural thing to talk over, because that was one of the things understood. Senator Pomerene. Now, you are reasoning about that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you now any memory of giving those instructions to any of the men you employed ? Mr. Edmonds. I have not. Senator Pomerene. Did you say to any of them that they should furnish you with an account of the expenditures they made? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. How. then, did you expect to be able to comply with the Wisconsin statute on this subject, if you gave no such in- structions ? Mr. Edmonds. How, then, did I expect? I don’t know that it came to my mind at all. Senator Pomerene. You knew of the law, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. That we would have to report; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And, knowing that, you certainly knew you could not comply with it unless these lieutenants of yours would report to you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir: I didn’t know that; I don’t know it now. Senator Pomerene. Then, if I correctly understand you, none of these lieutenants made any report to you of the amount they had expended or the persons to whom they paid money or the purpose for which it was paid? Mr. Edmonds. Only as I have stated before. E. A. EDMONDS. 105 Senator Pomerene. And you can not now give the name of any person who rendered you, either orally or in writing, any account of the moneys that he expended? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think I talked with Mr. — I am sure I talked with Mr. Wayland very often about expenditures that he was making. Senator Pomerene. Anyone else? Mr. Edmonds. Not that I can recall, who made any reports of expenses. Senator Pomerene. And your talks with Mr. Wayland were simply as you would meet as friends and neighbors? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. There was no daily report on the thing. Senator Pomerene. There was never any effort on the part of Mr. Wayland to give you, and never any effort on your part to get from him, a detailed statement of his expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. I did not require from him or anyone a detailed statement; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you made no such requirement of any of the men whom you engaged to do this work? Mr. Edmonds. I think not in a single instance. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds, you stated yesterday that you had some talk with Mr. Puelicher on the subject of the payment of $250 by him to Mr. Bancroft; when was that talk? Mr. Edmonds. I want to make a correction of that, if I may. That was my recollection yesterday. Last night Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Sacket said, “ You are mistaken ; that talk was with Mr. Sacket.” That brings to my mind the fact that I talked with Mr. Sacket in- stead of Mr. Puelicher. Senator Pomerene. Very well; we will accept the correction. When did you talk with Mr. Sacket on this subject? Mr. Edmonds. I should say as soon as I returned to Milwaukee and had an opportunity to talk with him and know about this money. Senator Pomerene. What did you say to Mr. Sacket on the subject or he to you? Mr. Edmonds. It is a long time ago and I can’t remember the words at all. Senator Pomerene. Give the substance of it. Mr. Edmonds. The substance was this: That I remonstrated with him against paying that money to a candidate for member of assembly. Senator Pomerene. Why did you do that? Mr. Edmonds. Because the payment of any money, as I under- stand the law, by a candidate for United States Senator — and I assume that would mean his manager as well — for the purpose of influencing his vote is unlawful. Senator Pomerene. When did you understand that to be the law? Mr. Edmonds. I think I have understood it ever since the law was passed or some time soon thereafter. Senator Pomerene. You had no doubt about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You stated yesterday, I believe, that you paid some money to Mr. Shauers? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 106 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Pomerene. Who was a candidate for the general assembly ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You knew that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you knew that was a violation of the law, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. It was not a violation of the law. Senator Pomerene. How do you discriminate between the pay- ment to Mr. Shauers and the one to Mr. Bancroft ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. I remonstrated when I didn’t know the reason for which this money was handed to these — given by Mr. Sacket. When I understood what he had given it to him for — not to help himself, not to help the candidacy of Mr. Bancroft, but for the purpose of organizing that county to get out a full vote for Senator Stephenson — the matter was placed in an entirely different light. Mr. Shauers was a candidate for member of assembly from Oconto County; Oconto County had three candidates; Oconto County adjoins Marinette County, the home of Senator Stephenson; the three candidates w T ere all favorable to Senator Stephenson; we didn’t care which one would be elected. That money was not given to Mr. Shauers to expend for his benefit; it was not given to him to expend in Oconto County, but in helping to organize and interest railroad men in the State, he being a railroad man. * Mr. Littlefield. And outside of his county? Mr. Edmonds. Entirely. Senator Pomerene. Did it occur to you that a man who was a candidate for representative having money to expend, and that he did expend it, indirectly at least would receive some benefit from that expenditure ? Mr. Edmonds. In this instance I do not see how it could possibly be so. Senator Pomerene. You do not have any doubt about that as a general proposition, do you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I do. I think that Mr. Shauers could go to Ashland County and to Sauk County and different counties that he visited and spend $100 or $200 to interest the railroad men of the State for Senator Stephenson’s nomination and not in any possible w T ay affect his election or nomination. Senator Pomerene. So you think that these candidates have pretty fine discriminating powers? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t know that they do. It wouldn’t be neces- sary in that case, in my judgment. Senator Pomerene. After the campaign had closed did you aid Mr. Sacket in making out his account ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you have anything to do with it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You were there as Senator Stephenson’s chief manager? Mr. Edmonds. Not at the time it was made out ; no, sir. That was made out long after. Senator Pomerene. W ell, you were during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 107 Senator Pomerene. And as the general manager you felt some responsibility for filing this account, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. Senator Stephenson asked me to manage the cam- paign ; he also secured the services of Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Sacket ; I had nothing to do with that; their duties were outlined; they were to perform their duties and report; I knew that they had kept their reports — their records. Senator Pomerene. So you gave that matter no attention ? Mr. Edmonds. No attention whatever; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever talk with Mr. Sacket on the sub- ject of the care that was necessary in keeping his accounts so as to enable Senator Stephenson to file a proper account ? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t know that I ever did. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever talk with Mr. Puelicher on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t know that I ever did. Senator Pomerene. Or with anyone else on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. I don’t recall ; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever take any legal counsel on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Stephenson was the candidate; he was the man who would have to make the report. Now, if I didn’t expend any moneys, there was no need of my keeping an account. Senator Pomerene. But you did expend some. Mr. Edmonds. I returned the $5,000 to Senator Stephenson; that is, the checks and the balance on hand. Senator Pomerene. Did Mr. Puelicher pay out any money for bills which you had contracted without an order of some kind from you? Mr. Edmonds. I presume not. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. Now, let us understand this a little more clearly. Mr. Edmonds. Let me answer that further. Senator Pomerene. Surely. Mr. Edmonds. You said, did he pay out any money without an order from me? Senator Pomerene. Any money in payment of bills that you had contracted. Mr. Edmonds. No; I presume not. Senator Pomerene. That was the qualification that I think I made. Let us understand a little more in detail the manner in which this money would be paid out. For instance, after you had contracted with your manager, explain what you would do and what Mr. Puelicher would do or anyone else toward its payment out of this fund. Mr. Edmonds. In very many instances I would arrange with the man for the expenditure of certain amount of money in his county, and that day, before he left town, he would receive the amount agreed upon, or at least a part of it — usually all of it. In most instances I think I would communicate that fact to Mr. Sacket. Mr. 108 E. A. EDMONDS. Sacket would make a requisition of some kind, so that the man would get it. Senator Pomerene. What kind of a requisition would he make? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I do not think he had a check book, but I think he had a receipt of some kind. I do not remember whether it was a printed form or not, but at any rate it was some- thing that would be satisfactory between him and Mr. Puelicher. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever see any of these receipts or orders ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Sometimes there would be a letter writ- ten, possibly. I do not know now how he did. I do not know whether he always inclosed a receipt or whether he would write a letter to that effect. He will know more about that than I. Senator Pomerene. While you were making arrangements for this campaign, you would occasionally come in contact with men who favored some of the other candidates, would you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you arrange with any of them to support Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did any of these men prefer, or did you dis- cover that any of these men with whom you made arrangements pre- ferred the candidacy of some other man prior to the time that you had your conference with them ? Mr. Edmonds. Not one. Senator Pomerene. Have you any knowledge as to the class of men whom your managers employed, and as to what their political prefer- ences were? In other w r orcls, to make myself clear, do you know now of any of the men who were employed in behalf of Mr. Stephenson who favored some other candidate prior to the time of that employ- ment ? Mr. Edmonds. Not one. Senator Pomerene. Did you hear of any? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You have no knowledge on that subject, either direct or by hearsay? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all I have to ask. I wish you would remember and check up that account and give me that further information. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the information about the salaries. Senator Pomerene. The salaries of the different lieutenants or managers. Mr. Littlefield. You want him to give it the best he can. Senator Pomerene. He said he could give the names of some of them positively, but not all ; that he could not give the amounts defi- nitely, but I want his best recollection. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. That is what I understood. The Chairman. Is it true, Mr. Edmonds, that the money that you handled came from Mr. Puelicher? I refer to the money that you handled during the campaign. Mr. Edmonds. $5,000 was given me directly by Senator Stephenson, and I think the balance of it was plaeed in Mr. Puelicher’s hands, E. A. EDMONDS. 109 and was expended through that source. I will make this exception, as to the amount that Senator Stephenson expended himself. Mr. Littlefield. The question calls for the money with whieh you had to do. The Chairman. How often did you confer with Mr. Puelicher dur- ing this campaign in regard to finances? Mr. Edmonds. We took dinner or lunch together very often. I think I saw him every two or three days. The Chairman. Did he advise you from time to time as to the condition of the fund against which you might make contracts? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It has been shown in the records before the com- mittee that Mr. Van Cleve received numerous checks from Senator Stephenson, and turned them over to Mr. Puelicher, or, I think, the phrase is that he indorsed them over. Would you be advised by Mr. Puelicher when he received such funds? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; except, I think, in one instance, when he reported to me that there were no funds on hand, and then a few days later he reported that he had received funds. The Chairman. When was it reported to you that there were no funds on hand ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall the date. The Chairman. Approximately at what time, with reference to the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I think it was just before the item of $30,000. I do not recall that date. Mr. Littlefield. Have you a copy of that memorandum? I take it the Senator would like to get the date as nearly as he can. Mr. Black. August 12. The Chairman. J have some data here. The $30,000 payment was on August 12. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. A check to J. H. Puelicher. Is that the item you refer to, and the date? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say that at or immediately prior to that time the treasury was empty? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How did it come about that you were advised that there were no funds? Did you inquire, or was the information given to you voluntarily or officially ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that I sent a man to Mr. Sacket, and he reported that there were no funds in the bank. The Chairman. Have you examined the accounts for the purpose of seeing how much money is claimed to have been paid out before August 12? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You have not had a balance struck for the purpose of seeing whether or not it was true that the funds were bankrupt at that time? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that Mr. Sacket would go to the bank and procure the cash and deliver it to the par- 110 E. A. EDMONDS. ties with whom you made a contract, in some instances, or, in other words, cash the order on the bank? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know as to getting the cash, but either cash or a check that would be satisfactory to the person with whom I made the agreement. The Chairman. That is, are we to understand that you made the contract first? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Or made an order that was the equivalent of a contract and gave it to Mr. Sacket or to the party ? Mr. Edmonds. To Mr. Sacket in instances of that kind. The Chairman. You handed your orders over to Mr. Sacket, and Mr. Sacket then would negotiate for the cash or the equivalent with Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Edmonds. Except that usually it was a verbal order from me to Mr. Sacket. He was out in the office adjoining me. The Chairman. Then Mr. Sacket was the real paymaster, was he? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; Mr. Sacket and Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. Is that true of all the moneys expended, as shown by these accounts? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I should say that was approximately true. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket kept a list, did he not, of these pay- ments, showing to whom he paid money and the amount paid ? Mr. Edmonds. The only method I have of knowing is that he must have done so in order to make up so detailed a report. The Chairman. Did you not see it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Never at any time? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Was he under you? That is to say, was Mr. Sacket working under your direction? Mr. Edmonds. No. sir; I should say not. The Chairman. He was working independently of you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Could he have made a contract for the expendi- ture of money? Mr. Edmonds. He did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. And he had as much authority as you possessed in that regard? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I should hardly say he did. The Chairman. Where was the line limiting his jurisdiction? Mr. Edmonds. I should presume more in amount than I was. I think Senator Stephenson had confidence in Mr. Sacket, and I do not know just what the arrangement was between them. The Chairman. Would Mr. Puelicher honor Mr. Sacket ’s orders without consulting with you or without your indorsement? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket could draw money from Mr. Puelicher then, without limit, as far as these campaign expenses were con- cerned ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I was concerned. It would have to be satisfactory to Mr. Puelicher, of course, in that regard. The Chairman. He did not have to report to you ? E. A. EDMONDS. Ill Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Then have you any knowledge as to how much money Mr. Sacket drew and paid out on account of Senator Ste- phenson ? Mr. Edmonds. In almost every instance the bills for printing and lithograph work and posters, and that kind of thing, would pass entirely through Mr. Sacket’s hands, and I would have nothing to do with them; I did not know, in fact, how much he had expended in that manner; never knew until this report was made. The Chairman. Did you confer with Mr. Sacket as to whether or not the fund was sufficient to meet contracts which you were making — both of you making contracts? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. I think my talk with regard to finances was with Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. You did not know but that Mr. Sacket might have made contracts that would take a considerable portion of the fund in Mr. Puelicher’s hands then, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. How did you ascertain, when you wanted to make a contract of any size, whether there were funds enough or not? Mr. Edmonds. In some instances I made the agreement or the con- tract, and there were no funds there. The Chairman. In what case? Mr. Edmonds. In this case when there were no funds, just before the $30,000 were sent in. The Chairman. What contracts did you make against an empty treasury ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I remember there were two or three. The Chairman. Name one. Mr. Edmonds. I think Mr. L. B. Dresser was one. The Chairman. On what date was that? Mr. Edmonds. August 12. The Chairman. That is the item of $1,800 on August 12. Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that in the case of that item I was told that there was part of that money on hand, but that there was not a sufficient amount to pay all. The Chairman. But five days prior to that the sum of $30,000 had been deposited. Had that $30,000 been exhausted in the five days? Mr. Edmonds. It might reasonably have been the case, because for some time, for several days there had been no funds in the bank, and in all probability debts that had been contracted in the meantime would be paid out of that fund. So it is possible that that had all been expended. The Chairman. You say it is possible. Was it a fact? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Who advised you when you made the contract on August 12 with L. B. Dresser for $1,800, which seems to have been paid to him at that time, that there was a shortage of funds ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say either the custodian or the office manager. The Chairman. The voucher No. 33517 seems to have borne date August 12. That would indicate that there was money to pay it, and that it was paid, would it not? 112 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Of course, it is possible that this recollection I have of there not being funds at this particular time may have been be- fore, and then later he came in on August 12 and got that. I do not recall that. The Chairman. Did the bank, or Mr. Puelicher acting for the bank, of which I understand he is an officer, advance funds at any time to the Stephenson campaign fund? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I have no reason for thinking so, but I do not know. The Chairman. Your duties as manager of this campaign, then, would seem to be rather indefinite so far as its finances were con- cerned, would they not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I thought it was a very good arrangement, indeed, for me. The Chairman. A good arrangement for you ? Mr. Edmonds. I think the only hesitancy I had in taking charge of the campaign was owing to the fact that I would have to handle money, and in accounting for it, that it would be placed in my hands; and when the arrangement was made for Mr. Sacket or Mr. Pue- licher to handle the money, for it all to pass through his hands, then there was no hesitancy at all. for it was just simply a business matter then for me to handle that campaign. The Chairman. You are not in a position, then, to give any account for the funds received by Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Edmonds. None at all. The Chairman. During the month of August? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. As to the disposition made of them? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did Mr. Puelicher pay out any money except upon your order or under your instruction during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure there are items there that I knew nothing about. The Chairman. You were manager of the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did Mr. Puelicher disburse moneys at all; did he disburse any of the fund without your order to do so? Mr. Edmonds. Without any question he did. The Chairman. What amounts? Mr. Edmonds. As I have stated, the bills that would come in would be O. K’d by Mr. Sacket. The arrangements would be made for them to be paid. I had nothing to do with those in many in- stances. For instance, there was a man in the office looking after the mailing lists, and so forth, and postage bills and printing bills that he would contract would be O. K’d by him and turned over to Mr. Sacket. I never would see them. The Chairman. Still what I was endeavoring to bring out was whether or not Mr. Puelicher would pay out money on account of campaign expenses without an order from either you or Mr. Sacket ? Mr. Edmonds. As to that I do not know. 1 do not know what his latitude may have been or his agreement with Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. And you have no knowledge as to whether he did ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 113 The Chairman. The account which we find in connection with your testimony, or at the end of it, as Exhibit 49, page 588, of the proceedings before the joint committee is to be taken as your state- ment of campaign expenses, is it? Mr. Edmonds. As prepared by the office manager; yes, sir. He w T as in charge. The Chairman. The office manager who was under your direction and control? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What part of this expenditure of $98,083.72 rep- resented by the statement was disbursed under your direction, and how are we to identify the items? Mr. Edmonds. I think the best way to identify them would be by the testimon}' of the office manager, who would know. The Chairman. Will he know? Mr. Edmonds. I think without any question. Any that he does not know I should be glad, if I contracted them, to give any explana- tion I can in regard to them. The Chairman. In what business are you engaged at this time? Mr. Edmonds. I am a paper and pulp manufacturer. The Chairman. When did you return to that business after the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I think the election was on Tuesday, and I believe I returned on Thursday. Senator Pomerene. What is the name of your company? Mr. Edmonds. Which one? I am not the manager of any. Mr. Littlefield. Would there be any objection to Mr. Edmonds going right along and stating all the companies with which he is con- nected, if you would like them in the record at this point? I was going to draw out that fact later. Senator Pomerene. What company did you refer to when you said you are a paper manufacturer? Mr. Edmonds. I have been manager of the Rhinelander Paper Co., and I still have some connection with the company, but I have moved to Appleton. Senator Pomerene. Are you and Senator Stephenson business asso- ciates? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know of any association we have together in business, except that he has stock in a bank and I have a little stock in the same bank. Senator Pomerene. Are you jointly interested as partners or stock- holders in any concern? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think in any instance except that. The Chairman. You have referred to an item on August 12 of $1,800. The entry in this account is 44 General. No. 33.517, L. B. Dres- ser, $1,800.” What does that word “general” mean? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. This report was made out by Mr. Sacket, and I assume that in his summary perhaps that was the name of the account. The Chairman. What does that number mean? Mr. Edmonds. I should presume that was the bank check or cer- tificate. The Chairman. That is the check number, 33,517, do you mean ? 15235 °— vol 1—11 8 114 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I should presume that was it, though I am not certain. The Chairman. You made this contract with Mr. Dresser, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was it for? Tell us what the conversation was between you. Mr. Edmonds. He was to handle the campaign in seven counties in the eleventh district. The talk was that he should secure in each county a manager in the county. I was not acquainted there at all, and the talk was that he should secure a manager in each county that he did not personally handle himself, and this money was to be dis- tributed to these men. The Chairman. Did you say anything to him about rendering an account to you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did he render any account to you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. How much of this was he to receive for his per- sonal compensation? Mr. Edmonds. I think none at all. He was a very warm personal friend of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. You do not know how this was distributed then ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I do not. The Chairman. You can not tell how much was sent to anyone or all of these seven counties? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you know who his managers were in each of those seven counties? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now, but I think I met only two or three out of the number. The Chairman. Did any of them ever make any report to you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. This, I assume, was paid by an order which you had given to Mr. Puelicher, or directed to be given ? Mr. Edmonds. I assume so; yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you remember what the fact was about it? Mr. Edmonds. No; not when it was paid. The only recollection I have is in regard to that being called for at one time and not having the funds to meet it. There was nothing peculiar about that. The Chairman. Did Mr. Sacket give an order for it, do you know ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. There was nothing peculiar about that transaction. The Chairman. Did you give any memorandum to Mr. Puelicher or to Mr. Sacket to show the purposes for which this money was given or how it was to be distributed ? Mr. Edmonds. I talked the matter over with Mr. Sacket more or less. The Chairman. What did you say to him? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea now. The Chairman. Did you give him any written memorandum ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. The Chairman. Did he make any memorandum of the purposes for which this money was to be given? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. E. A. EDMONDS. 115 The Chairman. Did he make any written memorandum at any time to your knowledge of the purposes for which any of this money was to be paid, which you contracted to be given out ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Or the names of the persons? Mr. Edmonds. I do aot know. His office where he conducted his work was adjoining mine. Usually he came in to see me when I called for him, so I did not see what he was doing; but I assumed that he did it, and he kept this report. I did not. Mr. Littlefield. You have referred several times to telephoning the bank in connection with these disbursements. To what bank did you telephone? Mr. Edmonds. When I say “ to the bank,” I mean to Mr. Puelicher, who was the cashier of the bank. Senator Pomerene. What bank was that? Mr. Edmonds. The Marshall & Usley Bank. Mr. Littlefield. Then are we to understand that whenever you say you phoned the bank you wish to be understood as phoning Mr. Puelicher, who was the treasurer of the campaign fund ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should have made that clear. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state the various cor- porations with which you were connected in business and the offices you held in connection therewith at the time you entered into this arrangement with Mr. Stephenson relative to his campaign. Mr. Edmonds. I think the one nearest Appleton, the one in which I was most actively engaged, was the Kaukauna Paper Co., of which I am president. Mr. Littlefield. Give us the next. Mr. Edmonds. I was treasurer of the Falls Manufacturing Co. Mr. Littlefield. What does that manufacture? Mr. Edmonds. Paper and pulp, at Oconto Falls. Mr. Littlefield. What is the capacity of the first company you named ? Mr. Edmonds. About 20 tons. Mr. Littlefield. Daily? Mr. Edmonds. Daily. Mr. Littlefield. And the next one? Mr. Edmonds. About 30 tons of paper and about the same amount of pulp. Mr. Littlefield. Daily? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, about 60 tons of pulp and paper daily? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What is the next company? Mr. Edmonds. The Union Manufacturing Co. I am president of that company, which is located at Oconto Falls. Mr. Littlefield. 'What is its business? Mr. Edmonds. Manufacturing ground wood pulp. Mr. Littlefield. What is its capacity daily ? Mr. Edmonds. Fifteen to 20 tons. Mr. Littlefield. What other companies? Mr. Edmonds. I am treasurer of the Wausau Paper Mills Co., at Brokaw. 116 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. What is its capacity? Mr. Edmonds. About 40 tons of sulphite pulp, 25 tons of ground wood pulp, and 70 tons of paper. Mr. Littlefield. Daily? Mr. Edmonds. Daily. Mr. Littlefield. And what others? Mr. Edmonds. I am a stockholder, and I had a contract with the Rhinelander Paper Co., at Rhinelander, manufacturers of pulp and paper. Mr. Littlefield. Any other paper companies? Mr. Edmonds. I think not. Mr. Littlefield. Were you a stockholder in all these companies? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. When were you the manager and treasurer of the Rhinelander Paper Co. — prior to 1908? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think I severed my connection with that company in July, 1907. Mr. Littlefield. Were you receiving a salary as manager and treasurer of the Rhinelander Paper Co. at that time? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, before you severed your connection there ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Subsequently to that did you receive a salary as an officer of any of these companies which you have mentioned ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. Mr. Littlefield. So that in 1908. while you were an officer of all these various companies, and a stockholder, and interested in their business, you were receiving no salary from any of them ? Mr. Edmonds. After I severed my connection in Rhinelander I was not. Mr. Littlefield. And of course you were under no obligation to render any special service to them? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were you receiving salaries from any other busi- ness organizations? Mr. Edmonds. No salaries whatever. Mr. Littlefield. Did Senator Stephenson know what your busi- ness condition was with reference to your obligations at the time you had this conversation with him, when you met him for the purpose of discussing the candidacy of Mr. Minor and Mr. Kuestermann ? I refer now to the conversation when you stated as you left that if you could be of any service to him, you asked him to let you know. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I had a talk with him at that time. We visited, perhaps, two or three hours that evening, when I was at Marinette, and I remember telling him that this particular summer I expected to have the best time I had ever had, because it was the first summer I had been my own boss— that is, not being in a salaried position — and I remember going into it in some detail as to what I proposed to do, and the kind of a time I expected to have. Mr. Littlefield. Were you at that time in receipt of a reasonably respectable income from your various investments? Mr. Edmonds. My family never complained of being hungry. E. A. EDMONDS. 117 Mr. Littlefield. So that that was your practical business con- dition when you took charge of this campaign for the Senator with- out any expectation of compensation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And without receiving any compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. I never received any. Mr. Littlefield. You had been elected a member of the legislature in 1892, I think you said? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Subsequent to that did you take any part in an}-* political campaigns so as to familiarize yourself with the methods of campaigning. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. To some extent? Mr. Edmonds. In Oconto County. Mr. Littlefield. In what campaigns? Mr. Edmonds. In the campaign of 1900 and in 1902. for Senator La Follette. Mr. Littlefield. What were you doing in those campaigns— pro- curing the election of delegates to the State convention favorable to the Senator? The Cpiairman. What is the purpose of this? Mr. Littlefield. I simply want to show his knowledge of general campaigning, and then later to follow it up. I am not going to pursue it. Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the question now. (The question was read bv the reporter as follows:) What were you doing in those campaigns — procuring the election of delegatee to the State convention favorable to the Senator? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. At that time we had a delegate or convention system — getting delegates. Mr. Littlefield. The only purpose of the inquiry is this: Did you have the local charge of the campaign for the election of the dele- gates? Mr. Edmonds. Both years; yes; in the county. Mr. Littlefield. Did you do whatever organizing was done for the purpose of reaching that result in the county in those two years? Mr. Edmonds. Yfcs. Mr. Littlefield. Having conducted this campaign for Senator Stephenson in the primary of 1908. you have stated that you were elected chairman of the State central committee. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Do we understand by that that that is the State central committee representing the Republican party in Wisconsin ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And as such chairman of the State central com- mittee, did you have charge of the State election? Mr. Edmonds. I did. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the general election? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. At which all of the various candidates that had been nominated at the primary were up for election? 118 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state what the char- acter of the Republican organization was that you found, for the pur- pose of getting out the vote at the general election, in the fall of 1908? First, how many election precincts are there in the State? Mr. Edmonds. Twenty-two hundred precincts, approximately. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the Republican Party, as a part of its regular organization at that time, in 1908, when you took charge as chairman, had a committee in each of these election pre- cincts ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And of how many did that committee consist? Mr. Edmonds. Three in each precinct. Mr. Littlefield. So that, as a groundwork of the Republican or- ganization, you had 6,600 committeemen? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Was there a county organization? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Superimposed upon that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. How many counties — 71? Mr. Edmonds. Seventy-one. Mr. Littlefield. Of what did the county committees consist? Mr. Edmonds. A member from each precinct and a chairman and secretary. Mr. Littlefield. So that there were 2,200 members of the county committees ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And in addition to that 142 members, consisting of a chairman and secretary for each county? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Of how many did your State central committee consist ? Mr. Edmonds. Two from each congressional district, of which there are 11, besides the chairman and the secretary. That makes 24. Mr. Littlefield. That makes an aggregate of 8,966 Republicans who were a part of the regular party organization, whose only and sole purpose was to get out the vote at the general election in 1908. Am I correct about that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And this small army of gentlemen connected with the organization had, in addition in the general election campaign, the assistance of all the local candidates to aid them in getting out the full Republican vote, did they not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I understood you to say yesterday that it was very much easier to get out the vote at the general election, with the expenditure of — what was the amount? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is less than $20,000. I think about $17,000. Mr. Littlefield. About $17,000 that was expended in the general campaign in connection with this organization of nearly 9,000 Re- publicans? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. E. A. EDMONDS. 119 Mr. Littlefield. Am I right about that? Mr. Edmonds. You are. Mr. Littlefield. I understood you to say it was very much easier to get out the vote at the general election than it was to get out the vote over that same territory with the expenditure of the money you had to make in Senator Stephenson’s campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I think that statement is true. That is, that campaign was much more satisfactorily and easily run than the former one, and getting out the vote, of course, is the primary object. Mr. Littlefield. Are you familiar with the general methods of organization and as to how the details are worked out in the cam- paign, taking into account your experience both in connection with your campaigns for these various conventions and as chairman of your State central committee? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that my knowledge compared favorably with that of my opponents. We always won. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it is the rule and necessary in conducting a campaign with this great organization to employ men who are hired, with conveyances, in the various sections of the State for the purpose of getting out to the polls a percentage of people who otherwise would not get out. Mr. Edmonds. You ask is that customary? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. It is. Mr. Littlefield. Has it been so for years? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And state whether or not it is customary with this organization to have watchers at the polls for the purpose of ascertaining and keeping tab upon the people who have voted and ascertaining how many have not voted, so that they can, if necessary, send out and bring them in with their conveyances and teams. Mr. Edmonds. It has always been customary, I think, in the State. Mr. Littlefield. With your experience as Mr. Stephenson’s man- ager I would like to ask you how much you think it would cost to create in his interest as a candidate in this primary election an equally efficient and capable organization for the only purpose of getting out the vote as the Republican Party had done in that general election. Mr. Edmonds. It would have been absolutely impossible to do it in the short time that we had. Mr. Littlefield. What, in your judgment, would it have cost? I am assuming that the Republican Party had the State thoroughly organized, from the precincts up, in the control of these 8,966 people. What, in your judgment, would it have cost for the legitimate ex- penditure of creating and operating a sufficient organization to have covered the whole 2,200 precincts, in order to assure yourself with reasonable certainty that Senator Stephenson’s friends were gotten out on the primary-election day and voted for him ? Senator Pomerene. Do you mean in a fight against us Democrats, or Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no; this was amongst the Republicans. I want the committee to bear in mind that there were three other Re- publican candidates. I am sorry to say that the Senator’s friends are to a certain extent a negligible quantity here. 120 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Pomerene. About the same as in the State of Maine ? Mr. Littlefield. Well, I do not know. I am afraid they pre- ponderate more in the State of Maine than they do here, taking into account recent events. I understood you to say, Mr. Edmonds, it would be impossible to create so efficient and capable an organization as would be necessary to get the ultimate best results. State in your judgment what it would have cost to create an organization, State-wide, covering as the Republican organization, every precinct in the State, for the purpose of getting out to the polls every man friendly to Senator Stephenson, who would vote for him at the primary, with legitimate expenditure. Mr. Edmonds. It is difficult to make a determination. I think I could get at it better by taking Oconto County, which was the only county that I ever organized. I would say to get out an efficient organization — and by “ efficient ” means a complete organization of the precincts Mr. Littlefield. That is what I mean. Mr. Edmonds. In each precinct we would have a list of voters and then have those voters checked up and determine whether they were for Senator Stephenson t r the other candidates. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly; canvassed. Mr. Edmonds. That work thoroughly done, worked out in each precinct for Oconto County in the way we would have to go into it, because we had no foundation as we had in the general election, would have cost $2,500 to $3,000. Mr. Littlefield. You mean in that county 1 Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I know nothing about the county. Is it large or small? How many precincts are there in it? Mr. Edmonds. It is one of the northern counties. I think there are 19 precincts. Senator Pomerene. How many voters? Mr. Edmonds. About 4,000. Senator Sutherland. What would that cost in the entire State? Mr. Edmonds. Well, that is hardty an average sized county. There are 71 counties in the State. Senator Sutherland. Twenty-five hundred dollars in each county? Mr. Edmonds. I should say in order to get such an effective and complete organization as we would want, to determine definitely how the result would come out, that $2,500 a county, average, would be small. Senator Sutherland. That would be pretty close to $200,000? Mr. Edmonds. How much? Senator Sutherland. Nearly $200,000. At $2,000 it would be $142,000. It would be between $170,000 and $180,000. Mr. Edmonds. Of course I have no means of knowing what the necessary expenses would be in a county like this. Mr. Littlefield. Milwaukee is a very much larger county than any other. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean to say that would be the minimum expenditure? This county you speak of is not an average E. A. EDMONDS. 121 county; it is smaller than the average. So on the average it would cost more rather than less. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And the minimum expenditure for that effective sort of organization would be between $170,000 and $180,000? Mr. Edmonds. I think without any question. Senator Sutherland. Would you consider such an oraginzation as that necessary in order to get out the vote ? Mr. Littlefield. The full vote. Mr. Edmonds. In order to get out all the voters friendly to your candidate, that is the kind of organization that would be necessary. Senator Sutherland. If that is a necessary thing under the direct primary system, what becomes of the man who has not $170,000 or $180,000? Mr. Edmonds. He had better keep out of politics. Senator Sutherland. Then simply the man who has that much money ought to go in and everybody else ought to stay out. The Chairman. That is about $5 a vote, as I calculate it, for the entire county — as I understand your figures. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no; the vote was something like 4,000. The Chairman. What is the vote in that county ? Mr. Edmonds. About 4,000. The Chairman. And it would cost $2,500 or $3,000 to get them out? Mr. Edmonds. $2,500 to $3,000. That includes getting the complete organization, such as we should have in a general election. The Chairman. What proportion of people were engaged in get- ting the others out in that county? Were half of them engaged in getting the other half out? Mr. Edmonds. Possibly my reply to your question is not clear or satisfactory. . The Chairman. It is satisfactory. Mr. Edmonds. What I intended to say was that it would cost $2,500 to get a complete organization in Oconto County such as would enable us to determine and get out the full vote on election day. That does not necessarily mean it takes $2,500 to get the vote out on that particular day, but to get such an organization as will enable us to get out the vote. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask the witness a question right here as to whether or not that estimate includes all of the expenses of the cam- paign, literature, advertising, and everything of that sort? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; it does not. The Chairman. What portion of the voters were engaged in get- ting the others out? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, I do not know. The Chairman. Did anybody go out voluntarily under the direct primary and vote, or was it necessary that somebody should do some- thing to bring the other men out ? Mr. Edmonds. If there was not a lot of dragging out on the 1st of September, there would not be a big vote — a very small vote. The Chairman. It has been generally understood that it was be- cause of the overpowering desire of the people to vote and the condi- tions that prevented them from voting that it was necessary to have a direct primary. 122 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I will venture to say that if on the first day of Sep- tember — the primary election day — after these four candidates had been spending months in a campaign to secure their election, I were to walk down the street here for two blocks and accost every man whom I met, every other man would not even know that it was elec- tion day, nor care as to who was elected. The Chairman. Can we be mistaken in the supposition that the people are clamoring for an opportunity to vote on these occasions? Mr. Littlefield. The chairman means at the direct primary? The Chairman. At the primary. Mr. Edmonds. They do not seem to be clamoring. It is a very diffi- cult matter to get them out. The Chairman. The only people who were clamoring were those being paid for getting somebody else to get out the vote, were they? Mr. Edmonds. Well, some of them. Senator Sutherland. How would you get along if you had a few more elections here, and had the initiative and referendum? Would you get people out to vote at all ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know, Senator. I have wondered some- times if what we call hard times here in Wisconsin have not come about by reason of the large amounts of money that have been ex- pended in these primary election campaigns. Senator Sutherland. If you had, in addition to the direct pri- maries, initiative and recall elections scattered along through here, would you be able to get anybody at all out to vote? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think anybody at all. Senator Pomerene. I think I should rather run for Senator in Ohio than in Wisconsin. The Chairman. Is not a campaign here rather a means of distribut- ing the wealth of the rich among the poor? Mr. Edmonds. I presume that is one of the benefits to be derived from any large expenditure of money. The Chairman. You had TO men, I understand, in your organiza- tion industriously engaged in distributing money among the common people throughout the campaign. Mr. Edmonds. I should say there were probably that many. The Chairman. Did you see any general benefit indicated in the general prosperity of the communities where it was distributed? Mr. Edmonds. I was very busy, and I did not have the opportunity to get around to notice those benefits. Mr. Littlefield. How many men did you have at work in what you call organizing, as contradistinguished from this organization consisting of nearly 9,000 people? How many men did you have at work, both under pay and who were at work on account of their in- terest in the campaign for Senator Stephenson? Just give the approximate number. Mr. Edmonds. We did not have 9,000 people. Mr. Littlefield. I know you did not, but how many did you have at work for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know how many men may have been em- ployed by the county managers Mr. Littlefield. I understand that, but how many Mr. Edmonds. From our office, I should say 100 to 125, E. A. EDMONDS. 123 Mr. Littlefield. Of course, it is quite impossible to tell, even with this rather large Republican organization, how many men they indi- vidually employ, in terms. Mr. Edmonds. It is. Mr. Littlefield. It is a great many in every campaign, is it not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you understand, I suppose, properly so? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. When the campaign was begun for Senator Stephenson three other candidates were already in the field — Mr. Hatton, Mr. Cook, and Mr. McGovern — were they not? Am I right about that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state to the com- mittee whether or not when you came to send out your correspond- ence to men who were expected naturally to support Senator Stephen- son you found that quite a large number of these men had already pledged themselves to candidates who were already in the field ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; there were. Mr. Littlefield. Could you make an approximate estimate of how many of Senator Stephenson’s friends were thus pledged to the other candidates? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I could not. Mr. Littlefield. That is, whether it ran up to 100 or 200 or 300. Mr. Edmonds. Probably very much in excess of that number. Mr. Littlefield. Were they men who otherwise would have been expected to have aided Senator Stephenson without compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; in some instances. Mr. Littlefield. And the fact that friends of his who had been previously pledged to the other candidates were not at liberty to support the Senator necessarily involved the expenditure of more money in organizing this campaign than would otherwise have been required, did it not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should say so. There were in addition to the men who had pledged themselves to the candidacy of other men, certain individuals with whom I talked who were undecided as to whom they would support. I have in mind now one man with whom I talked. I asked him as to the candidacy of these different men for United States Senator, and he said he did not know whom he was going to support, and I urged the candidacy of Senator Stephenson, and he said he was not ready to say then that he would support the Senator, that he had alwaj^s been a pretty good half-breed, and that he would have to learn from Senator La Follette who he wanted the half-breeds to support before he would announce who was his can- didate or say who he would support. Senator Pomerene. What is a half-breed? Mr. Edmonds. Half-breeds as designated or named in this State are the people who are not regular and who are aligned with La Follette. When I say “ regular ” I might say that that is wrongly stated. They are regular. They are regular with Senator La Fol- lette. They follow him all the time, because if they do not follow him he does not have anything more to do with them, and they are no longer half-breeds. So a half-breed in Wisconsin is a La Fol- 124 E. A. EDMONDS. lette man all the time until he does something to incur the dis- pleasure of Senator La Follette; then he is off the list. Mr. Littlefield. Just a few questions more in relation to the campaign and the condition when you took charge. I suppose we all know that it is practically impossible to get at anything definite in connection with a campaign without a list of the voters who are to participate in it later on. Did you, as the representative of Senator Stephenson, have any poll list for use? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were you able to get any poll list that gave you any definite information, either as to the whole number of voters or of Republican voters in the various precincts? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think we had a poll list of any precinct in this State, unless it may have been here in Milwaukee County, where the campaign was conducted Mr. Littlefield. Did you carry your organization far enough so that you had a detailed canvass of any precinct ? Mr. Edmonds. Not one. Mr. Littlefield. For the purpose first of ascertaining not only the Republican voters and who they were, but next the proportion of those voters who would support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You were not able to carry your organization into that detail? Mr. Edmonds. We neither had the time nor the funds to go into details in that way. Mr. Littlefield. In connection with your literary bureau, what did you do for the purpose of getting addresses to which to send your campaign literature? Mr. Edmonds. We got from the county managers lists of names of people to whom they deemed it advisable to send literature. Mr. Littlefield. That is, after you arranged with the county man- agers, they would send you in such lists as they were able to make up from their general observation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. When we started we had nothing. Mr. Littlefield. You had some mailing lists, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. We had the mailing lists of two newspapers, I be- lieve. Mr. Littlefield. *They were simply the names of people who were subscribers to the newspapers, were they not ? Mr. Edmonds. They might have been Democrats or they might have been Socialists. Mr. Littlefield. But the lists were not political in their character, were they? From that basis you had to begin from the ground floor and work your organization up, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How many different kinds of literature did you use in the campaign, roughly speaking? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps a dozen. Mr. Littlefield. A dozen different kinds? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And they consisted of the platform upon which Senator Stephenson was running, among other things, did they not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. E. A. EDMONDS. 125 Mr. Littlefield. And pamphlets Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; we got out personal letters as much as possible. Mr. Littlefield. And then you would duplicate the letters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How many times did you undertake to circularize the people whose addresses you were able to get under all these cir- cumstances ? Mr. Edmonds. We endeavored to do so twice. Mr. Littlefield. Have you stated how many voters there are in the State of Wisconsin, or how many voted in the last election? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I have. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember? Mr. Edmonds. It was within a thousand votes of 450,000. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any money used in this campaign, Mr. Edmonds, to your knowledge, corruptly or improperly? Mr. Edmonds. Not one dollar that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money used, to your knowledge, for the purpose of bribing any voter to support Senator Stephenson in the primary ? Mr. Edmonds. Not one cent. Mr. Littlefield. Or for the purpose of inducing any member of the legislature to support Senator Stephenson in the legislature? Mr. Edmonds. Not one cent that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. Did’ any information from any reliable source ever come to you that any money had been used for a corrupt pur- pose ? Mr. Edmonds. Not any source that I considered reliable; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, I am excluding now the general charges in the campaign. Mr. Edmonds. Of course, there were charges by the opposition, and so forth. Mr. Littlefield. But what I am inquiring about is whether any information was brought home to you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Any information that in any way you would recognize as substantial? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Indicating that any money that had been con- tributed by Senator Stephenson and used by any of his lieutenants had been used corruptly for the purpose of bribing any voter to vote? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not think of any instance. Senator Pomerene. When were the charges of corruption first made through the press, or generally made? Mr. Edmonds. I think it was January 26 that the charges were made by this man — as a matter of general talk. Senator Pomerene. I do not care about that. Mr. Littlefield. Newspaper comments. Senator Pomerene. Newspaper comments throughout the State. When was that comment first begun? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think until that time. I never heard of any. This primary election was supposed to determine the result of the election by the legislature. We, in our campaign, made no effort to secure the election of any member of the legislature, because in 126 E. A. EDMONDS. practically every instance in the State the Republican candidates, no matter how many there might be, had stated usually in the news- papers over their own signatures that they would support the pri- mary nominee, so we did not care. Mr. Littlefield. If the Senator will pardon me, I do not think the witness got the significance of }mur question. I understood the Senator to inquire as to when you first learned or first saw that any of the newspapers on the part of the opposition or otherwise, as the case may be, first made any charges of corruption in the campaign. Senator Pomerene. My question was not when he first heard it, but if he knows when this comment was generally made, et cetera. Mr. Littlefield. What about that? Mr. Edmonds. I think not until this man made these charges before the legislature. I think that brought it out, and the comments were made on those charges and nothing else. Senator Sutherland. Who was it that made those charges? Mr. Littlefield. Senator Blaine. Mr. Edmonds. I should like to call the attention of the committee, if I may be permitted, to the fact that this man made the charges on information and belief, as he said, and then when called before the committee to testify he pleaded leave not to testify because he was a member of the Senate, and he refused absolutely to name the, charges and specify what they might be. Mr. Littlefield. You mean, to give the sources of his information ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Is that Senator Blaine to whom you are re- ferring ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. My attention has just been called to a statement, relating to the matter of telephoning to the bank, to which I want to call your attention. The transcript of the proceedings of yesterday came to my room this morning about 9 o’clock. I should say, rather, that I got to my room about 9 o’clock and found it there; I do not know when it came. Mr. Edmonds, have you had an opportunity to read through your examination of yesterday? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I have not seen it. Mr. Littlefield. If it is agreeable to the subcommittee, I will ask Mr. Edmonds, as there is a great deal of detail involved in this, to read his testimony through carefully, to see if everything is as he de- sires to have it remain, or if there are any changes in it he desires to make. Senator Pomerene. If he w T ants to make any correction I take it there will be no objection. Mr. Littlefield. I will call Mr. Edmonds’ attention to one matter right here that has been called to my notice, and then I should like to have the witness read this and see if he has any change to make by way of qualification. The question I refer to is as follows. It is on page 230 of the type- written record of yesterday : The Chairman. And the banker would pay, on your telephone, to a man? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. That is one of your answers when you spoke about telephoning to the bank. You say “ most assuredly.” Now, what is the fact about that? What was the transaction, or what were the transactions? E. A. EDMONDS. 127 Mr. Edmonds. As I understood the question it was, would the cus- todian of the fund pay on my telephone communication. I stated that he would. I think he would. I think he did. Mr. Littlefield. And the man to whom you refer is Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is to say, there would be instances when he would pay on your order over the telephone ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Instead of having the formal written order? Mr. Edmonds. I think in any case where Mr. Sacket might be out, and the handling of those funds or the getting of the amount that I had agreed upon with the county organizers would be delayed, that if I telephoned to Mr. Puelicher he would allow the funds to be paid over on my telephone order, because he would recognize my voice. I do not think there is any question about that. Mr. Littlefield. Was it your practice to accompany the order from you by written orders or vouchers? Mr. Edmonds. Not from me, but from Mr. Sacket. Mr. Littlefield. With reference to the gentlemen whom you em- ployed, I think you have already stated the fact, but I should like to have it appear clearly in the record. I understand you to say that you did not employ anybody as a manager or as a local representative that was not a man who was familiar with not only local conditions, but who had also had experience in political campaigns. Am I right about that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you believed them to be men of such character and integritv as could be properly and safely in- trusted with the expenditure of money placed in their hands? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly believed them to be so, or I would not have let them have any money. Mr. Littlefield. Where a man came in who was a stranger to you, did you make an effort to acquaint yourself with his charac- teristics and his reputation before engaging him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I had men who were associating with me and friendly to Senator Stephenson’s candidacy who were very well posted in politics — had large acquaintance in the State. I con- sulted with them in any instance where I wasn’t certain. Mr. Littlefield. So that I understand it to be a fact that when a man came to you who was a stranger to you, before you made any engagements with him, you satisfied yourself by an investigation and a conference with people that you did know and upon whom you could rely that he was a proper man to intrust with the work in question. Mr. Edmonds. I certainly did. Mr. Littlefield. That is all, I think. The Chairman. That is all, you are excused. Mr. Edmonds. Does this excuse me from further attendance? Senator Pomerene. I want you to get the information about which I asked you. The Chairman. No witness will be excused from attendance ex- cept upon a special announcement. 128 J. H. PUELICHER. Mr. Littlefield. I beg your pardon, Senator. The Chairman. No witness will be excused from attendance, even though he may have been called to testify, except by special an- nouncement. Senator Sutherland. I suppose if Mr. Edmonds desires to go home he can return? The Chairman. Yes. If you desire to be excused, just state it. Mr. Edmonds. I would like to be excused, if I may, until not earlier than the 13th. I have an appointment in New York City that it is very important I keep. The Chairman. The witness is excused until October 13. Senator Pomerene. When will you get this information that I asked for? Mr. Edmonds. I can give you that this afternoon. Senator Pomerene. All right. Mr. Littlefield. You are going to give this detail asked for by Senator Pomerene before you go? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I will get that. TESTIMONY OF J. H. PUELICHER. J. H. Puelicher, having been previously sworn, was examined, and testified as follows: The Chairman. State your residence. Mr. Puelicher. Milwaukee. The Chairman. What is your occupation? Mr. Puelicher. Cashier of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. How long have you resided in Milwaukee? Mr. Puelicher. I was born in Milwaukee. The Chairman. How long have you been cashier of the bank re- ferred to? Mr. Puelicher. Four or five years. The Chairman. You are the Mr. Puelicher referred to in the tes- timony just given by Mr. Edmonds as having been cashier of the Stephenson campaign fund, are you? Mr. Puelicher. Custodian of the Stephenson campaign fund? The Chairman. Custodian? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How did you become custodian of that fund? Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Stephenson, a depositor of the bank and having funds in the bank, asked me to become custodian of a certain fund which he wished to disburse in this campaign to meet the expenses of the primary campaign. The Chairman. Were you such custodian independently of your connection with the bank? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were not representing the bank in any of the transactions with reference to this fund? Mr. Puelicher. I am not. The Chairman. You were not? Mr. Puelicher. I was not. The Chairman. How much money did you receive as custodian of the Stephenson campaign fund; and, if you have a memorandum, when did you receive the amounts, and from whom ? J. H. PUELICHER. 129 Mr. Puelicher. I received from Isaac Stephenson, account of senatorial primary campaign, checks as follows [referring to memo- randum] : On June 28, check on the Stephenson National Bank of Marienette, through J. A. Van Cleve, for $2,000. The Chairman. Now, just before proceeding, inasmuch as your items are all similar: You say “through J. A. Van Cleve.” Was that check accompanied by a letter or written communication? Mr. Puelicher. I believe that check was handed to me. The Chairman. Proceed. Senator Pomerene. By Senator Stephenson, I presume? The Chairman. By Van Cleve. Mr. Puelicher. I don’t remember that. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman wants to follow along the printed book, it is page 37. Mr. Puelicher. July 6, on Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, payable to J. A. Van Cleve, $10,000; on July 30, on Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, payable to me, $10,000; August 7, on Mar- shall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, payable to me, $30,000; on August 20, check on the Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, payable to J. A. Van Cleve, $15,000; on August 24, on the Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, payable to J. A. Van Cleve, $10,000; on August 27, check on the Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, payable to Rodney Sacket, $5,000; on August 31, check on the Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, payable to J. A. Van Cleve, $2,000; on September 3, check on the Corn Exchange National Bank of Chicago, payable to J. A. Van Cleve, $13,500; on October 10. check on the Stephenson National Bank, Marinette, payable to me, $3,700; on November 20, check on the Stephenson National Bank. Marinette, payable to me, $200. Total, $101,400. The Chairman. Did you have any other funds deposited with you than the sums just named? Mr. Puelicher. To be used in the primary campaign fund ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Puelicher. None. The Chairman. Can you explain with reference to an item of $50,000, testified to by Senator Stephenson as a fund that was the result of the collection made in his behalf? Mr. Puelicher. Senator Stephenson had no check account with the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. We occasionally made investments for him. This $50,000 remained in the hands of the bank as the result of the payment of an investment and the amount had not been re- invested and was, therefore, being held in the bank for further orders from Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Was it subject to his check? The Chairman. Did he draw against that fund during the cam- paign ? Mr. Puelicher. He exhausted the fund during the campaign. The Chairman. Is it the identical fund that is represented by these other deposits? Did he draw the checks to Van Cleve and others against that fund and redeposit them? Mr. Puelicher. The three checks drawn on the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, two of them amounting to $10,000 each and one of them $30,000 exhausted that fund, and they are the checks mentioned here. 15235 °— vol 3—11 9 130 J. H. PUELICHER. The Chairman. So that there is no additional fund represented by the $50,000? Mr. Puelicher. There was no additional fund. Senator Pomerene. Those three checks were the ones of July 6. J uly 30, and August 30, were they ? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You paid out this money that is represented by the deposits that you referred to ; upon what did you pay it out ? Mr. Puelicher. Upon the order of the campaign manager and the office manager, as directed by Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was any of it paid out without written au- thority ? Mr. Puelicher. None. The Chairman. Have you the evidence upon which you acted in paying it out ? Mr. Puelicher. These orders were turned back to the office man- ager, against his receipt, to enable him to make up his statement. The Chairman. That is, to Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher. To Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. Were those orders uniform in manner or style? Mr. Puelicher. They were not. The Chairman. Were they on printed forms? Mr. Puelicher. They were not. The Chairman. Did you pay out any of this money upon verbal or telephonic information? Mr. Puelicher. Only in one instance, and immediately asked for a requisition to cover the instance. The Chairman. You paid it out on requisition in writing, in all cases ? Mr. Puelicher. In all cases. The Chairman. Did you exercise any supervision as to the use for which this money was being paid out ? Mr. Littlefield. Let me inquire here, you mean in all cases except this one? The Chairman. He says that was represented by a requisition. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; represented by a requisition later. Mr. Puelicher. Immediately after the payment was made. The Chairman. So that there is a voucher for each item? Mr. Puelicher. There was. The Chairman. Did you exercise any supervision or have any knowledge in regard to the use to which the money was to be put which you paid out ? Mr. Puelicher. No, sir. I acted simply as banker. The Chairman. Were you in consultation with Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Sacket with reference to the manner in which the money was to be expended or used ? Mr. Puelicher. They only consulted me when they needed money. The Chairman. Was there any time when the fund was exhausted? Mr. Puelicher. There were times when the fund was very low and practically exhausted. The Chairman. You had an arrangement, I suppose, with Mr. Stephenson that you were to perform these services ? Mr. Puelicher. I was acting under direction from Senator Ste- phenson. J. H. PUELICHER. 131 The Chairman. Did you undertake your duties or enter upon them before Mr. Edmonds entered upon the duties of manager ? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were already managing some funds for Mr. Stephenson in the campaign? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. The Chairman. During that time, prior to Mr. Edmonds taking hold of the matter, did you pay out any money on account of the campaign ? Mr. Puelicher. On the order of the office manager. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket? Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. That is all. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Puelicher, when this $50,000 was collected by your bank, did Senator Stephenson have any evidence of it, by way of a certificate of deposit or pass book or something of that kind ? Mr. Puelicher. That was evidenced by a cashier’s check, and Sen- ator Stephenson was advised of the fact that the amount had been collected and that we were holding at his disposal, in the form of a cashier’s check, the sum of $50,000, we expecting shortly to reinvest it for him and we having carried sums for Senator Stephenson in that manner. Senator Pomerene. You mean by that that you held it and did not send the certificate to him ? Mr. Puelicher. We advised him by letter that we held the cer- tificate. Senator Pomerene. But you did not send it to him? Mr. Puelicher. We did not send it to him, as we expected to reinvest it. Senator Pomerene. When these several payments were made, two payments of $10,000 each and one of $30,000, did he draw a check on that account? Mr. Puelicher. Yes; and the bank considered it an order on that sum, although he was not authorized to check on the sum, and some officer of the bank advised him in writing that the sum which we held on his account was reduced by the amount which he had ordered out of the account. Senator Pomerene. That is, as a check would be drawn he would be advised that that was charged on that certificate. Mr. Puelicher. A new certificate, in that instance, would be issued, minus the amount which he had ordered out of that account. Senator Pomerene. When did he first talk with you about your acting as banker or treasurer of his funds ? Mr. Puelicher. Late in June of 1908. Senator Pomerene. What was said between you? Mr. Puelicher. He said to me that he had an amount in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, namely, $50,000, a part or all of which he might want to use in his primary campaign, and asked me to dis- burse it on the order of his managers, which I did. Senator Pomerene. Did he name the managers then? Mr. Puelicher. At that time the general manager had not been selected, but the office manager had been appointed, and later on the general manager was selected and I was instructed 132 J. H. PUELICHER. Senator Pomerene. Who was this office manager? Mr. Puelicher. Rodney Sacket. Senator Pomerene. Did you pay out this money on Sachet’s order or Mr. Edmonds’s order? Mr. Puelicher. Either on the order of Mr. Sacket or Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. On the order of either one of them. Mr. Puelicher. On either. Those were my instructions. I was to pay out this money on the order either of Senator Stephenson, Mr. Sacket, the office manager, or the general manager. Senator Pomerene. Did he give you any instructions as to the method of account that you were to keep? Mr. Puelicher. He did not. Senator Pomerene. Was anything said to you about cautioning you against illegal expenditures of money? Mr. Puelicher. I was not concerned in the purposes of the fund. Senator Pomerene. No; that is not answering the question. Was anything said on the subject? Mr. Puelicher. Nothing; so, sir. Senator Pomerene. You kept no book account of your transactions for Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Puelicher. I kept an absolute record. Senator Pomerene. In what form? Mr. Puelicher. As I received the deposits, in a memorandum form, which I furnished Senator Stephenson later; the checks were also there, and held the requisitions or the orders on me as evidence of the amount which I had disbursed. Senator Pomerene. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Did you have any account in your bank books with Mr. Stephenson rela- tive to this matter? Mr. Puelicher. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. This memorandum or account which you may have kept was an individual matter of your own? Mr. Puelicher. An individual matter of my own ; yes. Senator Pomerene. Have you that original memorandum or ac- count ? Mr. Puelicher. I have only the final receipt. I held the orders until the account was made up. I checked back with the office man- ager carefully every amount which I had turned over to him, bal- anced my account with his account, took his receipt for the total which I had disbursed, and surrendered the orders to him. Senator Pomerene. Then all of the original memoranda you had you surrendered at the time that he gave you this receipt ? Mr. Puelicher. Except that there are in the bank to-day, in the records of the bank, the original orders for cashier’s checks or drafts with which the managers paid the expenses of this campaign; there are the stub books giving the numbers, amounts, payees, and dates; there are the register records of these, drafts and cashier’s checks which the managers used; there are the drafts and cashier’s checks themselves, giving the date, number, amount, payee, and all the indorsements. Senator Pomerene. Those w 7 ould be subject to inspection by the subcommittee at any time they may desire? J. H. PUELICHER. 133 Mr. Puelicher. Absolutely. Senator Pomerene. You said, I believe, there was no general form of receipt or voucher which would be given to you at the time you disbursed these funds. Were these receipts, or vouchers, or orders, whatever you may call them, numbered ? Mr. Puelicher. They were not. They were dated. Senator Pomerene. In the account that was filed here I notice in very many of the items there are numbers; for instance, on page 590: “ Waupaca Co., 33437, R. Rowe, $35.25; general, No. 33436, C. C. Wayland ; ” next number, “ 33435 ; ” next number, “ 33434.” Do you know what those numbers mean ? Mr. Puelicher. I had no personal knowledge of those numbers while the campaign was going on, but subsequently, during the inves- tigation by the legislative committee, I learned that those were the numbers of the cashier’s checks that were used in the payment of these items and are now on file in the bank. Those are the numbers of the cashier’s checks or drafts that were used and which are now on file in the bank. Senator Pomerene. Let me understand. Then if an order came to you — take this one, for illustration: “ 33436, C. C. Wayland, $49.18 ” — you would issue then, for the order, a cashier’s check bear- ing this number? Mr. Puelicher. No, sir. Those are the numbers of the cashier’s checks of the bank and follow consecutively or chronologically in the books of the bank. Those numbers were put in at a later date, from the records of the bank, at the request of the legislative com- mittee at Madison, and that number will call for the number of draft or cashier’s check and will be found in the register of the bank under that number and date. Senator Pomerene. Perhaps I do not quite understand it. T am trying to find out now — when Mr. Wayland, for instance, would- call, how would you pay; or, if somebody else would call with an order for that amount, how would you pay him ; would you give the bearer of that order a cashier’s check or the currency, or what? Mr. Puelicher. Ordinarily the office manager called, or some one employed by him, to purchase, to the order of the person designated, a cashier’s check. He would go to the Senator Pomerene. Suppose he did that; that would bear one of these numbers, would it? Mr. Puelicher. One of those numbers. He would go to the pay- ing teller of the bank. I should like to state that my duties in the campaign were merely incidental. I continued my employment in the bank during the whole period and was gone on a vacation a portion of the time and they were conducted by the regular employees of the bank. Senator Pomerene. What was the reason for not opening up an account with Senator Stephenson in your bank, as you would with any other customer of the bank ? Mr. Puelicher. Senator Stephenson never requested it. AYe had these amounts from him for investment, at various times, and every time the investment was paid up we turned it into cashier’s check, awaiting further orders, and would then have the instrument on hand to make the investment immediately. 134 J. H. PUELICHER. Senator Pomerene. But, Mr. Puelicher, you were advised early, perhaps in the latter part of June or the early part of July, that here was a matter of $50,000 that he was going to expend in cam- paign purposes, etc., as might be directed by his manager, and later on you received additional amounts, etc.; was it not rather unusual to manage this account in the way that you did? Mr. Puelicher. I continued the account just as it had been run with Senator Stephenson before. He made no request Senator Pomerene. Did you ever do that with any other cus- tomer ? Mr. Puelicher. We frequently carried funds in cashier’s checks in that manner ; yes. Senator Pomerene. What was the purpose of doing that with Mr. Stephenson ? I do not care about the others. What was the purpose of handling this fund in this particular way ? Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Stephenson did not request that an account be opened, nor did he authorize an account opened, so I continued it just as it had been done before, thinking that an efficient way of handling it as far as I was concerned. Senator Pomerene. That was not a careful method of doing things, was it? # Mr. Puelicher. I had requisitions for everything I paid out and kept the requisitions until I had receipts in full and until I saw the statement made. Senator Pomerene. These funds were kept in the bank, were they not? Mr. Puelicher. They were in charge of some of the officers of the bank or the paying teller of the bank. Senator Pomerene. When you collected this $50,000 you issued a cashier’s check to the order of Senator Stephenson for that amount? Mr. Puelicher. No, sir. To the order of the bank. I beg pardon. Senator Pomerene. To the order of the bank ? Mr. Puelicher. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Would it not have been a simpler way to have opened up an account there, subject to some man’s check, or two or three men’s checks, as the exigencies of the case might have required, than to have done it the way you did ? Mr. Puelicher. I don’t know. This was the manner in which it was done and it was simply a continuation of the manner in which it had been done before. I don’t think much thought was given to it at any time. Senator Pomerene. Does it not impress you now as being rather out of the ordinary to do it in that kind of way ? Mr. Puelicher. No, sir. I rather think that the method adopted by the managers in buying cashier’s checks for the payment of their expenses, which would leave permanent records in the bank, was rather a good way of handling it. Senator Pomerene. I do not ask for names now — do not care to know anything about them — but is the bank conducting the business of any of its depositors or customers in that way now ? Mr. Puelicher. We are not frequently called upon and did not know how much we would be called upon to handle when we first started this J. H. PUELICHER. 135 Senator Pomerene. Have you conducted the business of any cus- tomer of the bank in this way since the occurrences of 1908 and 1909? Mr. Puelicher. We frequently hold funds for people in the shape of cashier’s checks subject to their order. Senator Pomerene. That does not answer my question. Have you done that with reference to any other customer since this transaction of Senator Stephenson’s? Mr. Puelicher. We have had no transactions of that magnitude since that time. Senator Pomerene. Have you had any of that character since that time ? Mr. Puelicher. As I said, we frequently hold funds in cashier’s checks for the disposition of the customers of the bank. Senator Pomerene. That still does not answer my question, Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Puelicher. I don’t seem to comprehend Senator Pomerene. Have you conducted the business of any cus- tomer of the bank since this affair of Senator Stephenson in the same style or manner that you conducted Senator Stephenson’s trans- actions? Mr. Puelicher. No occasion of like nature has arisen since Sena- tor Stephenson’s transaction. Senator Pomerene. How long before that did any such occasion transpire? Mr. Puelicher. Never, to my knowledge, have we conducted any campaign through the bank. Senator Pomerene. Then it was out of the order, was it not? Mr. Puelicher. It was the only one I know about and seemed to me good at the time. Senator Pomerene. That is all. The Chairman. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. You stated, Mr. Puelicher, that you paid out these various checks as directed by Senator Stephenson; are we to understand by that that he gave you individual direction or that it was in accordance with the general direction that he gave you in the beginning? Mr. Puelicher. It was in accordance with the general direction which he gave me in the beginning. Mr. Littlefield. It did not apply to each individual transaction? Mr. Puelicher. Certainly not. Mr. Littlefield. You received in all, I notice by the account, something like $101,400, which was not all disbursed in connection with the campaign; will you be kind enough to state whether the balance that may have remained in your hands was paid over to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Puelicher. It was returned to Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. At the time of the final settlement? Mr. Puelicher. At the time of the final settlement. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the whole thing was completed. Mr. Puelicher. The whole thing was completed. Senator Pomerene. I do not catch that question. Mr. Littlefield. The sum of $101,400 does not appear to have all been disbursed in the campaign, leaving a balance in his hands. My 136 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. inquiry was whether at the time of the final settlement the balance was paid over bv him to Senator Stephenson. Mr. Piielicher. It was. Mr. Littlefield. What was the balance ? Mr. Puelicher. $3,316.28. Mr. Littlefield. And the amount expended was how much? Mr. Puelicher. $98,083.72; and it should balance with the state- ment of the office manager. Senator Pomerene. What was the date of that payment, Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Littlefield. That is, the settlement with the Senator? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Puelicher. The final settlement with the Senator was on March 6, 1909. Mr. Littlefield. That is all, Mr. Puelicher. Senator Pomerene. There is just one question I want to ask. You stated that when you made this settlement you turned over these vouchers and the original memoranda you had to some one, and I am not sure that you stated to whom. Mr. Puelicher. The office manager. s Senator Pomerene. That is, to Mr. Sacket? Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Sacket. Senator Pomerene. Personally? Mr. Puelicher. Personally. Senator Pomerene. When was that; do you know? Mr. Puelicher. I think some time in October or November. Senator Pomerene. Of 1908? Mr. Puelicher. Of 1908. The Chairman. The witness is excused. The sergeant at arms will call the names of H. J. Brown, S. L. Perrin, C. C. Wayland, and Henry Overbeck, who have been subpoenaed as witnesses. (The sergeant at arms called the names of the persons indicated, and H. J. Brown, C. C. Wayland, and Henry Overbeck responded and appeared and were sworn by the chairman, who directed them to remain in attendance until called to the witness stand.) The Chairman. The committee will take a recess until 2 o’clock. Whereupon, at 12.30 o’clock p. m., the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock. A1TER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. John A. Van Cleve, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. You have been sworn in this case. Will you slate your full name? Mr. Van Cleve. John A. Van Cleve. The Chairman. Where do you reside? Mr. Van Cleve. Marinette, Wis. The Chairman. What is your occupation? Mr. Van Cleve. 1 am in the real estate and banking business. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 137 The Chairman. How long have you resided at your present place of residence? Mr. Van Cleve. A little over 38 years. The Chairman. You had some connection with the campaign of Senator Stephenson in 1908, did you? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What connection did you have with that cam- paign ? Mr. Van Cleve. The Senator announced his candidacy on the 24th of June, 1908. Shortty after that he appointed Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Puelicher, and me as a committee to look after his campaign. The Chairman. Where did this appointment take place? Mr. Van Cleve. It was either at Marinette, or it might have been here at Milwaukee. The Chairman. Were you all together here at the time? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chapman. Who was present at any time when you were pres- ent in consultation with Senator Stephenson in regard to it? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not remember just exactly when that was done, but it was done very shortly after he announced his candidacy. He appointed the three whom I have just mentioned to act as a cam- paign committee. The Chairman. What duties did you undertake to perform? Mr. Van Cleve. I acted as the home member of that committee. The other two members were here in Milwaukee. Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds were in Milwaukee and I was in Marinette. I also took charge of the Marinette County campaign for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Did you do that separately ; that is, as a separate transaction from your connection with the State committee ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; it was a separate transaction. The Chairman. Did you keep an account of moneys received and paid out by you in connection with the county campaign ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you keep it separately from your accounts of the State campaign? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you an account of the moneys expended in the State campaign ? Mr. Van Cleve. Of the moneys that went through my hands? The Chairman. Of the moneys expended by you in the nature of payments to the credit of other members of the committee, or by you personally. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will excuse me, in your question you said, “ State campaign.” You mean the primary campaign? The Chairman. The witness has said that Senator Stephenson appointed three members as his State campaign committee; that is, of his campaign in the State, and I used the expression in that sense. Mr. Littlefield. You refer to the primary campaign? The Chairman. I do not refer to the primary particularly. I refer to the committee that Senator Stephenson is said by this witness to have appointed. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. 138 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. The Chairman. Can you produce a statement of the moneys re- ceived and paid out by you as a member of that committee of the State campaign? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Will you do so? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir; I have it right in front of me. The Chairman. Is that your original account? Mr. Van Cleve. It is taken from a memorandum book that I kept at the time. The Chairman. Have you that memorandum book? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; I have this statement. The Chairman. Where is the memorandum book? Mr. Van Cleve. At Marinette. The Chairman. You can produce that, can you? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Will you undertake to produce it without a special subpoena in the matter ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Please do so. Now for the present we will take your statement from the memorandum. Mr. Littlefield. Will it be sufficient if he mails the memorandum book to the chairman of the committee? The Chairman. We want to see it while the committee are in ses- sion. Senator Pomerene. I wish to have that done to-day. Can it not be mailed here to-day ? Mr. Littlefield. Could it be mailed here to-day before we get through this afternoon ? Mr. Van Cleve. No. Mr. Littlefield. Could you get it by telephoning for it? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; it is in my safe. Nobody but myself has the combination ; but there is absolutely nothing in it but what I have here. The Chairman. Proceed to give us the items. Mr. Van Cleve. In connection with this committee that the Sena- tor appointed, $52,500 passed through my hands. On June 28 I sent to Mr. Puelicher a check for $2,000 on the Stephenson National Bank. Senator Pomerene. Is that your bank? Mr. Van Cleve. That is our bank at Marinette — the Stephenson National Bank of Marinette. The Chairman. From whom did you receive the $2,000? Mr. Van Cleve. From Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. In what form or shape? Mr. Van Cleve. It was a check for $2,000 on the Stephenson National Bank, in my favor, which I endorsed over to Mr. Puelicher, and it was sent to him. The Chairman. You received a check. What did you do with it? Mr. Van Cleve. I sent it to Mr. Puelicher, or handed it to him. I might have handed it to him. He got it. The Chairman. Do you know what Mr. Puelicher did with that $2,000 check? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 139 The Chairman. What was the next sum of money? Mr. Van Cleve. The next item was on July 6, a check for $10,000, on the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. Where is that bank? Mr. Van Cleve. Here in Milwaukee. The Chairman. Who gave you that check? Mr. Van Cleve. Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was it a check? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Tn the usual form ? Mr. Van Cleve. I think so. That is my recollection. The Chairman. To whose order was it? Mr. Van Cleve. To my order. The Chairman. What did you do with it? Mr. Van Cleve. I sent it to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. Did you indorse it? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, I indorsed it over to Mr. Puelicher, and sent it to him. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to what Mr. Pue- licher did with that money? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. Have you a copy of the letter transmitting it to Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. What did you say in transmitting it, as to the purpose you had in doing so? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course he understood all that. I do not re- member, but T do not suppose I said anything any more than I wrote a letter to him and told him that I inclosed a check for campaign purposes. The Chairman. What is the next item? Mr. Van Cleve. August 20, a check for $15,000 on the Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago. The Chairman. Who gave you that check? Mr. Van Cleve. Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What did you do with it ? Mr. Van Cleve. I indorsed it over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent it to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. What conversation or correspondence took place between you and Senator Stephenson at the time he gave you this check for $15,000 as to the purpose for which it was to be used? Mr. Van Cleve. Well, the purpose of course was The Chairman. No; I want to know what conversation took place. Mr. Van Cleve. I do not recollect in particular. The Chairman. Can you refresh your memory and recollect what conversation took place? Mr. Van Cleve. In regard to this particular check? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Van Cleve. No. sir. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson hand it to you person- Mr. Van Cleve. I think he did; yes, sir. I know that I got it. I know it passed through my hands, and that I indorsed it over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. 140 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. The Chairman. Yes ; I understand that, but I want to know what was said by Senator Stephenson at the time he gave you that check. Mr. Van Cleve. I do not remember. The Chairman. Can you remember? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; there is nothing that would make me remember. The Chairman. Does he frequently hand you a check for $15,000 without accompanying it with any statement? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course we all understood what it was for. The Chairman. Did you say anything when he handed you that check ? Mr. Van Cleve. I did not say anything, any more than to indorse it over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and send it to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. Did Mr. Stephenson tell you this was for cam- paign purposes? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course that was understood. I do not know that he told me that when he handed me the check, but that was understood, that it was for campaign purposes. The Chairman. When he gave you the first check for $2,000 on June 28 that was the beginning of the financial transaction. Did he make any statement to you as to the purpose he had in giving you that check ? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course he gave it to me for that purpose, for campaign purposes. The Chairman. I am asking you if Senator Stephenson made any statement to you. Mr. Van Cleve. I do not recollect what words he might have used, but I do know that he gave it to me for that purpose. The Chairman. When did you have a conversation as to the fur- nishing or handing to you of this money by Senator Stephenson? When did you have any conversation about it? Mr. Van Cleve. Bight at the beginning of the campaign, when the campaign opened and this committee was appointed; then when- ever funds were needed the matter was taken up from time to time. The Chairman. No ; but I want to know when you first had a con- versation in regard to Senator Stephenson furnishing this money to you ? Mr. Van Cleve. T could not tell you the exact time, any more than that it was shortly after he announced his candidacy. The Chairman. Was it at the time that you were handed the $2,000 check ? Mr. Van Cleve. Shortly after; yes. The Chairman. After? Mr. Van Cleve. That is, he announced his candidacy on June 24. and this check was handed to me on June 28, four days after. The Chairman. What conversation had you in the meantime, or between June 24 and June 28, that resulted in his handing you this check ? Mr. Van Cleve. I say, he had appointed me one of the committee to look after his campaign, and he expected me to The Chairman. I would rather have a statement as to what he said, because what he expected in the matter he only can testify to. Mr. Van Cleve. I do not remember just what he said. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 141 The Chairman. Can you remember any conversation or any part of a conversation that resulted in his handing you checks of these amounts? Mr. Van Cleve. All I remember is that he appointed me a member of this committee, and a part of my duty was The Chairman. You have stated that, but there must have been some conversation. Mr. Van Cleve. I say I do not recollect it. The Chairman. Did you have any? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not recollect it. All I know as a matter of fact is that he gave me $2,000 for that purpose, and I transmitted it to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. For what purpose did he give it to you? Mr. Van Cleve. For campaign expenses. The Chairman. What expenses? Mr. Van Cleve. All kinds of campaign expenses. The Chairman. Enumerate some of them. Mr. Van Cleve. Of course, a large part of the campaign expenses were in advertising, postage, and everything of that kind. The Chairman. At the time this money was given to you, was it stated to be for advertising? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. Why did Mr. Stephenson send these checks through you to Mr. Puelicher instead of sending them direct? Mr. Van Cleve. As far as that is concerned, he might have sent them directly to Mr. Puelicher, but I was a member of this committee of three. My office is right next door to his, and, of course, I was very much interested in the campaign, and helped him all I could in the county there, and when this money was wanted I would go into the Senator’s office and talk matters over, and, after everything had been considered, he would have a check drawn for whatever amount was asked for. The Chairman. You say you talked matters over. What was said in talking matters over? Mr. Van Cleve. I can not remember just the conversation that was had, any more than that the checks that were given me would indicate that they were for campaign purposes, of course. The Chairman. Those conclusions are not testimony. I want to know what was said when Senator Stephenson gave you that first check of $2,000. Mr. Van Cleve. I say that I do not remember just what was said, except that I do know it was for campaign purposes. The Chairman. Aside from the question of remembering the exact language, can it be possible that you can remember everything else as to this matter, and not remember even the purport of the conver- sation that transpired at that time ? Mr. Van Cleve. I say that was the purport — that that was given to me for campaign purposes. The Chairman. What campaign purposes? Mr. Van Cleve. I was not disbursing the money. I did not dis- burse any of this money that was sent down here. I simply found out that it was needed, and the Senator gave me the checks, and I sent them down here. 142 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. The Chairman. How did you know the checks were to be sent to Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Van Cleve. Because that was the arrangement we had. The Chairman. With whom? Mr. Van Cleve. With Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. You say “ the arrangement we had.” Whom do you mean by “ we ”? Mr. Van Cleve. The way that was organized was like this: Bight on the start, after the campaign opened, the Senator, as I say, ap- pointed Mr. Edmonds his campaign manager, and Mr. Puelicher; that is, Mr. Edmonds, of course, was here in Milwaukee. He also appointed Mr. Puelicher his campaign banker, as you might say, or custodian, as he called himself this morning; and I being at home there with the Senator, I did what I could there; and the way most of those checks w T ere sent down was something like this: Mr. Pue- licher, during the course of the afternoon, would call me up and say that more funds were needed ; that funds had got to be secured right off, or something to that effect, and I would go into the Senator’s office and we would talk matters over, and the result of the conversa- tion would be that he would ask his secretary to draw a check. I do not know for sure why the check was drawn to me, any more than that I was a member of that committee. It could just as well have been drawn to Mr. Puelicher as to me, but as a matter of fact he had the checks drawn in my favor, and I indorsed them over either to Mr. Puelicher or to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent them to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. Did you make any effort to ascertain for what purposes the money would be used when you forwarded it to Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; that was not a part of my business. The Chairman. Did you not feel any interest in knowing whether the money would be used for the purpose of purchasing voters, or for other purposes? Mr. Van Cleve. I knew it was being used for campaign purposes, but further than that I did not know. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ campaign purposes”? What do you include? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course campaign organizing, in the way of ad- vertising in the papers; and of course there was an office down here, a headquarters, 15 or 20 girls at work sending out literature, and all that kind of thing. Mr. Edmonds has told you this morning how he used the funds. The Chairman. You sent $12,000 down here within a week? Mr. Van Cleve. What date was that ? The Chairman. You sent $2,000 and $10,000. Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you not make any inquiry as to why they needed so large a sum of money for campaign purposes? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; I did not, because the campaign managers here in Milwaukee were attending to that end of it. The Chairman. But you were connecting yourself financially with a matter that might or might not have been unlawful, and might or might not have made you responsible under the law. Did you make JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 143 no inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the ex- penditures would be within the law ? Mr. Van Cleve. All I know about that is that the Senator had ad- vised his campaign managers here, Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Ed- monds, to keep inside of the law, and I of course presumed that they were doing so, and I think now that they did. The Chairman. On August 20 there was a payment of $15,000. Mr. Van Cleve. A payment of $15,000 on August 20. The Chairman. You forwarded that to Mr. Puelicher, did you? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir; in the same way. The Chairman. Did anyone instruct you to do that or did you do it under the general understanding that you had? Mr. Van Cleve. I did it in the way that I have just tried to explain. The Chairman. You need not go over that. My question compre- hends that. Did you do this under any special arrangement or pursuant to the general plan that you had ? Mr. Van Cleve. It was in pursuance of the general plan. The Chairman. When Mr. Stephenson gave you that $15,000, you say he made no statement to you as to the uses to which you were to put it? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. When was the next date? Mr. Van Cleve. August 24 — $10,000. The Chairman. In what shape did you receive that ? Mr. Van Cleve. He gave me a check on the Corn Exchange Bank, of Chicago, in my favor, for $10,000, which I indorsed over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent to Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. In that case you indorsed it to the bank and re- turned it to Mr. Puelicher? Is that the only case in which you indorsed a check to the bank? Mr. Van Cleve. No; there were four cases. Four of the checks were indorsed over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. And the others to Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Van Cleve. The others to J. H. Puelicher. The Chairman. Why did you vary your custom in that regard ? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not know. I did not do it for any purpose. I will tell you one thing that perhaps was in my mind. I thought Mr. Puelicher would be away from home part of the time. He goes down to Chicago and around to different places, and I presumed that he had an arrangement there at the bank, so that if he was not there the very day the check got there the people in the bank would take care of it. The Chairman. What is the next date on which you received money ? Mr. Van Cleve. August 31 — $2,000. The Chairman. From whom did you receive that amount? Mr. Van Cleve. Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. In what shape ? Mr. Van Cleve. A check on the Corn Exchange Bank. The Chairman. What did you do with the check? Mr. Van Cleve. I indorsed it over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent it to Mr. Puelicher. 144 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. The Chairman. What is the next date on which you received money ? Mr. Van Cleve. September 3. The Chairman. That was the day after the primary election, was it not? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir; a day or two after; perhaps the day sfter, maybe. The Chairman. What was the amount of that check? Mr. Van Cleve. That was $13,500, on the Corn Exchange Bank, of Chicago, which I indorsed over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent to Mr. Puelicher. That $52,000 was the entire amount that went through my hands to Milwaukee. Senator Pomerene. Let me understand you. The first payment was $2,000 and the second was how much ? Mr. Van Cleve. $10,000. The Chairman. There was a smaller payment made by Senator Stephenson to you on November 28 — $71.35. What was that for? Mr. Van Cleve. That was sent to Charles H. Ross, of Cavour, in Forest County, for services that he rendered there in the primary campaign. The Chairman. What services? Mr. Van Cleve. That country up there in Forest County is a sparsely settled country, and in order to assist voters to get to the polls he spent some money that way. He made a regular itemized bill and sent it to me and I turned it over to the legislative committee. 1 have not got that bill, but it was an itemized bill, and that was the exact amount of it. He did not charge anything for his own services, but it was just disbursements that he made for teams and work of that kind. Some of it, I think, was for railroad fare. The Chairman. What was that man’s name? Mr. Van Cleve. Charles H. Ross. The Chairman. He furnished you a written statement of the items of expenditure ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he charge something for his own services? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. He paid it all out to others? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We have not that statement. Did you interest yourself at all to ascertain for what these large sums of money were being used in the campaign? Did you interest yourself at all to ascertain the purpose for which they were being used ? Mr. Van Cleve. I knew, in a general way, for what purpose they were being used. I did not have anything to do with the disbursing of the money. The Chairman. Did you make any contracts for the payment of any portion of this money? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. The Chairman. What you knew was what you may have been told by your associates? Mr. Van Cleve. They disbursed the money. Those six checks, aggregating $52,500, came down here to Milwaukee and were dis- bursed by the people here — b}^ the committee and those who were JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 145 here — and I did not have anything to do with the disbursing of the money. The Chairman. You were at the legislature when it was in ses- sion? You were in attendance at the. legislature when it was in session ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At the time of the election of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; not the day that he was elected. The Chairman. Prior to that time? Mr. Van Cleve. I think I was out there once or twice; yes, sir. The Chairman. Once or twice ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you participate in creating a sentiment in favor of the election of Senator Stephenson at that time when you were there, or at those times? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; I was not there for that purpose. The way that I happened to be there, I guess, was because I am a member of the State capitol commission, that is building the new capitol, and I went there on business connected with that. I just happened to be there. I do not think I spoke to a member while I was there, except our local man, maybe. The Chairman. Did you furnish any money for the purpose of paying the expenses of Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Van Cleve. Myself? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Van Cleve. No; not to speak of. The Chairman. And did not pay out any ? Mr. Van Cleve. Not anything to speak of. I may have expended a few dollars ; not more than $25 or $50. Senator Pomerene. Did you pay out any money yourself other than what you sent to Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. I paid out $792.75 for our campaign ex- penses in Marinette County. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep an account of the persons to whom that was paid? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; I kept an exact account of it and turned each statement over to Harry J. Brown, the cashier of our bank, and he gave me a check for it after the campaign was over. Senator Pomerene. What has become of that statement ? Mr. Van Cleve. The statement was filed with the legislative com- mittee, but I have a copy of it in my pocket, if you would like to see it. Senator Pomerene. Will you leave that here with us? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you make the copy? Mr. Van Cleve. I made a copy from the book. Senator Pomerene. You have compared it, so that you know it is a copy? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; it is an exact copy. Mr. Black. Senator, you will find a copy of that at page 1152, being Exhibit 81, in the testimony before the joint committee. Senator Pomerene. You had some hesitation about giving this to the legislative committee, I believe, had you not? Mr. Van Cleve. About what? 15235 °— vol 1—11 10 146 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. Senator Pomerene. I say you hesitated about giving this informa- tion to the legislative committee when they were investigating it? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. I will tell you the reason I hesitated. I did not hesitate to give them the figures, but of course this money had been paid out to a lot of my friends up there and I did not care to give the names to the committee, but the committee finally insisted upon it and I gave them the names. Senator Pomerene. As a member of the committee having in charge the senatorial campaign, you knew that the law required that an account be filed giving the names of the persons to whom the money was paid and the amounts paid and the purpose for which paid, did you not? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; and I gave them that statement. Senator Pomerene. You did later? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Senator Pomerene. You knew, of course, that you could not avoid making that public? Mr. Van Cleve. Well, there was a question about it. This paper which I hand you now is what I wanted to give them — at least what I proposed to give them. I wanted to give them a statement showing what I paid out in each precinct. Of course, the amounts are all comparatively small, and I thought it was unnecessary to give the names. Senator Pomerene. I will ask the reporter to mark, as an exhibit, the statement which Mr. Van Cleve has given of his disbursements in Marinette County. (The paper referred to was marked “ Exhibit Van Cleve 1,” and is as follows :) Disbursements by J. A. Van Cleve in Isaac Stephenson's 1908 primary campaign in Marinette County, Wis. 1908. Aug. 19. Postage $2.25 26. Ink pad • 10 25. H. Shoemaker (German paper) 1 25. 00 27. E. P. Gustafson 1. 00 27. J. B. Wood 25. 00 27. Postage 2.00 28. William Suelflolm 25.00 29. Postage 2. 00 29. Herman Sewald 5. 00 29, Robert Behnke 5.00 29. J. L. Gray 5. 00 29. Gus Felmer 5. 00 29. D. C. Taylor 10. 00 29. Mathias Martens 5. 00 29. Charles Wunderlich 10. 0C 29. Samuel Grochowski 5. 00 29. M. Zieghan 5. 00 29. P. Tobison 5. 00 29. Thomas F. Malony 5. 00 29. John P. Anderson ' 5. On 29. Hugh Baylert 10. 00 29. William Wood 5. 00 29. G. L. Forsen (Scandinavian paper) 1 25. 00 29. George E. Bogrand 1 15. 00 29. J. F. Slight 1 9. 00 31. Joseph Cota Marek 1 20. 00 Cheek made to Elmer Grimmer. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 147 1908. Sept. 1. Fred Hutchinson $20. 00 2. Philip Wood 5. 00 2. John Westberg 5. 00 3. Charles Hawn 5. 00 3. Joseph Rondeau 6. 00 3. Alexander Lindsay • 5. 00 3. Ralph Skidmore 1 8. 50 3. M. K resky 5. 00 3. John Cox 2. 00 4. Joseph Younger 5. 00 4. A1 Holquist 5. 00 4. Leo La Comb 10. ()0 4. Andrew Christoplierson 10. 00 4. Hans Johnson 5. CO 4. Fred Ilubbel 5. 00 4. H. Rydahl 10. 00 4. August Johnson 5. 00 4. Adolph Behnke 5. 00 4. Holquist Livery 1 21.50 4. Gregory & Race 1 ■ 90 4. S. D. Woodward 1 1 3. 00 5. Elmer Grimmer 1 15. 00 5. D. F. Po\ er 1 15. 00 5. William Suelflohn 5. 00 14. H. J. Place Livery 5. 00 14. Lawrence Barrett (Peshtigo Times) 25.00 14. F. E. Noyes 200. 00 14. Antone Larson 5. 00 14. Walter Nichols 5.00 14. E. P. Gustafson 4 00 14. Eagle Printing Co 1 65. 00 14. Brown Livery 1 28. 50 15. Fred Clantier 15. 00 15. Fred Le Roy 10. 00 15. Eugene King 5.00 792. 75 Paid by check, amount 284. 40 Cash disbursements 508. 35 792. 75 Senator Pomerene. Your subsequent statement contains all the in- formation except the names of the persons to whom the money was paid? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; it shows the disbursements in each precinct. Here are all of the precincts in the county, from here down. It shows, for instance, the largest amount paid out in any one precinct, $35. Some of them were only $25 and some $30. Senator Pomerene. Of course you knew that did not comply with the law ? Mr. Van Cleve. I did not think anything about it at the time. Senator Pomerene. Did you have anything to do with the em- ployment of the assistants about the headquarters? Mr. Van Cleve. Down here? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Who employed Mr. Sacket? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not know, except that I presume Senator Stephenson did. 1 Check made to Elmer Grimmer. 148 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. Senator Pomerene. When you made out the statement of your expenditures, to whom did you give it? Mr. Van Cleve. To Mr. Brown, the cashier of our bank. Senator Pomerene. What did he do with it, if you know ? Mr. Van Cleve. He gave me a check for it. Senator Pomerene. And did that statement remain then in the hands of the bank? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Until it was turned over to the legislative com- mittee ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Senator Pomerene. It was not then turned over to Senator Steph- enson ? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not think it was. I do not know for sure. Senator Pomerene. Was a duplicate or a copy of it turned over to him? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not know for sure. Senator Pomerene. Was your expense account at any time sub- mitted to him, or anyone for him, to audit it ? Mr. Van Cleve. Well, Mr. Brown, of course, was Mr. Stephen- son’s son-in-law, and I presume likely he showed it to him. Senator Pomerene. What is Mr. Brown’s first name? Mr. Van Cleve. Harry J. Brown. Senator Pomerene. When it came to the filing of the expense ac- count with the secretary of state did you assist in the preparation of that account? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were you consulted about it? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were you present at any time when that mat- ter was talked over? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever talk with the Senator about it? Mr. Van Cleve. Not that I recollect now. Senator Pomerene. Do you know of any other funds that were paid out by Mr. Brown in connection with this election ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. I note that you state you paid out $52,500. Mr. Van Cleve. That was in the six checks that were sent down to Mr. Puelicher. Senator Pomerene. That w T as sent to Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; six checks. Senator Pomerene. J. H. Puelicher? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. He had in bank $50,000, did he not ? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. You learned of $50,000 being in the Marshall & Usley Bank here? Mr. Van Cleve. All I know about it is what I have heard about it. Senator Pomerene. And that that represented the amount of the loan ? Mr. Van Cleve. I say I do not know it as a matter of fact; I have heard it. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 149 Senator Pomerene. Assuming there were $50,000, then with your $52,500 it would make $102,500. Mr. Van Cleve. There was $10,000 of that in a check on that $50,000 fund. That was the only check on that fund — the second check for $10,000. That was sent here July 6, and was on the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. Senator Pomerene. That $10,000 check on the Marshall & Ilsley Bank you include in the $52,500? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; that July 6 check came out of the $50,000. Senator Pomerene. That is a matter that I did not understand from comparing the figures here with the statement which Mr. Puelicher gave as to the amount that he had received. Mr. Littlefield. It made an apparent discrepancy. Senator Pomerene. An apparent discrepancy; yes. Do you know of any other funds that were disbursed in the matter of this election, either as to the primary or the general election ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. All I know about is the $52,500 that were sent down here in six checks that you have just enumerated, and the $792.75 that I disbursed in Marinette County, and the $71.35 that was sent to Charles H. Ross, of Cavour. That is all I know about in connection with this campaign which had anything to do with it in any shape or manner. Senator Pomerene. What did Senator Stephenson say to you about the subject of the expenditure of money at any time in connection with this campaign? Mr. Van Cleve. I will tell you this much, that when these requests came from Milwaukee, usually I Avould be called up in the afternoon by Mr. Puelicher, and he would tell me that the funds were getting low, and we had to have more, etc. I would go into Senator Steph- enson’s office and talk the matter over. He was very much opposed to giving any — — Senator Pomerene. Just tell us what was said. Mr. Van Cleve. I do not remember his exact remarks. Mr. Littlefield. Give the substance of it. Senator Pomerene. Take, for instance, the first conversation of that character that you had with him. If you can not give the con- versation, give it in substance. Mr. Van Cleve. The substance was that he thought they were ex- pending too much money down here ; he did not want to “ put up,” as you might say, he did not want to send as much as they were ask- ing for. He was very much opposed to doing it. The campaign cost him I think two or three times as much as he ever had any idea it would. Senator Pomerene. When he would speak in the manner that you have indicated, what did he finally do? Mr. Van Cleve. I would go in in the afternoon, and go back again in the evening, maybe, and would canvass the matter over from every side. The want of money seemed to be verjr urgent, and of course he got into the campaign very late. Then he would finally make up his mind he had better send it, and would call on his secretary to make out a check for Van Cleve, and I would take it to the post office and send it down. Senator Pomerene. Always, after these objections, he did “cough up,” did he? 150 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. Mr. Van Cleve. Well, you might put it that way, if you want to. Mr. Littlefield. More or less of a cough. Mr. Van Cleve. Well, I tell you he did not want to do it. He did not do it willingly. Senator Pomerene. During this time did he ask as to what was being done with this money? Mr. Van Cleve. He did not ask me, because I did not have any- thing to do with the disbursing of it. Senator Pomerene. Did he ever indicate to you he wanted to know what was being done with it? Mr. Van Cleve. I do not recollect that he ever said anything to me about it in particular. Of course I had charge of the Marinette County campaign, for which $792.75 was expended. He talked about that once in a while and wanted to know what was going on, and so forth; but the Milwaukee disbursements were made by his managers down here. Senator Pomerene. You were here at the head of his bank, and when you expended $792.75, that was of sufficient importance be- tween you and him to talk about the details of it? Mr. Van Cleve. Well, he did not bother me very much about the details. Of course he left that campaign matter to me, because he had the State on his hands; he had much larger things to think of; but the detail of the Marinette County campaign he left to me. Senator Pomerene. And you were one of the State managers? Mr. Van Cleve. I did not look at it in that way. I was one of a committee that was kind of helping out on the campaign. I was not a State manager. Senator Pomerene. Does it not occur to you as strange that he would discuss in detail this $792.75 matter for your county, and not discuss in detail the $107,000 or $108,000 paid for the State cam- paign ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; because, as I say, he left all that to Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Sacket, and his friends down here — that is, the disbursement of it. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean that he was a little more par- ticular in discussing details with you, who was at the head of bis bank, than he was in discussing the details with Mr. Edmonds ? He was not associated in business with him here ? Mr. Van Cleve. He did not discuss with me at all the disburse- ments of this money down here. Senator Pomerene. Do you know of his discussing it with any- body ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; except that I supposed he discussed it, of course, with Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. Mr. Littlefield. With reference to the discussion of the details of disbursements in Milwaukee, as between yourself and Senator Ste- phenson — Mr. Van Cleve, I understand that you reside in Marinette? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And you were in Milwaukee during the cam- paign ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. To any extent? Mr. Van Cleve. Two or three times. JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 151 Mr. Littlefield. Yon would come down and go back the same day ? Mr. Van Cleve. I think so, or the day after. I would not be here more than a day or two. Mr. Littlefield. Were you here enough so that you were familiar with the details of what was going on here? Mr. Van Cleve. Only in a general way. I was up in the office there, in the Wells Building, once or twice. Mr. Littlefield. Were you down here on business connected with the campaign when you were here during that period? Mr. Van Cleve. Not directly, as I know of. Of course I was very much interested in the campaign, and talked with everybody who was identified with it. Mr. Littlefield. And substantially you were in Marinette during the whole campaign? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose Senator Stephenson knew that, did he not? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. He knew you had no knowledge of these details down here? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect for what purpose you did come down from Milwaukee during the two or three visits you say you did make during that period ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes; I think I came down on other business. I am a trustee for the Wells estate, and I come down quite frequently on that account, and I think it was in reference to something in con- nection with that. I did not come down, I know, for that purpose. Mr. Littlefield. You say you did not come down for “ that pur- pose.” When you say “ that purpose ” to what do you refer, the campaign up there? Mr. Van Cleve. The campaign up there; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is to say, you did not make any trip down here for the purpose of looking after the campaign ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that it was the original under- standing or arrangement between yourself and the Senator that, so far as the details of the State campaign were concerned, those were matters to be taken care of by Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Sacket and the people here? Mr. Van Cleve. Absolutely. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money expended in this campaign, to your knowledge, for improper purposes? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were any votes purchased by money that you disbursed ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever have any information from any reliable source, anywhere, at any time, in connection with the cam- paign, that votes were purchased or money was corruptly expended in the interest of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Van Cleve. Never. Mr. Littlefield. That is all 152 RODNEY SACKET. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET. Rodney Sackett, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. What is your place of residence, Mr. Sacket? Mr. Sacket. Berlin, Wis., is my legal residence, but I am actually residing in Washington, D. C., most of the time. The Chairman. Do you know Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I do. Mr. Littlefield. Did Mr. Sacket state his present business? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. State what occupation you are engaged in. Mr. Sacket. I am one of the clerks of the United States Senate* The Chairman. What clerk are you? Mr. Sacket. An executive clerk. The Chairman. How long have you occupied that position? Mr. Sacket. About nine years. The Chairman. You know Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What connection had you, if any, with the cam- paign of Senator Stephenson in 1908? Mr. Sacket. I assisted Mr. Edmonds in the general management of the campaign in the Milwaukee office. The Chairman. When did you go to Wisconsin that year? Mr. Sacket. The latter part of June. The Chairman. Why did you go? Mr. Sacket. It is my custom to go there after the adjournment of Congress. The Chairman. You are here then during the recess of Congress? Mr. Sacket. Generally, yes, sir. The Chairman. What part did you perform in connection with the campaign of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I did a little of everything, particularly looking after the business of the office, the buying of supplies The Chairman. What office and where? Mr. Sacket. The office of the headquarters in Milwaukee, in the Wells Building. The Chairman. Who engaged you to perform those duties ? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. When? Mr. Sacket. The latter part of June; I can not give you the exact date. The Chairman. When did he first speak to you in regard to the matter? Mr. Sacket. Some time in the latter part of June. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Sacket. Over the telephone first, from Marinette to Berlin. The Chairman. How far is that ? Mr. Sacket. In a direct line, I think, about 125 miles. Mr. Littlefield. That is from Marinette to Berlin ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did Senator Stephenson say to you over the phone ? RODNEY SACKET. 153 Mr. Sacket. He said he had become a candidate for the Senate, and asked me to come to Marinette and talk to him about it. The Chairman. Anything more than that ? Mr. Sacket. He asked me to come to Marinette by way of Mil- waukee, and to ask Mr. Puelicher to come up with me. The Chairman. Did you comply with that request? Mr. Sacket. I did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. When did you reach Marinette ? Mr. Sacket. One of the last days in June. The Chairman. Who was present at the meeting with Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher and Senator Stephenson and I were alone. The Chairman. Where did you meet? Mr. Sacket. At Senator Stephenson’s house. The Chairman. Is that in the city or town ? Mr. Sacket. It is in the city of Marinette. The Chairman. What time of day did you meet? Mr. Sacket. Some time in the evening ; late in the evening. The Chairman. How long did the meeting last ? Mr. Sacket. Oh, we talked in Senator Stephenson’s house for several hours. The Chairman. What arrangement, if any, was there made with reference to the management of his campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson asked me to do what I could to get the nomination papers, to get out the vote, and promote his interests generally, with specific instructions to keep within the law, whatever I did. The Chairman. Was that statement made in the general terms in which you have expressed it, or was the law considered, and the ques- tion as to what would be “ keeping within the law ” discussed ? Mr. Sacket. He used the words, if I remember correctly, “ Keep within the law whatever you do.” The Chairman. Was the question as to what the law was con- sidered ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection; no, sir. The Chairman. It was confined to that general statement ? Mr. Sacket. As I understand it ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you promise to keep within the law ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Were you familiar with the law? Mr. Sacket. Not professionally. I am not a lawyer. The Chairman. Were you familiar with the law referred to by Senator Stephenson within which you were to keep ? Mr. Sacket. I thought I had a general understanding of it. The Chairman. Did you take any measures to make yourself thoroughly acquainted with it before entering on your duties? Mr. Sacket. No more than to read the law carefully. The Chairman. Did you read it carefully? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Before you entered upon the duties you had undertaken ? Mr. Sacket. Before I did anything except to rent and furnish offices. 154 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Then you were fully advised as to the law when you were acting in the capacity you were for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I advised myself to the best of my ability. The Chairman. So that you claim no immunity by reason of not knowing the law ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. What ever you did, you accept the responsibility for it as being within the law ? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What was the nature of the first duty that you undertook ? Mr. Sacket. To open up headquarters here in Milwaukee. The Chairman. What do you mean by opening up headquarters? Mr. Sacket. Renting and furnishing an office and employing stenographers. The Chairman. What did you do? Mr. Sacket. I did that. The Chairman. What did you do? Mr. Sacket. I rented an office. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Sacket. In the Wells Building. The Chairman. How much of an office? Mr. Sacket. I think it was room 1320, an office containing two large rooms, to start with. Then I rented the furniture and engaged assistance. The Chairman. How many clerks did you employ? Mr. Sacket. At the start I had the assistance of the messenger to Senator Stephenson’s committee, Arthur Lambeck, and I em- ployed two stenographers. The Chairman. Did you afterwards open other offices? Mr. Sacket. Not at that time. I proceeded then to send out blanks on which to get signatures to the nomination papers, as I would call them, which are required by law, in order to get Senator Stephenson’s name on the ballot; and possibly before then I made an effort to get a list of the names of persons to whom to send those blanks. The Chairman. You commenced paying out money for Senator Stephenson for campaign purposes on July 6, did you? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember the date exactly. The Chairman. Have you a statement which you prepared, or a copy of a statement which you prepared, with reference to the dis- bursements through you or through the office? Mr. Sacket. I have not, but I believe it is contained in Exhibit 49. The Chairman. I would like to have a copy of that handed to the witness. Mr. Littlefield. Shall I hand it to him, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. Yes. Senator Pomerene. There is one account here on page 475, Ex- hibit 47. Mr. Littlefield. I am not familiar with that. Mr. Black. Exhibit 49 is the statement in its final form. Senator Pomerene. What page is that ? Mr. Littlefield. Page 588 of the proceedings before the joint committee of the Wisconsin Legislature. RODNEY SACKET. 155 The Chairman. I will first direct your attention to the statement that was given in connection with your testimony before the legis- lative committee, that is, at page 475. Perhaps it would be the better order to commence with that statement. You on June 6 paid E. H. McMahon, for organizing, $50. Who was E. H. McMahon ? Mr. Sacket. A man employed by me to do work in the way of organizing throughout the State for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ organizing? ” Mr. Sacket. His instructions were to travel around the State, get the names of influential persons who were favorable to Senator Stephenson, to whom we could send letters, nomination papers, and request for assistance, and to create as much sentiment as possible in favor of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. To electioneer for him? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How long was he engaged in that work? Mr. Sacket. During almost the entire campaign, as I remember it. The Chairman. Did you pay him other sums beside the $50? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much did you pay him in the aggregate? Mr. Sacket. I don’t remember. I have no account of the aggre- gate. The Chairman. Can you approximate it? Mr. Sacket. I should think possibly $450. The Chairman. What was his business? Mr. Sacket. As I remember, he had no business; he was out of work. The Chairman. Where did he live? Mr. Sacket. He lived in Milwaukee, I believe. The Chairman. Was he not engaged in any business or occupation when you employed him? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of the circumstance. The Chairman. How old a man was he ? Mr. Sacket. I should think about 25. The Chairman. He was a young graduate of the college here, was he not ? Mr. Sacket. I so understood it. The Chairman. He had had no political experience whatever prior to that time, had he ? Mr. Sacket. None that I know of. The Chairman. It was his first campaign ? Mr. Sacket. I think so. The Chairman. After becoming a voter and after leaving college? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you sent him out to organize the political lines for Senator Stephenson, and paid him about $400. How many days was he absent from Milwaukee ? Mr. Sacket. I could not tell you. The Chairman. Do you know that he was absent at all? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How do you l^now it? Mr. Sacket. Because he sent me his expense account and wrote me letters from outside places. The Chairman. Now, where is that expense account? 156 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I left it with the legislative committee at Madison ; I have not heard of it since, or seen it. Senator Pomerene. What was this young man’s name? Mr. Sacket. E. H. McMahon. The Chairman. Was he employed after August 3 in what you call organizing ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say positively. I do not remember. The Chairman. In the start out of this examination let us reduce that question of recollection or memory down to a useful basis. When you say you do not remember, do you mean that you can not remember or recall the circumstances, or that you have not had occasion to do so ? Mr. Sacket. I mean that I can not at this time recall the date on which he went out and the dates on which he staid in. The Chairman. I have not asked you the dates on which he went out. I have asked you the general question as to whether or not his engagement and work extended after the beginning of August; in other words, after the time when it was no longer necessary or proper to get petitions or signers? Mr. Sacket. He was employed in one capacity or another during the entire campaign ; possibly not around the State, organizing at all times ; he did do some work in the office. The Chairman. Was there an agreed amount that he was to receive for his services? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Sacket. $75 a month. The Chairman. How many months was he employed? Mr. Sacket. Two months. The Chairman. June and July? Mr. Sacket. July and August. The Chairman. He appears to have been employed first on the 6th of July. July and August he was employed? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. So you paid him $150 as personal compensation ? Mr. Sacket. That was the agreement. The Chairman. Did you pay it to him? Mr. Sacket. We paid him that and more. The Chairman. Was any part of the excess over $150 for his salary ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Paid him for salary? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Sacket. $300 in all for salary. The Chairman. You doubled his salary? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Paid him $150 a month ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That leaves $150 of the total amount you paid him to account for. What did he do with that money ? Mr. Sacket. As I remember it he used it in traveling expenses, to go about the State ; possibly employed men to circulate nomination papers. RODNEY SACKET. 157 The Chairman. You say, “ possibly.” Unless you have some knowledge of that, it would be better for you not to say it. Mr. Sacket. I would not have, without his expense account be- fore me. He rendered an account of all of the money he expended, and I approximated that at $150. I could not even say positively that that was the correct amount. The Chairman. Do you know where Mr. McMahon is now ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Now, we will take J. C. Miller; he is designated as an organizer, to whom, on the 6th of July, you paid $50. Who in- structed you to pay him that money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think anyone did. The Chairman. Did you meet Mr. Miller in the headquarters’ office here in Milwaukee? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he come to you a stranger? Mr. Sacket. I never had known Mr. Miller before he came to the office. The Chairman. How old a man is Mr. Miller ? Mr. Sacket. I should think about 32. The Chairman. What is his business? . Mr. Sackett. I do not think he was engaged in any business at that time. The Chairman. Do you know where he is now, or whether he is now engaged in any business? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Where did he reside? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly his residence was Madison at that time. The Chairman. Upon what representation did you pay him $50 on that day and emplo}^ him? Mr. Sackett. He was recommended by some one. The Chairman. By whom? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. Do you think, if this were an inquiry of you from your principal, Senator Stephenson, as to how you expended this money, that your memory would be as defective as it is under these circumstances? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The responsibility under which you would rest to a principal whose money you had handled, you think, would not make a stronger impression upon you than that of this committee ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think anything would make me remember what I have actually forgotten. The Chairman. Did you make a memorandum at the time of the facts and circumstances that transpired when you paid this money? Mr. Sacket. I made no memorandum of the name of the person who recommended Mr. Miller. The Chairman. Did you make any memorandum with reference to the employing of these men at the time you employed them ? Mr. Sackett. Yes, feir. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. Destroyed. 158 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Destroyed! Who destroyed it? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. When? Mr. Sacket. Shortly after the conclusion of the campaign. The Chairman. What do you mean by u shortly ” ? Mr. Sacket. Possibly within a week or 10 days. The Chairman. Who told you to destroy it ? Mr. Sacket. Nobody. The Chairman. You had been expending and handling thousands of dollars for a principal, and destroyed the memoranda representing the transactions, without any instructions, or without the consent of the principal? Mr. Sacket. I did not destroy the memoranda accounting for the money; but the memoranda showing what Miller was to receive, the agreement with him, was destroyed after my settlement with him. The Chairman. With whom? Mr. Sacket. Miller. The Chairman. Miller was the man employed by you for what you call organizing? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you paid money, under the license of a law of the State, for campaign expenses, and you made a memorandum at the time as to the purpose for which you paid this money, and what was to be given as a consideration for this money, and then you destroyed that memorandum; is that correct? Mr. Sacket. A memorandum as to the agreement between Miller and me — what he was to receive. The Chairman. You talk about the agreement. I suppose the agreement set out what was to be done, did it ? Mr. Sacket. My memorandum shows that Miller was to receive a certain compensation and his expenses. The Chairman. And what he was to do ? Mr. Sacket. For doing what he was told to do from time to time. The Chairman. Only what he was told to do ? Mr. Sacket. In a general way ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did not the memoranda indicate, at least in part if not entirely, what he was to do? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Can you recall the circumstance or the language of a memorandum such as you made at that time? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do so. Mr. Sacket. “ J. C. Miller, $300 a month and expenses ; to render expense account weekly.” I think that was all that was on the card. The Chairman. It did not say what this $300 a month was for ? Mr. Sacket. Did I say $300 a month? I meant $150 a month. The Chairman. Did it say what it was for? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Whether it was for manual labor or as an artisan ? Just simply said “ J. C. Miller, $150 a month, expense account to be rendered ” ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It did not say that it was in connection with the Stephenson campaign? RODNEY SACKET. 159 Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Did it say he received it over your name in the memorandum ? Mr. Sacket. I did not put my own name on my own memorandum; no, sir. The Chairman. Would that be improper? If you were to write a receipt you would probably put your own name in the receipt of the party from whom the money was received, would you not ? Mr. Sacket. If some one else were to sign it. The Chairman. You would not? Mr. Sacket. I would if some one else were to sign it. Mr. Miller did not sign my memorandum. The Chairman. He did not receipt for the money then? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. This was a memorandum in your own handwrit- ing, for your own use? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was there to indicate as to who had paid him the money, or who would pay him? Mr. Sacket. As I paid him money I put on that card the amounts. The Chairman. Did you indicate when you put the amount on the card what it was for, what services he was performing? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And how much of the sum paid was for those services ? Mr. Sacket. The services were paid for all at one time, if I re- member correctly now. The Chairman. Did you pay him the full amount in advance? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. You paid him $50 when you made the arrange- ment, did you not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir, and that was to be used for expense money, traveling. The Chairman. Then this $50 was not any part of his compensa- tion? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. But it was for expense money. But the item of $300 paid him was for his compensation, was it ? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly he was paid $300 at the close of the campaign — two months’ salary. The Chairman. You paid him his expense account in addition to that ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I find on page 478 where you paid him, on August 18, $50, and at other points — those items were for expenses? Mr. Sacket. For expenses; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he report to you in writing what he had done? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And where is that writing? Mr. Sacket. That writing, I am afraid, is destroyed. The Chairman. You feel apprehensive of that, do you? Mr. Sacket. I am quite certain that it was destroyed. The Chairman. When did you destroy it? Mr. Sacket. Shortly after the close of the campaign. 160 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. At whose instance? Mr. Sacket. No one’s; upon my own motion entirely. The Chairman. Did you copy it into any book before destroy- ing it? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you make an entry indicating the payment of the money in any book? Mr. Sacket. 1 made entries or memoranda of mine indicating the payment of all moneys. The Chairman. You kept books of account ? Mr. Sacket. I kept an account; no book. The Chairman. How did you keep the account? Mr. Sacket. On a card index. The Chairman. That is, an account between you and the fund which was at your disposal? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. The exhibit on page 475 is a copy of it. The Chairman- Where is the original? Mr. Sacket. The original is destroyed? The Chairman. When did you destroy that? Mr. Sacket. Very soon after the end of the campaign, and part of it before the end of the campaign. The Chairman. Why? Mr. Sacket. Because the cards were cumbersome, very much soiled, and the writing on them, which was made with a lead pencil in a great many cases, was practically obliterated. The Chairman. Was this card index in a single case? Mr. Sacket. I think that I had two or three boxes. I am not positive about that, though. The Chairman. And the 60 days of use had destroyed them? Mr. Sacket. It made them almost illegible, in some cases; yes, sir. The Chairman. Were the entries made in ink or pencil? Mr. Sacket. In pencil, in almost every case. The Chairman. Being handled constantly, were they, and worn out? Mr. Sacket. The}^ were very hard to read. I would not say they were worn out. The Chairman. Who made the entries on those cards? Mr. Sacket. I made most of them; I think all of them. The Chairman. After you had made an e^itry on a card what occa- sion would you have to handle that card again ? Mr. Sacket. To make another entry on the same card, to handle it over to reach another card. The Chairman. They were arranged alphabetically according to the name of the person or the Mr. Sacket. The name of the person or the locality, as the case might be. The Chairman. How many of these cards were there? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. And it was a matter of convenience, then, that prompted you to destroy them? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 161 The Chairman. They represented the payment of $98,083.72, did they not? Mr. Sacket. I think so. The Chairman. A little transaction like that you did not deem of sufficient importance to preserve the memoranda indicating pay- ments? Mr. Sacket. I made copies of the cards before I destroyed them. The Chairman. Have you copies of the cards ? Mr. Sacket. I have nothing except this [referring to printed vol- ume of senatorial investigating committee proceedings]. The Chairman. This is merely an enumeration of, for instance, “ Sundries, $50,” “ Sundries, $20,” and so on. That indicates nothing. What do you mean when you say “ sundries ” here ? I find on one page, 496, that the word “ sundries ” is used a great many times, and I find it elsewhere in the account. What do you mean by u sundries ” ? Mr. Sacket. It might mean a great many things. The Chairman. No. What does it mean? Mr. Sacket. I can not now tell you what any one of these items would mean. The Chairman. Would the cards have indicated? Mr. Sacket. They would not. The Chairman. You did not make a statement on the cards, when you noted the expenditure of money, that would advise you or anyone else as to what the expenditure was for ? Mr. Sacket. In some cases I did not. The Chairman. Why did you vary from the rule? Mr. Sacket. In some cases I had more time than others; some cases referring to this schedule in which you find so many “ sundries.” Here is one for $1.50, and a great many other small items. I did not give the small items as much attention as I would the larger ones, and sometimes I did not have time to give the larger items the atten- tion which they might have deserved. The Chairman. Then it w T as a matter of convenience whether or not you indicated the purpose of the expenditure, was it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On page 478, August 19, you say, “ General organ- izing, $300.” Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you any memoranda that would show what that was made up of? Mr. Sacket. Possibly in Exhibit 49. The Chairman. Where is Exhibit 49? Mr. Sacket. In this same book [referring to senatorial primary investigation]. The Chairman. I suppose I have Exhibit 49. Just turn to it now and tell me Mr. Sacket. Page 588. The Chairman. Yes; I have the exhibit. Turn to that item of August 19 and see where is the corresponding item of $300. Mr. Sacket. General organizing — I have it here — “ E. A. E., $200,” carried out to “ $300.” The Chairman. What does that mean ? Mr. Sacket. “E. A. E.” means that it was a personal check of E. A. Edmonds for $200, or that it was given to Mr. Edmonds ; the $200 is 15235 °— vol 1—11 11 162 RODNEY SACKET. chargeable to Mr. Edmonds, and I don’t know what that was for. The other hundred was for general organizing, paid somebody for services performed, not in any one locality, but generally, in two or more counties, I should suppose. The Chairman. What services were performed on August 19 ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. It was not circulating petitions? Mr. Sacket. I should not think so. The Chairman. The petitions had been filed. What organizing was being done on August 19? Mr. Sacket. I could not tell you what organizing was being done under that item, of my own knowledge ; I do not know. The Chairman. Under any item? Mr. Sacket. They might have been getting lists of names for us to send circulars to; they might have been employing men to work at the polls with their teams. The Chairman. Well, was it? Mr. Sacket. I can not tell you, under that item; I do not know. The Chairman. Could you have told had you not destroyed the memorandum ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Then you did not keep such accounts as would enable you to know whether or not you were keeping within the law, did you? Mr. Sacket. I presumed I was. The Chairman. But unless you could refer to the item of ex- penditure you would not be able to answer to a charge of violating the law, would you? Mr. Sacket. I do not believe I exactly understand you. The Chairman. In the absence of memorandum how would you establish the fact that you had kept within the law should the ex- penditure be questioned? Mr. Sacket. I did not understand the law to require me to keep such an account. The Chairman. You were, for instance, forbidden by the law to purchase a man’s vote or bribe him ; in the absence of a memorandum showing for what you expended money how would you expect to defend against a charge that the money was expended for that pur- pose? Mr. Sacket. I did not suppose anyone would bring such a charge. The idea of such a charge never entered my head. The Chairman. Were you not giving any attention to the ad- monition to “ keep within the law ” ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What attention were you giving to it; what was the character of the attention? Mr. Sacket. I was instructing every man whom I employed to keep within the law. The Chairman. I am now inquiring as to what you did, not as to what instructions you gave. You have expended the money; it has passed through your hands. What evidence is there that you did not use it for that purpose, in the absence of memoranda ? Mr. Sacket. The bank’s cashier’s checks would show to whom I paid the money. RODNEY SACKET. 163 The Chairman. Did you only pay out money by a bank cashier’s checks ? Mr. Sacket. I paid some in currency, but, as a general rule, I kept, as much as possible, to cashier’s checks and bank drafts. The Chairman. How did you expect to be able to answer a pos- sible charge that you had furnished the money to these men whom you term “ organizers,” to be used for bribing voters ; how did you expect to be able to meet that kind of a charge? Mr. Sacket. I never expected such a charge to be made. The Chairman. You knew the law puts the affirmative upon a man who uses money during a campaign when the use is challenged, did you not? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. The law requires the filing of an account which shall state not merely that you paid out money, but shall state the purpose for which you paid it out and that it was applied to that purpose; did you know that? Mr. Sacket. I did not so understand the law. The Chairman. You say you read the law? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. That is a law in the absence of any special stat- ute, is it not ? If you pay out money to be used by the party to whom you pay it for purchasing votes or bribing electors, do you not know that you would be responsible under the law of any State in the Union? Mr. Sacket. I presume I would, if it were proven. The Chairman. Then did it not occur to you that this memoranda which you were destroying, even before the primaries and afterwards, made the basis of your defense against such a charge? Mr. Sacket. I never thought of such a charge. But the destroying of the memoranda left me in no worse condition than before, because I made a copy of it before I destroyed it. The Chairman. Now your memory seems to have emphasized the misfortune of losing the memoranda, because you say you are not able to remember what use was made of this money. Mr. Sacket. I know what use I instructed the person to make of it, where I made that memorandum to start with. The Chairman. I understood you to say a few minutes ago that you did not know what instructions you gave them, that you could not remember what instructions you gave them as to the use to which this money was to be applied. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember making such a statement. I did not intend it in that way. The Chairman. Then we will just go right to the items and see whether or not now you can state what you said to them. Take the item August 20, of $400 to G. W. Dart; what did you tell him to do with that money? Mr. Sacket. I did not tell him anything. The Chairman. You gave him $400, did you not? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. It is on page 592. Mr. Sacket. I have the item here [referring to senatorial primary investigation]. 164 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. It is in the account which you rendered. Explain the item. Mr. Sacket. I had no dealing with Mr. Dart. Some one else did. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Sacket. I presume — you want me to presume? The Chairman. No; I want you to tell me why you put the item in this account which you rendered. Mr. Sacket. Because I found it on my account, my card, from which I copied this account. The Chairman. Is that one of the cards you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Who made the entry on the card ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Why did you make it if you did not know anything about it? Mr. Sacket. Because the check probably passed through my hands, and as it passed through- The Chairman. Who signed the checks? Mr. Sacket. It was a cashier’s check, signed by some officer of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. Who procured the cashier’s check ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. For what purpose did you procure a check for $400, to pay G. W. Dart that sum ? Mr. Sacket. Probably on the order of Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Well, was it? Mr. Sacket. It must have been, because I had no dealings with Mr. Dart. The Chairman. That emphasizes the misfortune of the destruction of your memoranda, does it not? Now you say in the absence of that memorandum you can not remember anything about the $400. It may have been used to purchase votes in violation of the law, may it not? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge, one way or the other. The Chairman. So that a payment of this money, passing through your hands as the representative of the candidate, may have been used, so far as you can state, for an illegal purpose ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know whether it was or not? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Now go down to the case of Harry Bowman, August 21, $150; for what did you pay Harry Bowman $150? Mr. Sacket. I had no agreement with Harry Bowman ; I made no arrangements with him. The Chairman. Did you pay that money ? Mr. Sacket. If I did, it was on the order of some one else. The Chairman. I want to know whether or not you paid him $150, it being in the statement of your own expenditures. Mr. Sacket. I either paid him, or gave the check or cash to Mr. Edmonds to pay him ; I could not say which. The Chairman. Do you know whether he expended that money for the purpose of bribing the electors ? RODNEY SACKET. 165 A#. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. You can not state, then, that it was expended for legitimate purposes under the law ? Mr. Sacket. I can not. The Chairman. And you have destroyed the memoranda made at the time? Mr. Sacket. I have. The Chairman. Now I desire to call your attention to the item on August 27, a week before the election, or less than a week, “ K. E. Orton, $300.” For what did you pay Orton $300 ? Mr. Sacket. Probably Mr. Edmonds asked me. The Chairman. Who was Orton ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Edmonds in regard to it, in which conversation he asked you to pay Orton that money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any such conversation. The Chairman. Then how do you know that you had a conversa- tion, or that he asked you to do it ? Mr. Sacket. I know that Mr. Orton is not a man that I made any deal with. I know that I would not have gotten that draft except on Mr. Edmonds’s order. The Chairman. You do not know what Orton did with the $300? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. He may have used it for bribery and corruption, may he not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. What entry was made, with reference to that pay- ment, on the card that you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing more than appears here. The Chairman. Nothing more than what? Mr. Sacket. Nothing more than appears here. The Chairman. Did you keep an account of the money that you paid out of the campaign fund of Senator Stephenson, as his repre- sentative, in which the purpose of such payment appeared? Mr. Sacket. I have a recollection of the purpose of the payment in all cases where I made the arrangement. The Chairman. You say you have a recollection? Mr. Sacket. In all cases where I made the arrangement. I had no knowledge in other cases. The Chairman. You did know then, in all cases where you made the arrangement to pay out money, for what it was expended ? Mr. Sacket. I know for what purpose I directed it to be ex- pended. The Chairman. You say that you do know and can testify as to what directions you gave in regard to all sums that you paid out or that passed through your hands; is that correct? Mr. Sacket. All sums that I made arrangement for the payment of. Money passed through my hands on the order of Mr. Edmonds that I knew nothing of, except that he had ordered it. The Chairman. Can you separate the payments in this expense account of yours, that were made out of the $5,000 which Senator Stephenson gave to you personally? Mr. Sacket. I can not. 166 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson did give you $5,000, did he not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you mingle that $5,000 with some other fund ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What fund? Mr. Sacket. The fund that was then in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. You received that by a check? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you indorsed the check to whom? Mr. Sacket. To the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and left it there. The Chairman. And to whose credit did you place it? Mr. Sacket. I placed it with the fund that we were drawing from, the Stephenson campaign fund, held by the paying teller of the bank. Senator Sutherland. Was that the check of August 27? The Chairman. Was that the check of August 27? Mr. Sacket. I think that is about the date. The Chairman. On the day you received that check you paid G. E. Doe $200. You paid that personally; did you not? Mr. Sacket. Will you please give me the name and the amount. The Chairman. That is the day you received the $5,000 from Senator Stephenson. You paid G. E. Doe $200, and had a personal interview with him; did you not? Mr. Littlefield. On what page does the chairman find that? “ Chippewa Falls,” is that it? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I did not pay G. E. Doe. The Chairman. Did you not meet Mr. Doe on that day? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. When did you meet him? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember ever having met him. The Chairman. You do not? Mr. Sacket. I do not. Senator Pomerene. Is he a brother of Richard Roe? Mr. Sacket. I can not say. Mr. Littlefield. Do not know which side of the “ versus ” lie is on ? The Chairman. Do you know what that $200 was paid out for? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. On the same day you paid R. E. Orton $300. Do you know anything about that payment? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Who was Orton? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you ever hear of him? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you hear of him ? Mr. Sacket. I simply heard his name mentioned in the campaign. The Chairman. In connection with what? Mr. Sacket. With the campaign generally. I could not remember more specifically. The Chairman. What did he do? RODNEY SACKET. 167 Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. What services did he perform ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. Was he one of the men you made an arrange- ment with? Mr. Sacket. He was not. The Chairman. Did you pay that on the order of Mr. Edmomls? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did you pay money on the order of any person other than Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection. The Chairman. When Mr. Edmonds gave you an order, such as is indicated by that payment, did he give it to you in writing? Mr. Sacket. Not necessarily. The Chairman. How did he give it to you ? Mr. Sacket. He told me that he wanted a check for $300 for Mr. II. E. Orton. The Chairman. Was it a verbal communication? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then you would get the check ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And would you make a memorandum? Mr. Sacket. I would. The Chairman. Did you inquire of Edmonds what the money was to be used for ? Mr. Sacket. Not in all cases. The Chairman. Did you in this case? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. You have no recollection about it? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. You do not know whether it was to be used for purchasing votes, or for what purposes ? Mr. Sacket. I had no knowledge of my own whatever. The Chairman. Did you not feel it incumbent upon you to know for what the money that you paid out was to be used ? Mr. Sacket. The money that I paid out on Mr. Edmonds’ order; no. The Chairman. You think you would be relieved of responsi- bility if the money was to be paid out for an unlawful purpose merely because Mr. Edmonds told you to pay it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You think you would be relieved? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You would not undertake to assert that if an associate were to ask you to violate the law you would be justified in doing it ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Then how do you account for your answer that if you believed if Mr. Edmonds told you to pay this money out for an unlawful purpose that Mr. Edmonds and not you would be re- sponsible ? Mr. Sacket. I felt that when Mr. Edmonds asked for money I was under obligations to give it to him. I was Mr. Stephenson’s manager. 168 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. You were giving him money, were you, and not he giving you money ? Mr. Sacket. I was getting it for Mr. Edmonds from the bank. The Chairman. When you went to the bank and got this money, if you did, which was paid to Mr. Orton on the 27th of August, $300, did you get a cashier’s check payable to Mr. Orton or to yourself? Mr. Sacket. Payable to Mr. Orton. The Chairman. And did Mr. Orton cash that or did you cash it for him? Mr. Sacket. I never cashed it for him. The Chairman. Who procured the cash for Mr. Orton? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Was he known at the bank so that he could go and cash a check without identification? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you not concern yourself about it ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; if the cashier’s check was satisfactory to him I did not care whether he ever got it cashed or not. The Chairman. Did you in any instance ever go to the bank and cash these cashier’s checks for men who needed identification ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Did anyone in your office or anyone who was con- nected with you do it ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. The Chairman. In no instance did you ever go to the bank and convert the cashier’s check into money for the convenience of any- one; did you? Mr. Sacket. Not that I remember; no, sir. The Chairman. Then you never handled any money, did you ? Mr. Sacket. I tried not to. The Chairman. Well, did you? Mr. Sacket. Oh, yes ; I drew currency in some instances. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. It would be hard for me to state. The Chairman. Did you draw $5,000 in currency altogether during that campaign ? Mr. Sacket. I should think so. The Chairman. Did you draw a great deal more than that in currency ? Mr. Sacket. I should think not a great deal more. The Chairman. Approximate it more nearly. Mr. Sacket. If I can look over this statement a few minutes The Chairman. No; it is not necessary to indulge in that. If you can not approximate it, we will take $5,000 as the amount. What kind of obligations did you pay in currency ? Mr. Sacket. The salary of the office help, small current office ex- penses which took considerable money, from time to time. The Chairman. Did you pay any of these items in currency where men were employed to organize? Mr. Sacket. In the items you first mentioned, to McMahon and Miller, my recollection of that is that they were given their expense money in currency, $50 t« each. The Chairman. Who gave it to them? Mr. Sacket. I did. RODNEY SACKET. 169 The Chairman. What other items can you remember? Mr. Sacket. C. M. Hambright, $50 ; E. H. McMahon, another fifty ; J. R. Keyes, $25. The Chairman. That Dane County item; was that in currency or check ? Mr. Sacket. “ Dane County, organizing,” I think, was in currency. The Chairman. $200? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. “ C. M. Hambright, $50.” The Chairman. That was in currency? Mr. Sacket. I think so. The Chairman. Was the Sexton item in currency? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; that was in the form of a Chicago draft. The Chairman. Is it not true that you can determine by inspec- tion which of these items were paid in currency and which by draft, and that those paid by draft had the number of the cashier’s check stated after the item? Mr. Sacket. I think that would determine it. The Chairman. So that all these items that are not accompanied by the cashier’s check number were paid in money, were they not ? Mr. Sacket. Generally speaking, yes. * The Chairman. In that item of August 6, to J. T. Kelley, $500, there is no cashier’s check number. So that was paid in currency* was it not? Mr. Sacket. I think so. The Chairman. The item to J. W. Stone, on August 12, for $2,500, was paid in cash, was it not? Mr. Sacket. It says cash here. The Chairman. Such items as that of August 21, Peter Deidrich, and the item under the head of “ General ” were paid in cash. Wo may take that, then, as a rule for determining which of these items were paid by cashier’s check, may we not ? Mr. Sacket. I think it would be nearly right. The Chairman. I think you will now probably want to modify your statement as to the amount of cash that you handled, if you will look through the list. In the cases where you handled the cash, you say you told the people to whom you delivered it that they were to keep within the law, did you? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. What did you tell them? Mr. Sacket. I told them nothing, unless I made the arrangement with them. The Chairman. But where you handed the cash to them that was making the arrangement, was it not? Mr. Sacket. I did not consider it so ; no, sir. The Chairman. You refer to a contract other than that, then, as the arrangement? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. But you were given the responsible position of dealing out the cash. When you handed cash to these men, did you admonish them in regard to the character of the expenditure that they were authorized to make? Mr. Sacket. I did not. 170 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Did you know how they would expend this money ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. You did not know how Stone would expend that $2,500, did you? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did you have any conversation with him about it? Mr. Sacket. I remember none at all. The Chairman. But you handed him the money; did you not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And so far as you know, then, he might have intended to expend it for the purpose of bribing somebody, might he not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. That is, you do not know whether he might have done it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know whether he might or not ; no, sir. The Chairman. That is not a complete answer. I think the sub- committee will have to insist on a little more direct answer. That is not candid. That is rather evading the question, because you do know whether a man might have done a thing, in your judgment. Mr. Sackett. I will say yes, he might, if that suits the sub- committee better. The Chairman. Now, without going into all of these items, there are classes that we may group them under. We find on pages 597, 598, 599, and 600 a large number of items for organization, with no indication that they were paid by cashier’s check, and that come within the class that you say may be taken to have been paid in cash. Did you make those payments? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. They are in your statement; are they not? How did they get in that statement? Mr. Sacket. They are under the heading “ Expenses in Milwaukee County as reported by W. R. Knell.” The Chairman. Did Mr. Knell make those payments? Mr. Sacket. He made this statement to me, and I included it in my statement for his account, for the money for which I gave a receipt for him. I know nothing about the items. The ChairMx^n. Who did disburse that money? Mr. Sacket. I know nothing about the items. The Chairman. Why did you include it in your account? Mr. Sacket. I included it, quoted as his statement. The Chairman. You actually paid out the money, did you not? Mr. Sacket. I gave the bank, or Mr. Puelicher, a receipt for the money which Mr. Knell used. He handed me this account, as ac- counting to me for what money he got and disposed of. The Chairman. This was your agent, then, who paid out this money — your representative; was it not? Mr. Sacket. I should not want to pass on the legal status of the matter. The Chairman. Pass upon the question of fact. Who told him to pay it out? Who authorized him? RODNEY SACKET. 171 Mr. Sacket. I did not authorize him. Mr. Littlefield. Well, if you know, who did? Mr. Sacket. I presume Senator Stephenson did. The Chairman. Then he was not acting in connection with your office here? Mr. Littlefield. If the Senator will pardon me, I think it has repeatedly appeared that the Milwaukee campaign was handled entirely independent of the general campaign. The Chairman. I had supposed that was so until I found it in the statement. It is in the Edmonds statement. Mr. Littlefield. This witness included the statement as rendered to him by the Milwaukee manager. The Chairman. Edmonds testified that Mr. Sacket made up that statement, I think. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; and so he did. The Chairman. I want to be perfectly candid and fair with this witness. In your statement, on page 498, you include it in the summary — that is the item of $11,600; is it not? Mr. Sacket. I think that is the Knell item. The Chairman. Did you not consider yourself responsible for the manner of that expenditure? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Well, who would be responsible? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. What items does the chairman refer to, please? I lost the connection for a moment. The Chairman. I was referring to the group of items summarized on page 498, under “ Milwaukee County, $11,600.” I want to know out of what fund that money came. Mr. Sacket. That money came out of the $98,083.72. The Chairman. And that was the gross fund for which you and those associated with you at headquarters were responsible, was it not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So that if any person whom you authorized to draw against that fund and expend money, made a wrongful expen- diture, one in violation of the law, it is chargeable to those who are responsible for the manner of the expense, is it not ? I want you to understand the distinction. You said you did not pay this money out by items ; that you paid it out in bulk. That is to say, you turned it over to the credit of somebody else, who dis- bursed it; did you not? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. And you disclaim any responsibility for the manner of its use ; is that right ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; I had no control over its use. I made no arrangement with the man before paying him. I did it on the order of somebody else. The Chairman. I was calling attention to this frequently repeated item of sundries. Some items are small and some are large. What is meant by sundries? Was that drinks and cigars in the saloons? 172 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I think not. The Chairman. What? Mr. Sacket. Not in my statement; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What page does the Chairman have in mind? The Chairman. Take page 496. Take almost any of those pages and you will find that class of items. For instance, there is an item “ sundries, $16 ; ” “ sundries, $20 ; ” “ sundries, $33 ; ” “ water, $2.” Would that be within your class of expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. That was probably water used in the office. The Chairman. Then there are three items of sundries on the 5th, 6th, and 8th, and on the 15th $250 for sundries. That is, you say, in the Milwaukee account; is it? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; that is in the Milwaukee headquarters’ ac- count; not the Milwaukee County account. The Chairman. That is what I refer to; the Milwaukee head- quarters acount. Mr. Sacket. The Stfate account? The Chairman. There is quite a considerable amount of sundries contained on those three pages, 494, 495, and 496, in items running from $250 down. Mr. Littlefield. There is one item of $1.50. The Chairman. Yes; and perhaps even less. I should like to know, Mr. Sacket, whether or not you were cog- nizant at the time that such expenditures were being made out of the fund for which you were responsible? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; they covered incidental expenses in the office. They might have included beer and cigars, as you suggested, in some cases, but they were not put in to cover that up in any way. They are just what they say, as I remember them, sundries, small items. Mr. Littlefield. Is it necessary to cover beer and cigars in Mil- waukee ? The Chairman. I am not inclined to be very technical about that class of expenditures, but I was asking the questions more to test your knowledge then and now as to the class of expenditures which you countenanced under your responsibility as the custodian of the fund. That was the purpose in calling your attention to it. Was your attention called to the fact at the time these expenditures were being incurred and paid out of the fund for which you were responsible ? Mr. Sacket. I undoubtedly knew of these expenditures at that time. The Chairman. When your attention was called to an expenditure of $130 or $140 for sundries, did you inquire whether or not that was a lawful expenditure under the laws of the State of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. I undoubtedly knew that it was a perfectly lawful and proper expenditure before I paid it. The Chairman. But you did not pay it out; did you? Mr. Sacket. These small sundry items I did attend to mostly myself. The Chairman. You paid the sundry items mostly yourself? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; that is, I paid them myself, or reimbursed somebody else who did pay them. RODNEY SACKET. 173 The Chairman. In this case I infer you reimbursed a man who had been dispensing some money. Were you in Madison at the time of the senatorial election ? Mr. Sacket. You mean on the day The Chairman. I mean during the time that the matter was before the legislature. Mr. Sacket. I was a witness before the joint committee during that session of the legislature. The Chairman. Were you there in January when the houses voted separately on the question of the election of a Senator? Mr. Sacket. I was not in Madison on that day ; no, sir. The Chairman. Were you there upon a subsequent day when they voted in joint session? Mr. Sacket. I was there on several days. The Chairman. Were you there on the particular day when the vote in joint session was taken? Mr. Sacket. When Senator Stephenson was declared elected; do you mean? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. No, sir; I was not. The Chairman. Were you there the day before? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. When did you leave Wisconsin after the Stephen- son contest in 1908 and 1909? Mr. Littlefield. Does the chairman mean after the close of the primary election? The Chairman. I mean to include the primary and the general election. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I could not give the exact date. The Chairman. Do you not know when you went to Washington? Mr. Sacket. I say I could not give the exact date. The Chairman. Give it approximately. Mr. Sacket. It was probably very shortly after the 1st of Novem- ber. If I remember correctly, I stayed and voted and then went to Washington within a very few days. The Chairman. You made up this summary on page 498, did you, specifying the expenditures that had been made under your direc- tion? Mr. Sacket. I made that statement; yes, sir. The Chairman. From what did you make it? Mr. Sacket. From the items in the account preceding that; on the pages preceding that. The Chairman. That was merely a summing up of the items? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you have any cards or memoranda showing that you had already done that, or made that statement, that you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. I do not believe I understand you. The Chairman. Well, had you, prior to classifying this previous statement here, classified it as to items ? Mr. Sacket. Iihad not ; no, sir. 174 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Then this is the first time that you undertook to analyze the account, is it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You testified that a great many of these people who are stated to be organizers and to be paid for organizing were employed in obtaining signatures to the nomination papers. Is that correct ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember making the statement, but some of them did attend to the matter of getting signatures, to my cer- tain knowledge. The Chairman. Will you just tell me at this point, Mr. Sacket, who does know about these things. Things do not happen without somebody knowing. Mr. Sacket. I know about some of them. The Chairman. Who knows about those that you do not know about? Mr. Sacket. I presume Mr. Edmonds does. The Chairman. Were you present this morning when that gentle- man was on the witness stand Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And testified that he did not know, and that you were the one who would know? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember noticing any such thing in his testimony. The Chairman. He testified in effect that you were the person who would know the detailed facts i?i regard to the purposes for which the money was expended. Now, do you know the facts? Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, if the subcommittee please. Is the chairman quite certain that Mr. Edmonds applied that statement to the arrangements he himself made ? My recollection is — of course the chairman may be right — that Mr. Edmonds undertook himself to state as to the arrangements that he made, what the purposes were, and what instructions he gave, and that as to the arrangements that Mr. Sacket made, Mr. Sacket would have the information. Of course, I may be wrong about this and the chairman may be right, but that is my recollection. The Chairman. My statement did not go so far as to say that Mr. Edmonds said that Mr. Sacket would know about those things as to which he had given information. Mr. Littlefield. I misapprehended the statement. The Chairman. We are seeking now only for the margin beyond which Mr. Edmonds went. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I got the wrong impression from your question. The Chairman. I want this witness to tell us who knows the details in regard to the expenditure of these sums of money, and I will ask the witness to take up, first, the summary statement which he pre- pared, and I will go over it, and then we will proceed to the general statement and find out where the knowledge rests. Now, there is an item of general expenses in organizing the State, $46,052.29. Those are the items, are they, which in this statement you term “organ- izing ” ? For instance, the several items at the top of page 480 — $200, $150, and $300 — and others below. RODNEY SACKET. 175 Mr. Sacket. Those items would undoubtedly be included in that $46,000. The Chairman. Very well. Now, that does not include the procur- ing of names to the petition for the primary nomination, does it? Mr. Sacket. It might include some of those expenditures. The Chairman. Well, does it? Mr. Sacket. I think it does. The Chairman. You made it up. Mr. Sacket. I think it does. The Chairman. How much of it is in that class? Mr. Sacket. I could not say. The Chairman. In your summary you have here “nomination papers, $40.86.” What item is that? Mr. Sacket. That is a number of bills that were sent to our office by men to whom we sent blanks by mail; men who sent in and de- manded payment for their services in circulating those papers; so that that item is clearly for nomination papers and nothing else. A great many of our organizers also attended to the getting of nomina- tion papers. The money given to them would be charged in this $46,000 item. The Chairman. I notice that all of these items for organizing — and the greater part of them are for organizing — are after the time when you had filed the petitions with the signatures on them. Mr. Sacket. My idea of organizing, as I used it in this statement, might include circulating of petitions, or any other work to perfect the organization which we hoped to use for the election of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Would it include the distribution and payment of money to men who were to work at the polls? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Would it include the payment of money to men who were to induce other men to vote for Senator Stephenson, without any limitation being placed upon the manner of inducement ? Mr. Sacket. It would include money expended in that way; yes, sir. The Chairman. It might include money expended in purchasing votes, might it? Mr. Sacket. It might. The Chairman. Did it? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. The Chairman. Can you say it did not. Mr. Sacket. No, sir ; not of my own knowledge. The Chairman. You have no memorandum that would even guide you to a conclusion, have you ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I would be able to keep one. The Chairman. And you never made a memorandum that would? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, a memorandum that would show the pur- chase of a vote? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose not. The Chairman. So that “ organizing ” after August 2 does not in- clude the obtaining of signatures to the petitions? Mr. Sacket. The items entered after the 2d of August might be payment for services rendered earlier. 176 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Will you turn to Exhibit 47, on page 476, and tell me what the items on August 4 of $1,000 to Douglas County, $1,300 to La Crosse, and $1,300 to Vilas, Oneida, and Lincoln Counties were for? What were they paid for? Mr. Sacket. From that statement I could not tell. The Chairman. Have you any memoranda from which you can tell ? Mr. Sacket. The subsequent exhibit, 49, would throw some light on that subject. The Chairman. J ust transfer that light to us, please. Mr. Littlefield. Turn on the light. That is the statement begin- ning on page 588. The Chairman. Yes; I have it. Which one? Mr. Littlefield. August 4. Mr. Sacket. That, I believe, shows the check numbers, and the persons to whom the amounts were paid. Mr. Littlefield. On the bottom of page 589. The Chairman. That merely shows that you paid it by cashier’s check with a given number to S. S. Perrin. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now, that was for organization prior to the time of the filing of the petitions, so that would include any expense for getting the petitions, would it not? Mr. Sacket. I have no absolute personal knowledge of these items that you refer to. I did not make the arrangements with any of these gentlemen. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. George Gordon received $1,300 on the same day for some purpose. What purpose was it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Who would know? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Is Mr. Edmonds in the court room? Mr. Littlefield. He was here a few moments ago, but he stated to me that he was just going out. The Chairman. I requested him to remain here until he was ex- cused. The importance of complying with that request is obvious at this time. The sergeant at arms will call Mr. Edmonds into the court room. He was instructed to go over this statement and point out certain items. Mr. Littlefield. I think what he was trying to give to the com- mittee was a statement of what portions of these sums were paid for services. That is my recollection. The Chairman. He was also to furnish information as to items of which he had personal knowledge. I will pass these items until Mr. Edmonds has checked them up. Mr. Sacket, will you go through this statement of yours between now and the meeting of the com- mittee to-morrow, and pick out the items of which you have personal knowledge ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In regard to the purpose for which the expendi- ture was made ; or rather, to put it more plainly, of which you have knowledge as to the nature of the expenditure that was made. SOLON S. PERRIN. 177 Mr. Sacket. Would you consider that I had knowledge of the nature of it if I had directed a man to expend it in a certain way, and not in certain other ways? The Chairman. The way to answer that is to give such informa- tion as you have. If you have no more knowledge than that, per- haps we will have to be content with it; but if you have more knowl- edge, it would be to your advantage to give it. The committee will take a recess for five minutes. (At 4 o’clock and 10 minutes p. m. the committee took a recess until 4 o’clock and 15 minutes p. m.) AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. The Chairman. If Mr. Solon S. Perrin is present he will come forward and be sworn. TESTIMONY OF SOLON S. PEEKIN. Solon S. Perrin responded to his name and was sworn by the chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Perrin, having been sworn as a witness, you will remain in attendance during the sessions of the committee, and you will be heard as early as possible. Now, Mr. Littlefield, I under- stand you to say that you will have Mr. Edmonds make up that state- ment of the items of which he has personal knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Perhaps I ought to explain that Mr. Ed- monds had my copy of this printed testimony before the State com- mittee, and was at work in my room last evening going over these items, in accordance with the suggestion of the chairman. I think he had checked in Exhibit 49 all of the items as to which he made the arrangements and gave any directions or instructions. Since that time I have taken that copy back to my room, so that if I am cor- rect the memorandum of his notations is in my room. Senator Sutherland. He was to go over the accounts and come in this morning prepared to testify as to the items of which he had personal knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. He was doing that. I do not know whether he has completed it or not. My understanding is that he has, and that he has checked it up in the copy which I have in my room. Mr. Sacket is doing the same thing on the copy which he has. Mr. Sacket. I have it almost completed. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Sacket can proceed with that to-night if you would like to have him do it. The Chairman. In view of the fact that the witness is going over the statement for the purpose of making his examination more expe- ditious, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o’clock to- morrow morning. (At 4 o’clock and 21 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, October 4, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m.) 15235 °— vol l—ll 12 178 E. A. EDMONDS. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , W is. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pome- rene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS— Resumed. The Chairman. The chair will ask Mr. Edmonds to resume the stand. Mr. Edmonds resumed the stand. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, on Monday you were requested to look over the account rendered by you or Mr. Sacket, or jointly, and tell the committee as to which particular items in that account you had personal knowledge of, as to the purpose of the expenditures. Have you gone through the accounts ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At what page in the report have you the accounts? Mr. Edmonds. Page 588. The Chairman. I wish you would specify which items in that account were expended under your personal knowledge and direction, and in connection with that statement state whether or not you know for what purpose the money was furnished or expended. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and may I make the explanation in making my checkings that some of these I know more about than I do about others? For instance, in Dane County, as to the organizing, I could not say positively that that was money paid to Mr. Ames. The Chairman. Let us take them in their order, so that the record will be orderly. Which is the first item of which you have personal knowledge ? Mr. Edmonds. July 18, Dane County organizing, $200. The Chairman. To whom was that money paid? Mr. Edmonds. That was the explanation that I was giving. The Chairman. But I want you to repeat your explanation as an answer to my question. To whom was that money paid? Mr. Edmonds. There is nothing here to indicate 'the Chairman. I do not care about that, Mr. Edmonds; I want your knowledge on the subject. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. I will make it plain to you so that we will not have to repeat it. Either you or Mr. Sacket were represented as having knowledge in regard to the purpose for which the money was paid, and the manner in which it was used. The testimony of each of you together should cover every item in this account. Mr. Edmonds. May I make this statement, in explanation, that the time has been long since this money was expended, and the report was made The Chairman. We are aware of that. Mr. Edmonds. This report is not clear, and simply says “ Dane County organizing,” giving no names. I have no reason to doubt E. A. EDMONDS. 179 that that was paid to the man who did the organizing in that county, but I could not swear to it. The Chairman. Let us start out with a fair understanding. Your reasoning in regard to it is not testimony or evidence. If you will confine yourself as nearly as possible to stating the facts without drawing conclusions, leaving that to the committee, the committee will be obliged, and the committee will take notice of the lapse of time and perhaps of a difficulty which may be found in accurate recollection. But we want your recollection. Take the item of July 18, $200. To whom was that money paid ? Do you know ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who directed its payment? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. For what was it paid? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. For what was it expended? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. When did you last know ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I ever knew. The Chairman. You, then, never knew anything about the item of July 18 for organizing Dane County, $200? Mr. Edmonds. As to this particular item I do not know that I ever did; I do not remember. The Chairman. Pass now to the first item of which you have knowledge. Mr. Edmonds. The item, “ General organizing, Edmonds’s check, $150.” The Chairman. To whom was that money paid ? Mr. Edmonds. That money was paid to me. The Chairman. What did you do with it? Mr. Edmonds. I am unable to recall the exact things I did with it, but it was paid undoubtedly for my expenses at the hotel. The Chairman. I do not want any speculation in regard to it. Unless you know, do not speculate in respect to it. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Have you no knowledge as to what use you made of that $150? Mr. Edmonds. No knowledge as to that particular $150. The Chairman. And you have no knowledge as to the use you made of it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember what I did with it ; no, sir. The Chairman. The money was paid to you, was it ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Take the next item of which you have knowledge. Mr. Edmonds. It is on the next page. Mr. Littlefield. Give the date. Mr. Edmonds. July 22, J. W. Wypszinski, $50. The Chairman. To whom was that money paid ? Mr. Edmonds. To the man whose name is given there, and it was done by my instructions. The Chairman. Were you present when it was paid to him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 180 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. What was the conversation? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now, but he was to go out into the different parts of the State to see the people of his nationality. The Chairman. What was he to do when he saw these people? Mr. Edmonds. Endeavor to enlist them in the interests of Senator Stephenson’s election. The Chairman. What do you mean by “enlist” them? Mr. Edmonds. Talk with them and tell them the qualities of Sen- ator Stephenson and make him the ideal candidate for the United States Senate. The Chairman. Did you pay that same man any other sum of money ? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection unless I find it later in this report. The Chairman. Did you personally pay him the money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. In your presence? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. How do you know that he received that money? Mr. Edmonds. I think, perhaps, that is not a fair statement for me to make, that I know that Mr. Sacket gave it to him. He was instructed to do it. The Chairman. You have no personal knowledge in regard to it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You had a conversation with the man who re- ceived the money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Before or after he received it? Mr. Edmonds. Before. The Chairman. What did you tell him to do as a consideration for the receipt of that money ? Mr. Edmonds. To see different people of his nationality in such localities as he would pick out and endeavor to interest them in the campaign. The Chairman. Where is that man now? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. When did you last see him? Mr. Edmonds. I think that he came in later, but I am not sure. I never saw him more than once or twice. The Chairman. Had you any knowledge of him prior to giving him the $50 on July 22? Mr. Edmonds. No; I think he was sent to me by somebody who knew him. The Chairman. If you have no actual knowledge on the subject, say so. Did you have any knowledge of this man prior to the time when you gave him or instructed that he be given $50 ? Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will excuse me, of course the Chair does not undertake to exclude the witness from giving his best recollection. The Chairman. The Chair does not. The witness was not at- tempting to give his best recollection. E. A. EDMONDS. 181 Mr. Littlefield. I did not want any misunderstanding between the chairman and the witness. The Chairman. There is no misunderstanding about it. Mr. Littlefield. I have not said there was a misunderstanding, but I simply wanted the witness to understand, of course, that he might give his best recollection. There is a technical and a finical way in which a man may give his answer categorically to the ques- tions that are propounded. If he is giving his best recollection, of course, I suppose that is a perfectly proper and competent thing to do. The Chairman. The Chair advised the witness that we wanted only testimony in regard to matters that he recollected. If he does not recollect, it is proper to say so. We do not want anything but testimony of what the witness does recollect. To resume, Mr. Edmonds, had you any knowledge of this man before the occasion on which you paid him $50, or instructed that $50 be paid to him ? Mr. Edmonds. No personal knowledge except through information. The Chairman. Did you have information in regard to him? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that I did. The Chairman. From whom? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now. The Chairman. In writing, or otherwise? Mr. Edmonds. I should say not in writing. The Chairman. By phone? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember. The Chairman. Where did this man reside? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you know then, when you paid him the money ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. The Chairman. Was he a young man or an old man? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that he was perhaps 30 or 35 years old. The Chairman. The committee would like to know or have such information as would enable it to bring this man before it. Can you give the committee such information? Mr. Edmonds. By making inquiries I think I can find him; yes. I have never seen him since. The Chairman. Will you undertake to furnish the committee with the present address of this man? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Without any further attention on the part of the committee we will rely on your furnishing the committee with his address. Do you know what county he was from ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not. The Chairman. I notice on July 24 you paid to the same man $25. Did you make that payment in person? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Do yon know whether you did or not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who would know for what purpose that money was given to this man on the 24th? 182 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Who should know under the system that obtained in the headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket should know. The Chairman. Did you make any memoranda when you gave in- structions for the payment of money to these various people, or any of them, as to the services they were to perform in consideration of receiving this money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; no written statement; no, sir. The Chairman. You say you did not? Mr. Edmonds. No written statement; no, sir. The Chairman. Did jmu make any memoranda at any time in regard to the purposes for which the money you ordered paid was to be used ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any. The Chairman. Endeavor to recall it now, Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I will. The Chairman. Can you recall any instance in which you made a memorandum as to the purpose for which the money was paid, either by you or under your instructions, during this campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall any instance ; no, sir. The Chairman. You have no books of account in which such items will appear? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely not. The Chairman. You made no record either in a book or otherwise as to the purpose for which you paid or directed that money to be paid during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. To the very best of my recollection, none. The Chairman. Why did you not? Mr. Edmonds. I did not feel it was necessary. The Chairman. Were you acquainted with the provisions of the statutes of the State of Wisconsin with reference to the filing of an expense account by those who were candidates for nomination or election ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think so; reasonably well. The Chairman. Are we to understand that with that knowledge you did not make any attempt to lay the foundation for compliance with that law in the expenditure or payment of the large sums of money that you disbursed during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not, because it was done by another person in the office. The Chairman. Who? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. Suppose it transpired that it was not done by Mr. Sacket, then did Mr. Sacket disobey any instructions which you had given ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; Mr. Sacket had his instructions from others before I came and took charge. The Chairman. You were the manager of the campaign, were you not ? That was the term used as to yourself? Mr. Edmonds. That is the term that has been given me ; yes, sir. The Chairman. It was the designation at that time, was it not? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. The Chairman. How did you regard yourself in that respect? E. A. EDMONDS. 183 Mr. Edmonds. I think I regarded myself as manager of the cam- paign. The Chairman. And so regarding yourself, you made no attempt to lay the foundation for making a statement that would comply with the law in the event it became necessary to file an expense account ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Owing to the conditions that existed when I went there, I felt that that was being done and so continued during my service. The Chairman. You did not feel that you, as manager of the campaign, had any responsibility for the observance of the law ? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. You say you did not? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly, I did. The Chairman. You did? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Feeling that responsibility, I repeat the question: Why did you not take some steps that would enable you to meet the responsibility when the occasion arose ? Mr. Edmonds. Because the office manager, who had in charge that work, was doing the work satisfactorily, so far as I knew. The Chairman. Did you inquire as to the manner in which he was doing the work ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I inquired, but at times I saw what he was doing. The Chairman. Did you examine the accounts that were being kept by Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so ; no, sir. The Chairman. Never? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember that I ever did ; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you inquire as to the manner of the keeping of those accounts of Mr. Sacket, or of any person ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I ever inquired. I saw what he was doing. The Chairman. But did you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You say you saw what he was doing? Mr. Edmonds. I saw what he was doing, so it was not necessary to inquire. The Chairman. You say you saw it. Did you purposely look at it, or did you see it incidentally to some other transaction? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember ever having gone in to make an examination of what he was doing. The Chairman. How did you come to see it; under what circumstances ? Mr. Edmonds. His office adjoined mine; I was often in his office; he was in mine ; and I saw him there nearly every day. The Chairman. What did you see? Mr. Edmonds. I would notice that he had a record where he kept track of what he was ordering — getting from the bank. The Chairman. Did you examine that record ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What form was the record in? 184 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is — no; I can not say; I do not know ; in some book or paper that he had on the desk. The Chairman. Did you think you had a recollection when you started to answer that your “ recollection is ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not want to guess at it. I wanted to say exactly what I remembered. The Chairman. The subcommittee does not desire that you should guess. You saw some book or paper that contained an account or memorandum of the transactions, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. To my best recollection, yes, sir. The Chairman. What kind of a book was it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know, and yet remember seeing the book ? Mr. Edmonds. My statement was that I saw him making a record in some — on some paper or book on his desk. The Chairman. Which was it, paper or book ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall ; something that he was writing on. The Chairman. How do you know it was either a book or a paper if you have no recollection? Mr. Edmonds. It is barely possible that he was writing on the top of his desk, but I do not think so. I think he had something on which The Chairman. You desire that answer to stand, do you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. As indicating the frame of mind in which you are receiving and replying to these questions — that he might have been writing on the top of his desk ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You think that measures up with the responsibil- ity that you have as a witness in this investigation ? Mr. Edmonds. I am making the best answers that it is possible for me to make, Senator. I am withholding nothing. If I could recall, I would tell you frankly. The Chairman. I will give you another opportunity to answer that question. Was he writing in a book or on loose paper? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Yet you remember seeing him write? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; that is my best recollection. The Chairman. What was the occasion on which you saw him write ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the particular occasion. The Chairman. How do you recall that you saw him write if you can not give any intimation of the occasion ? Mr. Edmonds. I have no answer to give to that question. The Chairman. Why have you no answer to give to it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. What is it that you do not know ? Mr. Edmonds. I understand, Senator, that you want me to answer questions as to which I know, and that you do not want me to guess, and I am trying not to do that. The Chairman. You have already stated that you saw him writing on a book or paper, or the top of a desk, you have said, in perhaps a flippant manner. On what occasion was it you saw him so writing? E. A. EDMONDS. 185 Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. How can you remember you saw him write if you can not remember an occasion? Mr. Edmonds. I will have to answer again that I do not know. It is impossible for me to answer the questions that have been put to me in that manner. The Chairman. Do you mean that it is impossible or it is dan- gerous ? Mr. Edmonds. It is impossible; not at all dangerous. There is not a thing that you can ask me that I will not answer fully and freely, if I can. The Chairman. You realize that you are responsible for the manner of the expenditure of this money, do you ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so, yes, sir. The Chairman. And you never made any effort to ascertain in what manner the accounts were being kept; is that true? Mr. Edmonds. I state again that I saw, at different times, and talked with Mr. Sacket, and knew in a general way what he was doing; that he was keeping the account. I never made an examina- tion and never instructed The Chairman. Do you know of any single item of which you had knowledge as to Mr. Sacket’s keeping an account of it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any now. I think he kept them all. The Chairman. You say you think it. On what do you base your thought ? Mr. Edmonds. From the fact that he has made this detailed state- ment, and if he had not kept something he could not have. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the destruction of the memoranda or cards or card index upon which he says he had kept certain accounts? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely nothing. The Chairman. Did you know that they were being destroyed or that they were going to be destroyed ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. Were you ever in consultation with reference ta the destruction of the papers and memoranda kept by Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. Never. The Chairman. When did you first know that they had been destroyed ? Mr. Edmonds. Just now. The Chairman. Did you suppose they were still in existence? Mr. Edmonds. I did not know. The Chairman. You knew that was testified to before the legis- lative committee, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you never read the testimony that was taken before that committee? Mr. Edmonds. Never. The Chairman. Did you hear it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You did not hear Mr. Sacket testify? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. 186 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Where were you at the time the testimony was being taken? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now. I was in Madison part of the time, all the time when I was testifying, and as soon as I could get home I went home. The Chairman. Did you pay any attention at all to the testimony given by your associate, Mr. Sacket, before that committee? Mr. Edmonds. I was present at different times during the testi- mony of different members. I do not recall. The Chairman. Were you present and did you hear the testimony of Mr. Sacket before that committee? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I heard any of it. I am not positive. I may have heard a little. The Chairman. W r hy did you not hear it ; were you excluded from the room? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Your sense of responsibility did not impel you to acquaint yourself with the testimony of those who were associated with you, did it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I had no reason to think that there was anything in Mr. Sacket’s testimony or in the testimony of any other person in connection with this investigation that would in any way injure the chances of Senator Stephenson in his election. The Chairman. That is what you had in view, was it? You had in view only the chances of Senator Stephenson in his election ? Did you have no concern or interest in the integrity of the proceedings that would result in his election? Mr. Edmonds. I would like that question again. The Chairman (to the reporter). Head it. (The reporter read as follows:) That is what yon had in view was it? You had in view only the chances of Senator Stephenson in his election? Did you have no concern or interest in the integrity of the proceedings that would result in his election? Mr. Edmonds. It is not true that I had no other thought in mind than the chances of the election of Senator Stephenson. But I had no reason to believe that in the testimony of any of these witnesses there would be anything of a dangerous character, anything incrim- inating to them or to him. There was no reason why I should listen to the testimony. Had I been there I would have listened. But when I w T as through with my testimony I was glad to go home. The Chairman. Did you not regard it as rather an unusual and serious situation that was disclosed by the testimony of Mr. Sacket showing the expenditure of a very large sum of money in connection with the campaign of a candidate for the Senate? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I regarded the whole matter of that in- vestigation as a political deal here in the State. The Chairman. I am not speaking of the investigation; I am speaking of the condition that was disclosed there and admitted here. Did you not regard it as rather a serious question, to be care- fully considered, that a candidate should expend so much money at a primary election? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I certainly did not. The Chairman. You thought that was a natural result from the condition, did you? E. A. EDMONDS. 187 Mr. Edmonds. The natural result of the primary election law under which this election was held and this campaign was held. The Chairman. Were you present when Senator Stephenson testi- fied before the joint committee? Mr. Edmonds. I was there that day, but I did not hear his testi- mony, or all of it. The Chairman. Why did you not listen to his testimony ? Mr. Edmonds. The Senator’s back was toward the people in the room where I was standing, and it was not possible for us to hear all of it. The Chairman. Did you endeavor to hear the testimony given by Senator Stephenson on that occasion ? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite certain I was there when he started, because I was to be the next witness, I believe. The Chairman. Did you endeavor to hear it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Not at all? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. You do not recall; is that it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Did you ever talk over the expenditures of this campaign with Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. There was an attempt to talk it over; yes, sir. The Chairman. When? Mr. Edmonds. When this report was being prepared. The Chairman. Not before? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; at the time. You say “not before”; it might have been a few hours before. The Chairman. During the campaign did you and Mr. Sacket confer at any time in regard to the propriety of the expenditures that were being made? Mr. Edmonds. Not with regard to the propriety of expenditures; no, sir. The Chairman. On no occasion? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think on a single one. The Chairman. Did you confer during that time as to whether or not expenditures would be made? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I get just the meaning of your question, Senator. I do not think that I ever discussed with him the propriety of a large or small expenditure, or of any particular amounts of any The Chairman. You evidently comprehend the question. You went through about two months of the campaign together in those offices, did you? Mr. Edmonds. Six or seven weeks, I believe; yes, sir. The Chairman. And you were, each of you, charged with a sepa- rate as well as a dual responsibility for the conduct of the cam- paign ? Mr. Edmonds. I should think that expresses it ; yes, sir. The Chairman. And yet you never conferred with reference to what expenditures should be made ; is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. My answer was more as to discussion of the policy. The Chairman. I am talking about the expenditure of money. 188 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Policy of expenditure of money. But as to indi- vidual instances where money was expended, certainly I told him about what I had arranged for the expenditure of, and in matters of advertising, etc., he consulted with me; so we talked those matters over. The Chairman. So that you did confer with reference to the pur- pose for which these items of expenditure were made? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I did not answer your question properly if that is what you meant before. The Chairman. Now, just refer to the item on July 22, the third item from the top of page 589. Did you confer with regard to whether or not that expenditure should be made to Mr. Wypszinski? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. My best recollection is that I did not. * The Chairman. You just directed him to pay the money, did you? Mr. Edmonds. That is my best recollection ; yes, sir. The Chairman. You are the one who had the conversation with Mr. Wypszinski regarding his employment? Mr. Edmonds. I believe that to be the case ; yes, sir. The Chairman. And you had agreed definitely as to his employ- ment and as to its scope, had you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you convey those facts to Mr. Sacket when you instructed him to pay the money? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is thal? I simply asked him to pay the money to Sir. Wypszinski ; that I had made arrangements for him to work for the organization. The Chairman. How much of that money was to be paid for salary or compensation to Mr. Wypszinski? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that he was to receive $50 for the services that he was to render during the campaign. The Chairman. Altogether? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then why did you, on the 24th, two days after- wards, give him another $25? Mr. Edmonds. That was for services that I refer to. These other items should be expense that he might have had. The Chairman. The $25 was for expenses, was it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You made the contract with him? Mr. Edmonds. That is true; but 1 do not recall whether part of this $50 was to be expense and part salary, or just how it was to be arranged; but I believe — my recollection is that $50 was all he was to receive for compensation. Mr. Littlefield. That is, you do not now recollect how the items were divided? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. The Chairman. You say that was the last time you ever saw Mr. Wypszinski ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not say so. The Chairman. When did you see him last? Mr. Edmonds. At sometime during the campaign; that is my best recollection; either once or twice. E. A. EDMONDS. 189 The Chairman. This was during the campaign; it was the 24th of J uly ? Mr. Edmonds. But later during the campaign; once or twice, my recollection is. The Chairman. Did you pay him other sums of money ? Mr. Edmonds. I would not recall unless the report states. He was not a man I knew at all. The Chairman. You have no recollection on the subject, then? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket, then, will not know for what pur- pose this man was employed ; that is your knowledge, or within your recollection ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he render an account of his expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. He was merely an electioneering agent, was he ? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps that might be a good name to give him. The Chairman. You have said that those were his duties — to present the claims of Senator Stephenson to voters and recommend him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What particular class of voters? Mr. Edmonds. Members of his nationality. The Chairman. What is that — a Russian name or Polish? Mr. Edmonds. I think it is Polish. I am not positive now. The Chairman. Where was he to operate? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember. The Chairman. Was it not agreed between you that his operations should be in some particular part of the State ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so, at the time; but I do not now recall where they were. I think it was understood then by me as well as by him. The Chairman. Can you not recall it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Now we pass on to the next item, “ G. Peterson, $25.” Did you make the arrangement under which he was paid $25 ? Mr. Edmonds. That is an item checked [referring to Exhibit 49]. I remember the $200 was given to me, but I do not remember the name of G. Peterson. I do not know whether I made any arrange- ment with him or not. I can not recall him at all. The Chairman. You can not recall it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I have checked that item because I re- member the $200. The Chairman. But you did receive $200 for stamps at that time? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection of it except as it is made plain by this statement. The Chairman. That “ E. A. E.” represents your name there [page 589], does it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The item is $225, $200 of which is said to be for stamps ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 190 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Stamps for the headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you purchase and send out to any other branch of the organization any postage stamps? Mr. Edmonds. Not to my knowledge. The Chairman. Then all of the stamp items here are in connec- tion with the management of the city office here ? Mr. Edmonds. Of the State office and the county organization office. The Chairman. And the county ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether in this report those items of stamps are separated or not. The Chairman. And you have no recollection of Peterson? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. As to where he lived ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not recall now. The Chairman. Or who he was. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. And you would not be able to tell the committee where he could be found at this time ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. The next item is $200 for general organizing, pay- able to you. You received that money, $200, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I have no definite recollection of having received it at that time, but I have no reason to doubt I did. The Chairman. What did you do with it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know, except that as those amounts were received that are charged to me they were used by me me to pay hotel bills and The Chairman. Whose hotel bills? Mr. Edmonds. My own and those that I had invited to come down, had taken to dinner, etc., other expenditures of that kind, my per- sonal expenditures. The Chairman. Was all of the $200 used for hotel bills? Mr. Edmonds. From the amount, I should say probably not ; but I do not know. The Chairman. At that time — pass your mind back to that date or about it — did you give an entertainment at the hotel, to others, for which this money was paid, in whole or in part? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. At different times during the cam- paign I had anywhere from one to half a dozen or a dozen men eating with me, men who were interested in the campaign. The Chairman. At the expense of the campaign fund? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you make any memorandum at the time of the expenditure of this money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you keep no running account or itemized account of the sums of money which you expended personally during the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Why did you not? Mr. Edmonds. I never had been in the habit of doing that in my personal expenses, and I considered this in the same way. When I E. A. EDMONDS. 191 drew a hundred dollars from the bank from my personal account, I used it for my personal expenditures, and when it was gone I got more, and in this instance my business methods, or my usual custom, was carried out. The Chairman. You were aware of the fact that you would have to file an expense account under the law, were you not ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it occurred to me that I would have to go into details in that way. I am sure it did not, or I would have done so. The Chairman. Was the question never raised as to the filing of an account during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. How is that ? The Chairman. Was the question as to the filing of an account never raised during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. As to these items of expenditure by me ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; neither during the campaign, nor at the time of that investigation. The question what I had used that money for was never raised. The Chairman. What did you suppose the purpose of the statute was that required an expense account to be filed ? Mr. Edmonds. I am afraid I do not know. The Chairman. Did you not consider it at all ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; it never occurred to me that that would be necessary to do. The Chairman. Did you not realize that you were apt to jeop- ardize the interests of Senator Stephenson, who was employing you, or in whose interests you were engaed, by failing to comply with the law in regard to the keeping of an expense account ? Mr. Edmonds. Not of my personal expenditures; no, sir. That never occurred to me. The Chairman. Why would you differentiate between your per- sonal expenses and the expenses which 3^011 incurred for any other purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it ever occurred to me to question that. If I had thought any question would ever be raised as to those expenditures I would have kept that in an itemized statement and rendered it to Senator Stephenson. I thought he had confidence enough in me to believe that I would not knock down on expenditures. The Chairman. Did you not realize that that was not a question of Senator Stephenson’s confidence in you, but one of conforming to a statute? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not realize that. The Chairman. When did you first receive that thought ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I ever received it until now. The Chairman. Right now ? Mr. Edmonds. It never has been questioned before. I was on the witness stand before the other investigating committee nine times, I believe, and it never was brought up before. The Chairman. Is that item included in the expense account that was filed ? Mr. Edmonds. With this investigating committee? This is the itemized account. 192 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. I am reading the item from the statement, Ex- hibit 49. Is that item included in the statement of expenses filed by Senator Stephenson? Mr. Littlefield. The chairman means now the return made to the Secretary of State. The Chairman. The item I am inquiring about is his expenses. The item is on July 23, and it reads “ General organizing, E. A. E.,” which the witnes says, his initials being there, indicates that the money was paid to him. I am inquiring about that item of $200, and I want to know whether that $200 appears anywhere, or rather whether it is included in the Stephenson statement filed to conform to the statute. Mr. Edmonds. Certainly, every dollar of this. The Chairman. Point out that item in that statement. Will you turn to the statement Mr. Littlefield. Either let us have the exhibit or something to show exactly what it is. Mr. Black. Page 88. The Chairman. The statement that I refer to is the statement of election expenses filed under the law. Have you a copy of it there? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; it is on page 88 of the printed testimony of the previous investigation. The Chairman. I will ask the witness to point it out. Mr. Littlefield. The question is whether he can find that item of $200 in the general statement. . The Chairman. No; that is not the question. The question is whether it is included in the general statement ; and, if so, where it is. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think the chairman localized quite as well as that before, but it has been done now. The Chairman. In what item is that $200 included? Mr. Edmonds. I believe in the item of $53,729.56. The Chairman. That item reads: “To C. M. Hambright, John C. Miller, E. H. McMahon, E. J. Rogers, U. C. Keller, and others for services tendered in organizing outside of Milwaukee County, $53,- 729.56.” You think that item includes the item of $200 paid on July 23 to you? Mr. Edmonds. I believe that to be the case. The Chairman. Why was your name not mentioned in that enumeration? You are one of the “ and others,” are you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I am one of the others whose names are not mentioned. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have anything to do with the making up of the return ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe I suggested the form of this statement of election expenses. It was taken from the form of the statement sub- mitted by the present Gov. McGovern. Mr. Littlefield. He was then a candidate for the primary elec- tion? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand by that that this return in substance was predicated on the return filed by Mr. McGovern, who was also a candidate for the Senate at the primary election? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think you will notice the resemblance to it. E. A. EDMONDS. 193 The Chairman. Proceed. That is the nearest that you can iden- tify that item in the account? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was that money, that $200, expended for? Mr. Edmonds. That is the same $200 you referred to before? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. General organizing. The Chairman. I want you now to state for what that money was expended. Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall. The Chairman. Do you mean to say you do not know ? Mr. Edmonds. I knew at that time. The Chairman. When did you last know ? Mr. Edmonds. When the expenditure was being made. I did not keep track of my personal expenses, so I could not tell. I could not have told The Chairman. All of that sum represented your personal ex- penses, did it? Mr. Edmonds. When I say “ personal expenses ” I mean money spent by me for such purposes as I thought necessary in conducting the campaign ; not for expenditures for my personal benefit. The Chairman. It is necessary for the committee to think on that subject, so that the committee wants a little more definite information. For what purposes did you expend that money? State whether or not you remember it. Mr. Edmonds. I do not now remember it. The Chairman. When did you last know ? Mr. Edmonds. I doubt if I could have told definitely a week after the money was expended what each dollar went for. The Chairman. Now, are we to understand that you made no memoranda of any kind, either in a book or upon cards or paper, of any of that expenditure ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. The Chairman. With the full knowledge, which you say you did possess, that under the law you would be expected to file an itemized expense account? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps I should say “general knowledge” rather than “ full knowledge.” The Chairman. My recollection is that you said that before enter- ing upon your duties you did investigate the law. Mr. Littlefield. It was Mr. Sacket who said that, not Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds. I did not make a statement of that kind. I think the nearest I came to that was that I had a general knowledge. The Chairman. Did you use the term “ general ” ? Mr. Edmonds. Possibly not. I am sure I did not use the word “ full.” The Chairman. Were you content to enter upon so responsible a duty with only a general knowledge of the law, or did you advise yourself as to what the law was ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I read the law at that time, or even looked it over. The Chairman. Had you read it prior to that time? 15235°— vol 1—11 13 194 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I ever read it. The Chairman. Did you read it during the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall having done so. The Chairman. Did you hear it read? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall having done so. The Chairman. Did you discuss it with anyone, as to what the law was? Mr. Edmonds. I have no definite recollection of any person with whom I discussed it, though I knew what the law was, I think, in a satisfactory manner. The Chairman. You did? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. The Chairman. Remember that you have given that answer, that jmu knew what the law was Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. In a manner satisfactory to yourself. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; satisfactory to myself. The Chairman. Now, knowing that, you knew you would be required to file an itemized expense account, did you not, under the laws of Wisconsin ? Mr. Edmonds. Well, perhaps — I will answer that yes. The Chairman. And with that knowledge you made expenditures and kept no account of them as the basis for making such statement ? Mr. Edmonds. I believed that the report that was made of my expenditures would come within the law. The Chairman. What report do you refer to ? Mr. Edmonds. Of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Do you mean that a statement of the mere fact that you had expended the money would comply with the law? Mr. Edmonds. The law does not provide that any one except the person expending the money, that is the candidate, shall make the report. The Chairman. Did you consider the question as to how the candidate could possibly make an itemized statement of his ex- penditures unless those who were his agents in expending the money furnished him with the data ? Mr. Edmonds. I am afraid I did not give it very much con- sideration. I do not think I gave it very much consideration ; no, sir. The Chairman. You are afraid now that you did not? Mr. Edmonds. I should like to change the word “ afraid,” because I was not afraid of anything; but I think I did not give it con- sideration in full. The Chairman. Is that true of every item contained in this state- ment? Is it just as true of the other items? Mr. Edmonds. Every one; yes, sir. The Chairman. Then we will proceed to find out which items you personally contracted for and of which you have knowledge as to the purpose of the expenditure. The last item was July 23. Now, will you indicate the next item? Mr. Edmonds. The next item is July 24, $100. The Chairman. That was paid to T. F. Reynolds, for advertising. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have knowledge of that? E. A. EDMONDS. 195 Mr. Edmonds. I have knowledge of sending T. F. Reynolds $100. The Chairman. In what shape did you send it? Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain. My recollection is it was sent by mail. The Chairman. It is indicated here, according to the rule you have stated, that that was drawn from the bank by certificate or cashier’s check. Who drew it, you or Mr. Reynolds? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that that item of $100 was sent to Mr. Reynolds by me in a letter, and I think it has been re- ferred to here as a cashier’s check. That would be my judgment as to what it was. The Chairman. For what purpose did you send that to Mr. Rey- nolds on July 24? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Reynolds was a man who had been associated with me in business in Oconto County, and I sent it to him and asked him to use it in the interests of Senator Stephenson in Oconto County or in Oconto Falls. The Chairman. In what way did you tell him to use it for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure I did not give him any instructions, be- cause I knew that he knew how to use the money to the best ad- vantage. The Chairman. What did he use the money for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did he use it to buy votes? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. How do you know, if you do not know for what purpose he used it? Mr. Edmonds. Because I am personally acquainted with him. Mr. Littlefield. It is quite obvious that when money goes into the hands of another man the witness can not know personally what the other man used it for. The Chairman. It was the witness who used the word “ person- ally.” Mr. Littlefield. All I want is that the witness give a coherent answer. The Chairman. I want that concise and coherent answer in the record. You sent him the $100, Mr. Edmonds, and you do not know for what he expended it. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. He never made any report. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know for what he expended any part of it? Mr. Edmonds. No. sir. The Chairman. Did he keep it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Or did he pay it out? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. What did you tell him the money was for when you sent it to him? 196 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that I wrote him and asked him to use this money for the furtherance of Senator Stephenson’s candidacy. I can not recall the words. The Chairman. You knew at that time that Mr. Reynolds was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Littlefield. This is another man. This is not the man who was a candidate for the legislature. Mr. Edmonds. This was not the candidate for the legislature. This man was from Oconto Falls. The other Mr. Reynolds was from Door County. The Chairman. Then this is not the Mr. Reynolds who was in the legislature? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What is the name of the Mr. Reynolds who was in the legislature? Mr. Edmonds. Thomas Reynolds, the same as this man, but I do not remember the middle initial of his name. The Chairman. What does this Mr. Reynolds do, the one to whom you sent this money? Mr. Edmonds. He is the cashier of the State Bank of Oconto Falls. The Chairman. The cashier of the bank? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and he had formerly been in my employ. The Chairman. Is he there now? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In what part of the State is Oconto Falls? Mr. Edmonds. In one of the northern counties, south of Marinette. Mr. Littlefield. Near Appleton? Mr. Edmonds. North of Appleton; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you place any restrictions upon the manner in which this money was to be used ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember having done so; no, sir. The Chairman. I shall have to ask you to be a little more definite than that. I will ask you to say whether you did or did not place any restrictions upon the manner in which this money was to be expended. Mr. Edmonds. I think not. The Chairman. Now, will you pass to the next item of which you have personal knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. July 24, $25. The Chairman. To whom? Mr. Edmonds. J. Wypszinski. The Chairman. You have already testified in regard to that. Is there anything that you have to say in addition to what you have said? Mr. Edmonds. Nothing further; no, sir. The Chairman. That is the same man who is mentioned in the item of July 22? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Pass to the next. Mr. Edmonds. The next item is July 27, Dr. Frank, $150. The Chairman. For what was that expended? Mr. Edmonds. He was organizing. He was the man who was ar- ranged with to organize in Clark County. E. A. EDMONDS. 197 The Chairman. For what was this money paid to Dr. Frank? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember. The Chairman. Who paid it to him ? Mr. Edmonds. I did. The Chairman. The check was drawn to your order, was it? Mr. Edmonds. You will pardon me for saying that I paid it. I mean I was responsible for having it paid. That is the better answer. The Chairman. It is one of those items for which you were di- rectly responsible? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. For what did you pay that to Dr. Frank? Mr. Edmonds. I had arranged with him — my best recollection ‘is that I did so on this day, when he was in the office here in Milwau- kee — to organize for Senator Stephenson in Clark County. The Chairman. What organization was he to do ? Mr. Edmonds. Such organization as he thought best, to get out the vote, to poll the vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. You left that entirely to his judgment? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; after discussing the situation with him. The Chairman. Tell me what was said between you and Dr. Frank. You say you discussed it. Mr. Edmonds. 1 have no reason for not telling exactly what was said, but I can not remember. The Chairman. Can you remember any part of the conversation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I remember that Dr. Frank was a man who had been recommended to me by some one in whom I had confidence, as being well posted in Clark County, and in whom we might have confidence, and I discussed the general situation in Clark County, of which county I knew very little. The Chairman. Was he a stranger to you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you ever seen him before the occasion on July 27? Mr. Edmonds. If that is the date, I first saw him then. The Chairman. That is the date of the payment. Mr. Edmonds. The first day I saw him I made the arrangement with him. The Chairman. Have you ever seen him since ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he was in headquarters once or twice after- wards. I am not certain. The Chairman. Did he receive any other sums of money? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you make a contract with him for personal compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that he was to receive $150. The Chairman. You paid him the $150 on that day? Mr. Edmonds. He was paid other amounts later. That will appear* in the statement. The Chairman. What was he paid further amounts for? Mr. Edmonds. $150 or $200 ; I do not recall. He was to receive a certain amount for compensation, and he used the balance of it for organizing. The Chairman. For what was he to use it? 198 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. In any way that he considered best to further the interests legally of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did you admonish him not to use it in violation of the law ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall what was said to him or at this par- ticular time remember just what was said. I am sure I went over the situation thoroughly with him, because I had a long talk. The Chairman. Did you become well acquainted with him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. As I say, I met him that day only and once later. The Chairman. Only once later? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; as I recall. The Chairman. You met him on August 12 and paid him $100, did you not? Mr. Littlefield. Is that Hugo Frank that the chairman has in mind? Mr. Edmonds. This is another man. The Chairman. You say it is another man? Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; but there are other items later, I am quite sure. The Chairman. I have one marked bearing this same name on August 20, of $140. What was that paid to him for ? Mr. Edmonds. For the same purpose, as a part of the compensa- tion and expense that he would be put to during the campaign, the arrangement having been made the first day. . The Chairman. What county does he live in ? Mr. Edmonds. Clark County. The Chairman. Where is Clark County with reference to Mil- waukee ? Mr. Edmonds. North and a little west. The Chairman. How far? Mr. Edmonds. About the center of the State, 175 or 190 miles, perhaps. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to the manner of the use of that money by Dr. Frank? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him how he used it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him to render an account or a statement ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever suggest to him that the law re- stricted the manner of the use of the money ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember ever discussing that with him. It is quite possible I did. The Chairman. You just paid over to him $290 in two items Mr. Edmonds. I think there was a larger amount than that. I think there are other items that you will find, though I am not positive. The Chairman. You think that I will find another item? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. The Chairman. You paid these amounts after the filing of the nomination papers, between that time and the date of the primary election. That money was to be used by him to influence voters, was it not ? E. A. EDMONDS. 199 Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. Did you discuss with him the manner in which a voter might be influenced legitimately ? Mr. Edmonds. It is quite possible I did, but I have no recollection of having done so. The Chairman. If you can not say that you did, there is no proba- bility about it. Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; there is a probability, because I discussed that matter more or less with all of the people with whom I talked. The Chairman. And yet you have no memorandum or informa- tion as to how he expended the money ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. The Chairman. When did you last know how he expended it? Mr. Edmonds. I never knew how he expended it. Mr. Littlefield. He said he never knew. The Chairman. Well, that is a legitimate answer. You never knew. You do not know now ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. The Chairman. You paid him another $100 on the 20th, four days before election. What did you pay that for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the particular expenditure, but I should say it was because it was a part of the agreement entered into at first. I know there was no supplementary agreement, that I recall. The Chairman. Just recite the agreement in the language you entered into it with Dr. Frank. Mr. Edmonds. I can not do it. The Chairman. Give the purport of it. Mr. Edmonds. After considerable talk with him, in order that I might become acquainted with him and what he knew of the politi- cal situation, and believing him to be competent to organize in that county, I asked him if he would take charge of the organization of that county, and how much he thought it would be necessary to expend there in order to get out a full vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was he the only man you had working in that county to whom you paid money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I paid another man. The Chairman. What was his name? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Ring. His work was as I recall more general. He was very well acquainted all over the State. The Chairman. You say his name is M. C. Ring? Mr. Edmonds. M. C. Ring. The Chairman. How much money did you pay him? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Well, you paid him on August 18, $850. That is found on page 592. Mr. Edmonds. I think something like $500. That is my recollec- tion. The Chairman. We will take this in its order and proceed regu- larly. Mr. Littlefield. Where did the Chairman find that last item of Mr. Ring? The Chairman. It is the first item at the top of page 592. 200 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. It is B-i-n-g here. I understand that that should be B-i-n-g. The Chairman. Yes. That is a mistake of the printer evidently. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. It should be Bing. The Chairman. What is the next item of which you have knowl- edge after the item of $150 to Dr. Frank? Mr. Edmonds. The same date, $100 that we discussed on yesterday, to C. C. Way land. The Chairman. Who is Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. He is from Appleton, Outagamie County. The Chairman. Does he live there now? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Edmonds. Milwaukee. The Chairman. Then he is available as a witness? Mr. Littlefield. He is here. Mr. Edmonds. He has been subpoenaed, I believe. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, he has already been subpoenaed. The Chairman. When you gave him that money what did he en- gage to do in consideration of it? Mr. Edmonds. I have not any distinct recollection of that particular time. I paid him at different times, and I saw him very often. He was in Appleton where I lived, and was associated with me in busi- ness, and I met him almost every time I would go home to spend Sunday. Mr. Littlefield. He is the gentleman about whom you testified in detail the other day? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. You paid him a considerable amount of money in the aggregate ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think it was stated here yesterday to be $1,100 — about. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to the manner in which he expended any part of the money that you gave him? Mr. Edmonds. No personal knowledge; no, sir. The Chairman. What kind of knowledge have you? Mr. Edmonds. The only knowledge that I have is from having talked with him a great man}^ times before and since. The Chairman. Give us the substance. What did he say he was doing with the money ? Mr. Edmonds. He was spending it in different towns of the county and in the city. The Chairman. How was he spending it? Mr. Edmonds. Well, he was arranging with men in different towns to distribute literature. I say literature, and I mean the posters, and putting them up. He had, I believe, in some instances — and I am only saying that I believe, because I talked with him The Chairman. What he said to you is very proper. Tell us that. Mr. Edmonds. He had gone so far as to hire men in certain instances to go around throughout the county to work up sentiment. ^ The Chairman. What county? Mr. Edmonds. Outagamie, where Appleton is. E. A. EDMONDS. 201 The Chairman. Just one county? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. What else did he say to you as to how he was spend- ing this money. Mr. Edmonds. He had arranged in some of the localities for getting out the vote by hiring teams. The Chairman. How many precincts are there in that county ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I am not very well acquainted with the politics of Outagamie County except in a general way. The Chairman. Is it a large county ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, it is one of the large counties of the State. The Chairman. Do you know its population ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. It would only be an estimate that I could give. The Chairman. How many Republican votes did it cast ? Mr. Edmonds. At the primary? The Chairman. At the general election. You were chairman of the State central committee and you probably would know. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; but I could not recall. The Chairman. Approximately, how many? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps 10,000; possibly 15,000. The Chairman. Republican votes? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Is it a Republican or an adverse county? Mr. Edmonds. Usually Republican. Mr. Littlefield. Republican or opposition? The Chairman. What was the Republican vote? I am endeavor- ing to find out what this man was paid for. I have no political curiosity in the matter. Mr. Edmonds. I can not tell you. I do not know what the vote was, but my best judgment would be possibly 7,000 or 8,000 Repub- lican votes. The Chairman. This money was paid for getting the vote out at the direct primary? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, yes; not for the general election. The Chairman. All of it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How many votes did you get out at the direct primary ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You have no approximate idea? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I could only learn that from looking up the records. I have not the slightest idea of the number now. The Chairman. You did not interest yourself as manager of the Stephenson campaign to know how many votes were cast for him ? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly I did at that time. I knew at that time, but I do not now. The Chairman. Were there others besides Mr. Wayland engaged in getting out the votes? Mr. Edmonds. He was in charge, at least, and expended the money to get the vote out. The Chairman. Where did Mr. Wayland vote — in what precinct? Mr. Edmonds. I think the second ward in Appleton, though I am not positive. 202 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. How large a place is Appleton? Mr. Edmonds. We thought we had 20,000, but The Chairman. Was that before or after the census? Mr. Edmonds. Since the census was taken we find that we have 17,000. The Chairman. Do you know how many votes were cast in that town at the primary? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Haven’t you any list as to the votes at the primary in the State? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, there is a printed report gotten out by the State showing the vote in each precinct. I have not got it here. Mr. Littlefield. Would the chairman like to have that? Senator Pomerene. Is it a report of the secretary of state? Mr. Littlefield. I understand the Senator would like to have the statement of the votes cast in that primary ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I presume we can get that. Mr. Edmonds. There is an itemized statement, I think, published by Mr. Beck, the labor commissioner. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman need not spend any more time on that. Mr. Black says that he can find it, and we can furnish it to the committee. The Chairman. I presume it is in this building. I am inquiring as to the consideration received or agreed upon for the money paid to Mr. Wayland, and I am inquiring as to what he accomplished. For that reason I inquire as to the vote. Do you know how much you paid Mr. Wayland altogether during the primary? Mr. Edmonds. 1 could only get that from The Chairman. I want to know if you know? Mr. Eemonds. I think in the testimony yesterday it was brought out that I paid him $1,150. The Chairman. About that. Did you pay him all of that money? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. The Chairman. That is to say, it was a transaction between you and Mr. Wayland, and not between Mr. Sacket and Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Sacket had nothing to do with it. The Chairman. So that whatever use was made of that money was made under the arrangement with you and not with Mr. Sacket ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So it will not be necessary to inquire of Mr. Sacket as to the use made of that money ? Mr. Edmonds. Not at all. The Chairman. Will you state one item as to the use of that money by Mr. W ayland ; give us one item. Mr. Edmonds. Of my own personal knowledge I do not know. The Chairman. Did he ever tell you? You say you talked it over with him. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did he tell you ? Give me one item that he told you he expended that money for. Mr. Edmonds. He expended the money for the purpose of getting out the vote, by hiring teams. E. A. EDMONDS. 203 The Chairman. What teams did he hire? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Is there a statement anywhere of the expendi- tures made by Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so, which this special investigating com- mittee brought out. The Chairman. Have you examined it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever see it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. He only expended it in the one county, did he? Mr. Edmonds. One county, I believe. The Chairman. So that we do not need to inquire as to anything outside of that county to account for payments and expenditures, do we? He does not claim that he expended it anywhere else? Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain as to that. His home had formerly been in Portage County, and it is possible he had gone there, but not to my knowledge. The Chairman. What was your contract with him — that he should expend this money in one certain county, or that he should expend it anywhere ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I had any contract with him. The Chairman. Well, your agreement. Mr. Edmonds. He was very close to me in a business way, and I asked him to do different things which I do not now recall, and whatever I asked him to do I am sure he did without compensation to himself. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand you to say that Mr. Wayland Avas not to receive any compensation? Mr. Edmonds. He was not. Mr. Littlefield. And did he receive any? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I do not know that he received a cent. The Chairman. You say that you do not knoAv that he received a cent. Do you know whether he received any compensation, a cent or otherwise? Air. Edmonds. I mean to say that he received no compensation, to the best of my knowledge and belief. The Chairman. You are willing to say that, and yet you can not enumerate a single item of expenditure that he made out of this $1,150? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have the most thorough confidence in Mi-. Way land’s integrity. The Chairman. I am asking you for facts. Confidence might rest upon friendships and not upon facts. As a business proposition, and as a matter of fact, can you account for a single item, a single dollar, or any sum that Mr. Wayland paid to anybody? Mr. Edmonds. In no other Avay than I have stated. The Chairman. It is just your confidence? Mr. Edmonds. Only in what he said he had done. The Chairman. How old a man is Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. About 35, I should think. The Chairman. Hoav long have you known him? Mr. Edmonds. About five or six years. 204 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Then you had known him for about a year or so before the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; perhaps two or three years. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Edmonds. There in Appleton, and I had formerly met him. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall where I first met him. His home at that time was in Portage, Columbia County. The Chairman. Did you have anything more than a passing acquaintance before the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; we were in business together. The Chairman. Oh, you were in business together ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. What business ? Mr. Edmonds. The Badger Portland Cement Co. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Edmonds. In Appleton. The Chairman. Were you associated in business during the time of this campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. When had you severed your business relations? Mr. Edmonds. You asked me if I was in business with him. The relationship still existed. He was the secretary of the company, and 1 was the president. The Chairman. At the time of the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And during all the time you paid him these sums, amounting to $1,150? Mr. Edmonds. All the time. The Chairman. Did you see him during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Often? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. How often? Mr. Edmonds. He talked with me every time I would go home. The Chairman. IIow often was that? Mr. Edmonds. On Sundays. The Chairman. Did you talk over the expenditures that he was making on these occasions when you would see him ? Mr. Edmonds. I think without question I did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Are you willing to say you did discuss them ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. And that included a discussion of the character of expenses that he was incurring, of the use that he was making of the money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; he would tell me where he had been and what he had done during the week. The Chairman. Did he lay aside his business during the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; there was not much business during that year. The Chairman. And he devoted his time to going about in the county ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. All of it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should say all of it. E. A. EDMONDS. 205 The Chairman. How long a period of time would that represent — the time that he was going about? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps six weeks; something like six weeks, I should say. The Chairman. And during this time you paid him $1,140. How much of that was to pay for personal compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. In the nature of a salary, none whatever. The Chairman. None? Mr. Edmonds. None. The Chairman. Did he return any part of this money to you or any person in connection with the campaign fund? Mr. Edmonds. Not to my knowledge. The Chairman. He expended the exact amount ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know. Perhaps, Senator, if I may make an explanation The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. Outagamie County is the county adjoining Winne- bago County, where one of the other candidates resided, and is also close to Waupaca County, where another candidate resided. Senator Pomerene. A senatorial candidate? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. There was a good deal of strife in that county to see which candidate would get out the most votes. It was one of the battle grounds of the campaign. The Chairman. On the last day of August, that is, the last work- ing day before the primaries, you paid him $300. For what did you pay him that sum of money ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I presume he called for it. The Chairman. Did he call for it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. You had paid him $500 the week before. These payments were made in round sums, and evidently not upon itemized accounts rendered by him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. That would be true, would it not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; his statement would be that he had ex- pended so much, or contracted bills for so much, and he would ask me to give him $500 or $300, and I would give it to him. The Chairman. And you would send it to him ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is $800 you gave him within eight or ten days before the election ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where was he on election day — I refer now to Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I think he was at Appleton. The Chairman. You do not even know he was there on election day? Mr. Edmonds. I have no idea that he was not there. I could not swear to it now. I knew at the time, of course. The Chairman. Then we will have to leave him as one of the parties to whom you gave money, for no part of which you can account. Mr. Edmonds. No part of it. 206 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. You did not inquire either during the campaign or since as to the purposes for which the money was paid out, if paid out at all, by Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it was necessary for me to inquire, and I do not think I did. The Chairman. Regardless of the necessity in respect to the mat- ter, the fact is that you did not do it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe I did; but I am certain that we talked it over and he told me as I saw him. The Chairman. Can you tell any one thing he did tell you? You say he told you. Mr. Edmonds. Oh, yes; I have told you that he was hiring teams. The Chairman. Of whom did he hire them? That is the im- portant thing. Mr. Edmonds. I do not think he told me the names of the persons of whom he hired them. The Chairman. The statement that he was hiring teams is not an itemized statement. Mr. Edmonds. He did not make any itemized statement of his expenditure. The Chairman. In your business do you require itemized state- ments of your employees or those connected with it ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Would you accept as an itemized statement a statement that merely recited a class of business; that is, the hiring of teams? You would want to know of whom the man hired the teams, would you not ? Mr. Edmonds. If I were in business, and employed a man to do a certain amount of work for me that would extend over perhaps a week or ten days, and I had enough confidence in him to intrust him with the money to do the business that I wanted him to do, and he came back and he said that he required so much, and that he had expended so much, I would not ask him for an itemized statement; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever require an itemized expense account of any person to whom you gave money to transact business for you ? Mr. Edmonds. I presume I have ; but I have no distinct recollection of any instance. The Chairman. Do you have any traveling men who are required to render expense accounts? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. You would require them to state how much was paid for railroad fare and hotel bills, would you not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Just the gross items would be sufficient? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. This is what I did The Chairman. We will say a man would put in an account for a trip to Mexico, say, expenses, $300, and that would satisfy you, would it, as a business man ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; it would not. Mr. Littlefield. You were going to say what you did, Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds. A traveling man would be employed. He would be paid his salary or his expenses, and after each trip, as a rule, he E. A. EDMONDS. 207 would come in and make a statement that his expenses were so much, $35 or $60, or whatever the amount was. If I had confidence enough in him to send him out to sell paper for the company that I was working for, I certainly did not believe that he would steal from the company in his expense account ; I do not employ that kind of men ; and I did not in the campaign. The Chairman. Did you ever send anybody out in whom you did not have confidence? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. So that applies to all, and you did not require itemized expense accounts? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. And you never did? Mr. Edmonds. I may have in instances, but that is not my rule. The Chairman. Are you still associated in business with Mr. Way- hmd? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. That is, he is still secretary of the com- pany, and I am president of the company. It is not doing business at the present time. He has moved from Appleton. Mr. Littlefield. What was the business of the company? Mr. Edmonds. The Badger Portland Cement Co. The Chairman. Did Mr. Wayland make speeches during the cam- paign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should say they might be called speeches. He is a pretty good talker. The Chairman. Street corner speeches? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We will pass now to the item of July 28, $50 — to C. M. Hambright. Who is Mr. Hambriglit? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Hambright was one of the men who was em- ployed before I came down here. The Chairman. Who is he? Where does he live, and what does he do? Mr. Edmonds. He has been a member of the assembly and is very well known in the State. He lives in the city here still. The Chairman. A member of the assembly that elected Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. He was a member several years ago. The Chairman. Then he was an ex-member. Mr. Edmonds. He was an ex-member at that time. The Chairman. He is still living in the city ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. How much money did you pay him altogether ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I did not make the arrangement with him. I do not know just how much he received. Mr. Littlefield. You say you did not make the arrangement with him? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. He was employed when I came. Mr. Littlefield. He was one of the men at work ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever pay him any money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall having done so, though I would not be positive of that, because at different times in two or three instances 208 E. A. EDMONDS. the boys who were going out in the State, if they ran short, came to me and I advanced $25 or $50 from money in my pocket at the time, so it is possible that I did. The Chairman. What did he do for you that you paid him $50 for on July 28? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Have not you any idea? Mr. Edmonds. He was one of the men who was sent out to differ- ent parts of the State in different counties to look up men in those counties early in the campaign — men who would be satisfactory men for managers; local managers. The Chairman. This money was paid to him on July 28. That was four days before the filing of the nomination papers, was it not ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. The Chairman. And you have no knowledge of the purpose, and you did not make the arrangement for the expenditure of that money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; though after I took charge I directed his movements. The Chairman. You directed his movements? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Tell us what his movements were. Mr. Edmonds. He w T as very well acquainted in the southern part of the State. He had lived, I believe, for several years in Racine County, and I think that was the county that he had been sent from to the assembly. Owing to his large acquaintance I sent him to such persons as he thought he could influence by talking with, to deter- mine the condition of affairs in the various counties that he visited. The Chairman. He was rather a political scout. Would you de- nominate him such? Mr. Edmonds. I would be willing so to denominate him, unless he would object to that term. The Chairman. Oh, I do not mean to use the term in any dis- creditable sense at all. He was a man sent out to ascertain things. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Then the $50 was in the way of compensation to Mr. Hambright and not a fund out of which he was to pay for any purpose. Is that right? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I do not know that I quite understood that. That may have been compensation or expenses. The Chairman. It was for compensation and not expenses? Mr. Edmonds. It may have been either, in that particular instance. He was paid a compensation. The Chairman. How much compensation was he paid ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is $100 a month, or possibly more. The Chairman. Did you, in many instances, enter into monthly arrangements ; contracts for monthly salaries ? Mr. Edmonds. I think that those arrangements were made before I got there, and I think there were not to exceed half a dozen. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket would not know anything about that item, then? Mr. Edmonds. No; I doubt if anybody except Mr. Hambright would know anything particularly about that item, because he was E. A. EDMONDS. 209 paid as he needed the money for expenses and salary. He undoubtedly went to Mr. Sacket for the money. The Chairman. You do not know whether he used that money for legitimate purposes or not ; I suppose you have no personal knowledge on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. I have no personal knowledge, but I am very sure he did, from the personal character of the man. The Chairman. I just want your personal knowledge on this sub- ject. Take the next item, “ T. J. Sexton, organizing, $50.” Did you pay that money, and do you know about the transaction ? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure that I arranged for that. The Chairman. Well, w T hat was your arrangement? Mr. Edmonds. He was one of the men who was a political scout. The Chairman. I know, but what was your arrangement by which you paid that? Mr. Edmonds. He came in, and I think I sent for him, having learned of him from some one else. He was not a man with whom I was acquainted, and I sent him into different parts of the State on the same political errand, in a general way, the same as Mr. Ham- bright was sent. I do not recall for what purposes. The Chairman. Where did you send him? Mr. Edmonds. I can not just tell. I know he was sent out a good many times. The Chairman. Can you state as to any one place to which you sent him ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he was in Dane County. The Chairman. Did you send him there? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure that I did, if he went, yes; because he was under my instructions. The Chairman. For what purpose did you send him there? Mr. Edmonds. To learn the conditions in the county and report to me. The Chairman. What did you tell him when you told him to go there ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. You say you do not recall. Have you any recol- lection on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; in this way The Chairman. Give us your recollection. Mr. Edmonds. In this way, that my instructions to him were that he was to report to me the conditions as he found them. The Chairman. Did he report? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. In writing? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What conditions did he report as existing there? Mr. Edmonds. In some counties good, “ ” in some precincts good, and some not so good. The Chairman. I am referring now to this particular county that you say you sent him to. Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall what he did say. The Chairman. You do not know what his report was, then? 15235 °— vol 1—11 14 210 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Not now. The Chairman. What did he tell you that he had done with the money that he had paid out? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think — that is, my recollection is that Mr. Sexton’s expenditure of money was simply for his own salary and expenses of traveling, and The Chairman. He did not pay out any money ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think he paid any to anyone; not that I know of. The Chairman. Did he make any promises to any electors, voters, in regard to the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I have no means of knowing. I do not have any idea that he did. The Chairman. Did you ask him whether or not he had ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know now that I did. The Chairman. Had you had a conversation of that kind, in re- gard to the violation of the law, you would have remembered it, probably, would you not? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly, I should. Certainly, if he had come in and made a statement that he had done something that was contrary to the law, as I found it to be and knew it to be, I certainly would have remembered it and gone after him to the best of my ability. The Chairman. What is his present address? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I think he could be located at Madison, though I am not sure. The Chairman. What business is he in? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. He was not a man that I knew. The Chairman. Have you ever seen him since the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall ever — yes, I think I have seen him either at Madison or here some time since, but not within two years. Mr. Littlefield. How long? Mr. Edmonds. I should say it is two years since I have seen him. The Chairman. You had no acquaintance with him prior to the campaign, had you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Now, we will pass to the next item, “ H. Lewis, $200.” Did you pay that money, or was the arrangement made by you? Mr. Edmonds. The arrangement was made by me, as I recall. The Chairman. What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Lewis was a soldier, and a very warm personal friend of Senator Stephenson, and was given that money, and pos- sibly other amounts — I am not sure — for the purpose of doing such work as he saw fit to help Senator Stephenson. He is an old cam- paigner and well acquainted with political matters in the State. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Edmonds. I think his home is in Madison. He has been in Washington. The Chairman. Did you know him before you met him on the occasion of making the arrangement with him ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I had known him by reputation and had met him several times before during the past 9 or 10 years. E. A. EDMONDS. 211 The Chairman. Is he still living at Madison? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. The Chairt^an. How much money did he receive? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. He was one of the men that if he thought he needed $400 or $500 at any time could have gotten it from me. I had great confidence in him. The Chairman. For what purpose could he have got it? Mr. Edmonds. For any purpose legitimate in the campaign. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him his money? What was to use it for? Mr. Edmonds. In any manner he saw fit to promote the interests of Senator Stephenson. He is not a man — — The Chairman. Without any restriction whatever? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. The Chairman. He could have used it to buy voters, had he seen fit to do so, could he not ? Mr. Edmonds. Not with my consent; no, sir. The Chairman. But you did not place any restrictions upon him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I certainly did not tell Capt. Lewis not to spend that money in buying votes, because I knew he would not do it. The Chairman. So that you have not taken pains to advise your- self whether that money was expended legitimately, have you? That is what I am getting at. I am not charging Capt. Lewis with spend- ing the money for that purpose. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; there was no means of my knowing unless I had asked him to make a detailed statement, which I did not. The Chairman. You were responsible for the manner of expendi- ture of this money, were you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you not think that you could be held under the law responsible for the unlawful expenditure of this money? Mr. Littlefield. Without his knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe so. The Chairman. Yes; without his knowledge. He is bound to know. Mr. Littlefield. No The Chairman. The law does not permit a man to hand money out for a purpose and shut his eyes Mr. Littlefield. I should like to put upon the record here that we do not by our silence give assent to the legal proposition that if Mr. Edmonds places $100 in the hands of B, and, without the knowl- edge of Mr. Edmonds, B unlawfully expends it, Mr. Edmonds is responsible. The Chairman. The chairman does not take that position, nor does any member of the committee. We are basing these statements upon the admitted fact that Mr. Edmonds was the responsible representative of Mr. Stephenson, that Mr. Stephenson was furnish- ing this money and Mr. Edmonds was using it, and he is bound to know the purpose for which it was used. Mr. Littlefield. If it came down to the statement we suggested — as I got the impression that it did — I simply want to put upon the record my dissent from that legal proposition. The Chairman. I do not think it will come down that far. 212 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. It sounded to me as though it did. The Chairman. For the purpose of fairly stating your position in regard to your responsibility for the use of this money, you say that you would have paid him this money regardless of the manner in which he would have expended it. That is true, is it ? Mr. Edmonds. Haying the confidence I did in him, I should say that was true; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pursue that policy throughout of intrust- ing the integrity of the expenditure to the people to whom you gave the money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; very largely. The Chairman. In any instance did you pursue any different course ? Mr. Edmonds. Not that I recall; no, sir. The Chairman. So that we may take it as your statement that you paid out all of the money paid out by you in this manner solely in the confidence which you had in the party to whom you paid it, without imposing any restrictions upon him whatever as to the nature of the expenditure? Mr. Edmonds. That is perhaps a true statement of the case, with the explanation that in every instance when they were employed I had conversations with them, varying in length as to conditions and what they were to do. Usually it was their suggestion as to what w T as going to be done. The Chairman. Well, Mr. Sacket will not know about the $200 to Mr. Lewis; you have all the knowledge that is obtainable on that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I think so. The Chairman. In other words, you have no knowledge as to what Mr. Lewis did with the money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You made no memorandum as to what he was to do with it at the time you gave it to him? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so ; no, sir. The Chairman. You would know if you did? Mr. Edmonds. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I did not. The Chairman. Have you destroyed any memoranda or books or cards that were kept by you or by those under your direction during the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. There have been destroyed, and when I left there were destroyed, any papers, loose papers, or anything that may have been on my desk. I did not knowingly destroy any- thing that I thought would be of value to anyone. The Chairman. Have you anything in your possession now that would be of any value to anyone? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Then, you did not pass upon the question whether they would be valuable to anyone, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. Everything that I had was turned over to this com- mittee when they made the investigation. The Chairman. Would anyone presume to destroy your papers without your knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly not, I should say. The Chairman. Then, were they destroyed? E. A. EDMONDS. 213 Mr. Edmonds. As I say, when I left the office and went back to Appleton I left my desk and whatever was in that desk that was scrap paper or paper that I did not consider of value that was de- stroyed — put in the waste basket. The Chairman. Who destroyed it? Mr. Edmonds. I did, I assume. The Chairman. How did you destroy it? Mr. Edmonds. I put it in the wastebasket. The Chairman. You tore it up and put it in the wastebasket, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I tore it up even. I put it in the wastebasket, turned over the key, and went home. The head- quarters were still open when I left there. The Chairman. What papers did you destroy? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. The Chairman. Did you just gather them up regardless of whether they might or might not be of value and destroy them? Mr. Edmonds. Why, no; I did not. I said if there was anything there that was not of value — I had some of my personal belongings. The Chairman. Who determined whether or not they were of value ? Mr. Edmonds. Why, I did; assuredly. The Chairman. You went through them, did you, then, and sorted them? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether I did or not. The Chairman. How did you determine whether or not they were of value? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know how I determined that. When I left I wanted to clean up my desk, and whatever there was on my desk that I did not consider of value — that I did not want — I de- stroyed. The Chairman. How would you arrive at the determination as to whether they were of value without examining them ? Mr. Edmonds. My own judgment. The Chairman. What did you base your judgment upon if you did not examine them? Mr. Edmonds. Undoubtedly, when I was cleaning up my desk I did examine them. The Chairman. You did examine them? Mr. Edmonds. I presume so. The Chairman. That is what I want to get at — whether you did or not; not when you did it. You did examine these papers, then, and discriminated between those you thought of value or importance and those that were not; did you? Mr. Edmonds. Now, Senator, I do not make any such statement as that. The Chairman. I asked you if you did. Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. Then you did not do that? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that there was a single thing in my desk that was destroyed that was of value. The Chairman. You determined whether or not they were of value then and there, did you not? 214 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I assume that I did. The Chairman. You mean to say that you did not pass upon that question in separating those that you destroyed from those that you did not destroy? Mr. Edmonds. Senator, I am making the statement that I cleaned up my desk, preparatory to leaving, and whatever articles on that desk were mine, I took with me, and whatever was not of value I threw in the wastebasket. The Chairman. Then you were the one that exercised the judg- ment as to whether they were of value or not ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say so, yes, sir. I did not ask anyone else. The Chairman. And some of them you destroyed, and some you did not. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that was a fair assumption. The Chairman. Those that you destroyed, you say, were selected because they were of no value. What was their character ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember now what there was on my desk, even. The Chairman. By what did you test their value? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know now. I could have told you at the time. The Chairman. What rule governed you in determining whether they were valuable? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea now. I do not believe there was a thing on my desk that was destroyed that would in any way injure or help anyone. The Chairman. I should like to admonish you that your answers are somewhat dangerous to you and nobody else. I am going to give you another chance to answer that question. When you exer- cised a judgment as to what should be destroyed and what should not, what was the criterion or basis. Mr. Edmonds. I do not now remember. The Chairman. It is not a question of memory. It is a question that you could answer as well now as then, without a memory. What was the basis of your discrimination? Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, if the Chairman please. I sub- mit that the witness is being inquired of as to what basis he at that time used in making the segregation, and if the witness can not re- member the test, it strikes me that that does exhaust the inquiry. The Chairman. It does not exhaust the examination. Mr. Littlefield. No, no; that is quite true. The Chairman. It may exhaust the witness, but not the examina- tion. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no; I do not make that point. But if the witness does not remember, I do not quite understand how he can be compelled to testify that he does. The Chairman. The subcommittee will not compel a man to testify as to a thing that he does not remember, but they will probe the witness to see whether or not his answer is candid and full; as to whether he remembers, or as to whether it is an evasive answer. Mr. Littlefield. To that I have no objection. Mr. Edmonds. I will make the statement that this is not an evasive answer. I do not remember anything of that kind, Senator. E. A. EDMONDS. 215 The Chairman. Was it because one paper was larger than an- other that you discriminated in determining whether you would de- stroy them or not? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember; if I could I would tell you. The Chairman. Might it have been because one paper was larger than another? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You knew then; did you? Mr. Edmonds. I assume that I did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. But now you are willing to stand in the position that this discrimination may have been based upon the size of the paper; are you? Mr. Edmonds. I am unwilling to make any statement of that kind. I do not remember. The Chairman. Was it by the contents of the paper that you deter- mined the question of its destruction or its retention ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember. The Chairman. It is not a question of memory. I want to know now what your judgment is. Mr. Edmonds. I have not any recollection, and I would not The Chairman. Have you a judgment now aside from your recol- lection ? Mr. Edmonds. I have a judgment; yes, sir. The Chairman. Well, give xis your judgment. Mr. Edmonds. I have not any recollection of that. I can not answer your question; it is absolutely' impossible, because I do not remember. The Chairman. Have you a judgment now in regard to it? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I do not know that I quite get your technical term as to my “judgment” of it. The Chairman. What is your opinion now ? Mr. Edmonds. I have not any opinion to express. The Chairman. Can you form an opinion now as to the basis of your discrimination in sorting those papers ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I can not. The Chairman. You can not form an opinion? Mr. Edmonds. It would simply be a guess. I do not propose to guess on the witness stand ; I do not think that is what you want. The Chairman. Have you any judgment as to why you considered it necessary to destroy any paper ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Let me ask you here, were the papers that you put in the wastebasket memoranda of money that you spent Mr. Edmonds. Oh, no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Or memoranda of your doings in connec- tion with Mr. Stephenson’s campaign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not keep anything of that kind. Senator Sutherland. Were they papers that you considered it en- tirely indifferent whether they were destroyed or not ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely so. Senator Sutherland. You simply got rid of them as so much rub- bish, then? 216 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I was leaving the office; to clean up. The Chairman. I asked the character of these papers, and you said you did not know. Now you do know. You do know that they were not papers containing any reference to moneys expended ? Mr. Edmonds. No, Senator, you asked me, as I understood it, what I did destroy. I do not remember what I destroyed. I know I did not destroy something I never made, and I did not make that state- ment. The Chairman. You say now you can remember what they did not contain, but can not remember what they did contain ? Mr. Edmonds. No, I do not make that statement. The Chairman. You said they did not contain any reference to expenditures during the campaign, in answer to Senator Sutherland’s question ? Mr. Edmonds. I made the statement that I made no such records as that, and could not have destroyed them because they were not in existence. The Chairman. Then you say these papers that you destroyed con- tained no reference to matters touching the Stephenson campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not make that statement at all. The Chairman. What did they contain? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Why did you destroy them ? Mr. Edmonds. I wanted to clean up the desk preparatory to leav- ing. The Chairman. Did you sweep the office before you left it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe I did ; no. The Chairman. What necessity was there for you to do the work of cleaning up your desk if it was encumbered with useless papers? Mr. Edmonds. My usual method of leaving my desk in that con- dition. Senator Pomerene. And putting the papers in the waste-paper basket? Mr. Edmonds. What is that? Senator Pomerene. Putting the papers in the waste-paper basket. Mr. Edmonds. Cleaning up my desk preparatory to leaving, I would certainly take anything off from the desk Senator Pomerene. Is it your usual way to clean up the desk and put the papers in the waste-paper basket and destroy them ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Every day? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; I put papers in my wastebasket every day in cleaning up my desk, when I am at the desk. The Chairman. Then these were the accumulations of one day only that you had to dispose of before you left town ; were they ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know. The Chairman. Why did you sort and classify them? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the least recollection as to whether I did sort and classify them. I do not know now. The Chairman. I understood you to say that you did. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. For what did you pay J. B. Marshall $50 on July 30th? E. A. EDMONDS. 217 Mr. Edmonds. That is one of the items that I had checked here. While I can recall the name, I do not recall why it was paid. I do not now recall the man at all. The Chairman. Who was Marshall? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know now. The Chairman. Where did he live? Mr. Edmonds. That I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know what the money was spent for? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You paid it out? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. If I ask Mr. Sacket and he says he does not know, how are we to determine who paid that money ? Mr. Edmonds. I doubt if it would be possible to determine it. I remember the name, and it is quite possible that the transaction was through me, but I do not now remember. He is not a man whom I have ever met since, and I do not recall him at all, except the name. The Chairman. Take F. Remold, $50 on July 30. Did you pay that money? Mr. Edmonds. I believe that to be a matter relating to Mr. Sacket. I think he can explain that. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. I remember this man’s name, and I think he went down to Kenosha County. I think he can give you that. The Chairman. Take the name C. O. Larson, $25, July 30. Who paid that money ? Mr. Edmonds. That is C. O. Larson. I did. That is, I think so. The Chairman. You paid that money? For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. I remember that Mr. Larson was our organizer and representative in Ozaukee County. The Chairman. How much money did you pay him altogether? Mr. Edmonds. I am not positive, not having added up the different amounts ; but at different times, I think, he was to receive some com- pensation. The Chairman. On August the 10th you paid him $140. Did you make that payment, too? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I do not recall. At least, it was paid. The Chairman. This is not an item about which Mr. Sacket will be expected to know, is it? Mr. Edmonds. No; this is my deal. The Chairman. It is yours? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The other items to him were all paid by you? Mr. Edmonds. In the same manner; yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you remember the gross amount you paid him? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that it was about $200, but I am not certain of it. Mr. Littlefield. Do those items come along later. I am trying to check up as I go along. The Chairman. There is another item, on August 14th, and there are others you will find by going through. You will find many more such items. What did you pay him that money for? 218 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. He was the organizer for that county; it was for his expenditures. The Chairman. How did he expend the money ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You have no knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You never inquired of him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Is he still living in that county ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. What is his address, if you know? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. Port Washington, I think; I am not positive. The Chairman. E. H. McMahon, $50. Who paid that money? Mr. Edmonds. That is not mine. The Chairman. You paid him? Mr. Edmonds. That is not my arrangement. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket will know about that, will he? Mr. Edmonds. I presume so; yes, sir. The Chairman. In every instance here, either you or Mr. Sacket paid the money or made the contract ; is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. I think, without any question, so far as I know. The Chairman. So that may be put down to Mr. Sacket. Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment. I think perhaps the record might appear a little inconsistent. The testimony of all these wit- nesses is that Mr. Edmonds paid no money except what he paid out of the $5,000, and what he paid out of these items that were disbursed to him by Mr. Sacket the method was to give orders on Sacket and Puelicher. I suppose that is what the chairman means, and what the witness means; but strictly speaking, literally, it might appear that he was paying money when as a matter of fact a great deal of it was paid by Sacket on the order of Edmonds. Do I get that right, if the chairman please? The Chairman. What I mean is this: That whatever moneys were disbursed out of any fund were disbursed either by Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Sacket. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Then I get the chairman’s meaning. The Chairman. So that one or the other of them is expected to be able to account for the money? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. That is the reason I made that suggestion. Mr. Black. But outside of Milwaukee County? The Chairman. Yes ; I am referring now to general headquarters. So that when I mark the item with Mr. Sacket’s name opposite it, I mean that Mr. Edmonds has referred that to Mr. Sacket as the party who can give all information that can be given. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I will mark that item, then, “ E. H. McMahon, $50,” to Mr. Sacket. Proceed to the next item, “ J. R. Keyes.” Mr. Edmonds. May I make an explanation in regard to Mr. McMahon ? He was one of the men who was in the office and whom you term a political scout. He was sent out, but he was employed before I went there. E* A. EDMONDS. 219 The Chairman. You only know that by hearsay, I presume? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So that we will get that from the party who does know. Mr. Edmonds. I assume he will not be able to tell because after I came on the ground his movements Avere directed by me. The Chairman. Oh ! Then that first $50, paid on July 30, was after you came on the ground and you directed his movements? Mr. Edmonds. I should say so ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Then what was the $50 given to him for? Mr. Edmonds. Either for expenses or salary. The Chairman. Will Mr. Sacket knoAV as much about that as you do? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; I should say so. The Chairman. Then Ave will take the statement of both of you. You made the arrangement, then, pursuant to which the $50 was gi\ T en to Mr. McMahon, did you? Mr. Edmonds. That statement is perhaps correct, though he may have been behind that much and have gotten this on what was oAvea to him prior to my coming there. But I presume from the date that he was paid either on account of expenses or salary, working under my direction. The Chairman. I questioned you on a previous occasion in regard to McMahon. He is the first man who is charged with receiving any money out of the campaign fund. That is the same man, is it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; the same man. The Chairman. And the sums run all through the account paid to McMahon ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was McMahon an office man or a field man? Mr. Edmonds. A field man. The Chairman. Did he do any work in the office at headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; whenever he would come in during the campaign. I remember once I was very busy and asked him to do something. I do not recall what it was, but something in connection with the correspondence, I think. The Chairman. He spent a considerable sum of money for you, did he not? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall whether his expenditure was large or not. The Chairman. Do you know what he expended it for; whether it Avas for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? Mr. Edmonds. Do I know ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. You do not know? Did you eA^er inquire of him as to the use he was making of this money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I talked with him every time he came in. The Chairman. He told you what he was using it for. What did he tell you he was using it for ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember that in making his reports to me he told me what he was doing with the money, because he would be sent out to a certain locality for two or three days, and come back and 220 E. A. EDMONDS. make a report. I would know that would cost him something ; I do not know just what. The Chairman. How old a man is he? Mr. Edmonds. Thirty years old, perhaps. The Chairman. Are you sure ot that? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. The Chairman. Is he not just recently out of college here? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I think not very long before this. Possibly he is not 30 years old. He is a man who is practicing law. The Chairman. Was he practicing law then? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. I think he had just graduated shortly before that. The Chairman. A law student? Mr. Edmonds. I think he had finished his course. I am not sure. I had never known him up to that time. The Chairman. You kept him actively on the go during the cam- paign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And furnished him money without requiring any account to be kept of the money furnished him ? Mr. Edmonds. He made his accounting to the office manager who had hired him, I assume ; not to me, certainly. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket hired him ? Mr. Edmonds. At least he was employed before I got there. The Chairman. But you say after you got there you directed his movements? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When he was paid [examining Exhibit 49] Mr. Littlefield. While the chairman is looking up the amount, Brother Black suggests it is $300 for services and $200 for expenses. That is Brother Black’s recollection. Senator Pomerene. $300 is what was testified to yesterday. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; leaving $200 or $150 for expenses; I think that was it. The Chairman. On September 5 is the item I am after — $300. That payment was made under your direction, was it not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know anything about what that money was paid for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket will know then, will he? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I should assume so. I do not. The Chairman. But all of the expenditures before that time, after you took charge, were made under your direction; is that true? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. That is, I would send him out and direct his movements, but when he came in, if he needed money, he did not ask me for it. The Chairman. No. But you told him what to do? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you inquire what he had done, when he came to you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; he reported, when he came in, I assume. The Chairman. What had he done? E. A. EDMONDS. 221 Mr. Edmonds. He was one of the men doing the same line of work that Mr. Hambright was. The Chairman. I know; but that is general. What had he done? Tell me some one thing that McMahon reported to you that he had done? Mr. Edmonds. He had been in Grant County and Iowa County The Chairman. What had he done in Grant County? Mr. Edmonds. He had endeavored to enlist, as I recall, the services of Mr. Stevens or Mr. Stevenson — Stevens, I think — and in Iowa County a Mr. Rogers. The Chairman. That is something definite. He had endeavored to enlist their services on behalf of Senator Stephenson, had he? Had he succeeded? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. The Chairman. Had he done any other thing, in either of those counties, that he reported to you ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall; but my judgment is that he had been around in different localities in those counties, determining the situation, how people felt. I have not any definite knowledge or recollection of his report. The Chairman. And it was for that these sums of money were paid him? Mr. Edmonds. For his expenses and salary. The Chairman. The $300 paid him two or three days after the primary election was for services rendered prior to that time, was it, or was that for services to be rendered after the payment? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. But I have every reason to believe that it was in full, up to that time, for his services during the campaign. The Chairman. Had McMahon had any experience, prior to this campaign, in political work? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. When did you first meet him? Mr. Edmonds. In Milwaukee, when I came down and took charge. The Chairman. Where is he now ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know, but I am sure he is — I think — I think he is here in the State and can be located without any trouble. Mr. Littlefield. Practicing law? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. I have not seen him in months. The Chairman. Take the item of “ July 31, J. R. Keyes.” Who was J. R. Keyes? Mr. Edmonds. I think I met him but once. He came to the office. As I recall, he was a railroad man. I am not absolutely certain of that. The Chairman. You gave him $25.30, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall that I did. But my best recollec- tion is that he was working for Senator Stephenson and did go out. Whether I or Mr. Sacket made the arrangement with him, I am not positive. If I made it it was with the same general instructions, to get reports from the various localities that he would visit. The Chairman. Get votes? Mr. Edmonds. In that manner; yes, sir. The Chairman. Get votes? 222 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. To buy votes ? The Chairman. To get votes? Mr. Edmonds. No; not to get votes, because he was in the cam- paign; he was getting men interested in the campaign for Senator Stephenson — expecting them to vote for him, if he could get them; certainty. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose that would mean, ultimately, to get votes. The Chairman. I did not say to get votes unlawfully. I said, to get votes? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. That was the primary object of the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever hear of a campaign that was not for the purpose of getting votes ? Mr. Edmonds. To have votes cast for the candidate. The Chairman. But you do not know definitely what the money was paid to him for? Mr. Edmonds. No; that is one of the cases I do not know dis- tinctly. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket would probably know? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. The Chairman. u L. Bancroft, $250.” Did you pay him that money ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. Were you a party to the contract under which it was paid him? Mr. Edmonds. I was not. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the payment? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who was Mr. L. Bancroft? Mr. Edmonds. Levi Bancroft was a candidate for the assembly and later elected speaker of the house. The Chairman. This is the Mr. Bancroft who was a member of the legislature (speaker of the assembly) from Bichland County? Mr. Littlefield. Now attorney general. Mr. Edmonds. He is now the attorney general as well. The Chairman. And is now the attorney general ? Mr. Edmonds. Now the attorney general; and had been the mem- ber of assembly in the previous campaign when Senator Stephenson was elected. The Chairmann. Did you have anything to do with this $250 transaction ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the transaction for which that money was paid? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. „ The Chairman. Mr. Sacket will know, will he? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask here : Is this the man whom you dis- cussed later with Mr. Sacket, and testified in relation to it ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is this the attorney general who wrote the opinion that has been introduced before the subcommittee ? E. A. EDMONDS. 223 Mr. Black. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. No. This is a gentleman who has been elected by the people of Wisconsin after all these difficulties have occurred. The Chairman. I know the fact. I want the record to show the fact. I know that he was not the attorney general who wrote the opinion. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. It was an attorney general; I really do not know the name myself. The Chairman. I merely wanted the record to show the fact. Mr. Littlefield. At that time Mr. Bancroft, I think, was speaker of the house ? The Chairman. Yes ; the record shows it. The proceedings under which the subcommittee is acting show that fact. As to that, Mr. Sacket is the party. We will proceed to “A. J. Weisman, $83.” Do you know about that? Mr. Edmonds. In going over this I put a dot opposite that name, thinking that I might be able to recall, but I do not recall that name now. The Chairman. You do not know who he is nor where he resides? Mr. Edmonds. I assume, from the statement only, that he is from Manitowoc. The Chairman. If you do not know, we will find that out from Mr. Sacket. The next item is “August 4, C. M. Hambright, $50.” Do you know about that item? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; he was one of the workers in the office to whom payments have been made and will be made in this statement at various intervals. The Chairman. “August 4, T. J. Sexton, $50 ”? Mr. Edmonds. That is the same man referred to above. The Chairman. That is the same Sexton. That, you say, you know nothing about? Mr. Edmonds. No; I state The Chairman. You had nothing to do with paying the money or making the transaction ? Mr. Edmonds. No; this is the same man referred to above here that we discussed. The Chairman. On “July 20 ” I have marked the record here as an item that you do not know about Mr. Littlefield. July 28, I think, if the chairman please, is the time he is testifying about. Mr. Edmonds. July 28 we discussed. The Chairman. We passed over “July 20,” the item of $50; now I will recur to it. Do you know anything about that item, “ July 20, T. J. Sexton”? Mr. Edmonds. Only in such manner as I have explained that later when under “July 28.” He was employed as a scout, as he has been called. The Chairman. That applies to this first payment, then, too? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Was that first payment made before you took charge of the office? Mr. Edmonds. No ; I was there before that. The Chairman. Then you do know about him ? 224 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And I mark him as one that you do know. Now, we have him for the third time down here. The testimony that you have given in regard to the item of July 28 applies to all of the Sexton items, does it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; same man. The Chairman. I will so mark it. The next item is $100 to J. L. Sturtevandt. That is said to be for “ advertising.” What advertis- ing was that? Mr. Edmonds. He is running a daily and weekly newspaper, I believe, at Wausau. The Chairman. Who made that contract? Mr. Edmonds. I believe I sent him the money. The Chairman. Have you a bill and receipt for it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Any acknowledgment of it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What advertising was that for ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know why the word “ advertising ” is in there except that that is Mr. Sacket’s method of designating certain of these matters to keep them in a certain account. The Chairman. But you know about the payment of the money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I paid the money. The Chairman. You inquired what it was for when you authorized it, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. No. I had known Mr. Sturtevandt for some little time and, believing that he could be of assistance to us in Wausau (I knew that he was a friend of Senator Stephenson) , I sent him a hun- dred dollars to use as he saw fit in promoting the interests of the Senator. The Chairman. That was what might be termed a general contri- bution to the newspaper, was it ; for its friendship ? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps it might be called that. The Chairman. There was no specific advertisement — no space charged for — was there ? Mr. Edmonds. In this particular instance, I do not know. The Chairman. No bill was rendered for specific services as “ ad- vertising ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall, in this instance. I sent him the money, asking him to use it in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. You sent him the money for the purpose of retain- ing a friendly attitude toward Senator Stephenson, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. I did not need to do that, because he was very friendly ; his paper was for him and had been all the time. The Chairman. Then it was a gratuity. You already had the serv- ices, and in acknowledgment of friendship you sent him a hundred dollars ; does that express it ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I hardly think that expresses it. The Chairman. Then what was the hundred dollars for? Mr. Edmonds. I thought that with the hundred dollars he would be more active in his support of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Then it was for additional friendship to that already existing, was it? E. A. EDMONDS. 225 Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps that statement would be true. The Chairman. It was to cement the existing friendship ? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly ; it was to help Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was it in order that he might not probably be in- fluenced to change his attitude of friendship ? Mr. Edmonds. No; that was not at all necessary with him. The Chairman. Very well. You sent just that class of contribu- tions to a number of papers, I suppose, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. I think there were a number of instances; yes, sir. The Chairman. That was on August 4, after petitions had been filed, was it? You have the date there — Exhibit 49. Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know, that was the date; yes, sir. The Chairman. You had filed the petitions or had .them filed, had you not? Mr. Edmonds. I say, so far as I know, August 4 was the date that was sent. The Chairman. And that was after you had filed your petitions? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I think that w T as August 1. The Chairman. Take the next item of $1,000. That is the point where this question arose last evening when we were examining Mr. Sacket, and it was stated that you would know about that item, if I am correct in my recollection. What do you know about it? Mr. Edmonds. This first item, as well as other items Senator Pomerene. You mean the $1,000 item? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. To S. L. Perrin? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; paid him — as well as other items that will come later, amounting to something like $3,000, I believe, were paid by me to Mr. Perrin ; that is, I authorized the payment. The Chairman. What was the money paid for ? Mr. Edmonds. For the same general purpose I have explained; in organizing and The Chairman. I would rather, instead of answering it by refer- ence, that you would answer each on its own responsibility. Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Perrin was the man in charge of Douglas and surrounding counties, where he had a very wide acquaintance, where he had lived a good many years ; he was a lawyer of ability and had been a good deal of a politician and understood thoroughly the method of getting out the vote and handling campaigns. The Chairman. What did he do for the $1,000 under considera- tion? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Do you know that he did anything? Mr. Edmonds. The vote showed that somebody did something up there, and I think probably it came from his efforts, largely. We were very well satisfied with the vote of the eleventh district. The Chairman. That encumbers the record; those comments are very interesting, but they encumber the record unnecessarily. Did you have a talk with Mr. Perrin before that money was paid to him, in which the consideration that he was to give for it was discussed ? The Chairman. Where was the conversation held? Mr. Edmonds. Here, in the Wells Building. The Chairman. Did Mr. Perrin come down to the Wells Building to see you? 15235°— vol 1—11 -15 226 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you sent for him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. How did you send for him? Through what means ? Mr. 'Edmonds. I think he was recommended to me by some persdn who sent for him. I did not write him or telegraph him. The Chairman. Had you known him before that time? Mr. Edmonds. Personally, not well. I had met him perhaps a few times, but I did not know him personally. The Chairman. What positions has Mr. Perrin held in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. Edmonds. He was one of the candidates for the Senate from that district, previously. The Chairman. That is, the State Senate? Mr. Edmonds. The State Senate. There was a very bitter fight. The Chairman. In that campaign? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; several years before. The Chairman. Was he a candidate at all in that campaign, for anything ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; for nothing. The Chairman. Then he had no special interest in Mr. Stephen- son’s contest, except as inspired by either personal friendship or this $1,000. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think so. The Chairman. You have answered in general terms as to what he was to do for the $1,000. State some specific thing that he did do. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know of a single item of service that he performed, for this money paid him? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I ever saw him after the original interview. Possibly I did see him once more, but my recollection is not clear as to whether I ever saw him during the campaign, or im- mediately afterwards, to inquire of him what was done. I made the contract or agreement with him, as to what he thought it would be necessary to do to get out the vote and insure a big vote for Senator Stephenson in those counties, and left the matter entirely to him. The Chairman. How much did you* contract to pay him ? Mr. Edmonds. I think, $3,200 or $3,000. The Chairman. That was at the first meeting with him, was it? Mr. Edmonds. As to whether the amount was agreed upon at the first meeting, or whether I saw him again and agreed upon the sum later, I am not positive. The Chairman. You must have had some agreement when you paid him a thousand dollars. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; but I say I do not know whether the whole amount was agreed upon at that time. The Chairman. Was any part of it for personal services? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. It was all to be expended? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now, be thoughtful in your answer there. Was all of the money that you paid to Mr. Perrin to be expended by him, or was any part of it to be retained by him for personal services? E. A. EDMONDS. 227 Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that that matter was discussed. The Chairman. You agreed to pay him $3,250, without knowing whether it was to be expended, or retained by him ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any discussion of any compensation for him at all. The Chairman. You had never known him personally before, at all, had you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; but the conditions under which I met him were not peculiar ; but they were such as to inspire confidence in him. The Chairman. What were those conditions under which you met him ? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Hizer introduced me to him. Mr. Hizer is a man in whom I have very great confidence. The Chairman. Is Mr. Hizer a member of a law firm, or was he? Mr. Edmonds. He was; yes, sir. He was representing the North- western Railroad, and is now the general counsel of the road. The Chairman. When did he introduce you to Mr. Perrin? Mr. Edmonds. At that time. I think I had met him before, but at that time we met again. The Chairman. And you being introduced to Mr. Perrin by Mr. Hizer, whom you knew, sufficiently inspired you with confidence so that you placed a thousand dollars then and later $2,250 more in his hands, without condition or restriction as to the use of it. Is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. This is true, that I have such confidence in the judgment and ability of Mr. Hizer that if he had said give Mr. Per- rin, or any other man whom he recommended, even $10,000, I would have given it to him and not felt that I should be questioned at all. The Chairman. You would have given it to him without consult- ing with Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely. The Chairman. Would you have given it to him without consult- ing w T ith the other two men who were associated with you in the management of this campaign — Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Or without consulting with Mr. Sacket ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You would have paid out $20,000 of this fund to a man on the simple introduction of Mr. Hizer? Mr. Edmonds. Well, that is doubling up a little rapidly. I said $10,000, but, yes ; I would make it $20,000. The Chairman. I did not know that I was doubling it, but inas- much as you now say it, I will take that statement. That is your idea of the measure of your responsibility under the law as the manager of a candidate, and under the laws of Wisconsin ? Mr. Littlefield. One moment. Is there any objection to having it appear here that Mr. Hizer was one of the leading members of the law firm of Cary, Upham & Black, who had been the personal counsel of Mr. Stephenson for years, and that since then he has left the firm of Cary, Upham & Black, and is now general solicitor of the North- western Railway Co., taking the place of the late Solicitor General Bowers. That is the man he was relying upon. I feel as though the record ought to show just exactly the character of Mr. Hizer, a man of the very highest standing in this community. 228 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. I think that would inevitably appear in the record, because some of Mr. Hizer s actions will be a subject of consideration. Mr. Littlefield. That is exactly who Mr. Hizer was. The Chairman. Did the overwhelming importance of Mr. Hizer 's political and personal position impress you as sufficient to authorize you to pay out this money to Mr. Perrin, on his word alone? Mr. Edmonds. I would have been willing to do it on his word alone. The Chairman. Would you have done it? Mr. Edmonds. I think the fact of his statement had more to do with influencing me than any other, because the amount was large. The Chairman. What limit would you fix for Mr. Hizer’s word? What percentage of this entire campaign fund would you have been willing to hand over on his word or at his solicitation ? Mr. Edmonds. I would have been willing and glad to have ac- cepted his judgment as to the placing of that money, and all of it. The Chairman. All of it; and to have resigned your position as manager ? Mr. Edmonds. Feeling that in his hands it was in much better hands. The Chairman. And you would have done that without consulting with Senator Stephenson, would you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You had you say paid out this money and would have paid out up to $20,000, and you say you did not consult with Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I refer now to the resigning and turning over the business to him. As far as the payment of the money is con- cerned — The Chairman. Would you have paid out all the money on his judgment, without consulting Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. The Chairman. You would? Mr. Edmonds. I believe Senator Stephenson would have been very well satisfied and glad to have him accept that responsibility. The Chairman. Senator Stephenson did not appoint Mr. Hizer as one of his agents or representatives, did he? Mr. Edmonds. If he could have secured his services, he would not have been looking for me. I want to state here that I hold Mr. Hizer in the very highest esteem. I believe him to be one of the most honorable gentlemen that I know or ever have met. The Chairman. He will doubtless appreciate that, but we are interested here in knowing the circumstances under which you paid Mr. Perrin these sums of money, and you have stated that it was upon the recommendation of Mr. Hizer and that alone, and that you did not inquire into the manner of his use of that money. Mr. Edmonds. I think I have not made the statement quite as ex- plicit as that. The Chairman. Wherein is it different? Mr. Edmonds. Depending on his judgment alone; but his advice and suggestion actuated me very largely. The Chairman. You do not know of any single act performed by Mr. Perrin for Senator Stephenson in consideration of this money being paid to him? E. A. EDMONDS. 229 Mr. Edmonds. He never reported to me. The Chairman. Not a single act? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know whether Mr. Hizer knows of a single act that was performed by Mr. Perrin under this arrangement? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever know of Mr. Perrin performing a single act on behalf of Senator Stephenson in consideration of re- ceiving these sums of money? Mr. Edmonds. I can only judge by the results. The Chairman. But you do not know? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I never was in that locality during the campaign. The Chairman. As to the sum paid George Gordon — who is George Gordon ? Mr. Edmonds. George Gordon is a prominent attorney of La Crosse. He has been appointed attorney for the western district of Wisconsin. Mr. Littlefield. United States district attorney? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is he now holding that office? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You paid him the $1,300 on August 4; for what purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. For work in La Crosse and the adjoining counties. The Chairman. For working in the count}^? Mr. Edmonds. For work in the county. The Chairman. What kind of work? Mr. Edmonds. General organizing. I left the matter entirely to his judgment. The Chairman. Without any restrictions or limitations as to the use that he should make of this money? Mr. Edmonds. Except in so far as we talked the matter over and discussed what would be done. The Chairman. And what was to be done? Mr. Edmonds. He was to organize in the best and most thorough manner for Senator Stephenson’s interest, with the money at hand. The Chairman. Was the character of the organization considered in that conversation? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. We talked perhaps an hour or two, and I think in all probability it was discussed. I do not recall. TKe Chairman. You can not recall that that subject was discussed? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that it was. The Chairman. Was it to be expended or was he to retain any part of it for his personal services? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think that matter was referred to, but I do not believe he was to. I am not certain. The Chairman. You do not believe he was to expend it, or to retain it? Mr. Edmonds. To retain it. The Chairman. But it might have been that he was to retain that sum, $1,300. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. How is that? 230 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. It might be that he was to retain all of the $1,300. Mr. Edmonds. Oh, no; it was distinctly understood that he was to use such money as was necessary, and he thought that would be necessary in those counties to get out the vote. The Chairman. Then, he was to use the $1,300 — to pay it out, to expend it? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. Do you know whether he did expend any part of it or not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not from personal knowledge. The Chairman. What kind of knowledge have you on the sub- ject? Mr. Edmonds. Only that somebody did work there, and that was left in his hands. The Chairman. You did not inquire as to whether or not he had given anything in return for the money you paid him. Is that true ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. It is not true? Mr. Edmonds. I mean that I did not inquire. The Chairman. Then, it is true that you did not inquire? Mr. Edmonds. It is true; yes, sir. The Chairman. The next item is to D. E. Riordan, $1,300. He is also an attorney, is he not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Living at Vilas? Mr. Edmonds. I think he is living still in Vilas County; yes, sir. The Chairman. For what did you pay Mr. Riordan $1,300? Was it for personal services or as a fund to be expended in behalf of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. As a fund to be used by him in his judgment in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did he use it? Mr. Edmonds. I fully believe he did. The Chairman. Did he render you any account? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. (At 12.30 o’clock p. m., the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS— Continued. The Chairman. We were considering the item of $1,300 to D. E. Riordan. Were the conditions under which you made that payment to him similar to those under which you paid Mr. Gordon and Mr. Perrin? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; except for the fact that Mr. Riordan was to look after several counties. The Chairman. And the amount paid was for personal services and not for disbursements. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonds. No; that is not correct. E. A. EDMONDS. 231 The Chairman. Was he authorized to pay out money to other people to work for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was he authorized to pay them any particular rates of compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; we never went into those. The Chairman. He was to be the judge of that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was any restriction placed upon him as to the character of services that he was to purchase with that money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. ITe had been State senator from that dis- trict for several years and was very well posted in that territory, and I thought better posted than any other man I could secure for that work. The Chairman. He was not a State senator in the legislature that elected Senator Stephenson, was he? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. That was the first time that he had not been a member of the legislative body, was it not, for a number of years ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that his last term of office expired four years before this period. The Chairman. Did Mr. Sacket know anything about the arrange- ments with either Mr. Perrin, Mr. Gordon, or Mr. Riordan? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. He had nothing to do with the payment of the money to them? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure with regard to the amount paid to Mr. Riordan that that was one of the checks in my personal check book. The Chairman. It is indicated here as being in consecutive order with the numbers of the cashier’s checks. You will observe that there are three checks to Perrin, Gordon, and Riordan which are numbered consecutively 25, 26, and 27. That would indicate the manner of payment, would it not ? Mr. Edmonds. I would think so. I do not know what those num- bers are, but my best recollection was that that amount was paid out of the personal fund of $5,000 placed in my hands ; so these numbers would tend to confuse my recollection of that. The Chairman. Let us get that straight. Did you place that $5,000 in a fund by itself and draw against it, so that you could ascertain from an inspection of the account when it was exhausted ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; in the National Exchange Bank. The Chairman. When did it become exhausted ? Mr. Edmonds. It never was exhausted until I turned in the stubs of the check book and the checks to Senator Stephenson and sent him the balance, which was practically $459. The Chairman. Have you those stubs? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Where are they ? Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I am told by Mr. Sacket that “ C. D.” there, those initials, indicate “ Chicago draft.” It would not be a cashier’s check from the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. Just what significance that fact has I do not know. 232 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Pomerene. That does not mean “certificate of deposit?” Mr. Littlefield. No ; it means “ Chicago draft.” That is, a draft on some bank in Chicago. The Chairman. As I understand it, that was a draft purchased of the bank here ? Mr. Black. Of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. So it would be a charge against the account in this bank, no matter what place it was drawn upon. Mr. Black. That is correct. The Chairman. I had so understood. Now, those are to be dis- tinguished from the number of the item on July 30, which bears simply a number 33353. Do you know what that number indicates? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have not any idea. The Chairman. There seem to be three classes of numbers here, one of them cashier’s checks or certificates of deposit; one of them just numbers, without indicating anything more than that; and the others “ C. D.,” which now, I understand you to say, Mr. Edmonds, refers to “ Chicago draft.” Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I made no statement of that kind. I have no idea what it means. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Sacket worked out these details. The Chairman. You do not know about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have no idea what those numbers refer to. The Chairman. You think you paid Mr. Riordan the $1,300 check against the $5,000, which you had in a separate fund ? Mr. Edmonds. That is my recollection, though that could be verified by the stubs in the check book. The Chairman. Where do you say those stubs are ? Mr. Edmonds. They w T ere turned over to Senator Stephenson, and later, I believe, they were before the investigating committee. At any rate when I testified before the investigating committee at Madi- son, I had those and refreshed my memory from them. They were in their hands at that time. The Chairman. Do you know in whose custody those exhibits are now ? Mr. Black. I believe that the checks that the witness now refers to, which were turned over to the committee, were turned back to me, and later turned back to Senator Stephenson, and I can obtain those, if that is correct. The Chairman. I wish you would ascertain their whereabouts. Mr. Black. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Are they in this city, or are they at Marinette ? Mr. Black. They are now at Marinette. Mr. Littlefield. That refers to these particular checks. Wit- nesses have referred to other memoranda that they gave to the com- mittee up there. Was there anything else beside these checks? Mr. Black. No; I am only stating these facts. There would be these checks and Senator Stephenson’s checks. Mr. Littlefield. With the exception of these checks and Senator Stephenson’s checks, nothing was turned over to you by the legis- lative committee? Senator Pomerene. Whatever these original exhibits are, will they be brought here ? E. A. EDMONDS. 233 Mr. Littlefield. We have no control over those in the hands of the committee. The Chairman. Any that you have control of ? Mr. Edmonds. Any checks that I drew on that bank were con- secutively numbered, and are in the stubs. The Chairman. You do not think you drew the check to Perrin or Gordon ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that the item of $1,300 was the first one that I drew on that bank. The Chairman. And yet it bears a number consecutive with those preceding, wdiich would indicate that it was the same class as that. Mr. Edmonds. Of course, I have no idea what these numbers are. They were put here by Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. All right. We will get at that. Now, let us go to the next item, L. B. Dresser. Did you pay that $300 ? Mr. Edmonds. Y r es. The Chairman. On August 4? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. What did you pay it to him for? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that having known Mr. Dresser personally, and knowing that he was in the southern part of the eleventh district, and knowing that in a former campaign of Sen- ator Stephenson for the Senate he was favorable to him, I communi- cated with him and sent this by mail, asking him to look over the situation and report to me as soon as he could. That is my best recollection. The Chairman. Did he report to you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; he came down later. The Chairman. He came down later and reported in person and not by letter? Mr. Edmonds. Not by letter. The Chairman. What did he say that he had done in this matter? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall, except that he had been around in the different counties, and he stated as nearly as he could the feeling of the people as to the several candidates who were apt to run. The Chairman. Did you know him personally? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where is he now ? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Dresser is here in the court room. Mr. Littlefield. He is under subpoena, I think. The Chairman. I wanted to identify him. Mr. Edmonds. Later on I arranged with him for the payment of $1,800. The Chairman. You paid him $1,800 on August 12 ? Mr. Edmonds. At the time he came down. That was, I think, the day he came down and reported. The Chairman. You paid him, in these two items, $2,100. What did you pay him $1,800 for? Mr. Edmonds. For organizing in the interest of Senator Stephenson in several counties near his home. The Chairman. You use the term “ organizing ” in the same sense in which you have used it heretofore, do you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 234 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Did you have Stephenson clubs in those counties? Did he organize Stephenson clubs? Mr. Edmonds. Whether there was an organization, consisting of a president and secretary, with regular minutes kept and everything of that kind, I do not know, but there were associations of men that virtually amounted to clubs, in the different parts of the State. The Chairman. Did he pay any part of it for bands or halls in connection with the holding of meetings? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did he report to you for what he had expended that money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Was he to receive any part of it for his personal compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is not. The Chairman. Do you know whether he did spend it all? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him to account to you for the use that he had made of this money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You saw him after the primaries were over, did you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and during the campaign. The Chairman. It was not for securing signatures to the petition? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I am quite sure that I did not see him until after the date that the signatures were to be sent ..in to the secretary of state. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask the witness here, because it occurs to me: Were there any campaign speeches during the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I believe there were some. Mr. Littlefield. Did it involve the hiring of halls and bands? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I assume so. The Chairman. Where were those meetings held? Mr. Edmonds. In different localities. The Chairman. Name some of them. Mr. Edmonds. I can not. The Chairman. You do not remember a single meeting held in this campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. How was your mind occupied in regard to this campaign — just in distributing money? Mr. Edmonds. That took a good share of my time, from the amount of distribution, and I was a pretty busy man. The Chairman. At what were you busy ? Mr. Edmonds. I was trying to get acquainted with the people of the State, and trying to enlist sympathizers and workers for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. You were busy talking? Mr. Edmonds. I think I was talking a good deal of the time. The Chairman. You did not organize any political club or body at all in the State, did you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; no organization of voters into clubs. E. A. EDMONDS. 235 The Chairman. You did not hold any meeting, which you at- tended, in Senator Stephenson’s behalf? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I attended a public meeting ; no, sir. Of course, we had innumerable private meetings. The Chairman. What did you do besides talk and have confer- ences in this campaign and draw checks? Mr. Edmonds. I think every day during the campaign, except part of Saturday afternoon and Monday morning and Sunday during the campaign, I was in the office of the headquarters. Mr. Littlefield. Here at Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. And doing whatever came up. The Chairman. Whatever did come up? Mr. Edmonds. Whatever I could think of to promote the interest of Senator Stephenson in any way. The Chairman. What came up? Mr. Edmonds. Most of the time there were men coming up the stairs endeavoring to see me and make arrangements for organizing in their districts. The Chairman. Making arrangements for getting money? Mr. Edmonds. A good many of them; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay, on August 5, to E. J. Rogers, $50? Before you answer that question I will ask you first, did you give money to everybody who asked for it? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not think so. The Chairman. What percentage did you turn down? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, I can not tell what percentage. I know a great many people came up, but Mr. Sacket was very good about steering them clear of me. If he thought they were not worthy of confi- dence — of getting into the campaign — he would steer them away from me. The Chairman. If they once got safely by Mr. Sacket, then they stood some show. Mr. Edmonds. I am afraid I was something of an easy mark in the matter in a good many instances, probably. I do not know. The Chairman. You have given us the names of 20 now who got by Mr. Sacket and to whom you gave money. You gave money to all that got by Mr. Sacket? Mr. Littlefield. No; he did not quite say that. He authorized the payment of money to most of those. The Chairman. That is the subject matter of my question. Mr. Edmonds. For instance, there were many times men would come into the office. There would be duplicates. For instance, I had arranged in a certain county for a man to manage the cam- paign in that county. Every man would come in and discuss the situation in that county and try to give me information in regard to it, and some of them, not knowing who was our manager there, would suggest themselves, perhaps, or somebody else. In that case I tried not to duplicate. The Chairman. Does it not seem from this statement that you did duplicate in a good many counties? Sir. Edmonds. No; I do not think so. The Chairman. And when these men reached you finally, with a claim for expense account, did you pay the money out? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I quite understand that question. 236 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Did you personally pay the money out for the expenses of those that did reach you, make a personal payment for the expense account? Mr. Edmonds. In some instances. The Chairman. When you would make such a payment, did you report it to Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think in every instance. When I say per- sonally, I means by that it came out of the office, that I made the arrangements for it, and in that way it came through me; that the money would pass through Mr. Sacket’s hands. The money did not come through me. Senator Pomerene. You have testified here before from time to time that you got a certain amount of cash from Mr. Puelicher. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. You have called attention to the fact that men would get past Mr. Sacket up to you. What we want to know is, did you give to some of these men the actual cash out of the money that you had personally received in cash from Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Edmonds. When you speak of the men getting by Mr. Sacket, I do not know. There were at different times out of the money I had in my hands, in my pocket, moneys paid, $25 or $50, or what was needed Senator Pomerene. Have you the names of those persons here? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep a list of those names? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Those sums were advanced in almost every instance, I believe, to the men who were employed to go out from headquarters — what have been called “ political scouts.” Senator Pomerene. If you did not keep a list of those names, how did you expect a report of it to be made? Mr. Edmonds. That was paid out of the money in my hands. Senator Pomerene. How did you expect a report of that to be made so as to comply with the statute? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I gave it any thought at all. The Chairman. You paid that to Mr. Rogers, you say, on Au- gust 5. Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not think I did. The Chairman. Can I charge that to Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. And the item, “ R. H. Rowe, $35.25 ”? Mr. Edmonds. That is a case that I do not recall. My judgment is that I never made any arrangement with him, though the name, “Richard Rowe,” seems familiar. The Chairman. It seems familiar? Mr. Edmonds. The name is familiar to me. Senator Pomerene. We lawyers have learned that. Mr. Littlefield. But this is another Rowe. This is R-o-w-e. The Chairman. Do you know where Mr. Rowe was then or is now to be found? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. The Chairman. Shall we ask Mr. Sacket about that? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. The Chairman. The next one, Mr. Wavland, you have already told us about. That was $49.18. Did you pay that to him? E. A. EDMONDS. 237 Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall this particular payment. The Chairman. Would Mr. Sacket know about that item? Mr. Edmonds. I am not sure of that at all. That was a part of the total amount paid to Mr. Wayland. The Chairman. The next item, J. R. Keyes, $25, was paid by whom ? Mr. Edmonds. By Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. And the next item, L. H. Stevens, $28.92, was paid by whom? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure that I did not pay that. The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Stevens? Mr. Edmonds. That is L. H. Stevens, in Iowa County. I think there is a mistake there. I think it should be in Grant County. There may be an L. IX. Stevens in Iowa County ; I do not know. The Chairman. Then there is J. E. Kelley, in Milwaukee County, on August 6, $500. Before answering that question, I desire to in- quire of you as to the item of $75 in Kewaunee County. Who paid that ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I could not tell to whom that refers. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket will know about that? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. The Chairman. We now come to August 6, Milwaukee, J. E. Kelley, $500. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what was that paid? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Kelley was employed by me to make speeches for Senator Stephenson, in his behalf. The Chairman. To make speeches where? Mr. Edmonds. All over the different parts of the State, wherever he was called upon. The Chairman. I understood you to say that there were no meet- ings held for speech making. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no; he could not specify the meetings. He said there were meetings. The Chairman. He could not name one place where a speech had been made, and you paid $500 to Mr. Kelley for making speeches? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you never inquire as to where he made these speeches ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes — no ; I will take that back. I want to correct that answer. The Chairman. What is the answer? Mr. Edmonds. Your question is, did I never inquire. No. I knew the circumstances Mr. Chairman. You do know that he made speeches? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I made an agreement with Mr. Kelley, who was the city attorney of Milwaukee, to make speeches in different parts of the State. I paid him for his services, and paid him in ad- vance $500. Later my suggestion as to the advisability of Mr. Kelley making speeches was overruled- -it was discussed, at least, and it was decided not to send him out. The Chairman. Then did he make any speeches? Mr. Edmonds. Not one that I know of. 238 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. So the $500 was merely a gift to Mr. Kelley ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as the services of Mr. Kelley were concerned, it was an absolute loss, because he did not make any speeches, but I want to say that Mr. Kelley is not at all at fault, because he was ready to go, and we decided not to call on him. The Chairman. Is he still living in this city ? Mr. Edmonds. I think he is ; yes, sir. The Chairman. He does not hold any office, does he? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Except that he was the city attorney ? Mr. Edmonds. Not since the Socialists got in power here. The Chairman. Are the Socialists in power here now ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe they are. I am not a resident of Mil- waukee. They appear to be. The Chairman. And Mr. Kelley rendered no service, gave no con- sideration for the $500 ? Mr. Edmonds. He rendered valuable services because of his friend- ship to Senator Stephenson, but this particular amount was to be paid to him for making speeches, and he did not do that, through no fault of his. The Chairman. Did he vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea, but I believe he did. He was very friendly to him. The Chairman. You are not sure? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. We next have the item of J. Livermore, $50. Did you pay that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. For work in Oconto County. The Chairman. Have you figured up the total amount that you paid Mr. Livermore? Mr. Edmonds. No; I have not. I think that is the only amount. The Chairman. We now come to the item of $600 to J. J. McGilli- vary. Did you pay that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. For organization work in Jackson County. The Chairman. Organization work. That was on August 6 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. WTat did he do for the $600? Mr. Edmonds. He had entire charge of Jackson County. Mr. Chairman, you speak of speeches. That reminds me that Senator McGillivary did make some speeches. The Chairman. He was not a senator then, was he ? Mr. Edmonds. He was not a senator at that time. The Chairman. He had been ? Mr. Edmonds. He had been years before that. The Chairman. Was he a candidate for the senate? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. So that whatever services he rendered for the $600 were in the nature of speech making? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did he pay out any of the $600 to any other person ? E. A. EDMONDS. 239 Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure that I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You never inquired nor had an account from him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; never had an account from him. The Chairman. Then there is the item of Pat Dormady, $50. Mr. Edmonds. Ashland County. The Chairman. Did you pay that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. Services that he might render Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Had he rendered any service at the time you paid him the money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether he had or not. At the time this money was sent him I believe he was a candidate for the nomina- tion of sheriff in that county, and he thought he could be of assist- ance to Senator Stephenson, at the same time getting around work- ing for himself. The Chairman. Was he nominated? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know whether he spent the $50 to ad- vance his own candidacy or that of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I would not like to ]eave the insinuation that he did. The Chairman. You do not know? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Had Mr. McGillivary performed any services for Senator Stephenson before you paid him the $600 on August 6 ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. He was friendly to Senator Ste- phenson when I employed him. The Chairman. But you do not know whether or not he would have organized Jackson County had he not received the $600? Mr. Edmonds. I hardly think he would have gone out and spent $600 of his own money, or any large amount of money to organize the county if he had not expected to be reimbursed. The Chairman. You do not know that Mr. Kelley would have sup- ported Mr. Stephenson unless he was paid $500? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, I do; certainly. He was a very warm friend of the Senator, as was Mr. McGillivary. The Chairman. Before you paid him the $500 what had he done toward his election? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not that he did anything? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. The same is true as to Mr. Livermore? You do not know that he would have done anything at all in the absence of the payment of $50 ? Mr. Edmonds. Of course I do not know what they would have done. The Chairman. Up to that time they had not performed any serv- ices for Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether they had or not. I know they were friendly to his nomination. 240 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Why was it necessary to give them money? Mr. Edmonds. They were not getting this money for themselves, to keep. The Chairman. How do you know they did not keep it all? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know, of course, what they did, never hav- ing had an account from them. The Chairman. Let us cover that general principle. You have enumerated a number of persons to whom you paid money for organizing and assisting in the election of Senator Stephenson. Had any of these people performed any services before you paid them or commenced making payment to them? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I would say that in every instance where money was paid to men to work for Senator Stephenson by me, I knew them to be friendly and in favor of Senator Stephenson’s nomination. No money was paid to them to get them to vote for Senator Stephenson, or to influence their vote. In almost every in- stance these men were solicited by me to organize in these counties. They did not come to me — these men to whom these larger sums were E aicl. Those w r ere men that I sought out, men I thought were the est fitted in those counties to organize. The Chairman. Let us take the cases of Gordon, Iliordan, and Perrin. Those men had not actively or in any way supported Sena- tor Stephenson prior to the time you made the arrangement with them to do so? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. . They were all friendly to the Senator. The Chairman. I know, but that is a very indefinite proposition. Had they been supporting Senator Stephenson, doing things that would tend to bring about his nomination, prior to the time you made the contract with them? Mr. Edmonds. I had absolutely no means of knowing until I saw them. The Chairman. Did it not occur to you that when a man came 10 you for money, or when a man agreed to accept money, it would be very proper for you to inquire whether he had already interested himself in the election of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. The Chairman. Did you do it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In the case of Mr. Gordon, what had Mr. Gordon done to promulgate Senator Stephenson’s nomination when he first came to you? Mr. Edmonds. I have absolutely no means of knowing. I sent for him to come down. The Chairman. You did not ascertain or attempt to ascertain Mr. Littlefield. Would not the chairman let the witness finish the answer ? The Chairman. He said he did not. That is his answer. Mr. Littlefield. I submit whether the witness has not a fair right to make an explanation. I know that the chairman does not intend to cut him off, but he was going on to make an explanation, and it seemed to me that the chair would be perfectly willing that he should do it. E. A. EDMONDS. 241 The Chairman. The witness is entitled, first, to answer the ques- tion, and he has answered it. He is not entitled to make an explana- tion. He can only make an explanation under the rules of evidence # upon an application to make the explanation after having answered the question. He can not substitute an explanation for an answer. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, the chairman and I are perfectly agreed about the rule of law. My suggestion was this : I do not think the chair- man has any objection when the witness makes an answer, if he feels he ought to go on and make an explanation in addition to the answer The Chairman. He can not do that without the consent of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. I know, and I am asking the committee to con- sent to it. The Chairman. If he requested the opportunity to make an expla- nation, or the request was made in his behalf, it would be proper, but the witness must not be the arbiter of that matter. His answer being complete, if the witness desires to explain, then the question must be submitted to the committee, and the committee willl doubtless authorize or permit him to make an explanation. But that is not the status of this question now. Let the question and the answer of the witness be read. Mr. Littlefield. I am perfectly agreed with the chairman’s view of the matter, and the question and answer need not be read for my information. There is not the slightest difference between us, but my only suggestion was that if the witness was perhaps going on to make an explanation, perhaps the chairman would have no objection to his doing so. I understand perfectly that it is within the discre- tion of the chairman and the committee. The Chairman. The reporter will read the question and the answer of the witness, and then if the witness desires to explain, that will be a thing to consider. The reporter read as follows: “ The Chairman. In the case of Mr. Gordon, what had Mr. Gordon done to promulgate Senator Stephenson’s nomination when he first came to you? “ Mr. Edmonds. I have absolutely no means of knowing. I sent for him to come down.” The Chairman. If the witness desires now to make any explana- tion of the answer, or any comments upon it, to explain that, he will be permitted to do so. Mr. Edmonds. There was no opportunity and no time for me to learn from the different counties what these different men had been doing. This particular man was known to be a “ stalwart ” in his county, an organizer of ability, and he was the best-fitted man, it seemed to me, among the friends of Senator Stephenson, to do the work there. I asked him to come down, and I made the arrange- ment with him for such organization. The Chairman. That is your explanation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not in the absence of an arrangement such as you made with him he would have supported Senator Stephenson ? 15235 °— vol 1—11 16 242 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Why, of course The Chairman. No; do you know? Mr. Edmonds. No; 1 do not know. I have every reason to believe * that he would. The Chairman. That is a complete answer — that you do not know. Do you know whether or not in the absence of an arrangement such as you made, Mr. Perrin would have supported Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. In making my answer, I would like to make an explanation. The Chairman. You may make it afterwards. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I believe he would. The Chairman. Now you say you know. Now you know. You may explain. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Now, what do you say? Mr. Edmonds. I have no means of knowing, because I had not seen him before that time. I had been informed that he was for him. The Chairman. Do you know that Mr. Riordan would have sup- ported Senator Stephenson in the absence of the arrangement which you made with him, pursuant to which you paid him the money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. May I make the explanation here and say that I believe it to be the case, as I had been informed that he was in favor of Mr. Stephenson’s nomination. The Chairman. As you had been informed. Are you able to sav whether any of the men to whom you paid these sums of money, enumerated during the forenoon’s examination, would have sup- ported Senator Stephenson in the absence of the payment of the money which you made to them ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I am; some of them. Some of them I had personal acquaintance with and had seen before that time. The Chairman. Which ones? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Livermore, Mr. Wayland, Mr. Dresser. That is all I notice there (“ Exhibit 49 ”) that I had seen before or had communicated with. The Chairman. Those are the only ones that you are willing to say that you know would have supported Senator Stephenson in the absence of the contracts with and payments that you made to them ? Mr. Edmonds. They are the only ones that I would want to make that statement of at this time. 1 believe — if I may explain — that every one of them, however, was in favor of him. The Chairman. That is voluntary, and please do not put those things in the record without the consent of the subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman excuse me? Is not that within the fair scope of the explanation and bearing upon the good faith The Chairman. The explanation must only be made upon request. The witness is not at liberty to sit here and reenforce his testimony. Mr. Littlefield. I know, but the chairman does not propose to enforce that rule in strictness? The Chairman. Only in the interest of conciseness and reason- able brevity in these procedings. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. The Chairman. If the witness were permitted to make a speech in connection with each answer it would very much delay and drag out the hearing. E. A. EDMONDS. 243 Mr. Littlefield. True. But in this particular matter, I submit, the explanation bears upon the good faith of Mr. Edmonds. If it be a question as to whether or not his conduct was proper, under those circumstances, his belief as to what these men would have done otherwise is certainly a factor that enters into the equation. The Chairman. His present belief is not a factor. The belief that he may have entertained at the time might be. Mr. Littlefield. Surely ; but that is the belief to which he is testi- fying, I believe. Is it not, Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Edmonds. It is. The Chairman. Now we will proceed. The case of It. J. Shields, to whom $200 was paid on August 6; did you make that payment? Mr. Edmonds. I have that marked with a question here, and I can not recall whether I did or not. The Chairman. Then I will mark it as I am marking that class. Do you think that Mr. Sacket will be able to explain that item? Mr. Edmonds. If he can not, I can not. I know of Mr. Shields, but I do not recall The Chairman. Who is Mr. Shields? Mr. Edmonds. He lives in Superior. The Chairman. Superior? Mr. Littlefield. That is the most northern town in the State. The Chairman. Yes. That is right across from Duluth? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Llave you any personal acquaintance with him? Mr. Edmonds. I know him slightly. The Chairman. Did you know him before the campaign com- menced ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I had known him 10 or 15 years before, but had not seen him for a good many years. The Chairman. What does he do? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Do you think that he could be reached with a subpoena ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. What is his business, do you know ? Mr. Edmonds. I think he is a lawyer; I am not positive. Senator Sutherland. He has been subpoenaed. Mr. Littlefield. He has been subpoenaed ? The Chairman. Yes; so I am informed. J. C. Miller, $75, on August 6. Did you make that payment? Mr. Edmonds. That is not one of the items I have marked, and I think not. The Chairman. The next item of $100, to Kewaunee County? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Who made that? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. You do not know anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. That I do not recall anything about. The Chairman. And the next one, to Racine County, $100? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection of that. The Chairman. You do not know whether that was money sent there or money paid to some one there? 244 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I can not tell from this (“ Exhibit 49 ”). The Chairman. Now “ General, C. C. Wayland, $250 ” ? Mr. Edmonds. That was a part of the amount that he was to The Chairman. That was within the explanation that you have made with reference to Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And that is one of the cases of which you have personal knowledge ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I will so mark it. The next one, to “ M. C. King.” I suppose that is really the man whose name is at the top of page 592, as “ Bing ”■ — merely a misprint ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; it is the same name. The Chairman. Here you pay him $170? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. I employed him to go about the State, in different places, endeavoring to learn and report to me the sentiment, par- ticularly as to the stalwarts in the State, as to how they felt in re- gard to Senator Stephenson’s nomination. The Chairman. What is his business? Mr. Edmonds. A lawyer. The Chairman. Where does he reside? Mr. Edmonds. Neillsville. The Chairman. Where is Neillsville? Mr. Edmonds. Clark County. The Chairman. Had you known him before you entered into this arrangement with him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I had known him. The Chairman. How long? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, perhaps 10 years. The Chairman. Is he a man who ordinarily takes an active part in political matters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. He is one of the prominent stalwarts in the State. The Chairman. Has he been in office in the State? Mr. Edmonds. Not to my recollection, though he has been a poli- tician, well known in the State. He represented the Northwestern Railroad Co. at one time. The Chairman. Do you know what he did with the money Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman (continuing). That he received, which amounts to several thousand dollars? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he kept for services and for traveling ex- penses and other such expenditures that he was The Chairman. It was personal compensation to Mr. Ring to go abroad in the State in the interests of Senator Stephenson’s renomi- nation and election, was it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. These services seem to have been performed after the filing of the nomination papers, so no part of the services consisted in securing signers ? Mr. Edmonds. None at all. The Chairman. Did he make speeches? E. A. EDMONDS. 245 Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. The Chairman. Hold meetings? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. I think he was traveling most of the time from one part of the State to another. The Chairman. Personal canvass, you think ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; seeing the different leaders of the party, in different sections. The Chairman. BefQre you made this arrangement with him had he been engaged in canvassing for or supporting Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. He entered upon those duties because of the arrangement you had made with him, did he not? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he entered upon the duties of going about the State, after having been paid by me for his services. The Chairman. Because of the contract with you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I believe — if I may explain — that he was in favor of Senator Stephenson’s nomination or I should not have hired him. The Chairman. Upon what do you base your belief? Mr. Edmonds. From my talk with him, before I hired him or at the time. The Chairman. At the time? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is to say, he expressed a willingness, upon the payment of this money, to go out for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. And, if I may further explain, he was a friend of Mr. Hizer, and Mr. Hizer had arranged for him to come to Milwaukee, or, at least, he came, and I met him in Mr. Hizer’s office — possibly in Mr. Hizer’s office — I think that is where I met him; and Mr. Hizer The Chairman. He came here to be employed to go out and make a canvass for Senator Stephenson’s nomination, did he? Mr. Edmonds. That I do not know. I met him at the suggestion of Mr. Hizer, who informed me that he was a friend of Senator Stephenson and believed that he could be employed to work in his interest. The Chairman. August 8, to “ E. A. Edmunds, $250 ” — that was to you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose was that money drawn from the campaign fund? Mr. Edmonds. For the same purpose as other items referred to. I had evidently run out of money at that time and called on Mr. The Chairman. It was your personal expenses? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Let me ask there: You say you had run out of money; you still had some of this $5,000 to your credit in the bank, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; and no part of it Senator Pomerene. Why did you not draw that? Mr. Edmonds. No part of that was used by me. For the reason I wanted stubs to shoAV that that was used for other purposes. It had been arranged that I should be paid by Mr. Senator Pomerene. Was that more sacred than other money ? 246 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that it was; but that was intrusted to my care and I had to make a report on that and I did not want any question about that. Senator Pomerene. Was not the other money intrusted to your care? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or the expenditure of it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I was to keep an account, however, of this particular amount and render a statement of it, and of the other the man from whom I got the money rendered a report. Senator Pomerene. You say you were to keep account of the $5,000; why? Mr. Edmonds. Because, for my own protection and safety. Senator Pomerene. Who required that of you? Mr. Edmonds. I required it of myself. I do not think Senator Stephenson said to do that, but I certainly understood that Senator Pomerene. And you were not required to keep an account of the rest? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not keep an account of the rest. It was done under my — in the office. The Chairman. Then you drew the $250 from the other fund that was supplied through Mr. Peulicher? Mr. Edmonds. Always. Any amount received from me came from him. The Chairman. Now, the next item, $250, “ General.” What does that indicate ; to whom was that paid ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket will know that, will he? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what he will know. I certainly do not. The Chairman. What? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly do not ; I have not any idea. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, did you pay the $50 to Mr. Dett- mam on August 8 ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is not clear on that, but I think I sent it to him. The Chairman. You think you sent it to him; for what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. For assistance among the German Lutherans in his locality. The Chairman. What kind of assistance? Mr. Edmonds. So that he would get out and help to get out the vote — interest his friends — for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. There was no vote to be gotten out on August 8 for any purpose — nearly a month before the election. Mr. Edmonds. When I say getting out the vote, I do not refer to the actual carrying or taking of the persons to the polls, but to interest them so that they would get out. The Chairman. Enthuse them? Mr. Edmonds. That is the idea — enthuse them. Thank you for the suggestion. The Chairman. “ O. L. Gust, $800, August 8.” Did you pay that money ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall that payment at all. E. A. EDMONDS. 247 The Chairman. Who is Mr. Gust? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know anything about that expendi- ture ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not think I ever met the man; I do not know him. The Chairman. Did you ever go in and look over the accounts of Mr. Sacket to see how much money he was paying out and to whom he was paying it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I ever did. The Chairman. The next one, “ F. H. Gehbe, $200.” Did you pay that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What for? Mr. Edmonds. For the same; for services, helping to organize and get out the vote for Senator Stephenson in Manitowoc County. The Chairman. Did he ever render any account to you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know whether he kept the money for his own trouble or whether he paid it out to others? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You never inquired? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. So that he might have used that money and might not have used it within the law so far as you know ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. If I may explain, he came to the office and said he was a friend of Senator Stephenson and wanted to get out and do work for him in that county. Now, as to whether some one had sent him or not, I am not sure; but he was there at least, and I arranged with him — paid him the $200. The Chairman. Do you know whether he would have supported Senator Stephenson in the absence of the payment of this money to him? Mr. Edmonds. Only that he told me he would. The Chairman. Whether he got the money or not. Did he tell you? Mr. Edmonds. No. When he came in he told me he was a friend of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. But did he say that he would support him whether he got the money or not? Mr. Edmonds. I did not ask him. The Chairman. You did not. And you do not know whether or not, had you declined to give him any money, he would have sup- ported Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not know it. The Chairman. And you do not know whether or not the pay- ment of that money to him secured his support ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. If I may explain in this case again, I believe it to be a case The Chairman. If you do not know, I do not see what there is to explain. Mr. Littlefield. What was the explanation you wanted to make ? Mr. Edmonds. I would like to make the explanation that the only means I have — when I do not know a particular thing — is to inquire 248 E. A. EDMONDS. of a man ; he tells me, or in talking with him if he tells me he is in favor of Senator Stephenson’s nomination, I know of no better means of learning it than that. In no instance did I ever pay money to one of these men who did not talk with me and assure me that he was a friend of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. They would hardly have come to you for money, accompanied with a declaration that they were not, would they? Mr. Edmonds. I presume not. The Chairman. Now, the next one is Mr. Ames, $350. Mr. Edmonds. You have referred to him on the previous page, and this is a part of the amount that was to be paid him. Mr. Littlefield. Was that an item that Mr. Sacket knows about? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. That is an item I know about. The Chairman. Yes, you have already stated Mr. Edmonds. May I make this explanation, Senator: That when these items — these particular checks — are paid, I do not mean by that that that necessarily was done at my instance. For instance, if I arranged with a man to pay him so much and told Mr. Sacket — say $600 — and he had been paid $200. when he came in later he may have received something from Mr. Sacket that I did not know about, but I knew of the general transaction ; I did the employing. The Chairman. How much did you pay Mr. Ames altogether? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I could only know by figuring this up. The Chairman. Several hundred dollars? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You paid him $350 on August 8? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. This is the item. The Chairman. What did you pay him that for? Mr. Edmonds. Because he asked for it. The Chairman. That was a sufficient reason? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. We had arranged for him to organize in that county and had agreed to pay him a given amount, the amount of which I have forgotten, and he had received some; when he came in and asked for more on account, he received it. Mr. Littlefield. That is, pursuant to an arrangement previously made? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. “ J. K, Keyes, $50, August 8.” What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket The Chairman. You had already, on August 5, paid him a sum of money. That is the same man, I believe? Mr. Edmonds. The same man; yes, sir. The Chairman. J. R. Keyes? Mr. Edmonds. He was the railroad man who was traveling about the State, when this was paid him. The Chairman. He started out to travel because you paid him the money, did he not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you not paid him the money do you suppose he would have traveled over the State in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? E. A. EDMONDS. 249 Mr. Edmonds. At his own expense? I do not believe he would. I do not think he was a man who could afford to do so. The Chairman. Had he performed any service or indicated his choice for Senator Stephenson prior to the payment by you of this sum of money? Mr. Edmonds. He was sent in to me by a friend of Senator Steph- enson^, as I recall, and I was assured by them that he was for him. The Chairman. The next item is, “ General, $150.*’ What does that mean? Mr. Edmonds. I have no means of knowing. The Chairman. You do not know what kind of item that is? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. It occurs frequently in the account. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what it refers to. Where there is no explanation I am unable to refresh my mind. The Chairman. There are several “ generals” here. There is one above for $250 and another one for $250 and this one for $150; there is close to $1,000 “generals” on that page. You do not know what any of those “generals” are for? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I am unable to tell because there is no explanation here that will refresh my mind. The Chairman. You never called for any statement in regard to them, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not know they were carried in that way. The Chairman. Here is one to C. H. Russell on August 10, $200. Do you know about that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir: I made that. The Chairman. Was he out supporting Senator Stephenson prior to August 10 ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. He was a candidate for Congress. The Chairman. Was he nominated? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; it was thought best by the workers in that locality with whom I talked to join with Mr. Russell in working. He was to put up the same amount of money that was given him, and they would work jointly for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not Mr. Russell paid out any of this $200. or whether he kept that for compensation for his support ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. If I may explain, I will say I do not believe he did. The Chairman. The next one is “ C. O. Larson, $140.*’ That is the Larson you have already explained about, is it not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And the explanation as to that $140 is similar to the explanation you made as to the first item? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was any part of that for personal expenses of Mr. Larson ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; my recollection is that Mr. Larson was to be paid something for his services. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Edmonds. I think $100. 250 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Where does he live ? Mr. Edmonds. At Port Washington, I think. The Chairman. What does he do? Senator Pomerene. You say now you think you paid Larson $100 for his personal services. Yesterday you thought it was $50. What is the occasion for the change of thought ? Mr. Edmonds. I want to say, Senator, that the list I gave to you of those who had been given some money was only on my recollection. Now I do not know whether that amount was $100 or $150 or $50, but I gave it to you as I best remembered it at that time. Senator Pomerene. You gave it to me as $50. Now you say it is $100, and you don’t know whether it is $150 now ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not. The Chairman. It is $140 now — this item on August 10? Mr. Edmonds. The $140 is the compensation to which you re- ferred, did you not, Senator? Senator Pomerene. I did. The Chairman. On July 30 you gave him $25. That is the item that you think was on account of compensation. Now, on August 10 you gave him $140, and do you say that was for compensation, or partly for compensation and partly for expenses? Mr. Edmonds. I should have explained, in the former instance, that it might have been partly for expenses and partly for com- pensation, in the same way as this item. The Chairman. You paid him other items afterwards, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I think so. The Chairman. Now, “Mr. Rowe, $19.20.” Did you pay that item ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall it at all. The Chairman. Then we will mark that “ Mr. Sacket.” Now, the “ General ” comes in for his compensation, $150. Do you know any- thing about that ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Is that for General Schlitz or General Pabst? Mr. Littlefield. General what? Mr. Edmonds. I will say in explanation, if I may, that if it is meant to imply that any of that money marked “ General ” was spent for booze, if I may so denominate it, none of it was by me. Senator Pomerene. I was only inquiring for information. Mr. Littlefield. You wanted to get the local color? The Chairman. “ Brown Co., $250, August 12.” Do you know about that item ? Mr. Edmonds. Of Brown County, I think that is. Mr. Littlefield. Brown County. Mr. Edmonds. And while no name is given, I have looked through the record here and do not find the name of the man I employed to look after Brown County, Mr. Calkins. The Chairman. Your Brown County man was Haslem, was he not? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Haslam worked in Brown County and other counties. The general organizer in Brown County was Mr. Calkins. The Chairman. Can you explain that expenditure of $250 on Au- gust 12 for Brown Co., or county, or whatever it may be? E. A. EDMONDS. 251 Mr. Edmonds. I can only in that way that I believe that to be an amount paid to Mr. Calkins. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. Whom I employed to organize Brown County. The Chairman. In that organization an item of that size, $250, to be expended in, say, less than three weeks in organizing that county — how would he expend that much money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. That would be left entirely to his judgment. The Chairman. You did not interest yourself to know how Sena- tor Stephenson’s money was to be spent in organizing ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I interested myself and talked to the men when I employed them. And it is not certain here, by the way, Sena- tor, that that was the first money paid him. That may be one of the general items. I do not know. The Chairman. There is another item of $200 on the next day, u Brown County.” Mr. Edmonds. That was part of the amount paid him. The agree- ment was made before. The Chairman. So that he received $400 in 10 days to organize Brown County that late in the campaign, when you had already provided for the organization of that county at the beginning of the campaign, had you not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not see any sign of it in the account. Is the chairman looking at the account ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I do not find it; will the chairman give me the page and the date? The Chairman. The two items, August 12 and 13. Mr. Littlefield. You were suggesting a prior item, were you not? The Chairman. I was asking him about that. Mr. Littlefield. I thought you had another man in mind. I was looking for it and did not find it. The Chairman. I was rather indicating some surprise that a county of that importance should have been left without an attempt to organ- ize it until within 10 or 12 days, or a few days, of the election. That sum, then, for “ Co.,” whatever that indicates, you can not explain, except that it was given to one of these men that you call organizers, and you do not know what he spent it for, or that he spent it at all, do you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I never required any account and never re- ceived any from him. The Chairman. Have we any basis by which we can determine whether or not that man would have supported Senator Stephenson in the absence of being paid this sum of money? Mr. Edmonds. I had information at that time that he would when I paid it. The Chairman. Have you the information now ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I recall it. The Chairman. Give us the benefit of your “ recall.” Mr. Edmonds. I sent for Mr. Calkins. I rather think I telephoned him ; and at the suggestion of other men in Brown County with whom 252 E. A. EDMONDS. I talked as to who would be the best man to conduct the campaign for Senator Stephenson, they gave me the name of Mr. Calkins, who had been a candidate for circuit judge in that territory and who was very well acquainted. He came down, and I made the arrangement with him. The Chairman. That is, you made an arrangement by giving him $250. Had he supported Senator Stephenson prior to that time? Mr. Edmonds. That was the information I had received; yes, sir. The Chairman. Who told you that? Mr. Edmonds. Friends of Senator Stephenson in the county. The Chairman. Who w as it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now. The Chairman. Where did he tell you that? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now. The Chairman. You can not recall that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not now. The Chairman. At first you could not recall anything in regard to it. Then you recalled one thing in regard to it, and then it seems to have flitted by, and you have no other recollection. Mr. Edmonds. Is not that very often true that when you are asked a question — it is w 7 ith me. When I am asked a question, and other questions lead to a certain point, it refreshes your memory. It does mine. The Chairman. Your memory was slightly, briefly refreshed — was that it — so that you could remember that this was the man who had held that position? Mr. Littlefield. A candidate for judge? Mr. Edmonds. Not at this election. Mr. Littlefield. He had been a candidate for judge. The Chairman. He had been a candidate for judge? Mr. Edmonds. He was very well acquainted in that territory. The Chairman. Are you very well acquainted with him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I was not well acquainted with him. The Chairman. Have you seen him recently? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know whether he supported Senator Stephenson or not? Mr. Edmonds. Only from the returns from the county, I judge that he did. The Chairman. Did that county cast a large vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. The Chairman. Did he have a majority of the votes cast in the county at that time? Mr. Edmonds. I believe he had a plurality. The Chairman. So that you do not know whether that man to whom you paid the money voted for Senator Stephenson and sup- ported him because he received the money, or not ? Mr. Edmonds. From personal knowledge I have no means of know- ing whether he voted for him or not. The Chairman. We will pass that. Now, we come to another item. u Casl to J. W. Stone. $2,500.” Who was Mr. Stone? 253 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Stone was game warden of Wisconsin. The Chairman. Did you know him personally before the payment of this $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I had met him. The Chairman. Or at the time ? Mr. Edmonds. I had met him. The Chairman. You paid him the money, did you not, in cash? Mr. Edmonds. Through my instructions. The Chairman. Did you not pay it to him in cash yourself? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Who did? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket says he did. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket paid it in cash. Where did he get the cash ? Did you give it to him ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I did not have the cash. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket had no cash in the campaign, did he? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket could get the cashier’s check from the bank. The Chairman. He had to get it from you ; or on your credit? Mr. Edmonds. Sure ; I told them to give it to him. The Chairman. Then you did tell him to get it ? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. Let us see if we can get at a candid statement of the occasion of the payment of this $2,500 to the State game warden. You know all about it, do you not? Mr. Edmonds. About his getting the money. The Chairman. You know all the details of that game warden proposition, do you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. The matter has been investigated in such a way as to fix it in your mind, has it not ? Mr. Edmonds. It was not necessary, because I remembered the de- tails. The Chairman. Remembered it all? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; there were some things I did not remember, but some details I remember. The Chairman. I would hardly expect to receive a reply, if you do not know in regard to Mr. Stone. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose was $2,500 paid to Mr. Stone? Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of getting his assistance in helping to nominate Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What kind of assistance? Mr. Edmonds. Such kind as he could give, in his best judgment. The Chairman. Was any other sum paid to him later in connec- tion with the election of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think a dollar ; not to my knowledge. The Chairman. So this represents the compensation for everything that Mr. Stone did ; does it ? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I know ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did Mr. Stone give you the names of his assistants who would perform the services for this compensation, and who would share in this sum of money? 254 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that he gave me the names in writing. I am sure he talked about different ones who would help him. The Chairman. He told you who they were; did he not? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. The Chairman. Who w T ere thej^? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe that I can remember more than two or three of them. There w 7 as Harry Bowman. There was a Superior man named. I never had met him before. I met him during the campaign, but I can not recall his name. The Chairman. That is one you remember and one you do not. Now give us another one. Mr. Edmonds. There was Haslem, who was a game warden. I want to say in regard to Mr. Haslem that he took a vacation and was not in the employ of the game-warden department during the campaign. I employed him and he was paid by me. The Chairman. Haslem was one of the parties that Stone told you would share in the $2,500 ; was he not ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; he did not tell me anybody would share in the $2,500. The Chairman. I asked you the question as to whether or not he gave you the names of those who would participate in this $2,500, and you, as I understood you, were enumerating these names. Mr. Edmonds. I should like to corect my answer, if that was your question. My understanding of your question was that he enumer- ated the game wardens who would assist him in the work of helping Senator Stephenson. He gave me the names of no men to whom he paid this money. The Chairman. Then, was it this way — that he gave you the names of his assistants who would, in consideration of this payment, work for Senator Stephenson’s nomination or election ? Mr. Edmonds. How was that? The Chairman. He gave you the names of the assistants who would work for Senator Stephenson’s election. Mr. Edmonds. When you say he gave me the names, he mentioned the names of certain men of the game warden’s department who were favorable to Senator Stephenson’s election. The Chairman. Who were favorable to him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Not who would work for him? Mr. Edmonds. I took it for granted, if nothing was said, and it may have been said, that he said they would work for him. My understanding — that is, that talk led me to believe there were some of the game wardens who were friendly to Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Who? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you not inquire of him as to which ones were friendly and which were not? Mr. Edmonds. Undoubtedly he told me at that time, but I was not acquainted with the names. The Chairman. Well, you may tell us. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. That is one of the things in connection with this that you do not remember? E. A. EDMONDS. 255 Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember the names of the game wardens. They were not men whom I knew. The Chairman. I mean the names of game wardens whom he told you were friendly and those whom he told you were unfriendly. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I knew at the time. The Chairman. That did not not fix itself in your mind at all, did it? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. You paid him $2,500 for some services to be per- formed by him, either entirely by him or by the game wardens under his control, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. That was to be left to his judgment. The Chairman. You do not remember who they were? Mr. Edmonds. No. The Chairman. Would you have remembered Mr. Stone as being one of these parties had his name not been printed in the book? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Haslem was one of them, was he not ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I have explained Mr. Haslem’s connection. He was a game warden. The Chairman. You have explained it. but, nevertheless, was he not one of the deputy game wardens that Mr. Stone told you was or could be made favorable to Senator Stephenson’s election? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe that is true, because at the time Mr. Haslem was working for me. The Chairman' Still, he was a deputy game warden, was he not? Mr. Edmonds. But he was on vacation and he was not drawing any pay. The Chairman. Still, he was on the roll? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Was he discharged and out of office? Mr. Edmonds. When I say he was not on the roll, had he not been on vacation he would have been working for the State, but at that time he was not. The Chairman. He was carried on the roll at that time, was he not ? Do you not know that he was ? Mr. Edmonds. He told me distinctly that he was not. The Chairman. That he was not in office? Mr. Edmonds. That he was not in the employ of the State at the time. The Chairman. But that was merely because he was taking his annual vacation, was it not ? Mr. Edmonds. No; but he was not drawing his pay. During the time they do not work they do not draw any pay. The Chairman. It is true of all the deputy game wardens that they take a month off, or six weeks or something like that, each year, is it not? Mr. Edmonds. Something of that kind. I do not know what the custom is. The Chairman. Did he resume work during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I presume so. Mr. Littlefield. That is, did he resume work as game warden? The Chairman. Yes. 256 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. The reason I mention his name is that his was a different condition from the other game wardens so far as I know. The Chairman. Did the game warden. Mr. Stone ; expend this money in behalf of Senator Stephenson, or did he keep it Mr. Edmonds. I do not know The Chairman. For his own use? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You are in doubt about that, are you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You do not mean to say that he did or that he did not? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Were you present and do you know of the facts brought out at an investigation in which it was proven, or sought to be proven, that Mr. Stone, in order to account for the disbursement of this sum, or part of it, undertook to procure statements from his deputies that they had received certain portions of it, so as to square him with the fund? Mr. Edmonds. I remember reading the newspaper extracts from his testimony, and that is one of the reasons why I say I do not know, because 1 understood that. The Chairman. Did you read his sworn testimony in this in- vestigation that was had before the legislative committee? Mr. Edmonds. Never. The Chairman. Did you ever look over that testimony ? Mr. Edmonds. Never ; except from newspaper reports. The Chairman. When you paid that $2,500 to Mr. Stone on behalf of Senator Stephenson, you realized the responsibility that you had for the payment of money on Mr. Stephenson’s account and the duty that you owed to Mr. Stephenson to get something for the money that you paid out, did you not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And if you paid out $2,500 to a man to perform certain services and it was brought to your notice afterwards that he had not performed them and that he had made an attempt to cover up the fact that he had not performed them, would it not seem to you that it was your duty to take some notice of it or investigate it? Mr. Edmonds. In that case I should not. The Chairman. Why? Upon what moral hypothesis would you arrive at that conclusion? Mr. Edmonds. I was entirely through with the campaign before any of this knowdedge came to me, or any of this hearsay, and, fur- thermore, Senator Stephenson had recommended this man. The Chairman. Had he recommended him in writing? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall as to whether it was in writing or not. I can not remember whether that was in writing or by tele- phone, or at a personal interview. He knew the man and recom- mended him. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the use that Mr. Stone made of this $2,500 or any part of it ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none, except his statement. The Chairman. Not of a single cent of it? Mr. Edmonds. Not of a single cent. E. A. EDMONDS. 257 The Chairman. Did you ever ask him what use he had made of it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have never talked to him since. The Chairman. The next item is $100 to Hugo Franke. Is that Hugo Franke a different Frank from the doctor? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was that for? Mr. Edmonds. Hugo Franke was a man from Milwaukee who was sent to Ashland and some other localities, I think, to interest labor organizations in Senator Stephenson’s behalf. The Chairman. What was he to do to interest the labor organiza- tions ? Mr. Edmonds. I think he knew better what to do than I, he being a labor man, but my idea would be that he would go and see the leaders of the organizations and endeavor to influence them, by talking with them and showing the good points of Senator Stephen- son, that he was a man who should receive the nomination, and get them to do all they could for him. The Chairman. To get them to believe that Senator Stephenson was the laboring man’s friend? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Not a novel proposition to a good many of us. Senator Pomerene. You do not speak out of your own experience, do you ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; somewhat. The Chairman. L. B. Cox, $100. Did you pay that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you pay that money for to Mr. Cox? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Cox came to Milwaukee, or was in Milwaukee, and saw me, and I paid him for work that he was to do, according to his best judgment, in La Crosse County. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ saw you ” ? Do you mean to say that in the sense that he simply looked at you and was conscious of your presence, or that he saw you in the sense in which the word is sometimes used in connection with political affairs? Mr. Edmonds. In some instances, when I have been seen, the man was better off by $50 or $100. The Chairman. So then that is the sense in which you use the word, is it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not in that particular instance. The Chairman. Then he must have done something more than make himself visible to you to get this $100. What did he do ? Mr. Edmonds. He came and called on me at the office. I had known him in the assembly, years before. The Chairman. You would not pay him $100 for calling on you. I want to know what it was you paid him $100 for. Mr. Edmonds. I had known him years before, when we were mem- bers of the assembly together. Senator Pomerene. When was that? Mr. Edmonds. In 1892. He came in and explained the situation in his locality there, in La Crosse County. It was in the second district, and he said that he could do a good deal of good for Senator Stephen- son if he could have $100. The Chairman. Was he then supporting Senator Stephenson? 15235 °— vol 1—11 17 258 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. He told me so ; yes, sir. The Chairman. That he had been supporting Senator Stephen- son? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; he told me so. The Chairman. Mr. Sexton comes in again, for $50. That is in- cluded in your prior explanation ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now, on July 20 you paid Mr. Sexton $50, and here you paid him $50 more. You had him under general employment, had you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And what you say with reference to Mr. Sexton on July 30 is true of this item? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; this is another payment to him. The Chairman. Now, C. D. Smith, $50 on August 12. What did you pay him $50 for? Mr. Edmonds. He represented that he was a very ardent friend of Senator Stephenson ; that he had been doing a good deal of work in Fond du Lac, and that he was better equipped than anyone else to conduct the campaign in that county. From inquiries I made I did not think so. Still, I paid him $50 for doing some work that he told me of. The Chairman. You did not think he was worth more than $50 ? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I would not not like to put it in that way; but I did not think he was the best man in the county to put in charge of the organization. The Chairman. Was he really supporting Senator Stephenson before you gave him that money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I am fairly confident, from the things he told me he had been doing, that he was supporting Senator Stephen- son. The Chairman. Why did he want money, then? Mr. Edmonds. He thought he could do more with money. The Chairman. Could he do more than vote for Senator Stephen- son? Mr. Edmonds. Oh, yes. The Chairman. What? Mr. Edmonds. He could get others interested in his campaign. The Chairman. How could he get them interested in it? Mr. Edmonds. By chasing around the country enlisting their support. The Chairman. Did these people all need to be solicited by some one to support Senator Stephenson? Were there not some voluntary supporters of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think there were a good many. The Chairman. The number of people whom you have enumer- ated, at the prices named, that you seem to have thought necessary, might indicate that Senator Stephenson did not have many volun- tary supporters. Did you conceive that it was that way? Mr. Edmonds. No. I am sorry to have had my actions so mis- judged. I thought he had a very large following, and I was adding to the number by organization and getting the fellows out to vote. The Chairman. They would not have come out to vote for Senator Stephenson, except as you paid these sums of money, I presume. E. A. EDMONDS. 259 Mr. Edmonds. It is quite possible that some of them might have been so sure that he was going to be nominated that they would not think their votes were necessary, and they might be busy. It was in an effort to get them to feel the necessity of getting out, and that every vote counted, that some of these things were done. The Chairman. That would seem to be a reasonable explanation from the returns, from which it would appear that more than half the voters in the State were of the opinion that it was not necessary to go to the polls. Mr. Littlefield. Were you not at the same time meeting active competition in the solicitation, by the representatives of Hatton, Cook, and McGovern, all over the State? Mr. Edmonds. I should call it active competition. Mr. Littlefield. They were canvassing for these votes at the same time. Mr. Edmonds. They certainly were. Mr. Littlefield. And you were trying to see what you could do to get support for Senator Stephenson, against that kind of vigorous opposition ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Would not these people whom you call organizers have worked for Senator Stephenson just as effectively and earnestly without being paid for it? Mr. Edmonds. In a lesser manner probably, but I doubt if these men would have gotton out and hustled around the country, and spent money and time for his election, if they had had to stand the expense themselves. The Chairman. It is true, is it not, that less than half of the votes that were cast at the general election, voted at the primary? The vote at the primary was 234,277 for all of the candidates. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; that was less than half. The Chairman. There seems to have been a general apathy. These men whom you employed to get out the vote for Senator Stephenson seem to have managed to get out 56,839 votes out of 470,480 votes in the State. Had you not employed these men, would Senator Stephenson have gotten any votes at all? Mr. Edmonds. Not very many. My judgment is this, on knowing the conditions in this State with regard to primary elections and the convention system, that were it not for the larger, and very large ex- penditures of money in the primary campaigns, no more persons would go out to the primary election on election day than attended the caucuses in years past. The Chairman. You astonish me very much. I speak only for myself and not as a member of the committee. I have been told many times that the plain people were clamoring for an opportunity to exercise the right of citizenship. Mr. Littlefield. The plain people, of whom there are supposed to be a good many. The Chairman. And that the direct primary was the only means through which they could possibly exercise that right. But am I to understand by that statement that that fact is open to some doubt? Mr. Edmonds. I have heard that statement very forcibly expressed in this State. I very seriously doubt it, and I think there are very many others in the State who also doubt it. 260 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. I am sorry to learn that that is true in Wisconsin, because I have also understood that Wisconsin was one of the first States and most enthusiastic States in favor of that great relief to the plain people. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose you thought they were entitled to some credit for it as a discovery. The Chairman. I had intended to take that into consideration. I think it should hardly be called a discovery. Mr. Littlefield. How would it do to call it an invention ? The Chairman. Because a discovery must be of something real; and the anticipation that you are going to discover a thing ought to be distinguished from the discovery itself. Mr. Littlefield. While the distinction may be fine, I think it is substantial. Senator Pomerene. I hope it is not the purpose of this colloquy to incite me to make a speech. The Chairman. It is to point the testimony. Now, we have dealt with Mr. Smith. You know about Mr. Smith. Now we come to Mr. Dresser, $1,800. Mr. Littlefield. He has already appeared as receiving $300. The Chairman. He is under the head of “ General ” again. Can it be that Mr. Dresser is the person termed “ general ” throughout this statement? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; if by that you wish to bring out the ques- tion as to whether it were possible that Mr. Dresser was paid the amounts marked “ General,” I am positive that he was paid no more than the two items of $1,800 at one time and $300 at another time. The Chairman. What was he paid $1,800 for? Mr. Edmonds. For organizing in seven counties up in his district. The Chairman. We dealt with Mr. Dresser this forenoon. Mr. Edmonds. On the bottom of page 589. The Chairman. On the $300 item ; so it will not be necessary to go into Mr. Dresser’s case further. Now, the next is Mr. A. O. Heyer, $200. Did you pay that ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. Organizing Sheboygan County. The Chairman. Do you know what it was spent for by Mr. Heyer ? Mr. Edmonds. He never made a report to me. The Chairman. Do you know? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know what any portion of it was ex- pended for? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know that it was expended at all? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. If I may explain, I believe it to have been spent for the benefit of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Your belief is not an explanation. You say you do not know that any of it was expended at all. Mr. Edmonds. In my explanation of the items, I simply want to place myself on record as not assenting to the proposition that it is my belief or intimation that these men did not do as they agreed to. E. A. EDMONDS. 261 The Chairman. It would not be so construed. It would not be open to such construction. You do not know, and that is the end of it. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know that he expended 1 cent of it for any purpose? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. And you do not know but that the fact may be that he put it into his pocket and kept it there. Now, the next item is R. A. Etter, $200. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay that to him ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of organizing Green County. The Chairman. What use did he make of the money? Do you know? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know that he expended any part of it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Under the same date Mr. Haslem was paid $200. What did Mr. Haslem do with the $200? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Haslem went into different parts of Brown, Door, and Kewaunee Counties, I think, at different times. Senator Pomerene. Is that the deputy game warden? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. He is the man who was on a vacation ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You do not know of your own knowledge that he expended any money at all? Mr. Edmonds. Not of my own knowledge. The Chairman. And you have no statement rendered by him? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Or by any of these other men? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Showing that they expended any money whatever? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know whether they voted at the election? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not know. The Chairman. Have you any reason to doubt that Mr. Haslem was a Stephenson man prior to receiving this money ? Mr. Edmonds. I am very sure he was. The Chairman. Upon what do you base that feeling of assurance? Mr. Edmonds. From my knowledge of him and my talk with him and the information I received from others. The Chairman. He was promised that he should go back on the force after his vacation was at an end when he was given this money, was he not? Mr. Edmonds. That I do not know. The Chairman. Was there not a conversation between you and Mr. Haslem in which he wanted to know whether or not he could count on going back on the force at the end of his vacation? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; never to my knowledge. 262 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Stone in regard to Mr. Haslem’s going back on the force? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I never referred to it in any way to Mr Stone. The Chairman. Did he refer to it in talking to you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I am very positive he did not. Senator Pomerene. Were these men on a salary or did they have a per diem? Mr. Edmonds. A per diem. That is my recollection and belief. The Chairman. It was considered a rather desirable job by a cer- tain class of men, was it not, to be a deputy game warden ? Mr. Edmonds. Senator, the game warden’s department, as organ- ized in 1900 or thereabouts, I believe, had been the most effective force used by the governor at that time to further his political ambitions. The Chairman. Who was the governor? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. La Follette. It was a most remarkably effective force. The Chairman. I think we will not go into that. It might open up too wide a question for our consideration and one not necessary to be considered. Now, Mr. O. O. Halls, $200. Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Halls was a man in Pierce County. The Chairman. Did you pay him that money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of organization work in Pierce County. The Chairman. Do you know what organization he effected? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know how he expended the money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Had he been supporting Senator Stephenson prior to the time you made this arrangement and paid him the money? Mr. Edmonds. I never met him. The Chairman. You never met him before? Mr. Edmonds. I never saw him. I sent a letter at the suggestion, I believe, of Mr. Dresser, who advised me that Mr. Halls was very strong in that county and was a supporter of Mr. Stephenson, and it was out of his territory. The Chairman. Mr. Dresser is the man to whom you paid $2,100 ? Mr. Edmonds. That was out of his territory, and I asked him The Chairman. How did you send the money — in what shape? Mr. Edmonds. My belief is that I sent it in a letter. The Chairman. Have you any recollection on the subject at all? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you send it in cash, or by a check, rather ? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure I did not send it in cash. The Chairman. It is indicated here that it was by some kind of a voucher, No. 33530. That would be a cashier’s certificate, would it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You have not advised yourself in regard to that since you made the paper? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 263 The Chairman. Now, on August 13 you paid L. E. McGill $200. What did you pay him that money for ? Mr. Edmonds. For organizing Rusk County. The Chairman. Do you know that he did organize it? Mr. Edmonds. Only by inference. The Chairman. By inference? Mr. Edmonds. From the result obtained in the county. The Chairman. Did you have any conversation with Mr. McGill or any person in the county which recounted to you the things that had been done by him ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I went into it in that way. He was a very well-posted man, and a very prominent lawyer in Rusk County. He was better acquainted with the conduct of the campaign there than I would have been had I been on the ground, I am sure, and I did not require him to make a statement. I am sure I saw him once or twice during the campaign and he stated the number of votes that he had to get out for Senator Stephenson, and so forth. The Chairman. T. Purtell, at the top of page 591. Did you pay him $175 on August 13 ? Mr. Edmonds. I have marked that with a question. I am not cer- tain, but I think so. The Chairman. For what did you pay it? Mr. Edmonds. It is marked Dane County, which would lead me only to suppose that it was for work in Dane County; but my recollection is that his home was in the northern part of the State, one of the northern counties, and that he was aiding Senator Stephen- son there with the use of this money. The Chairman. You had already employed Mr. Ames, you said, and paid him $350 for organizing Dane County ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I think this is a mistake. The Chairman. Do you remember paying Mr. Purtell $175? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that I did. I am not posi- tive on it. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. For organizing and helping Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Do you know anything about what he did for this money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. He may have put it in his pocket, for all you know, and kept it there. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know what he did with it. The Chairman. You have no knowledge on the subject ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Now we come to W. Batz, $100 on August 13. Did you pay him that money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. Work in Washington County. The Chairman. Do you know that he expended any of it for that purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. Not from personal knowledge. The Chairman. Was he supporting Senator Stephenson prior to the time you paid him the money? Mr. Edmonds. So he told me. 2G4 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. You have his word for it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know it from any other source? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure I made inquiries, because I was not ac- quainted with him before that time. The Chairman. Of whom did you make inquiries ? Mr. Edmonds. In very many instances of Mr. Overbeck, who was with me very much of the time and Avas very well posted in politics in the State. The Chairman. Right there I want to ask you who constituted your office force, and what the duties of each of them were. Who was the next man under you in your office, in the management of this campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket, though perhaps he would not like to have me say he was under me. The Chairman. Next to Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Lam beck. The Chairman. Can you give his initials or first name? Mr. Edmonds. A. II. The Chairman. What were his duties? Mr. Littlefield. Was he the young man who was a messenger for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; he had some employment with Senator Stephenson in Washington. The Chairman. What were his duties ? Mr. Edmonds. He had charge of the force in the office for mailing and distribution of literature, and so forth. The Chairman. Did he have anything to do with paying out money, or making or receiving statements as to how money was expended ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; not a thing. The Chairman. Who was the next one? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know who would be the next one. There were a number of other employees in the office whom I employed. The Chairman. Name them as they occur to you. Mr. Edmonds. E. F. Puls. The Chairman. What did he do? Mr. Edmonds. He was in the office and was in charge of Mr. Lam- beck’s department, under him. The Chairman. What did he do? Mr. Edmonds. He looked after the mailing work as outlined by Mr. Lambeck. The Chairman. Did any of those whom you have mentioned keep books for you ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Name another one. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I can name them. The Chairman. I will punctuate it for you. Did you have a book- keeper ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. No person was designated bookkeeper? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; Mr. Sacket had that work in charge. The Chairman. Did you have a journal keeper? E, A. EDMONDS. 265 Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you have a record maker? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Were there any books in which journals, records, or accounts could be kept in your office? Mr. Edmonds. None whatever to my knowledge, unless Mr. Sacket kept them. The Chairman. Did you have a press copy book or carbon copy book? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think there were carbon copies kept of the letters that were sent out. The Chairman. Have you those carbon copies now ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Where are they? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. When did you last see them ? Mr. Edmonds. I left them in the office when I left. The office was still open when I went home. The Chairman. They were not among the things destroyed ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. They are not lying around this desk? The Chairman. Were they left in that desk? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Where did you leave them ? Mr. Edmonds. There were several rooms to these offices we had there. This material was never in my charge. The Chairman. In whose charge were these copies of letters, whether carbon or letterpress, or of whatever kind? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that was in the general charge of Mr. Sacket. He was the office manager. Perhaps the next one would be Mr. Lambeck, the man I have mentioned as being a messenger. The Chairman. That is Mr. Lambeck who is connected with Sena- tor Stephenson as secretary? Mr. Littlefield. He is the messenger to Senator Stephenson’s com- mittee. The Chairman. The messenger for the committee of which Sena- tor Stephenson is chairman? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. You think he had charge of these letterpress books or carbon copies of letters or whatever form the copies might have been in ? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so; under the direction of Mr. Sacket, who was designated the office manager. The Chairman. I was asking as to your department, as distinct from Mr. Sacket’s, because I shall ask Mr. Sacket about his depart- ment. Did you have letterpress copy books or carbon copies of letters or copies of any kind made from letters which were written or sent out by you, or from your office, independent of Mr. Sacket’s? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The whole force was ivorking together. There was no separation. The Chairman. Where were the copies of the letters you wrote kept ? Mr. Edmonds. They were kept in the office ; in the same room where Mr. Lambeck was employed. 266 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Where were they when you left the office ? Mr. Edmonds. I have not any knowledge. I assume they were in the same place they have always been kept. The Chairman. Of whom shall we now inquire as to the where- abouts of those letters? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Should you want to know for your own conven- ience or purpose the contents of a letter that you had written, where would you go to look for the copy of it? Mr. Edmonds. I would not know where to go. I should make inquiries of Mr. Sacket and Mr. Lambeck as to where they were. If they could not give me the information, I should go still further. The Chairman. Could they have been among the things destroyed by Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that he destroyed any. I did not know that he did. The Chairman. On what date did you leave that office? Mr. Edmonds. I think at 5 o’clock on the 5th. The Chairman. The 5th of what? Mr. Edmonds. The 5th of September; two or three days after the primary election. The Chairman. You did not remain there during the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Where did you keep the headquarters of the State central committee? Mr. Edmonds. At the Plankinton Hotel. Mr. Littlefield. Here in Milwaukee? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. You had no other headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. There was a lapse of time there between the 1st of September, or thereabouts, when the election occurred, and the election of the chairman and the new State central committee on. I think* the 22d. The Chairman. So that you are in the position of not being able to make available any copies of letters you may have written during the time you were in charge of Senator Stephenson’s campaign, or any letters you received during that time. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; with the exception that among my files in looking them over and changing my office, perhaps six months ago, I found a book wherein some letters were copied. My recollection is that those were generally “ form ” letters. My recollection is that some of those were “ form ” letters, sent out during this campaign, though I am not positive about it. There were no personal letters. There were none others that I know of. This book was prepared and kept, I presume, for my benefit by a clerk in the general campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Were they circular letters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; and clippings of all kinds. There were some things in there that related, I think, to the general campaign, and possibly to the primary. If so, I would be very glad to submit them to the committee. The Chairman. Did any of these clerks or employees in your office or about it, in any connection or capacity, make or have any memo- randum showing these transactions which you made with the several parties for services rendered or to be rendered? E. A. EDMONDS. 267 Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so, because I do not believe any of them knew about it. The Chairman. When you had conferences with these people, did you have them in a private room or in public ? Mr. Edmonds. In my room ; a private room. The Chairman. Was there any person who was in the habit of be- ing present, or who was permitted to be present? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I want to make this explanation in regard to that, that there were different men with whom I had acquaintance, and I will specify Mr. Overbeck, in whom I had a great deal of con- fidence. I asked him at different times to come in, and several times he introduced me to men I did not know, and told me who they were, and what they were able to do. The Chairman. On August 13 you paid W. Batz $100. For what purpose was that paid ? Mr. Edmonds. Organization in Washington County. The Chairman. Organizing? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you use this term “ organizing,” is there any instance where you made a payment as shown upon this ac- count — and you know to what I am referring, as it is published in this volume Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Where the agreement was different from that which you have described in regard to the other organizers? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. About whom we have asked you more particularly ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; excepting this, that with some of these men I would have a longer conversation and go into it perhaps more in detail than I would with others. The Chairman. Which ones? Name those with whom you had conversations longer or more in detail than those which you have recounted. Mr. Edmonds. I should say as I mentioned this morning, Mr. Wayland. I saw him often. The Chairman. You have described all of the conversations that you had with Mr. Wayland? Mr. Edmonds. As near as I can remember. The Chairman. You stated that you could not give the committee a single item of expenditure made by Mr. Wayland out of the money received. Mr. Edmonds. Oh, no ; I gave you some. The Chairman. What items are they? Mr. Edmonds. I said he had employed men and teams to get out the votes. The Chairman. That is not an item. I asked you whom he em- ployed, and how much he paid. Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not know of one. The Chairman. You have no knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. No specific knowledge as to the manner of ex- penditure of money that you placed in his hands ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. The Chairman. That is true of every one of these organizers? 268 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I think in every instance. The Chairman. So that were I to take up the balance of them, each separately and specifically, you "would not be able to give me any item of expenditure that those men made in connection with Mr. Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe not in a single instance. The Chairman. And you would not be able to tell the committee that they expended any money for any purpose, would you? Mr. Edmonds. From my personal knowledge, no, sir. The Chairman. And they rendered no account by reference to which you could tell the committee what expenditures they made? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; none whatever. The Chairman. Unless you particularize and except some of these items from that statement, is the committee justified in applying that answer to every item contained in this statement where you made the agreement or the payment? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever tell your principal, Senator Steph- enson, that you were paying out money to these men in such sums as are indicated by this statement, without knowing what they were to do for it, specifically? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that I ever did. The Chairman. Did you ever have any conversation with Senator Stephenson in which you advised him of the liberal manner in which you were distributing this money without knowing what you re- ceived for it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I did. I think I saw him only twice or three times during the primary campaign, and then only for a few moments at a time. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson have any knowledge of the fact that you were paying men for their services in his behalf without requiring them to make some showing that they performed the services? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think he had any knowledge of it. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson have any knowledge so far as you know that you were employing Mr. Perrin and paying him more than $3,000 without requiring that he should render any account or statement as to the services that he was performing for that consideration? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think he did, and may I explain that had I undertaken when I saw Mr. Perrin to interrogate him as to exactly what he was going to do with this money, go over the details with him, when I knew nothing about the conditions up there — if I had required that detail, it would have taken me three or four days to go all over it, or more, and I could not have taken the time. The time was too short. I had to get these men. Their time was limited in coming here to Milwaukee and my time was limited in making the arrangements. T did the best I could, and left the arrangements entirely in their hands, as Senator Stephenson did the general cam- paign in my hands. The Chairman. Then is it true you merely constituted these men your deputies or substitutes for the disbursement of campaign funds ? Mr. Edmonds. I should call them local managers in their localities. E. A. EDMONDS. 269 The Chairman. Is it true that you merely created these men your substitutes or representatives to disburse certain moneys without liability to account? Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I do not know that that is quite a fair state- ment of the case. I should think to designate them as local managers would be a better term. The Chairman. I am getting at a very different proposition, as perhaps is will be developed before I am through. I am trying or intending to establish the point of responsibility for the disbursement of this money in this way. Did Senator Stephenson know you had appointed these various and several men as your deputies or substi- tutes for the disbursing of this money? Did he know that? Mr. Edmonds. I think so, in instances. The Chairman. In what instances did he know it, or not know it? Mr. Edmonds. I know that he understood the general plan, that I was organizing in the different counties, and that certain individ- uals would have to take charge in those localities, because one person could not do it. The Chairman. Suppose we dispense with the use of that word, that you were “ organizing.” The word “ organizing ” does not mean much, in the testimony in this case, because you do not seem to know exactly what it means. Mr. Edmonds. I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I am not able to explain about that situation. The Chairman. Let us dispense with the use of that word, and get down to the business fact as to what was really done, whether you paid railroad fares, hired teams, or men, or what you did. Mr. Edmonds. All those things were done. The Chairman. In every case ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that in every case it was. The Chairman. How do you know they were done when you say you do not know whether they expended any part of this money for any purpose whatever, and they may have put it in their pockets? How can you say under the responsibility of your oath that they did disburse it in that way ? Mr. Edmonds. With these men that I have talked to, with whom I have discussed the situation, they certainly referred to the cam- paign, and they led me to suppose that they had done it. The Chairman. And they told you they expended a part of these sums of money that you gave them for the payment of railroad fares, in the performance of their duties to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. As I have stated, they have not made any report to me. The Chairman. Have they made any statement to you ? Mr. Edmonds. I am sure some of them have; yes, sir. The Chairman. What statement, and who made it? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Wayland has stated that. The Chairman. Tell us what he said. Mr. Edmonds. His expenses from Appleton to Milwaukee The Chairman. How much were they? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did he not tell you how much they were? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 270 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. How could you know that he had disbursed in any way the money you had given him? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. For what else did he say he had dispensed the money ? Mr. Edmonds. He had hired teams. The Chairman. Give us the name of one person from whom he hired a team, and where. Mr. Edmonds. I could not tell where. The Chairman. Did he tell you that he had hired a team? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What team? Mr. Edmonds. I could not say. The Chairman. How much did he say he paid for it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Are you not dealing in generalities rather than speaking from specific knowledge ? Mr. Edmonds. As to any individual team, yes, sir. The Chairman. As to Mr. Wayland’s statement? Mr. Edmonds. No. I do not think I am dealing in generalities. The Chairman. If you are speaking from specific knowledge, then give us the knowledge that is specific. Mr. Edmonds. I am unable to say if he told me at any particular time of any particular team that he hired. If he gave me the name, I have forgotten it. The Chairman. Is there anj^ man other than Mr. Wayland with whom you had any conversation with reference to what he had ex- pended or how he had expended the money? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly made no inquiry of any man to de- termine — The Chairman. And no man volunteered a statement? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think Mr. Dresser told me. The Chairman. How much did Mr. Dresser tell you that he had expended ? Mr. Edmonds. At one time in conversation he told me of the dif- ferent amounts that he had expended in the different counties. The Chairman. Name one of them. Mr. Edmonds. In Polk County. That was one. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall the amount; somewhere from two to three hundred dollars. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Edmonds. For getting out the vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What did he do to get out the vote — what is the process ? Mr. Edmonds. My understanding of his method was that he hired men in those counties. The Chairman. Hired men to do what — to get out the vote? Mr. Edmonds. No; hired men to organize the counties. The Chairman. You are back to that word. Let us dispense with the use of that word. Mr. Edmonds. Well, will you give me a word that is satisfactory. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I submit that the witness has a reasonable right to use his own language in making his own answer. E. A. EDMONDS. 271 The Chairman. I think that is too general a term to apply, with all due respect. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to submit this question The Chairman. The committee has a right to call for a specific answer. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; but I would like to submit this proposition to the committee, whether or not, when the witness has answered, he is not entitled, at least in the first instance, to couch his answer in his own language, no matter whether he repeats over and over again the term “ organizing.” The Chairman. I do not see its application to the question. Mr. Littlefield. I leave that suggestion right on the record. The chairman was undertaking to prevent the witness from saying that he was paying this money for organizing, and my suggestion is when the witness is inquired of and finds it necessary to use that language, he has a right to do it. The Chairman. The committee have asked the witness to dispense with the use of the word “ organizing ” because he has by his testi- mony shown that it means nothing definite. Mr. Littlefield. I want to go on record as stating I do not give my assent to the statement just made by the chairman. I think the witness has given quite a number of details involved in organizing. Of course, I have no controversy with the committee, but I would not by my silence assent to the proposition that the witness has not given any definition of tlat term, because I believe he has. The Chairman. Aside from what you call “ organizing,” what did this man tell you he had expended money for ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say fhat word would embrace it. The Chairman. The committee thinks that it wants further and more definite information. What items did he tell you that he had expended the money for? Mr. Edmonds. He told me of the different counties in which this money had been expended. The Chairman. Yes; and for what? Mr. Edmonds. As to the exact amounts that had been expended in any particular county, or for what it had been expended, he did not tell me. The Chairman. Did he give you any item for which he had paid any sum of money in these counties for any purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that he told me that in these counties he had hired men. For instance, he had seven counties under his charge. He had hired a man to — what word shall I use in place of “ organize ” ? The Chairman. What did he hire the men to do? Mr. Edmonds. I would not want to use the term “organize” the county if I am not allowed to. The Chairman. What did he do that you would call organize? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did he say ? Mr. Edmonds. No, I do not think he said. The Chairman. He did not tell you. He used the word “ organize,” did he? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. 272 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. When he told you he had hired a man he said he had hired him to “ organize.” In order words, he had redelegated the power that you gave him to organize? Mr. Edmonds. It would be natural for him to do that, because he was doing the same thing in those seven counties that I was doing in the State. He had charge of that and would employ a man to look after the organization of the county, and then that man would have' his expenditures more in detail. The Chairman. Would an item for car fare be expended for organ- ization ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. Would an item for a carriage to carry a man to the polls be an item for organization? Mr. Edmonds. It would. The Chairman. Would his hotel bill be an item under the head of organization? Mr. Edmonds. It would. The Chairman. Then you use that as a general term. Let us split that term up and find out its component parts. Did he tell you of the expenditure of money for any component part of “ organization ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know whether he did. The Chairman. Say whether he did or not. Mr. Edmonds. I am unable to say. If he did I do not remember it. The Chairman. Then he did not particularize at all? Mr. Edmonds. He did not go into detail as to the expenditure; no, sir. The Chairman. So that the smallest piece into which this infor- mation was carved was “ organization.” Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps that is a good statement to make. The Chairman. And he did not go into details as to what con- stituted “ organization,” but left it just like the word “ inflooence ” as used in political matters? Mr. Edmonds. It might be. The Chairman. It was rather hard to put your finger on, was it not? Mr. Edmonds. On what? The Chairman. Could you go into this county and put your finger on the thing that constituted “ organization ” ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Could you gather it within your widest grasp and find a tangible thing to embrace? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. It is a glittering generality that avoids the neces- sity of particularizing expenses. Is that it? Mr. Edmonds. I would not think so. It would say these men who did the organizing would be able to explain what they did. The Chairman. You paid them for organizing and you should know what constituted the organization. Mr. Edmonds. In advance I paid them. The Chairman. You paid some of them afterwards. Mr. Edmonds. Some of them were paid as they conducted their work. The Chairman. You paid Mr. McMahon on September 5, which was after the election, $300. which you say was for “ organizing.” E. A. EDMONDS. 273 Mr. Edmonds. I beg to differ with that statement. I did not pay him. The Chairman. Did you pay Mr. Hambright $300 on that day ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you make any payments on September 5, as found on page 595? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Which one of those payments there did you make? Mr. Edmonds. Take the one two-thirds of the way down the page, of $183.50, J. R. Jones. The Chairman. What did you pay him that for? Mr. Edmonds. He was an organizer in Racine County and this was in settlement of his bill for services. The Chairman. The election is over and we find you paying men for organizing. Did you ask him when you made that payment what he had done that constituted organizing? Mr. Edmonds. Not in detail. He came to me and told me that in his organization work he had paid so much money in excess of what he had been paid. The Chairman. That is a new term — “ organization work.” That is to say, in items he had paid out so much money, but he did not tell you what they were. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. He did not render you any memorandum of ac- count ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely none. The Chairman. You paid others of these items. Is that true as to all of these items that you paid at that time, on September 5 ? Mr. Edmonds. That they were bills I knew to be just; yes; having been rendered The Chairman. No items? Mr. Edmonds. No items; no, sir. The Chairman. No written or spoken details? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall any particular instance. I un- doubtedly talked with these men as I saw them. The Chairman. Can you give any one of those items for which you were paying out money on the 5th of September ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not. The Chairman. You have no book account, no memorandum, no memory ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely no book account. The Chairman. Have you been ill since that time? Mr. Edmonds. I think I have been in pretty good health. The Chairman. Has there been any general lapse of your mem- ory? Mr. Edmonds. If I had any occasion to remember those details, I would probably remember them. The Chairman. This was a small affair — the handling of over $100,000 of another man’s money — and you do not think that was of sufficient importance to charge your mind with it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it would be of sufficient importance to charge my mind with the details of an expenditure of $250 or $500 15235 °— vol 1—11 18 274 E. A. EDMONDS. that a man made two or three years before. If a man kept that in his head all the time, he would not be able to do any business. I know I would not, at least. The Chairman. That is a conclusion. This was a part of a large sum made up of different items? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The expenditure of this money involves the honor and the office of Senator Stephenson, to the extent that the United States Senate has felt called upon to inquire into it, and I would suggest to you that you give consideration to the importance and the solemnity of such an inquiry, and see whether or not, in view of the immense stake which Senator Stephenson has in this matter, you can not refresh your memory as to these items. Mr. Edmonds. I have answered every question that jmu have asked me to the best of my ability, and I will answer every one you ask me in the same manner. There will be nothing but frankness on my part. The Chairman. You have the list before you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Without being specifically asked, will you desig- nate the items of which you have personal knowledge contained in this statement, and do that in the order in which they are printed in the book? Mr. Edmonds. Beginning at the top of page 591 ? The Chairman. Begin where I have left off. Mr. Edmonds. W. A. Barber, Sheboygan County, $300. Mr. Littlefield. What about the city of Superior? Let us have them all. Mr. Edmonds. I am stating those that I knew about. The Chairman. He is stating those he had knowledge of, and if he does not refer to them we will take it for granted that he has no knowledge of them. Mr. Littlefield. But I wanted to start with my checking so as to keep track of what the witness says. Mr. Edmonds. The items that I am giving are those that I have knowledge of, and none others. C. B. Salmon, $100, Rock County. Senator Pomerene. Give the full item there as well as the name. Mr. Littlefield. One moment. I would like to inquire now whether the witness begins with the item of Sheboygan County, No. 33546? The Chairman. The witness has not been handed over for cross- examination. He is still under examination by the committee. Mr. Littlefield. Does the committee rule that I have not the right to understand the examination as it goes along ? The Chairman. The committee does not rule anything at all. The committee is simply making a suggestion, thinking perhaps that counsel might think that the committee had finished the examination of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. Counsel labored under no such very profound misapprehension, but if I understand it right, it is quite necessary for me to have an intelligible notion of what the witness has stated. I want to know if I have not the right to know the item with which the witness begins? I do not know what it was. It may be my fault, but I do not know. E. A. EDMONDS. 275 The Chairman. I think counsel is unnecessarily disturbed in the matter. There is no objection at all to counsel knowing it. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Edmonds, do you begin with Washington County ? Mr. Edmonds. As I understood, that has been passed. That is one of the things I know about. The Chairman. What about the next one? Mr. Edmonds. Sheboygan County, $300. The next item is Rock County, $100. The next item is A. R. Ames, $50. The next one is J. R. Jones, $350; T. F. Reynolds, $100. If the Senator will permit, I would like to explain that this is the Reynolds of Oconto County and not the man who was running for the assembly. T. J. Sexton, $42.46. C. E. Morley, Vernon County, $500. Then there are the different items paid to S. L. Perrin, and they figure up $3,000. The Chairman. That $3,000 is in addition to the item paid to Per- rin of $1,000, to be found on page 582, making $4,000 in all? Mr. Edmonds. That is not my recollection of the amount, but that is what it figures here, according to this statement. W. C. Bratz, $43.80. The Chairman. Is that the same man whose name appears next to the first item on the page as Batz ? Mr. Edmonds. That word is not spelled correctly. Mr. Littlefield. It should be Bratz? Mr. Edmonds. Bratz. B. O. Larson, 55; U. C. Kellar, $50. The next item is $375 for Trempealeau County. The Chairman. That is a payment to yourself? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know why that is made out in that way. I know that the money was paid over. I can not think of the man’s name. I may be able to recall that later. I will think that up later. The next two items, $45 and $100, are general amounts paid to me. W. O. Roberts, Waukesha County, $150. Ashland County, $400. Price and Taylor Counties, $500. Sheboygan County, $76.50. Rusk County, $250. The next item is marked “ Dunn County,” but E. F. Scherbel lived in Dane County. He perhaps did work in Dunn County. I am not positive. That item is $95.74. Walworth and Kenosha, $800. The Chairman. You have passed over the item of $50? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You do not know anything about that. Senator Pomerene. “Walworth & Kenosha”; what was the amount ? Mr. Edmonds. $800. Chippewa & Clark, $350 The Chairman. That is “ Ring ” instead of “ Bing ” ? Mr. Edmonds. “ Ring,” yes. The third item, it says, “ E. A. E., $200.” The total item is “ $300.” I do not know what the other $100 is. H. H. Morgan, $226; C. H. Russell, $350; Hugh Lewis, $160. The next item, of $250, J. T. Hanson, I can not recall; and the third item from there as well, $150, the same man. Senator Pomerene. Is what? Mr. Edmonds. The same man, $150. The Chairman. You can not recall that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I may have made arrangements with him, but I do not recall. 276 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. Who is he ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. I can not place him. G. W. Dart, $400; D. Atwood, $50; J. H. Franke, $140. The Chairman. That is the doctor, is it ? Mr. Edmonds. That is the doctor ; yes, sir. The Chairman. That item is divided, “ $125,” then it is raised to “ $140.” How do yon account for that? Mr. Edmonds. I can not account for that. The Chairman. We will ask Mr. Sacket. Mr. Littlefield. Which is correct ; or, do you not know ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. P. Dormady, $50; M. J. Funielle, $100 ; F. W. Dangers, $50 ; W. C. Bratz, $21.56. The Chairman. Is that “ Batz ” ; that is, the Mr. Edmonds. Same name ; yes. The Chairman. “ Batz,” on the former page. Mr. Edmonds. Harry Bowman, $150. I do not recall that item. It. S. Cowie, $150. The Chairman. That you know about? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. J. W. Howey, $50; R. A. Etter, $100; George Gordon, $200; C. E. Brady, $500; J. LI. W T ells, $200; P. F. Doland, instead of “ F. F. Dolan,” $400; W. C. Bratz, $100; A. O. Heyer, $300. The Chairman. You have passed over “ Stevens.” I suppose you do not know him ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; those two I do not recall. Ozaukee County, $200. That was money paid, I am very certain, to C. O. Larsen, the manager up in that locality. I do not recall the next item. C. C. Wayland, $500 ; L. A. Calkins, $300. Mr. Littlefield. That is the same name we had earlier, in connec- tion with Brown County? Mr. Edmonds. Brown County was stated first, and this is the man I referred to. The Chairman. That is the item you referred to in the item the third from the bottom of page 590, is it ? Mr. Littlefield. August 12, page 590. The Chairman. Brown County, August 12 — is that the man? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. L. A. Calkins? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir: F. H. Eppling, $200. This item of $250; there is nothing there to tell me to whom that was paid. Mr. Littlefield. What do you mean, what item — Fond du Lac County ? Mr. Edmonds. Fond du Lac County. The Chairman. You do not know about the “General” item? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. And the Fond du Lac County, $250, while this does not guide me in determining who it was, I think the amounts paid for organizing that county were paid to one man whose name is mentioned below, Mr. Morse. Mr. Littlefield. Under “August 27,” “ R. L. Morse,” is that it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The next two items I do not recall. D. Atwood, $100; W. C. Bratz, $43.50. This item of $400 under “Gen- eral,” I assume, is money 4Daid to me. The Chairman. Those three items there together, “ General, E. A. E.” That is you, is it— “ $200 ” E. A. EDMONDS. 277 Mr. Edmonds. The only means I have of knowing is this The Chairman. And the “$175,” and then the “$25,” making a total of $400? Mr. Edmonds. Whether that is all mine or part “General” and part mine I do not know now, I have no means of knowing now. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket knows? Mr. Edmonds. I should presume so. George Gordon, $300; L. W. Thayer, $600; H. H. Smith, $100; William Haslem, $125; “ G. E. Doe,” should be “ G. E. Dee,” $300. The Chairman. # I s that a real name? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is spelled like a fictitious name. Mr. Edmonds. It should be “ Dee.” It is improperly spelled. Mr. Littlefield. “ Doe ” is wrong. “ Dee ” is the name. Not our pseudonymn of the law. Mr. Edmonds. U. C. Keller, $150 ; E. E. Orton, $300 ; Max Sells, $25. The Chairman. Did you mention the other two ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; U. C. Keller and E. E. Orton. The Chairman. You know about those? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. James Smith, $100. E. L. Morse, $450. The Chairman. There is a discrepancy there. The “ City of Fond du Lac,” giving the number of the draft to Morse, “ $250 ” was carried out “ $450.” Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Now I do not know which of those is cor- rect ; I have no means of knowing. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the item? Mr. Edmonds. No. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I only know that Mr. Morse was our mana- ger in that locality. City of Oconto, $100, Mr. Beyer. Senator Pomerene. To whom was that paid ? Mr. Edmonds. The name here is “ B. Beyer,” but it is George E. Beyer. Mr. Littlefield. It should be “ George E.” instead of “ B.” Mr. Edmonds. Yes; $50, Wagner & Jennings. Senator Pomerene. Is that the name of a firm ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; distributing and hanging posters; I made an agreement to pay. This name, “ D. G. Sampson, $100, Ashland,” I can not recall that, though I have not any doubt that I made the arrangement. C. E. Brady, $200 ; A. E. Ames, $50 ; C. O. Larson, $50. The Chairman. That is the item that we have considered in con- nection with an earlier item ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I do not remember the particular item of $200 to Easmussen Publishing Co., but I know we paid at different times. I presume Mr. Sacket can explain it more fully. Mr. Littlefield. What about this item, “ City of Ashland, E. A. E., L. F. Johnstad, $100”? Do you know anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall that name. I have no reason to suppose I did not make the arrangement, but I do not recall it now. Mr. Littlefield. “Johnstad ” is an extraordinary name. Mr. Edmonds. There are a good many extraordinary names to me. These items of “ General ” expense, two items, $15 and $20, are carried out $50 ; that says “ E. A. E.” I presume it is charged to me, though. I do not know why the difference. The Chairman. To which item are you now referring? 278 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. That item of “General (E. A. E. $15 and $20),” carried out “ $50.” Mr. Littlefield. That is $35 and the total is “ $50.” Do you know anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Does that mean that the entire item under the head of “ General ” is $50, out of which “ E. A. E.” received $15 and $ 20 ? Mr. Edmonds. That would appear to me to be a reasonable suppo- sition, but I do not know. Senator Sutherland. I notice other items of that same character. Mr. Edmonds. An item of $15, A. W. Barber. Jefferson County, $ 200 . Mr. Littlefield. Who is your man there ; do you remember ? Mr. Edmonds. George Kispert. J. H. Wells, $200. Mr. Littlefield. What is this “J. H. Frank”? Have you passed that ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know anything about that “J. H. Frank”? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have passed it, have you not? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not intentionally pass it. Mr. Littlefield. Well, you did pass it. You do not know any- thing about it? The Chairman. It is obvious that the examination of this witness can not be concluded this evening. A member of the committee desires to examine him further, and as we yet have several pages of this matter, I think we had better take our regular adjournment, as the time has now arrived, until to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock. Senator Sutherland. Let me suggest that it will hurry this pro- ceeding along, and we will reach exactly the same result, if Mr. Edmonds — if he can do it conveniently — will simply bring in a memo- randum — Mr. Littlefield. Draw up a list? Senator Sutherland. A list of the items. Mr. Littlefield. Take it in the order in which it appears here and just submit a list in answer to one question ; would you like it that way ? Senator Sutherland. Yes ; that can go into the record, and he can furnish us a copy of it, and we can make such cross-examination con- cerning any items as we please. The Chairman. The list will be of the items that come within the statement of the witness, that the facts are the same as to the items about which he has been particularly examined. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Before taking adjournment I desire to swear the witnesses that were subpoenaed for to-day — D. E. Riordan, L. B. Dresser, and George Gordon. (The sergeant at arms called the names of Mr. Riordan, Mr. Dresser, and Mr. Gordon, as indicated by the chairman, and Mr. Dresser and Mr. Riordan responded to their names and were sworn by the chairman.) E. A. EDMONDS. 279 The Chairman. You will be excused until to-morrow morning. Be in attendance to-morrow morning. Mr. Gordon is required to present himself. The sergeant at arms will make proper inquiry as to why Mr. Gordon is not present and instruct him to be present to-morrow morning. (To Mr. Edmonds:) Of course, you will be here in the morning? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. (At 4 o’clock and 34 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, October 5, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , Wis . The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present : Senators Heyburn (chairman) , Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The Chairman. Is George Gordon present this morning? (The secretary called the name of Mr. Gordon, and he failed to respond. The names of Mr. J. W. Stone and Mr. J. J. McGillivray were called, and they responded to their names, and the oath was administered to them by the chairman.) TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS— Resumed. Mr. Edmonds produced a list of items afterwards marked “ Exhibit Edmonds A.” The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, give me the page of the printed testimony in the State investigation on which the first item in your list appears. Mr. Edmonds. Page 594. I think it was the next one. The Chairman. That is the item of J. H. Frank, $100 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. That is the first one on that page of which you have personal knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; the first one following those we mentioned yesterday in the testimony. The Chairman. Give us that item. Which was the last item yes- terday of which you testified that you had personal knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. The $15, just above; the second item above. The Chairman. A. W. Barber? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I may be wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I have checked up Jefferson County, George Kispert, $200. I think the witness must have testified to that, otherwise I would not have checked it on my notes. Senator Pomerene. The $15 is the last item. Mr. Littlefield. My recollection, Mr. Edmonds, is that you testi- fied that you did not have any knowledge of the Jefferson County item. Senator Pomerene. I would correct that statement. He did give Jefferson County, George Kispert, $200. 280 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Well, I have not any definite knowledge whether that amount was paid to him. I thought it was. The Chairman. That brings us to the item of $100. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have made a list of payments, items contained in this entire account after the item, “ Jefferson County, $200,” on page 594. Have you included in this list each and every item of which you have personal knowledge in regard to the contract and the payment? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; every item. The Chairman. I notice you have not put the dates on this list, so that it is hardly sufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. Littlefield. Does the chairman desire this list to go in as an exhibit ? The Chairman. It would have saved some time had this list been dated, so that it could go in as an exhibit. Mr. Edmonds. Those items follow right in order, but inadvertently I did not put in the dates. The Chairman. It is not indicated under what date the payment was made. It will not take long to deal with this question. You made the payment to J. IT. Frank of $100, did you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. On account of the contract made with him earlier. This is the Dr. Frank referred to earlier in the testimony. The Chairman. Have you any personal knowledge of the purpose for which any of the payments which you have set out in this paper, which will be marked as an exhibit in your testimony, were used ? Mr. Edmonds. No personal knowledge ; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you make any effort to ascertain for what any of those sums of money were used, either at the time, or during the campaign, or since? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I never asked for any detailed report. The only method I had of getting any report would be a verbal one in case these men at different times came into the office. The Chairman. Verbal or written, or of any character whatsoever, did you make any effort to ascertain the purpose for which that money was used, as to any of these sums ? Mr. Edmonds. In no other manner other than for the purpose of guiding me in handling the campaign — not for the purpose or getting a detailed report. The Chairman. Did you get or gather any information at any time as to the purpose for which these sums of money, or any of them, or any part of them, were used by those to whom you paid them ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; no more in detail than those discussed yes- terday. The Chairman. You made no effort to get any further statement? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; never asked for it. The Chairman. Either in writing or otherwise? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you realize that if the expenditure of money in a campaign is questioned, the burden is upon the party spending it to show that the expenditure was legitimate? E. A. EDMONDS. 281 Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I realized that. I do not know it now. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand the chairman to state that as a rule of law ? The Chairman. Not that it affects the inquiry now proceeding, but in the judgment of the final tribunal which will be called upon to pass on this testimony — that is, the Senate of the United States — I state it as my opinion of the law that expenditures made by a candi- date being challenged as to their legality, the burden is upon the party making the expenditure to show that they were lawful. Mr. Littlefield. Then the presumption of innocent expenditure does not follow the item. The Chairman. The presumption of innocence does not enter into the question at all. The expenditure being challenged as to its legality, there is no presumption that money expended in connection with an individual campaign by a candidate for office is rightfully expended after it is challenged in an official way. Prior to the chal- lenge there is a presumption that the expenditure was proper. It being challenged officially, that presumption awaits the determina- tion upon the facts. Mr. Littlefield. Does the chairman understand that to be the rule the Senate acts upon? The Chairman. I understand that to be the rule and the law. That, of course, is my own opinion. Senator Sutherland. Pardon me just a moment, but I should hardly want to be concluded by the statement which the chairman makes. I think the presumption which he says would arise would only arise in case the expenditures were so large, or other circum- stances were sufficient, to indicate that the expenditure itself was unlawful. I do not think the mere fact that a man had expended money would necessarily give rise to the presumption that it had been unlawfully expended. Mr. Littlefield. I am very glad to get the idea of the chairman, because of course the chairman and the committee can appreciate that these are important suggestions for us, and we are very glad to be advised as to what the ultimate condition is to be. I have not undertaken to examine carefully in detail the conduct of matters of this kind before the Senate, in the last analysis, for the purpose of reaching a conclusion as to the practice of the Senate in this re- gard, but I had supposed that when a man’s right to his seat was challenged the party making the challenge, or making the charge, was under the ordinary obligation of sustaining it. Of course I can very well perceive that if what might be termed an enormous expenditure of money were developed it might be a strong circum- stance; but I had not supposed that the mere establishing of the expenditure of money of itself gave rise to a change in the pre- sumption, or placed the burden upon the party making the expendi- ture. I am very glad to get the chairman’s view of it; but my idea of it was that that was simply a circumstances to be taken into account with the other transactions. I had not supposed that the mere fact of an expenditure, dissociated from the other circum- stances, gave rise to any change in the burden of proof. I am very glad to get the chairman’s idea in respect to it, and I wish the chairman to distinctly understand, of course, that I do not under- 282 E. A. EDMONDS. take now to question it. But ultimately, of course, I am quite anxious to bring myself within what is ascertained or believed to be the rule that the Senate may act upon in relation to it. I propose to do that, and I am very greatly obliged to the Senator for his suggestion. The Chairman. I desire to suggest that the statement of counsel’s understanding of the rule that I stated is not complete. The state- ment must be considered as a whole, because I stated the exceptions in the rule, and took it out of the class suggested by the recital of counsel. I confined it to an official challenge of the election, which contained a charge that money, admittedly paid, was paid for a wrongful purpose. There are two elements necessary to be borne in mind. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I did not include irresponsible charges. I in- cluded the official charge upon which this committee is acting. It was made by a State, under the signature and seal of the governor of the State. That is one element. The next is that the party charged with having paid the money shall have admitted that he paid it, thus taking it out of the rule of the necessity of proof. No proof of the payment is necessary, it hav- ing been admitted. Mr. Littlefield. I quite agree with that. The Chairman. Now we have a case stated. The question is whether or not the party, whose office is challenged because of the payment of this money, which is admitted, must prove that the pay- ment was for a lawful purpose, in order to meet the charge that it was for an unlawful purpose. I think counsel has not closely read the specific charges. Mr. Littlefield. Even so, I shall never concede at any stage of these proceedings, either here or before the Senate, that the charges made by Mr. Blaine change the burden of proof, and that it is only necessary to read them and have Mr. Stephenson say he spent $107,000, and that then the burden is upon Mr. Stephenson to show it was not unlawfully spent. When Mr. Blaine makes the charges, and the State of Wisconsin either does or does not undertake to get behind them — when he charges that money was corruptly spent, criminally spent, I do not think the presentation of the charges and the admission that money was expended is sufficient to change the burden of proof and leave it to the Senator to exculpate himself and show it was honestly ex- pended. This would be my view : I think the charges involve precisely what they would involve in any judicial tribunal. Mr. Stephenson is charged with bribery. The State makes out one step in its case, per- haps, by showing the expenditure of money. The State can not stop there. On general principles the expenditure of money is legitimate and proper. It is attended by the presumption of innocence; and Mr. Blaine, by simply presenting his alleged charges, and then hav- ing it appear that money was expended, does not, in my judgment, shift the burden of proof so that it is incumbent upon Mr. Stephen- son to show that he innocently expended the money. Mr. Blaine must go further, or the State of Wisconsin, if it identifies itself with Mr. Blaine, must go further, and not only show expenditure, but show E. A. EDMONDS. 283 criminal expenditure. It may be that in the last analysis the Senator and myself may agree as to the practical condition; but it certainly does seem to me that the attitude in which Mr. Stephenson stands here is an attitude to require whoever prefers these charges against him to establish them; not simply to show expenditures. That is only a part of the proposition, and a trifling part. That is only a step, and a very short step. The great step, and the thing to be proved, is the criminal expenditure, or the corrupt expenditure, which is the same thing. There can be no corrupt or improper ex- penditure that is not a criminal expenditure. I do not know about the specific individual instances, but I mean on general principles. Of course I am greatly obliged to the Senator, because I have not ex- amined the question with a great deal of care. I want in the end to be able to present the matter upon what I believe to be not only the rules of law, but the rules upon which the Senate will ultimately act. It is incumbent upon me to do that in order to protect the rights of Senator Stephenson, and this may be an extremely important con- sideration. Senator Sutherland. It does not occur to me that there would be any difference between counsel and the committee in the end. As I understand the rule of law, it is that a presumption arises in all eases, in criminal law or civil law, in favor of the regularity and honesty of the doings, either of individuals or of officials. That is a general presumption of law. When anybody challenges that pre- sumption, it devolves upon that person to overcome that presump- tion by proof. In this particular case, the expenditure of money in the election may or may not have been honest. The presumption is that it was honest; but in putting in the proof it may appear that the amount of the expenditure was so extravagant as itself to over- come the presumption in favor of the honesty of the transaction, and shift the burden of proof to show that it w T as an honest expendi- ture; or it may be accompanied by other badges of suspicion that w 7 ill overcome the general presumption, and shift the burden of proof. Now, whether that exists in this case I do not undertake to say ; but I am simply saying to you that that sort of a case may arise, and whether this is such a case can only be determined when we get through. Mr. Littlefield. The members of the committee are all lawyers, and it is not necessary for me to say that they are good lawyers, and I do not suppose the technical question of the movabilitv of the bur- den of proof, shifting from one side to the other, will be of great practical importance in the last analysis. I doubt if in any event, under any circumstances, either before a jury or court, it furnishes any very intelligible method for reaching a practical result. Of course, it may be discussed upon that basis. I have now in mind, for instance, a case that arose in my own prac- tice, if I may state it very briefly, where some three distinguished gentlemen made an award in connection with damages to be paid a landowner by a railroad. I happened to represent the railroad. I have my brief in that case in my office where I can reach it, and in that case I took the ground that the award of damages was so enormously in excess of the damages actually sustained that of 284 E. A. EDMONDS. itself, res ipsa loquitor, it tended to demonstrate, and practically did demonstrate, that the award was founded in corruption and fraud. There are authorities on that proposition. I have them all in my brief, and I am reminded of them. I suppose, perhaps, that is parallel to the proposition which the chairman has in mind. I relied on that in my case, and there is plenty of law upon that proposition. Of course, it is an extreme situation. If that is all that it means, I fully understand the point. Senator Pomerene. There does not seem to be very much differ- ence between you. Mr. Littlefield. I presume not, in the end. If the chairman will excuse me, the chairman has a pretty vigorous way of stating these propositions and a pretty energetic way. Senator Pomerene. Counsel is not lacking in vigor. Mr. Littlefield. Perhaps not. The Chairman. If the counsel will permit me at that point Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. What I have said was based upon this case and the status of this case at this time. I was not undertaking to deliver a statement as to abstract principles of law. Whatever I said then, or will say, will be in the light of this case as it stands at the time I say it. Mr. Littlefield. Precisely so; and, as I have intimated, I think it more than probable that we would all reach a common ground; but the feeling I had, and it may have been induced by the fact that I am here representing Senator Stephenson, and of course rather vigor- ously interested in protecting his interests, was that the chairman was extending the application of the rule a trifle beyond its legitimate scope. I think, perhaps, we understand ourselves. I am very much obliged to the chairman for his courtesy. The Chairman. It is proper for me to say that my purpose in making the statement was to fairly advise counsel and those for whom he appears as to the necessity on their part of furnishing this information, because of the more than probable necessity that will arise when this matter is finally before the Senate for consideration. We are required to obtain facts. If we fail to obtain facts and the absence of those facts tells against or for the parties, the responsi- bility must be upon the parties, not upon the subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. Precisely. I have not any question about that, and we shall do the best we can to see that not only the committee but the Senate have all the information within our possession. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, is there any one of the items in this list which you have furnished the committee this morning of money paid by you, or under your direction, to the parties named in the list, that you desire to explain for the purpose of showing the com- mittee what the expenditure was for ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; none that I have in mind except the gen- eral explanation. The Chairman. Is there any one of the items that you can explain any more fully than you have explained items taken up specifically? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I believe not one. The Chairman. Then, you are in the position of having paid out these sums of money without knowledge as to the use that was made of the money ? E. A. EDMONDS. 285 Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I have no definite knowledge of the use that was made of the money. The Chairman. If it should transpire that a wrongful use was made of the money, then I understand that that knowledge has never come to you ? Mr. Edmonds. It never has come to me ; no, sir: not in any instance. The Chairman. And that you have made no effort to ascertain whether or not the expenditures of this money were wrongful? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir v The Chairman. In any case? Mr. Edmonds. I have not. The Chairman. Would any member of the committee like to ask any questions? Senator Sutherland. Mr. Edmonds, how long have you been more or less engaged in politics? Mr. Edmonds. I should say only during this period of about two years, beginning shortly after the 1st of July, 1908. Senator Sutherland. My question was how long you had been more or less engaged in politics. I understood you to say that you were a member of the State assembly. Mr. Edmonds. I was a member of the State assembly in 1892. I served one term, and from that time until 1900 took no interest in political campaigns except to vote, and exercise my right and perform my duty in that way. Senator Sutherland. Did you at that time engage in a canvass in your own behalf? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Were you a candidate for the nomination before the nomination was made? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. The nomination came to you without effort on your part? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. It was under the caucus system. Senator Sutherland. After your nomination, you did participate in the canvass ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you held any other office? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir: no other elective office. I want to say that during eight or ten years I was chairman of the town board of the township in which I resided. That is the only other elective office I have held. Senator Sutherland. Did you hold any political office? Were you chairman of any committee or a member of any political com- mittee, and have you been since 1892? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. It is barely possible that in some year I may have been chosen a precinct committeeman or something of that kind. If so, I do not remember it. I doubt if I ever was. Senator Sutherland. Did you participate to any extent in any canvass for others than yourself since 1892? Mr. Edmonds. Not until 1900 and 1902. Senator Sutherland. Did you then ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To what extent? 286 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. In the county of Oconto, where I lived. Senator Sutherland. In what connection and for what purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. In connection with the selecting of delegates to the county convention that would elect delegates to the State con- vention. Senator Sutherland. Since 1892 you have known more or less about the conduct of elections and the preliminaries leading up to elections? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. The holding of conventions, and things of that kind ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. In a general way you were familiar with the proceedings ? Mr. Edmonds. I was. Senator Sutherland. You w T ere not State chairman, as I under- stand, until after this service which you rendered to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I was elected about three weeks later. Senator Sutherland. Had it been brought to your attention dur- ing the time you were engaged in political matters that sometimes improper expenditures were made to influence an election ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I am sure that in reading the papers articles have very often come to my attention charging corruption in politics. Senator Sutherland. You had heard of them? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you know that in all elections there was always more or less danger of money being improperly expended? Mr. Edmonds. I suppose so. Senator Sutherland. There is the opportunity? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And the temptation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And when you took hold of Senator Stephen- son’s canvass you knew that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Now, in making arrangements with these various men in the seventy-odd counties, did you suggest to any one of them the limits within which they might make their expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I did in any particular instance; but if I may explain, in every instance in which I employed a man I made what I considered to be a careful investigation of his character and reputation, and before employing him I was convinced of his trustworthiness as a local manager. Senator Sutherland. What was the amount of money you gave to Mr. Riordan altogether ? I have forgotten the amount. Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that it was $2,300. I could not be certain. Senator Sutherland. For him to expend in what counties? Mr. Edmonds. In seven counties in the senatorial district which he had represented in the State senate. Senator Sutherland. You handed over that $2,300, or caused it to be handed over to him, without a single suggestion as to how it should be expended ? E. A. EDMONDS. 287 Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I made a single suggestion; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Leaving it entirely to him to spend it as he pleased ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I would not presume, with my limited knowledge of politics, to instruct him, because he was ver}’ much better versed in political methods, in the method of getting out votes, than I was. Senator Sutherland. Did you give an}^ general instructions or make any general statement to any of these people to whom you furnished money that the money was to be spent in the interests of Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I quite understand your question. Senator Sutherland. How did thev know what to spend the money for? Mr. Edmonds. Well, Senator, I want to say that in talking with these different men whom I employed we had a conversation regard- ing the situation, regarding the prospects of Senator Stephenson, regarding, in general, the conduct of the campaign, but as to any particular instance of just what I said I can not remember one single thing now. Senator Sutherland. I will ask you whether or not you said gen- erally to these people to whom you furnished money that the money was to be expended in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s canvass? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I think in every instance they understood from their talk with me that they were to spend the money for the election of Senator Stephenson and not for the election of any other candidate. Senator Sutherland. But you entered into no other or further details ? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps not, unless that came up in the conversa- tion. Senator Sutherland. Did you in any case? Mr. Edmonds. As I say, not in any particular instance that I can recall. Senator Sutherland. Whether you can recall any particular in- stance or not, do you remember that there were cases "where you went into details? Mr. Edmonds. I am very certain that in the conversation such as I would have with a man of an hour or two, or possibly three, during that conversation, it being understood that he was to conduct the campaign in his county or in his locality, we would go into matters in more or less detail, but in just what manner I can not now recall. Senator Sutherland. You mean matters concerning conditions in the county? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. I am speaking now of the expenditure of the money. Whether you can remember the name of the man or not, did you indicate to anybody any limits within which he was to expend this money? Mr. Edmonds. I am very sure that after our conversation it was understood by them thoroughly, and from their talk with me, that there were limits. Senator Sutherland. That does not answer my question. Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall in a particular instance. 288 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. The question is what you did generally. Senator Sutherland. I do not ask you to give the name, or the date, or the place, or any of the details, but have you in your mind now any recollection that you gave to anybody or made to anybody any statement of the limits within which the money should be ex- pended ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What were those limits? Mr. Edmonds. I can not tell now. Mr. Littlefield. State in general. That is what the Senator wants, whether you did anything of that kind in general. Mr. Edmonds. I tried to state that in my talks with these men who were to be our organizers, who were to work for Senator Stephen- son’s interests, that this money was to be expended solely for the nomination of Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Yes; you have already said that. Mr. Edmonds. And in their judgment to use the money as they thought best. Senator Sutherland. But have you any recollection that you stated to anybody — I am not asking you who or the circumstances of it at all — have you any recollection of stating to anybody the general purpose of the way in which any of this money should be spent to further Mr. Stephenson’s interest? Mr. Edmonds. If you ask for my recollection of any particular thing that I said, I say no ; I can not recall any particular thing. Senator Sutherland. Do you recall that you did say anything on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that I did in all my talks. Senator Sutherland. What is your recollection of the limitations that you put in any case ? Mr. Edmonds. I doubt — that is, my impression is that in no in- stance was there ever talk of the possibility of an expenditure of money by these men unlawfully or illegally. Mr. Littlefield. Did you discuss the activities in which they were to engage? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly. Mr. Littlefield. Then state them. Senator Sutherland. Did you tell them what to do with the money ? Mr. Edmonds. I am answering the questions as well as I can. Mr. Littlefield. No ; you are not. Senator Sutherland. Let me conduct the examination. I think I nan do it. Have you any recollection ? Mr. Edmonds. Not now; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Then did you do any more, as far as the expenditure of the money was concerned, than to say to these persons to whom you gave the money that they were to expend the money in the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s candidacy? Mr. Edmonds. While I do not now recall that I did, it would be very improbable that I did not go into it in more detail. I do not now recall. Senator Sutherland. Then you are not able to say that you did more than that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 289 Senator Sutherland. Have you any reason to suppose that you did more than that? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. What is your reason for supposing that? Mr. Edmonds. It would not seem possible to me that in a tdlk with a man whom I was about to employ, whether I had know him a long time or a short time, that in the payment to him of money for services that he was to perform I would not have gone over the situation — (not only the situation in the counties where he was to go, but talk with him about the expenditure of this money. Senator Sutherland. That is, you mean that it was probable that you talked with him as to how he should expend the money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. It does not seem possible to me that I did not, and I presume I did at that time. Senator Sutherland. Does it occur to you that that was what you should have done? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Looking back at the affair now ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. It strikes your mind now that in putting this money into the hands of these individuals you should have laid down some limitations as to how they should expend the money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that that would have been necessary, but it would have been probable that in very many instances I did. Senator Sutherland. Why do you say it would have been prob- able? Mr. Edmonds. Were I to conduct the campaign to-day, I should do that. Senator Sutherland. Why would you do that? Mr. Edmonds. For the reason I have stated — that in the payment or intrusting of money in the hands of any individual I would dis- cuss the methods of that distribution or that expenditure. Senator Sutherland. And therefore it would be the natural thing for you to lay down some limitation under which he was to expend the money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And yet you have no recollection, in all these conversations, of having done so? Mr. Edmonds. No such recollection as I would want to state under oath; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Now, I want to say to you again that I am not asking you to give me the name of any individual to whom you made that statement, or the time when you made it, or the place where you made it, or the circumstances under which you made it, but I simply want to know whether you have in your mind any recollection that you did, upon some occasion, lay down any limitation? Mr. Edmonds. Perhaps I may be considered technical and dense, but I can not conceive of my ability to state definitely that I did a certain thing if I can not remember the occasion on which I did it. Mr. Littlefield. You are not asked that. You are asked a gen- eral question. You have stated once or twice that you have in yonr mind now things that they were to do, but up to date you have not succeeded in getting them into the record. Suppose you put them in. 15235 °— vol 1—11 19 290 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Edmonds, can you not recall many times in your life when you have made statements about certain matters, and known that you have made statements, and yet you can not recall to whom you made them or under what circumstances you made them, yet you can recall in a general way that you have made the statements ? Now, can you recall whether or not you made any statements on that subject? Mr. Edmonds. I think I have stated as definitely as I can that I believe I did; but as to just the limitations Senator Sutherland. You have stated heretofore that it would be natural for you to do it. Do you now believe you did it? Mr. Edmonds. I believe I did it from the fact that I would do so now. Senator Sutherland. Now, what limitations do you believe you laid down? Mr. Edmonds. The same that I would lay down now. Senator Sutherland. What are they? Mr. Edmonds. In discussing with a man who was going to expend the money for the Senator and organize the county, I would suggest to-day what he should do. Senator Sutherland. What would you suggest that he should do ? Mr. Edmonds. I would suggest that he organize the county — pardon me for using the word — as completely as possible with the funds in hand. For instance, in placing the sum of $500 in a man’s hands for use in a certain county, if that would enable him to go so far as to organize each precinct by the selection of a committee of one or two or three men who would distribute literature, who would endeavor to organize or make enthusiasm for the Senator in his candidacy by talking with men who would see to getting out the vote, by hiring teams, or, if in their judgment necessary, secure halls for speeches; their judgment would be exercised entirely as to the best use of that money to be made, but I am sure that in instances we discussed that. Senator Sutherland. Now, it occurs to you that that is what you would do now? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you any recollection that you did do that in this particular case? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I am reasonably certain that I did. I should not like to state definitely, because I have no definite recollection. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean by that, that starting from the conclusion you now have in your mind, that it should be done, you probably did do it ? Is that what you mean ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; that is it exactly. I believe that while per- haps my understanding of the conduct of a campaign is perhaps more complete in detail now, for the reason that I have passed through the experience of the chairmanship of the State central committee, yet my general idea of conducting the campaign was about the same then as now. Senator Sutherland. But at the same time, while you recognize now that that should have been done, you have no recollection that you did do it in any particular case? Mr. Edmonds. I think I can not go further than to say that I believe that. E. A. EDMONDS. 291 Senator Sutherland. You believe you did, but you will not go so far as to say that you have any recollection of it ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I would not say that. Senator Sutherland. And your belief is based, as I understand you, wholly upon the proposition that you now think it should have been done? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I would not go as far as that. Senator Sutherland. Or that it was the natural thing to do ? Mr. Edmonds. The natural thing to do. Senator Sutherland. You have also been in business? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. A great many years? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You have had charge of large expenditures of money, have you, in a business way? Mr. Edmonds. Quite large; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You have employed many agents whose duty it was to expend money ? Mr. Edmonds. In some instances; yes, sir. Usually, however, in the management of a business, the work is done from the office, and the management of such business as I conducted was done by me, in the expenditure of money. Senator Sutherland. Is it in accordance with your business train- ing and experience, and habits, to hand over to your agent a large sum of money, $500 or $1,000, and have him expend it without keep- ing an account of what he expends it for, or without having him render an account to you of the expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. Senator Sutherland. That is not in accordance with business methods, at any rate? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was there any reason why you could not request these various political agents to keep an account of their expenditures ? Mr. Edmonds. The only reason I could give is that I have never heard of it being done. Custom, I should say, governed that. Senator Sutherland. Is there any reason for its not being done that you know of? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know of any reason why it should not be done if desired. Senator Sutherland. Did you want to know what they expended it for? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; I would have been glad to know, if they had communicated it to me. Senator Sutherland. You would have been gkd to know? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; if they had communicated it to me. You realize, Senator, that the campaign was a very short one, and the money at different times was not on hand in the bank, and while the campaign lasted, I think, six or seven weeks, while I was there, I should say during the first three or three and a half weeks we were handicapped, and did not know how far to go in organization, by rea- son of not having funds, and that when we got started in the organization it was very active work. 292 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. You, I think, have said that you were familiar with the law of the State with reference to requiring a report of the amount of these expenditures, have you not? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I read it. I have a general idea of it and had then. Senator Sutherland. Were you familiar, whether you had read it or not, with this provision of the Wisconsin statute: Every person who shall be a candidate before any convention or at any primary or election, or to fill an office for which a nomination paper or cer- tificate of nomination may be filed, shall within thirty days after the election held to fill such office make out and file with the officer empowered by law to issue the certificate of election to such office or place, a statement in writing, subscribed and sworn to by such candidate, setting forth in detail each item in excess of five dollars in money or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him, and to the best of his knowledge and belief — that is, the knowledge and belief of the candidate — by any other person or persons for him or in his behalf, wholly or in part, in endeavoring to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination or election to such office or place, or in connection with the election of any other person at said election, the dates when, and the persons to whom, and the purpose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or promised, and the total aggregate sum paid, expended, or promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever. That is as far as I need read. Were you familiar with that in a general way? Mr. Edmonds. I should say I was familiar with that. And, if I may state further, I believed vSenator Sutherland. Then you knew that the law required that within 30 days after the election Mr. Stephenson must file a state- ment showing in his statement every item which exceeded $5, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you take any pains to preserve infor- mation for Mr. Stephenson by which he could comply with that statute ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. What did you do? Mr. Edmonds. That is, it was done in the office, by the man he had employed to do that, Mr. Sacket. Senator Sutherland. You gave to an agent — and I take Mr. Riordan as an example again — the sum of $2,300 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Which greatly exceeds $5? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And you put that $2,300 in his hands, sim- ply telling him to spend it, to use it, in the interest of Mr. Stephen- son’s candidacy? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Without any sort of requirement that he should keep an account of how he spent it, to whom he paid it, or to preserve a record of any of the circumstances which the statute requires ; that is true, is it not ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe I assumed that these men understood the law as well as I, and that in the records in the office, as they were E. A. EDMONDS. 293 kept by the office manager, the items that we expended from the office, could be explained in detail. Senator Sutherland. But, Mr. Edmonds, the office manager him- self could not know how Riordan was spending the money, could he ? Mr. Edmonds. No; neither could I. Senator Sutherland. The only man who would know about that would be Riordan ? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. Senator Sutherland. And the law requires that in that case Mr. Stephenson shall state in his report upon information and belief. How can he state upon information and belief unless the informa- tion be preserved for him ? Mr. Edmonds. Only in this way, Senator: By getting from me the information that I had ; but there was no possibility of my get- ting information from Mr. Riordan or others; he could get that from them as well as I could. I did not have to make the report. Senator Sutherland. Now, Mr. Edmonds, do you not see that under that construction or view of the matter you might have turned over the whole $107,000 to Mr. Riordan and said, “ Go out and spend this in Mr. Stephenson’s interest in the State,” and there would have been no way in the world for Mr. Stephenson to have known, unless accounts were preserved, how that $107,000 was expended ? Mr. Edmonds. It never occurred to me that that would be possible or probable. Senator Sutherland. Do you not see that that could have been done in your view of it? Mr. Edmonds. I can understand that; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And it did happen with reference to amounts as large, I think, as $3,500 in one instance? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so — $3,200. Senator Sutherland. Is it the fact that you and the other man- agers of Mr. Stephenson simply handed out this money to these various agents, leaving them to spend it as they pleased, and that you did not desire to know how they spent it ? Mr. Edmonds. That is not true, Senator ; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is not true? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you from any source learn how the money was being spent during the canvass? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; except as I have stated, as these men would come in and talk over what they were doing. Senator Sutherland. From other sources than the men themselves did you learn how the money was being spent ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I think in instances other men from those same counties would come in. Senator Sutherland. Come in and tell you how money was being spent in Stephenson’s interest, do }^ou mean ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I should say I would hardly go as far as that. I have known of men coming in from these counties and complaining that the work was not being sufficiently done in the counties. Senator Sutherland. What complaints did they make ? Mr. Edmonds. For instance, that the literature was not out; that the posters of other candidates had been put up in those localities and 294 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Stephenson’s had not; and why was not organizing being done there ? Senator Sutherland. Did you get information at any time that money which had been intrusted to these agents was being spent about saloons ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. For the purpose of purchasing liquors and cigars ? Mr. Edmonds. No one ever reported that to me. Senator Sutherland. Did you ever hear that ? Mr. Edmonds. No. If it had, I would not have been surprised, however. It is customary. Senator Sutherland. You would not have been surprised? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. It is customary in this State. Mr. Littlefield. They were all at it, w r ere they not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you ever hear that a sum approximating $37,000 of this $107,000, had been spent in that way ? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly did not. Senator Sutherland. Never heard that? Mr. Edmonds. No; $30,000? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No. Senator Sutherland. Have you ever seen the report which was made by the joint senatorial primary investigation committee- of the Wisconsin Legislature? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I never read it. Senator Sutherland. I call your attention to a statement made in that report, beginning at page 9, under the head of “ Expense ac- counts,” in which, speaking of the expense account of Senator Ste- phenson, showing a total expenditure of $107,000 and more, after stating that 50 per cent was spent for organizing work, that more than 75 per cent of the total amount was disbursed within 30 days prior to primary election day, they say : Of the 60 per cent spent for organization purposes it is difficult to ascertain from the expense account or from the testimony the exact proportion used by the different classifications of expense. An approximate estimate, based upon the whole testimony with regard to the Stephenson campaign, would lead your committee to believe that probably more than $20,000 was spent for ward and poll work, more than $10,000 was used for traveling and incidental expenses by the various men engaged in organization work, and more than $30,000 was mis- appropriated and spent for treating to beer, liquor, and cigars in saloons and elsewhere. Had you ever heard that statement before? Mr. Edmonds. I never have. Senator Sutherland. Was your attention never called to it? Mr. Edmonds. This is the first I ever heard of it. I would like — may I state? Senator Sutherland. We shall be very glad to have you state. Mr. Edmonds. I simply wanted to say that it is not surprising that any statement, no matter how biased, might be made by that investi- gating committee, which was a partisan one — a committee appointed by a senate unalterably, absolutely, opposed at all times to the elec- tion of Senator Stephenson — who made their investigations, I be- E. A. EDMONDS. 295 lieve, without an idea of fairness or justice, but for political effect in this State. Senator Sutherland. Is that correct, Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Edmonds. I think I would be willing to stand by it. Senator Sutherland. Were there two investigating committees, and was this matter investigated twice ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; there were two. Senator Sutherland. Was the first investigating committee made up of people who were not unfriendly to Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. In the senate, no ; and in the assembly, yes. Senator Sutherland. In the assembly the members of the commit- tee were not unfriendly to Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean by that that the members of the committee from the State senate were unfriendly ? Mr. Edmonds. From the State senate were unfriendly. Senator Sutherland. So you would expect a report made by the members of the assembly not to be unjust to Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. If that statement were made by the members of the assembly, I would certainly consider it not unjust, to the best of their knowledge and belief. Senator Sutherland. You know Senator Husting? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was he one of the men that you say was unfriendly ? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely so. Senator Sutherland. This report recites that “ at a meeting duly called by William M. Bray, chairman of the assembly committee, and held in Madison March 18, 1910, at which the following members of the joint committee were present : Senator Paul O. Husting ” — he was a member of the senate — “ William M. Bray, George P. Hambrecht, Platt Whitman, and John C. Chappie ”■ — they w T ere all members of the assembly, were they not ? Mr. Edmonds. The latter four. Senator Sutherland. All but Husting were members of the house ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. The other two members from the senate were Spencer M. Marsh and Thomas Morris ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Who, you will observe, were not present. Only Mr. Husting, of the senate, and the four assembly members were present. Then it proceeds : “ The following report was adopted, Senator Husting dissenting ” — so that the report, you see, was made only by members of the assembly. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Who, you say, were not unfriendly to Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. Not unfriendly; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Now, in view of that, what do you say as to this statement? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that those men endeavored, in their best judgment, to determine the truth. Senator Sutherland. And yet these men, who you now say were not unfriendly to Mr. Stephenson, report that, in their opinion, based 296 E. A. EDMONDS. upon the whole testimony, there was $30,000 misappropriated and spent in treating to beer, liquor, and cigars in saloons and elsewhere? Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment. I beg leave to inquire of the Senator — I do not suppose there is any hypothesis upon which this report is evidence before the subcommittee, is there ? Senator Sutherland. It is not now. Mr. Littlefield. Can it ever be? Can the conclusion of a com- mittee on the part of the Wisconsin Legislature ever be evidence before this subcommittee as to conclusions which they undertake to reach ? Senator Sutherland. I would not undertake to say about that, Mr. Littlefield. Of course, you are aware of the rule that I have a right to call a witness’s attention to any document and ask him about it ? Mr. Littlefield. Certainly; I appreciate the situation. But I simply make that suggestion. Senator Sutherland. I am trying to get the facts about this case. Mr. Littlefield. I have no doubt about that, Senator. Mr. Sutherland. And I am having recourse to any information I can get in order to probe the recollection of this witness. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, I did not think for a minute that the Senator supposed that that report would be evidence. But I think perhaps we ought to say this, representing Senator Stephenson: Of course, there is a great deal of this material that comes from this committee, and even both of them, if I am any judge of the weight of evidence, that has not any foundation in the record — and I have not any suggestion to make about the scope of the examination on that line — but, of course, if it should develop that it took such an atti- tude in the case as to reach a position where it could be treated as evidence, it would be a very grave injustice to Senator Stephen- son. As to this particular remark here, the reason why I call atten- tion to it is that while I have not read every word of this original record, I have gone through the whole of it except the last two or three hundred pages of the senate investigating committee proceed- ings, and I know there is nothing but guesswork on the part of that committee that authorizes it to state that $30,000 was misappro- priated. There is not any evidence in the case that enables them to make any such computation or that any such proportion was spent in saloons and for cigars. I know enough of the record to know that that speculation or guess of the committee is simply a pure guess, and what I regret is to have the Senator embarrassed by those things. Senator Sutherland. Pardon me, Mr. Littlefield. I think I had better proceed with the examination. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator appreciates my position, of course? Senator Sutherland. I understand your position, and I under- stand mine. This document, I tell the witness, is a report of a committee which, he says, was not unfavorable to Senator Stephen- son. Mr. Edmonds. That is true. Senator Sutherland. Now, with that understanding, what do you say as to the truth of that statement that $30,000 was used for the purpose which they state — buying liquors, and so on ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. Senator Sutherland. You do not know? E. A. EDMONDS. 297 Mr. Edmonds. You asked me what I would say. Senator Sutherland. Have you never heard that charge made before ? Mr. Edmonds. I never heard that charge made before. Senator Sutherland. What do you say as to the estimate that probably $20,000 was spent for ward and poll work; do you know anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not. Senator Sutherland. Have you any judgment as to the aggregate amount of money which you spent and which is accounted for in the statements under the head of “ general ” expense ? Mr. Edmonds. Except by the statement; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Would it be as much as $12,000? Mr. Edmonds. I would not think so. Mr. Littlefield. Does the Senator refer now to this statement that they have been testifying about? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. As I have run over it I would not think there would be any such amount as that. Senator Sutherland. Give me an approximate idea of about what it would be. Mr. Edmonds. I remember several items of $200 or $250 that are unexplained. I would not think that they would add up more than from $2,000 to $3,000. Senator Sutherland. How much? Mr. Edmonds. I would say from $2,000 to $3,000 without looking it over again. I did not add it up as I went through it. Senator Sutherland. Would you be surprised to know that it totaled as much as $10,000? Mr. Edmonds. General items, not otherwise expended? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. I certainly would. Senator Sutherland. General expense, general campaign expense, under that general designation ; either called “ general expense ” or “ general ” or “ general campaign expense ”? Mr. Edmonds. With no further explanation? Senator Sutherland. With no further explanation. Mr. Edmonds. I would be very much surprised. Senator Sutherland. You would be surprised? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You think no more than about $3,000? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it ran over that, from my memory of the items. Senator Sutherland. You say you talked over the matter of ex- penditures with Sacket about the time this account was up, as I understood you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The only way in which I talked it over with him was that he and Mr. Puelicher asked me to help, or sug- gested that I help make up the report with them, and I told them that I could not, that that was a matter in their hands. Senator Sutherland. I understood you to say — and I made a note of it at the time— that you had talked over the expenditures with Sacket about the time the account was made up ? 298 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. In that way I talked it over, and I do not recall what else was said at that time. Senator Sutherland. Did you talk it over with Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall anything further being said on it than that particular statement. Senator Sutherland. Did you have a conference with Sacket and Puelicher ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; at which time they asked me to help make up the report. Senator Sutherland. What was the purpose of that conference? Mr. Edmonds. They asked me to make up the report. Senator Sutherland. As to the expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To determine the items of expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. The items to go into this report ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To enable them to make up the account for Mr. Stephenson to file? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you endeavor at that conference to as- certain the various items of expenditure, and talk that matter over? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I did not go into it at all. Senator Sutherland. Did not go into that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I do not think we talked five minutes. Senator Sutherland. I want to ask you another question or two about Mr. Stone, who was the game warden. You mean the State game warden ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And had under him how many deputies in the State? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall, but something like one for each county. Senator Sutherland. One for each county— about 71. Were they men who were influential in politics in the various counties ? Mr. Edmonds. I was not personally acquainted with them, but I should presume they were reasonably familiar; yes, sir. That had been the custom in years past. Senator Sutherland. Was it generally understood at that time that this body of deputies constituted a pretty effective political machine ? Mr. Edmonds. As to that, I am not sure. I had not had any con- nection with politics since 1902. Mr. Littlefield. The question is, Had you heard that they con- stituted an effective political machine? Mr. Edmonds. I believed that to be the case at that time. Mr. Littlefield. Had you heard it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I had. Mr. Littlefield. Had not heard it, or do not know that you had. Senator Sutherland. You believed it. Why did you believe it? Mr. Edmonds. From the fact that when I was in politics it was a very effective force. Senator Sutherland. Then you had heard that it was effective at some time or other? Mr. Edmonds. I knew it to be so in the earlier years when I was in politics. E. A. EDMONDS. 299 Senator Sutherland. How did you know it — by having heard it, or having seen it, or what ? Mr. Edmonds. Having seen it. Senator Sutherland. You saw the machine in operation? Mr. Edmonds. I have seen the individuals working. Senator Sutherland. And you knew it was a pretty effective political machine? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And Mr. Stone was at the head of it? Mr. Edmonds. He was at this time ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. I think you said it had been used, to your knowledge, at other times in the politics of the State ? Mr. Edmonds. I am pretty sure it had. Senator Sutherland. A very effective organization? Mr. Edmonds. A very effective organization. Senator Sutherland. And, knowing that, you got in communica- tion with Mr. Stone? Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Stone called on me ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you ask him for the names of his as- sistants who were friendly to Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall whether I asked him or whether he volunteered. Senator Sutherland. You got the information, at any rate? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure I understood some of the names, of some of them who were friendly to the Senator and some who were not ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Without recalling the names now, you re- member that you did get the names at that time of those who were friendly to Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. When you say “get them,” I am quite sure they were gone over, and I understood he named some, but I was not ac- quainted with more than one or two of them. Senator Sutherland. I mean get them, in the sense that the infor- mation came to you. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir; either verbally or Senator Sutherland. And you also got the names of those who were unfriendly ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. So that you had the two classes before you, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. Only so far as I could remember them. Of course any man whose name I remembered I know. Senator Sutherland. I do not ask you to remember them now, but you remember now that at the time you did get the information ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. But what I am trying to explain is, at that time when he went over it I certainly understood, but not knowing the individuals it is very possible that I could not remember all the political relations of each of them. Senator Sutherland. Why were you getting that information ? Mr. Edmonds. I wanted the names of the men who were friendly to Senator Stephenson. I did not care about those who were opposed to him. Senator Sutherland. But why the names of the deputy game wardens who were friendly? 300 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. For the same reason that I would like to know in all communities the names of those active workers. Senator Sutherland. You seem to have entered into a classification in this case, getting the names of game wardens who were friendly ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I say I do not know whether I asked for them or whether they were volunteered, but I secured them at that time. Senator Sutherland. But, whether volunteered or not, why was it given to you ; what was the purpose of having it ? Mr. Edmonds. So that I would know those who were friendly to Senator Stephenson. We did not want to employ any men to help Senator Stephenson who were opposed to him. Senator Sutherland. Was it not sufficient for you to know their names as individuals without knowing that they were game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly; but most naturally lists of names or names of men that a particular man would give me would be those with whom he was most closely associated. Sentaor Sutherland. When was it you gave Mr. Stone the $2,500, before or after this conversation ? Mr. Edmonds. After. Senator Sutherland. After? Mr. Edmonds. That is, I think the same day, as I recall. Senator Sutherland. How did you fix the amount of $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that either Senator Stephenson informed me or else Mr. Stone informed me that that was the amount to be paid him. Senator Sutherland. Which was it? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall now. Senator Sutherland. Did you make the arrangement or did Mr. Stephenson make it ? Mr. Edmonds. My present recollection is that Mr. Stephenson made the agreement with Mr. Stone; Mr. Stone had seen him. Senator Sutherland. For the $2,500? Mr. Edmonds. But as to just how far that went, I am not positive now. I do not want to do Mr. Stephenson an injustice by saying that he made it if Mr. Stone reported that that was the amount agreed upon when we talked. Senator Sutherland. Then I understand you to say that you do not know why it was $2,500 rather than some other sum? Mr. Edmonds. Except that that was the amount that Mr. Stone thought was advisable to put in his hands; that he could use to advantage or because of the information received from Senator Stephenson ; which lam not sure. Senator Sutherland. Did }mu not exercise any judgment your- self as to what amount should be paid ? Mr. Edmonds. In that particular case ; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. You did not in any case, did you? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly did. Senator Sutherland. You did exercise judgment as to the amount to be paid to some of the individuals? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. But not in this case? Mr. Edmonds. Not in this case. Senator Sutherland. What was this $2,500 to be spent for? E. A. EDMONDS. 301 Mr. Edmonds. It was to be spent for organization in behalf of Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Organization by whom? Mr. Edmonds. In the counties and towns where these people were. Senator Sutherland. Where what people were? Mr. Edmonds. Where these men whose names he talked with me about were. Senator Sutherland. Where the game wardens were? Mr. Edmonds. I assume so ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean to be spent with the game wardens ? Mr. Edmonds. By the game wardens or in such manner as he saw fit to distribute it. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean that the $2,500 was by Mr. Stone to be distributed among the deputy game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. That was not talked. It was understood Senator Sutherland. What was your understanding about it? Mr. Edmonds. My understanding was that I placed $2,500 in his hands to use as he saw fit. Senator Sutherland. With whom? Mr. Edmonds. Presumably by the game wardens, though I am not positive as to that now. Senator Sutherland. Am I correct in saying that it was your understanding that the $2,500 was to be distributed by Mr. Stone among the deputy game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. I think I used the word “ distributed I would say used by him in such manner as he thought best; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Well, “ used ”■ — was he to give it to some- body else? Mr. Edmonds. No. Senator Sutherland. Use it for himself? Mr. Edmonds. No; that was not my understanding, at least. Senator Sutherland. The money ultimately was to be paid to somebody, was it not ? Mr. Edmonds. It was to be used ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To whom was it to be paid ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know to whom it was to be paid ; but pre- sumably to the men with whom he was associated in work. Senator Sutherland. The men with whom he was associated were the deputy game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. The deputy game wardens friendly to him or to Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Then the money was to be by him distributed among the deputy game wardens, was it not ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection of that is not clear, as to whether it was or not. Senator Sutherland. Who else was to get any part of the money, as you understood, except the deputy game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think we talked that over at all, as to how the distribution was to be made. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any understanding on the subject. Mr. Edmonds. As to how the distribution of money was to be made? 302 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. What part were the deputy game wardens to play in the matter ? Mr. Edmonds. They were to do everything they could to secure Senator Stephenson’s nomination. Senator Sutherland. Were they to have money to expend? Mr. Edmonds. If in his judgment that would be wise; yes, sir. I placed no limitation on that. Senator Sutherland. It was left to him then to distribute the money among the game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; if he wanted to. Senator Sutherland. Did you expect that he would use this money through anybody else than the game wardens ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think that was discussed. Senator Sutherland. Did you expect it ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe I did at that time. That is my best recollection now. Senator Sutherland. Was it not your understanding that this sum of money was to be expended through the game wardens ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Senator Sutherland. In their various communities? Mr. Edmonds. I should think so. Senator Sutherland. I think that is all I want to ask. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds, you have testified that you knew the provisions of this law requiring the filing of an account. As a business man of rather large affairs, you knew the necessity of keep- ing proper accounts, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Senator Pomerene. During this campaign Mr. Van Cleve was act- ing as one of the managers, was he not ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I knew that at that time. Senator Pomerene. You were having constant communication with him, were you not ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so, except the day that he was here to arrange with me to take charge of the campaign. Senator Pomerene. You wrote him from time to time for money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I ever communicated with him during the campaign ; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or Mr. Puelicher did ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know as to that. My communications were all with Mr. Puelicher. Senator Pomerene. You had constant conversations with Mr. Pue- licher, you said the other day, when you would go out to dinner together ? Mr. Edmonds. Very often; yes, sir. \ Senator Pomerene. And, among other things, you would talk over the financial feature of the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. I doubt that, unless there was a shortage of money, because it was supposed Senator Pomerene. You have said here this morning that a number of times there was a shortage of money? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. So that you did talk it over at different times ? E. A. EDMONDS. 303 Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir ; whenever there was a shortage of money. Senator Pomerene. You talked with Senator Stephenson on this subject, too, of the amount of money it was taking, did you not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And he was complaining a good deal about it, was he not ? Mr. Edmonds. He was. Senator Pomerene. He thought you were using too much money ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What did you say to him on that subject? Mr. Edmonds. I did not think we were. Senator Pomerene. When did you first talk with him on this subject? Mr. Edmonds. I do not now recall. Senator Pomerene. About when? Mr. Edmonds. I should think two or three weeks after I had— perhaps two weeks Senator Pomerene. After that time of the first conversation on the subject of the expenditure of money, how much had you in fact expended ? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. Senator Pomerene. About how much? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The only way that could be deter- mined — I think it was slightly before the $30,000 check appears to have been sent, but I do not recall when that was or how much had been spent up to that time. Senator Pomerene. It seems from the memoranda I have that this $30,000 check was given on August T, and up to that time, in round numbers, there was expended $52,000; it was about that time that you had this conversation with him ? Mr. Edmonds, Shortly before that; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Now tell us what the Senator said and what you said to him. Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall anything except in a general way. The substance of it was that we needed more money to organize in the counties. Senator Pomerene. What else was said? Mr. Edmonds. He thought the amount — no; I wrote him a letter. Senator Pomerene. Have you a copy of that letter ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you receive an answer from him? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. By letter? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. How? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; it was confirmed by letter; a telephone com- munication. Senator Pomerene. What did he say to you by telephone? Mr. Edmonds. He said the money would be in the bank the next day or that day. Senator Pomerene. But he then said something to you about this taking too much money, did he not ? Mr. Edmonds. Possibly he did. 304 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Pomerene. Did he not say to you in effect that you were too extravagant in your expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not think he criticized me as broadly as that. Senator Pomerene. That was an inference you could reasonably draw from what he said? Mr. Edmonds. He believed this: That there was too much money being expended in the campaign, more than was necessary in order to elect him. My contention was that it was necessary, in order to get out a full vote, to spend the money that was expended. Senator Pomerene. At that particular time when you found that he was complaining of the amount of money that you had expended, did it not dawn upon your mind that it would be wise for you to keep an accurate account of all expenditures? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think that thought was suggested to me by my talk at all. Senator Pomerene. It never occurred to you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think it was suggested by my talk with him at all at the time. Senator Pomerene. How did you expect the Senator to be able to file his account when you had kept no account? Mr. Edmonds. I believed at the time that the means in the office by which he was to receive an account were adequate to enable him to make the report, and believe so now. Senator Pomerene. Did you talk with Sacket on that subject? Mr. Edmonds. As to how he was doing it ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Never attempted to see whether the form of his account was sufficient? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or anything about it? Mr. Edmonds. That was a matter between him and the Senator. Senator Pomerene. You stated the other day that in some instances you made arrangement with your county managers as to the amount of their personal compensation, and in answer to a question you said then that you had that arrangement with about half of them? Mr. Edmonds. That was an estimate; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. That would be about 35. At my request you gave the names of some of the men at least with whom you had this arrangement ? Mr. Edmonds. As I recollected them ; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. This is the list, I believe, that you fur- nished me? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. Senator Pomerene. And it seems that there are 14 names on that list; that would be about one-fifth of your managers? Mr. Edmonds. If we had TO. Senator Pomerene. Was there not one for each county? Mr. Edmonds. From my best recollection and looking over the statement, I should say not, though I thought at the time there was. I say one for each county, but you will remember that one man had seven counties, and in another instance six or seven, and in another instance three or four. E. A. EDMONDS. 305 Senator Pomerene. And in some instances, if I remember correctly, you had some general managers in addition to your local managers in each county? Mr. Edmonds. Local managers in each county; no men who went out from the office. Senator Pomerene. In that section of the State, for instance, where there was one man with five or six or seven counties, you had, in addition to him, in those counties, local managers, had you not? Mr. Edmonds. If, in his judgment, he chose them; but I was not acquainted with them, as a rule. Senator Pomerene. You also stated that when you had an arrange- ment for special compensation for these managers you reported that fact to Mr. Sacket? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Senator Pomerene. Did you report that fact to Mr. Sacket with respect to each of these names that you have furnished ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now. I presume I did. Senator Pomerene. What was your purpose in doing that? Mr. Edmonds. So that he would be acquainted with the conditions, as I was. Senator Pomerene. So that he could keep his accounts properly ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Do you know whether he made a memorandum at the time you would make these reports to him ? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not. Senator Pomerene. Do you know why these amounts do not appear separately in the account that was filed with the secretary of state? Mr. Edmonds. I have not the slightest idea. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any talk with him on the subject? Mr. Edmonds. Never. Senator Pomerene. When did you first discover there was nothing in the account indicating that these several amounts were for the personal compensation of the different managers? Mr. Edmonds. It never appealed to me that it had not been sepa- rated. I had never thought of it until you mentioned it here. Senator Pomerene. It occurs to you now ? Mr. Edmonds. There is no such separation of it that I have seen; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. You stated that occasionally you did make a memorandum and have it on your desk as to what your arrangement was with some of these men. Am I correct in that? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall — possibly. Senator Pomerene. That is the fact, is it not ? Mr. Edmonds. It would be probable that I had. I am not certain of any instance. Senator Pomerene. And Senator Stephenson did object to the amount that you were expending from time to time. Did it not occur to you that it might be of some importance to keep memoranda that you had made, so that you might render an account to him ? Mr. Edmonds. It did not occur to me, because I believed that to be done fully in the office. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. 15235 °— vol 1—11 20 306 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. In connection with the testimony which the wit- ness first gave to-day we will have the statement which he furnished marked and inserted in the record. (The statement referred to was marked “Exhibit Edmonds A,” and is in words and figures as follows:) Exhibit Edmonds A. [List of Items selected by Mr. Edmonds from Exhibit 49, p. 588, Jt. Tes.] Clark County, J. H. Frank $100. 00 City of Portage, J. H. Wells 200. 00 Medford, W. Phlughoeft 126.00 Rock County, W. G. Wheeler 600. 00 General, Henry Overbeck 71. 79 Portage County, J. D. Curran 250. 00 J. T. Sexton 50. 12 Racine County, J. R. Jones 100. 00 Barron County, A. T. Hulbert 100. 00 Oconto County, George Beyer 300. 00 Iowa County, J. N. Riece 50. 00 Middleton, D. F. Sherbel 32. 08 Fond du Lac County, R. H. Morse 250. 00 Distributing posters, M. P. Edwards 12. 00 General 220. 00 Eau Claire County, J. T. Joyce 50. 00 Advertising, H. H. Morgan 73. 00 Jefferson County, George Kispert 50. 00 Distributing posters, M. T. Park 15. 00 Appleton, C. C. Whalen 300. 00 Chippewa County, M. C. Ring 125. 00 General, D. H. Grady 15. 00 Racine County, J. R. Jones 150. 00 Advertising, C. E. Smith 56.00 General, W. E. Powell 44. 00 Ozaukee, C. O. Larson 254. 80 Richland County, N. L. James 200.00 Kenosha County, Fred Reinold 111. 05 Milwaukee County, R. J. White 150. 00 General 94. 02 Racine County, J. R. Jones 183. 50 Fond du Lac County, E. A. Morse 27. 00 New Medford, W. Pflughhoeft 125. 00 Appleton, G. A. Dettman 25. 00 Clark County, J. H. Frank 1 225. 00 Distributing posters, J. J. Knelling 14. 75 General 191. 85 General, Henry Overbeck 100. 00 Iron County, A. L. Osborn 154. 00 Advertising, Superior, Tidente 150. 00 Oconomowoc, A. N. Jones 150. 00 Items passed yesterday and not checked by me, though possibly accounted for during the examination : Advertising, J. M. Rice, page 594 $100. 00 Richland County, N. L. James 300. 00 Richland, G. L. Miner, page 593 300. 00 Calumet, Frank Ekland, page 593 25. 00 Ashland, D. G. Sampson, page 593 100. 00 Juneau County, J. T. Hanson, page 592 250. 00 Juneau County, J. T. Hanson, page 592 150.00 Baraboo, O. L. Gust, page 593 18. 00 The Chairman. We will also have offered in evidence Exhibit 49 in the State investigation, to which reference has been made throughout the testimony of this witness. E. A. EDMONDS. 307 Mr. Littlefield. That is the Exhibit 49 that appears in the pro- ceedings before the Wisconsin Legislature? The Chairman. Yes; from pages 588 to 612. I do not know that it is necessary to offer these at all, because the committee has the power to put them in the record without any formal offer. Mr. Littlefield. Of course by making a formal offer it gives us notice of what is going into the record. Senator Sutherland. I suggest that in copying the exhibit referred to, Exhibit 49, so called, the reporter keep distinct the original pag- ing of the different sheets, so that each page will be by itself. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, perhaps attention ought to be called to the fact that Exhibit 49 is in some instances different from anything like a literal and reasonably accurate copy of what was evidently filed by Mr. Sacket. We may go into that a little more in detail later. There are numerous instances where we have had to make changes during the testimony. I want to call attention also in reference to Exhibit Edmonds A, which has just been furnished this morning by Mr. Edmonds, to the fact that whoever copied it for him has succeeded in making a mis- take in it. An item is noted under date of August 31, in Exhibit 49, for instance, “Appleton, E. A. E., C. C. Wayland, $300.” In Exhibit Edmonds A, to which reference has just been made, the typewritten memorandum furnished by Mr. Edmonds this morning, that appears as “ C. C. Whalen.” The Chairman. This typewritten statement was furnished us by the witness, Mr. Edmonds, and of course if there are any obvious or manifest errors committed by his transcribing clerk they may be remedied. Mr. Littlefield. I intend to go over this in detail with him later. Senator Pomerene. If there are any particular corrections which should be made, I think they should be called to the attention of the committee later on. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I will do that; but, of course, the committee can readily understand that they may escape even our attention, with the multiplicity of all of these details. (Exhibit 49, referred to by the chairman, to be inserted as a part of the record, is as follows:) EXHIBIT 49. July 6 : E. H. McMahon, organizing $50. 00 J. C. Miller, organizing 50. 00 General expense, organizing 100.00 C. M. Ha mb right, organizing 50.00 July 13 : E. H. McMahon, organizing 50. 00 J. R. Keyes, organizing 25.00 July 18: Dane County, organizing 200. 00 General, organizing, Edmonds’s check 150. 00 C. M. Hambright, organizing 50. 00 July 20. T. J. Sexton, organizing, C. D. No. 93677 50. 00 July 21 : General, organizing 250. 00 E. H. McMahon, organizing 50. 00 J. R. Keyes, organizing : 50 00 July 22 : J. W. Wypszinski, organizing 50. 00 General, organizing ; E. A. E., stamps, $200 ; G. Peterson, $25 225. 00 308 E. A. EDMONDS. July 23. General, organizing, E. A. E $200. 00 July 24 : Advertising, No. 33308, T. F. Reynolds 100.00 R. Rowe, organizing, No. 33312 50. 00 J. C. Miller, organizing 50. 00 J. Wypszinski, organizing, E. A. E 25. 00 July 27 : Clark County, organizing, E. A. E., Dr. Frank 150. General, organizing, E. A. E., C. C. Wayland 100. July 28: C. M. Hambright, organizing, C. D. No. 93751 50. T. J. Sexton, organizing, C. D. No. 93750 50. Dane County, organizing, C. D. No. 93752, H. Lewis 200. July 30 : Columbia County, organizing, No. 33353, J. B. Marshall 50. F. Reinold, organizing, No. 33354 50. Ozaukee County, organizing, No. 33356, C. O. Larson! 25. E. H. McMahon, No. 33357 50. July 31 : J. R. Keyes, No. 33373 25. Richland County, cash, L. Bancroft 250. Manitowoc County, No. 33374, A. J. Weisman i_ 83. Aug. 4 : C. M. Hambright, C. D. No. 93823 50. T. J. Sexton, C. D. No. 93824 50. Advertising, C. D. No. 93828, J. L. Sturtevandt 100. Douglas County, C. D. No. 93825, S. L. Perrin 1, 000. La Crosse County, C. D. No. 93826, Geo. Gordon 1, 300. Vilas, Oneida, and Lincoln Counties, C. D. No. 93827, D. E. Riordan 1, 300. Polk, Barron, and Rusk Counties, C. D. No. 93829, L. B. Dresser. 300. Aug. 5: E. J. Rogers 50. Waupaca County, No. 33437, R. Rowe 35. General, No. 33436, C. C. Wayland 49. J. R. Keyes, No. 33435 25. Iowa County, No. 33434, L. H. Stevens 28. Kewaunee County 75. Aug. 6 : Milwaukee County, E. A. E., J. T. Kelley 500. Oconto, No. 33452, J. Livermore 50. Jackson, No. 33449, J. J. McGillivary 600. Ashland, No. 33448, Pat Dormady 50. Advertising, C. D., No. 93862, R. J. Shields 200. J. C. Miller, C. D., No. 93861 75. Aug. 7 : Kewaunee County 100. Racine County 100. General, No. 33468, C. C. Wayland 250. Advertising, No. 33459, M. C. Ring 170. Aug. 8: General, No. 33474, E. A. Edmonds 250. General 250. Outagamie County, No. 33469, G. Dettmann 50. Grant County, No. 33470, O. L. Gust 300. Manitowoc County, No. 33473, F. H. Gehbe 200. Dane County, No. 33486, A. R. Ames 350. J. R. Keyes, No. 33487 50. General 150. Aug. 10: Columbia and Adams Counties, No. 33506, C. H. Russell 200. Ozaukee County, No. 33495, C. O. Larson 140. Waushara County, No. 33493, R. H. Iiowe^ 19. General 150. Aug. 12: Browne County 250. General, cash, J. W. Stone 2, 500. 38 888 8888 388 88888 88 883888 888888 8888 88888888 8888 88 E. A. EDMONDS. 309 Aug. 12 — Continued. General, receipt, Hugo Franke La Crosse County, No. 33519, L. B. Cox T. J. Sexton, No. 33513 Fond du Lac County, No. 33518, C. D. Smith General, No. 33517, L. B. Dresser Aug. 13: Sheboygan County, No. 33527, A. O. Heyer Green County, No. 33528, R. A. Etter Brown County, No. 33529, Wm. Haslem Pierce County, No. 33530, O. O. Halls Rusk County, No. 33532, L. E. McGill Dane County, No. 33531, T. Purtell Washington County, No. 33537, W. Batz City of Superior, No. 33538, O. A. Berg Sheboygan County, No. 33546, E. A. Barber Rock County, No. 33547, C. B. Salmon Aug. 14: Manitowoc County, No. 33553, A. J. Weisman Dane County, No. 335554, A. R. Ames Racine County, No. 33560, J. R. Jones Oconto County, No. 33555, T. F. Reynolds T. J. Sexton, No. 33562 Vernon County, No. 33583, C. E. Morley Bayfield County Sawyer County Rusk and Chippewa Dunn, La Crosse, and Langlade Burnette, Washburn, and Vilas Polk, Barron, and Florence Advertising, No. 33600, W. C. Bratz Ozaukee County, No. 33601, C. O. Larson Sauk County, No. 33602, U. C. Kellar Trempealeau County, E. A. E General, E. A. E Aug. 18: General, E. A. E Waukesha County, No. 33615, W. O. Roberts Ashland County, No. 33624, T. I. Laughlin Price and Taylor Counties, No. 33623, A. C. Miller Sheboygan County, No. 33620, E. Voight Rusk County, No. 33619, L. E. McGill Dunn County, No. 33626, E. F. Scherbel J. C. Miller, No. 33627 Walworth and Kenosha, No. 33628, C. S. French Chippewa and Clark, No. 33629, M. C. Bing Waupaca County, No. 33632, R. H. Rowe Aug. 19 : General (E. A. E., $200) Dane County, No. 33626, H. H. Morgan Advertising, No. 33637, F. P. Lamoreaux Columbia, Marquette, and Adams Counties, No. 33638, C. H. Russell General, No. 33639, Hugh Lewis 1 Juneau County, No. 33640, J. T. Hanson Aug. 20: J. R. Keyes, No. 33677 Advertising, No. 33678, C. Bruderle Juneau County, No. 33681, J. T. Hanson Vernon, Richland, and Sauk Counties, No. 33687, G. W. Dart — Rock County, No. 33688, D. Atwood, jr Clark County, No. 33691 (J. H. Franke, $125) Ashland County, No. 33692, P. Dormady Oconto County, No. 33694, M. J. Funielle Ashland County — Advertising, No. 33720, F. W. Dangers. $100.00 100. 00 50. 00 50. 00 1, 800. 00 200. 00 200.00 200. 00 200.00 200.00 175. 00 100. 00 50. 00 300. 00 100. 00 52.28 50.00 350. 00 100.00 42. 46 500. 00 1 500. 00 1 500. 00 1 500. 00 1 500. 00 1 500. 00 1 500. 00 43.80 55.00 50.00 375.00 25.00 100. 00 150.00 400.00 500.00 76. 50 250.00 95. 74 50.00 800. 00 350.00 25. 40 300. 00 226.00 25.00 350. 00 160. 00 250.00 48.50 60.00 150.00 400. 00 50.00 140.00 50.00 100. 00 15.00 50.00 1 No. 33591. S. L. Perrin. 310 E. A. EDMONDS, Aug. 21 : Advertising, No. 33696, W. C. Bratz $21. 66 General receipt, Peter Deidrich 50. 00 General 227. 08 Waukesha County, No. 33716, Harry Bowmon 150.00 Trempealeau County, No. 33717, R. S. Cowie 150. 00 Douglas County, No. 33718, J. W. Howey 50. 00 Green County, No. 33719, R. A. Etter 100. 00 La Crosse County, No. 33721, George Gordon 200. 00 Manitowoc County, No. 33722, C. E. Brady 500.00 Columbia County, No. 33723, J. H. Wells 200. 00 Shawano, No. 33724, F. F. Dolan 400. 00 Aug. 22: E. J. Rogers, No. 33726 300.00 Grant County, No. 33727, L. H. Stevens 300. 00 Washington County, No. 33728, W. C. Bratz 100. 00 Sheboygan County, No. 33729, A. O. Heyer 300. 00 Ozaukee County 200. 00 Waupaca and Waushara, No. 33733, R. H. Rowe 300. 00 General, No. 33734, C. C. Wayland 500. 00 Brown County, No. 33725. L. A. Calking 300. 00 Kewaunee County, No. 20729, F. H. Eppling 200.00 General 300. 00 Aug. 24, Fond du Lac County ! 250. 00 Aug. 25: Richland County, No. 33762, G. L. Miner 300. 00 Richland County, No. 33764, N. L. James 300. 00 Rock County, No. 33765, D. Atwood 100. 00 Advertising, No. 33752, W. C. Bratz 43. 50 Waushara County, No. 33757, R. H. Rowe 21. 15 Taylor (?) County, No. 33753, J. Plivelich 35.00 Aug. 26: General, E. A. E. ($200, $175, and $25) 400. 00 Advertising 50. 00 Aug. 27 : Columbia County, No. 33802, J. B. Marshall 100. 00 Monroe County, No. 33815, E. W. Hayes 50. 00 La Crosse County, No. 33804, George Gordon 300. 00 Green Lake, Dun, and Fond du Lac, No. 33805, L. W. Thayer 600. 00 City of Hartford, No. 33801, H. H. Smith 100. 00 Green Bay, No. 33793, William Haslem 125. 00 Chippewa Falls, No. 33794, G. E. Doe 200.00 Baraboo, No. 33796, U. C. Keller 150. 00 Darlington, No. 33797, R. E. Orton 300. 00 Advertising, No. 33778, Max Sells 25. 00 City of Phillips, No. 33806, James Smith __ 100. 00 City of Fond du Lac, No. 33808, R. La Morse, $250 450. 00 General 75. 00 Neilsville 150. 00 Calumet County, No. 33817, Frank Eklund 25. 00 Waukesha County 50. 00 Aug. 28: City of Oconto, E. A. E., B. Beyer 100. 00 Advertising, E. A. E., W. B. Raymond 42. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, E. A. E., Wagner and Jennings. 50. 00 Baraboo, E. A. E., O. L. Gust 18.00 Ashland, No. 33826, D. G. Sampson 100. 00 Advertising, No. 33822, C. E. Brady 200. 00 Dane County, E. A. E., A. R. Ames 50. 00 Aug. 28 : Ozaukee County, No. 33825, C. O. Larson 50.00 City of Ashland, E. A. E., L. F. Johnstad 100. 00 Advertising, No. 33827, J. M. Reese 100. 00 Advertising, E. A. E., Rasmussen Publishing Co 200. 00 General (E. A. E., $15 and $20) 50.00 Advertising 150. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, E. A. E., A. W. Barber 15. 00 E. A. EDMONDS. 311 Aug. 28 — Continued. Jefferson County $200. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, No. 33800, H. Hilsenhoff 25. 00 Clark County, No. 33779, J. H. Frank 100. 00 Advertising 100. 00 City of Portage, No. 33781, J. H. Wells 200. 00 Medford, No. 33782, W. Pflughoefft 126. 00 Rock County, No. 33783, W. J. Wheeler 600. 00 General, No. 33784, Henry Overbeck 71. 79 Portage County, No. 33785, J. D. Curran 250. 00 Marshfield 35. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, No. 33787, Humphrey & Williams 25. 00 J. T. Sexton, No. 33775 50. 12 Aug. 29 : Dane County 50. 00 Racine County, E. A. E., J. R. Jones 100. 00 Barron County, E. A. E., A. T. Hulbert 100. 00 Oconto County, E. A. E., George Beyers 300. 00 Iowa County, E. A. E., J. N. Reese 50. 00 Middleton, E. A. E., E. F. Scherbel 52. 08 Aug. 31 : Fond du Lac County, E. A. E., R. H. Morse 250. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, E. A. E., M. P. Edwards 12. 00 General (E. A. E., $200, and H. Bowman, $20) 220. 00 Eau Claire County, E. A. E., J. T. Joyce 50. 00 Advertising, E. A. E., H. H. Morgan 73. 00 Jefferson County, E. A. E., George J. Kispert 50. 00 Distributing and hanging posters, E. A. E., M. T. Park 15. 00 Taylor County ( ?), No. 33854, J. Plivelich 40. 00 J. C. Miller, No. 33856 25.00 Appleton, E. A. E., C. C. Wayland 300. 00 Chippewa County (?), E. A. E., M. C. Ring 125.00 General one-half, E. A. E., D. H. Grady 15. 00 Racine County, E. A. E., J. R. Jones 150. 00 Advertising, E. A. E., C. E. Smith 56. 00 Eau Claire County, E. A. E., A. Johnstone 50. 00 Waupun, E. A. E., M. E. Rank 22. 50 Lancaster, E. A. E., L. H. Stevens 200. 00 Sept. 5 : E. H. McMahon, No. 33961, in full 300. 00 C. M. Hambright, No. 33968, in full 300. 00 J. C. Miller, No. 33970, in full 300. 00 Green Lake and Waushara Counties, No. 33939, C. C. Wellensgard- 250. 80 General, No. 33941, E. W. Hayes $46. 00 General, No. 33942, T. J. Sexton 60. 30 Geueral, No. 33949, J. Humphrey 60. 15 166. 45 J. R. Keyes, No. 33954 ; 52. 40 General, No. 33955, W. E. Powell 44. 00 Ozaukee, No. 33969, C. O. Larson 254. 80 Mauston, No. 33959, W. J. Fossbind«r 61. 00 Richland County, No. 34000, N. L. James 200. 00 Kenosha County, No. 34001, Fred Reinold 111. 05 Milwaukee County, cash, R. J. White 150. 00 General, No. 33953, E. A. Hamalrath, $13.75; No. 33965, L. B. Cox, $50 and $30.27 94. 02 Racine County, E. A. E., J. R. Jones 183. 50 Fond du Lac County, E. A. E., E. A. Morse 27. 00 New Medford, E. A. E., W. Pflughoeft 125.00 Picket, E. A. E., W. V. Jones 30. 00 Appleton, E. A. E., G. A. Dettman 25. 00 Clark County, E. A. E., J. H. Frank 225. 00 Sept. 11 : Distributing and hanging posters, E. A. E., J. J. Kfmelling 14. 75 General, E. A. E., Hoober, $64.85 ; William Halem, $47 ; Rock Flint, $80 191.85 312 E. A. EDMONDS. Sept. 15 : General, No. 34045, Henry Overbeck $100. 00 Iron County, No. 34050, A. L. Osbourne 154. 00 Winnebago County, No. 34048, O. T. Johnson 57. 76 Advertising, No. 33047, Sup. Tidende 150. 00 Oconomowoc (?), Waukesha, No. 33044, A. M. Jones 150.00 Total 46, 052. 29 EXPENSES IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY, AS REPORTED BY W. R. KNELL. BILLS PAID BY CHECK. Check No. 5. L. Breithaupt Printing Co., printing $36. 25 8. John Calahan, rent 25. 00 9. L. Breithaupt Printing Co 159. 20 10. Knell, Prengel & Steltz Co., cigars 29.50 11. Saxe Sign Co., signs 24. 35 12. H. H. West Co., stationery 11. 20 13. Streissguth-Petran Co., halftones and cuts 25. 65 14. Laudon Electrotyping Co., electros 14. 70 15. Remington Typewriter Co., rent 15. 00 16. Siekert & Baum Stationery Co., stationery 37. 50 17. The Standard Paper Co., case of envelopes 26. 24 18. William C. Kruel Co., rent 46.00 21. Standard Paper Co., case of envelopes 26. 24 22. David C. Owen, 25,000 2-cent stamps 500. 00 26. F. D. Schneider, distributing 60. 00 27. Keystone Printing Co., advertising 15. 00 29. Edw. Pepper, distributing 60. 00 30. Keystone Printing Co., 100,000 sample ballots 125.00 32. H. Sperber, advertising 25.00 83. Cream City Bill Posting Co., 50-20 sheet posters 130. 00 35. Seikert & Baum Stationery Co., stationery 5. 35 36. Standard Paper Co., case of envelopes 26. 24 37. Knell, Prengel & Steltz Co., cigars 29. 50 38. Tossberg Advertising Co., printing letters 25. 00 39. S. E. Tate Printing Co., cards 15. 00 40. Streissguth-Petran Co., cut * — . 75 41. Waukesha-Roxo Co., water 3.68 42. Schwaab Stamp & Seal Co., rubber stamps 2. 25 43. P. J. Sullivan, on account distributing 50.00 44. L. Breithaupt Printing Co., printing 199. 50 45. Juneau Press, Jewish cards 15. 00 47. D. C. Owen, 50,000 1-cent stamps 500. 00 48. D. C. Owen, 40,000 1-cent stamps 400. 00 50. John Calahan, rent 10.00 51. Rossberg Advertising Co., printing letters 7. 50 52. S. E. Tate Printing Co., Slavonic cards 6. 50 53. Benoy Printing Co., advertising 12. 00 54. Remington Typewriter Co., rent 12. 00 55. Waukesha-Roxo Co., water and ice 7. 10 My personal check: 612. Lee Merville, expense West Allis meeting 27. 50 615. Jones Island workers on primary day (2) 20.00 619. Rambler Garage Co., auto hire 43. 50 620. S. E. Tate Printing Co., Slavonic cards (second lot) 6.50 629. William C. Kruel Co., 1 chair claimed lost 2. 25 633. Knell, Prengel & Steltz Co., cigars 13. 00 639. Wisconsin Telephone Co., rental, etc 32. 10 2, 864. 05 CASH DISBURSEMENTS. July 1, expense to Wausau and return, 2 persons 21.60 July 2, expense on account of organization 7.65 July 3, rent of headquarters, 2 months 150. 00 July 4, expense on account of organization 9. 15 E. A. EDMONDS. 313 July 9, expense on account of organization $3. 75 July 10, expense on account of organization 15. 20 July 11, expense on account of organization 9. 65 July 12, expense on account of organization 14. 90 July 13 : Expense on account of organization 1. 00 Expense on account of organization 5. 60 July 14 : Window screens 1- 75 Expense on account of organization 10. 40 Wages to help, week ending July 11 20. 00 Expense on account of organization 5. 80 July 15: Expense 1 man to attend colored picnic 5. 00 Expense on account of organization 18. 70 July 16: Hammer and screw driver, etc 1. 36 Guse, services 2. 00 Expense on account of organization 7. 55 I , 000 postage stamps 20. 00 Expense on account of organization 9. 25 July 17, expense on account of organization 17. 85 July 18, expense on account of organization 12. 05 July 19, expense on account of organization 18. 35 July 20, expense on account of organization 6. 55 July 21 : Expense on account of organization 4. 60 Expense on account of organization 16. 40 The Fowler Towel Supply Co 1. 00 July 22 : Livery hire 2. 00 Expense on account of organization 12. 35 Wages, week ending July 18 65. 55 July 23 : Livery hire 2. 50 Tacks, etc 1. 10 Expense on account of organization 13. 55 July 24 : Expense on account of organization 11. 70 Boy omitted from last pay roll 5. 00 Tickets for Catholic Forester picnic 1. 00 Tickets for West Allis Fireman’s Tournament 1. 00 July 25 : One man to Allis-Chalmers’s picnic at Waukesha 10.00 Livery hire 5. 00 One man to picnic of colored church 5. 00 Expense on account of organization 21. 65 Expense on account of organization in towns 34. 10 July 27 : Roberts’s expense looking up Welsh voters . 75 Car tickets 1. 00 Pay roll, week ending July 25 124. 00 Expense on account of organization 15. 70 July 28 : J. F. Haunty, distributing 6. 00 Expense on account of organization 15. 10 July 29 : Expense on account of organization 8. 65 Expense obtaining signatures to nomination papers 184. 20 500 2-cent stamps : 10. 00 Expense on account of organization 14. 50 Wauwatosa poll lists (typewritten) 10.00 July 30 : Livery hire (4 days) 10.00 Expense checking poll lists of city of Milwaukee 130. 00 Expense on account of organization 13. 75 314 E. A. EDMONDS, July 31 : One man at Welsh picnic Street car tickets Expense cn account of organization Aug. 1, expense on account of organization Aug. 2, expense on account of organization Aug. 3 : Pay roll, week ending Aug. 1 Expense on account of organization Aug. 4 : Expense to McMahon Hammer, etc Expense to Cohen Expense on account of organization Aug. 5 : Expense billing and organizing town of Greenfield. Expense to Cohen and others Expense on account of organization Aug. 6 : Expense on account of organization Expense to one toucher Aug. 7, expense on account of organization Aug, 8, expense on account of organization Aug. 9: Expense on account or organization Expense to McMahon Aug. 10: Pay roll, week ending Aug. 8 Services by National Quartette Expense on account of organization Aug. 11 : Copying 18 ward poll lists Expense to H. P. K. work in twenty-third ward— Expense on account of organization Aug. 12 : City directory Expense on account of organization Aug. 13 : Expense to F. S., — ward Expense to old soldier for frame Livery hire Expense colored voters’ meeting Expense on account of organization Aug. 14 : Expense to Roberts looking up Welsh voters Expense on account of organization Touches by various lesser lights Aug. 15 : Expressman taking mail to post office Expense on account of organization Aug. 16, expense on account of organization Aug. 17 : Telephone calls Expense on account of organization Pay roll, week ending Aug. 15 Aug. 18 : Auto hire Tickets to picnic of railway trainmen Expense on account of organization Aug. 19, expense on account of organization Aug. 20 : Tickets to picnic of electrical workers’ union — Numerous and various touches Expense on account of organization $ 5.00 1.00 7. 00 13. 85 7. 10 143. 50 6. 50 1.50 3. 00 1.50 9.40 43. 95 6. 50 11. 40 7 . 35 .50 11. 45 17. 45 32. 10 1. 35 153.50 10.00 7.00 10. 00 4.00 11. 65 5. 00 17.30 2.00 5. 00 7. 50 4.00 11. 30 2. 00 16. 20 3. 50 .75 17. 40 23. 15 1. 50 19. 10 142. 50 5. 50 2. 00 14. 65 21.35 5. 00 17.00 8. 45 E. A. EDMONDS. 315 Aug. 21 : Hall rent West Allis meeting $15. 00 Expense with delegation of railway employees 5. 40 Expense on account of organization 22. 10 Aug. 22 : Livery hire 5. 00 Expense, two men at Jewish picnic 6 . 00 Expense on account of organization 14. 70 Aug. 23 : Expense, trip through Ghetto (3 men) 35.00 Livery hire 2.00 Tickets for benevolent society 2. 00 Expressman, hauling mail 2. 50 Expense, to McMahon 2. 05 Expense on account of organization 9. 30 Aug. 24 : Pay roll, week ending Aug. 22 174. 85 Expense, picnic at Waukesha, street railway employees 20. 00 Tickets, Company D, Wisconsin National Guard 10. 00 Additional pay roll, week ending Aug. 22 3. 40 Advertising, colored men’s papers 5. 00 Services, National Quartette (various occasions) 16.00 Expense on account of organization 32. 75 Aug. 25 : Touch by two old soldiers 2.00 Touch by two “heelers” 2.00 Expense on account of organization 17. 40 Aug. 26 : Advertising, bartenders’ program 4. 00 Expense on account of organization 22. 30 Aug. 27, expense on account of organization 18. 70 Aug. 29, expense on account of organization 17. 65 Aug. 30 : Expense on account of organization 31. 15 Tickets, game of Milwaukee Baseball League 2. 00 Expense with Phoenix and Liberty Clubs 10. 00 Three citizenship papers 3 . 00 Expense, to McMahon 4. 00 Two teams, primary days, town of Greenfield 12. 00 One team, primary day, town of Wauwatosa 7.00 Expense, to ward and town managers, including conveyances, primary-day workers, etc__ 1 5 , 833. 00 Expense, to Greek manager and primary-day workers 110. 00 Expense, to Hebrew manager and primary-day workers 45. 00 P. J. Sullivan, balance, distributing 70.00 Final pay roll 155. 50 Advertising, Italian paper 10. 00 Towell Brothers, advertising 34 . 85 Patterson Typewriter Co., letters, etc 11S. 45 Advertising in colored men’s paper 5 . 00 E. H. Daniels & Co., tacks, etc 1 . 20 Seikert & Baum Stationery Co 6 . 20 Fowler Towel Supply Co 1 . 00 Advertising, aldermanic ball game program 15. 00 Humphrey, Welsh primary-day workers (not in total) 20.00 Auto to West Allis meeting (Spehn) 8 . 00 ' Wilson Detective Agency, watching mail (?) 12.00 Charles S. McGinn, distributing 75 . 00 Keystone Printing Co., printing, etc 60. 75 9, 239. 16 1 This sum was not expended in one day, but was gradually paid out to the various ward managers as the work progressed. 316 E. A. EDMONDS. Recapitulation. Amount disbursed in cash $9, 239. 16 Amount disbursed by check 2, 864. 05 12, 103. 21 Credits — Stamps returned to postmaster $100. 00 Stamps on hand 17. 80 Envelopes on hand, 20£M _ 12. 30 Cigars on hand 6. 50 L. Breithaupt Printing Co 60. 00 Other supplies and material on hand and useable ( estimated ) 20. 00 216. 60 Actual and net amount disbursed 11, 886. 61 Amount received 11, 600. 00 Disbursements in excess of receiptes 286. 61 Aug. 5: Pay of help and office expense from July 1 1, 101. 91 Office 65. 50 Pay roll 211. 40 Aug. 10, office 132.00 Aug. 14, office 161. 15 Aug. 15, pay roll 362. 50 Aug. 18, office—.. 146. 25 Aug. 22: Office 168. 60 Pay roll 387. 80 Aug. 25, office 159. 95 Aug. 28: Office 161. 15 Pay roll 365. 85 Aug. 29, pay roll 142. 75 Aug. 31, office 104. 75 Sept. 5 : Office 130. 35 Pay roll 42. 00 Office 230. 07 Total 4, 074. 38 TELEPHONE. July 1 to Aug. 4 Aug. 5 Aug. 18 Aug. 18 Aug. 19 Aug. 19, No. 33645 Aug. 24 Aug. 24 Sept. 5, No. 33937 Sept. 5 Sept. 5 4. 65 .30 1. 60 1. 05 2. 25 73. 55 .80 .40 156.40 14. 65 .35 256. 00 From Aug. 1 to Sept. 8. Aug. 5 Aug. 13 Aug. 19 7. 45 .85 1.50 1. 85 TELEGRAPH EXPENSES. E. A. EDMONDS. 317 Aug. 24 $0. 30 Sept. 5, Western Union Telegraph Co., No. 33936 8. 53 Sept. 9, sundry telegrams 12. 85 Sept. 18, Western Union Telegraph Co., No. 33665 3. 67 37.00 POSTAGE STAMPS. From July 1 to Aug. 4, cash 1, 914. 00 Aug. 5, cash 200. 00 Aug. 7, cash 200. 00 Aug. 8, cash 200. 00 Aug. 10, cash 200.00 Aug. 10, cash 200. 00 Aug. 12, cash 400. 00 Aug. 11, cash 200.00 Aug. 13, cash 200. 00 Aug. 14, cash 600. 00 Aug. 15, cash 200. 00 Aug. 17, cash 200. 00 Aug. 18, cash 200. 00 Aug. 19, cash 400. 00 Aug. 20, cash 800. 00 Aug. 22, cash 600. 00 Aug. 24, cash 805. 00 Aug. 27, cash 1, 200. 00 Aug. 26, cash 400. 00 Aug. 25, cash 200. 00 Aug. 28, cash 200. 00 Aug. 26, cash 300. 00 9, 819. 00 NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING. Aug. 1: Sundry advertising, R., E. B. Usher 205. 55 Sundry advertising, R., E. B. Usher 94. 55 Sundry advertising, R., E. B. Usher 107. 50 Sundry advertising, R., E. B. Usher 92. 30 Minneapolis Tidende, C. D., No. 93753 563. 79 H. Rasmussen, cash 333. 33 Sundry advertising, No. 33375, Usher 73. 05 Sundry advertising, No. 33387, Usher 250. 70 Aug. 7, Neillsville Times. No. 33461 50. 00 Aug. 8, Rasmussen Publishing Co., cash 333. 33 Aug. 13, Rustone, No. 33548 25. 00 Aug. 15: Ranger, No. 33580 50. 00 Smith, Oconto Falls, No. 33581 100.00 Aug. 18: Rasmussen Publishing Co., cash 333. 34 Bailey, No. 33625 200. 00 Aug. 19: Wisconsin Agriculturist, No. 33646 63.00 Superior Tidende, No. 33654 75. 00 Minneapolis Tidende, No. 33658 1, 000. 00 Aug. 22, the Koch Advertising Agency, No. 33755 302. 91 Aug. 26, the Koch Advertising Agency, No. 33772 3, 000. 00 Aug. Cl, Narden Tribune, No. 33857 20.00 Sept. 15, Daily Jewish Courier, No. 33908 150. 00 Sept. 5: The Kuryer Publishing Co., No. 33915 250. 00 Wisconsin Agriculturist, No. 33934 475. 44 Minneapolis Tidende, No. 33938 24.00 Richland Rustic, No. 33923 12. 90 Marshfield Times, No. 33951 15. 00 River Falls Times, No. 33956 14. 70 318 E. A. EDMONDS. Sept. 14 : Koch Advertising Agency, No. 34027 $3, 304. 17 Minneapolis Journal, No. 34030 100. 00 Minneapolis Tidende, No. 34029 540. 00 Aug. 10, sundry advertising, No. 33496, Usher 5. 00 Aug. 24, sundry advertising, R., Usher 100. 00 Aug. 25, sundry advertising, No. 33756, Usher 4. 00 Sept. 14, sundry advertising, No. 34026 156. 40 Aug. 1, sundry newspapers 270. 00 Aug. 22, Waldbote 1. 80 12, 696. 76 SUNDRY BILLS. July 31: Wisconsin Agriculturist, R 760. 25 Wisconsin Agriculturist, C. D., No. 93676 362. 42 Evening Wisconsin, No. 33255 419. 50 Kreul Co., No. 33256 140.49 Underwood Typewriter Co., No. 33257 4.00 C. C. Patterson, No. 33258 46. 50 Fowler Manufacturing Co., No. 33259 6. 00 Saxe Sign Co., No. 33260 1. 50 Capital Reliance S. & S. Co., No. 33261 3. 85 Wells Power Co., No. 33262 . 88 Wells Building Co., No. 33263 90. 88 Telephone company, No. 33264 35. 00 Standard Paper Co., No. 33265 93. 75 Sickert & Baum, No. 33266 *5. 40 West Co., No. 33267 4. 50 Austin 6. 85 Whitehead & Hoague, N. D., No. 343069 502. 25 C. C. Patterson, No. 33399 31. 25 A. A. Brown, No. 33398 3. 75 Telephone Co., No. 33397 1. 00 Hammersmith, No. 33396 5. 75 Sullivan Printing Co., No. 33395 4. 00 Smith Premier Co., No. 33394 6. 40 Standard Paper Co., No. 33393 16. 85 Van de Kamp & Lorberter, No. 33392 290. 00 Kreul Co., No. 33391 27. 30 Siekert & Baum, No. 33390 20. 00 Wisconsin Agriculturist, C. D. No. 93790 338. 52 Aug. 10, T. H. Coldner, No. 33494 14. 00 Aug. 15, Johnson 24. 50 Aug. 18, E. F. Smith, No. 33621 28. 00 Aug. 19: H. M. Allen, No. 33641 12. 55 L. M. Lederer, No. 33642 42. 00 L. Breithaupt, No. 33643 660. 00 Nee Ska Ra, No. 33644 7. 25 Yahr & Lange, No. 33647 4. 75 H. J. Paas, No. 33648 10. 00 L. A. Meyer, No. 33649 9. 00 Milwaukee Drug Co., No. 33650 3. 83 A. A. Brown, No. 33651 28. 00 H. H. West Co., No. 33652 20. 80 John V. Deum, No. 33653 5. 00 Fowler Manufacturing Co., No. 33655 1. 50 Free Press, No. 33656 • 45 C. C. Patterson, No. 33657 14. 75 Keystone Printing Co., No. 33659 53. 00 Mandel Engraving Co., No. 33660 278. 35 Standard Paper Co., No. 33661 3. 55 Meyers News Bureau, No. 33362 49. 40 Wells Building Co., No. 33663 105. 00 Underwood Typewriter Co., No. 33664 4. 00 Gimbel Bros., No. 33666 .45 E. A. EDMONDS. 319 Aug. 19 — Continued. G. V. Bush, N. D. No. 343238 $12. 00 Van de Kamp & Larberter, No. 33667 775. 50 Bowron & Murray Co., No. 33668 22. 40 Kreul Co., No. 33669 118. 25 Whithead & Hoag, N. D. No. 343239 110. 10 Sickert & Baum, No 33670 35. 32 L. S. Jackson, No. 33671 1. 00 Aug. 25 : Anderson Printing Co., No. 33754 147. 00 Staii ffu cher, No. 33758 9. 50 The Courier Printing Co., No. 33759 30. 00 Aug. 26 : Herald Printing Co., No. 33774 17. 50 N. Jeray, No. 33855 11. 00 Sept. 5 : H. M. Allen, No. 33904 11. 75 A. A. Brown, No. 33905 44. 50 Cream City Bill Posting Co., No. 33906 351. 00 Dever Bros., No. 33907 95. 73 Fowler Manufacturing Co., 33909 . 75 T. J. A. Griffiths, No. 33910 60. 00 A. A. Hume, No. 33911 11. 10 C. B. Henschel, No. 33912 200. 00 Keystone Printing Co., No. 33913 278. 00 Kreul Co., No. 33914 7. 50 I. N. Lederer, No. 33916 18. 75 Whitehead & Hoag, No. 33935 356. 97 L. A. Meyer Co., No. 33917 . 75 Mandel Engraving Co., No. 33918 65. 70 Meyers News Service Co., No. 33919 6. 60 Nee Ska Ra, No. 33924 8. 00 Parsons Printing Co., No. 33921 42. 50 Hotel Pfister (cigars), No. 33922 70.70 Siekert & Baum, No. 33925 14. 55 S. E. Tate Printing Co., No. 33926 43. 25 Underwood Typewriter Co., No. 33928 4. 00 Union R. & C. Co., No. 33929 3. 00 Van de Kamp & Larberter, No. 33930 641. 15 Wells Building Co., No. 33931 12. 80 Wells Power Co., No. 33932 16. 34 West Side Printing Co., No. 33933 3. 50 C. A. Eastman, No. 33940 7. 50 S. E. Tate Printing Co., No. 33947 6. 50 Kewaunee Printing Co., No. 33948 15. 00 Fond du Lac County names, No. 33950, H. T. Sackett 60. 00 Sundry advertising, cash 16. 75 P. B. Haver Printing Co., No. 33957 72. 00 Smith Premier Co., No. 33962 6. 50 Sundries (part No. 33963, Wells Co., $3.26) 210.62 8, 662. 28 CIRCULATING NOMINATION PAPERS. Aug. 8: V. H. Janda, No. 33475 3. 55 F. Eklund, No. 33476 7. 56 T. Salverson, No. 33477 6. 00 L. A. Weikel, No. 33478 2.00 T. C. Myer, No. 33479 3.00 S. A. Holdridge, No. 33480 (not cashed) .25 W. F. Frook, No. 33481 5. 00 O. D. Brace, No. 33482 3. 00 J. P. Mallory, No. 33483 1. 00 Van Houtan, No. 33049 9. 50 40. 86 320 E. A. EDMONDS, EXPRESS. Aug. 13, American, No. 33544 $16. 86 Aug. 14. United States,- No. 33550 22. 90 Aug. 20, United States, No. 33682 31. 28 Aug. 25: American, No. 33763 40. 70 United States, No. 33760 6.85 Aug. 28: United States, No. 33823 49. 86 American, No. 33859 8. 38 Sept. 5: American, No. 33903 10.42 United States, No. 33927 48.62 235. 87 SUNDRIES, SMALL. July 7 : Traveling expenses 22. 63 Sundries 1. 50 Miller 6. 75 July 8: Sundries 4. 30 Sundries 8. 25 Traveling expenses ^ 22. 40 Sundries 2. 50 Sundries 1. (X Rowe, half 3. 5' * Cigars 10.75 Traveling expenses 11.30 July 10: Sundries 9. 20 Kenosha 9. 50 Traveling expenses , 17.05 July 20, Sundries 6. 30 July 21, Beach 6. 15 July 23, Johnson 12. 50 July 24 : Sundries 4. 30 Reilly 15. 00 Traveling expenses 4. 60 Sundries 33.00 July 25: Sundries 7. 01 Madison 26. 76 Sundries . 15 July 31, Sundermann 2.35 Aug. 1: Sundries 11. 45 Sundries 18. 95 Traveling expenses 11. 95 Sundries 1. 30 Aug. 5, Sundries 4.20 Aug. 6: Ashland 27. 75 Sundries 11. 25 Aug. 10: Traveling expenses 11. 05 Meyer 3. 00 Aug. 13, Eklund, No. 33545 1. 00 Aug. 14: Traveling expenses, No. 33551 (Lambeck) 10.95 Coblentz, No. 33552 10.00 Aug. 17 : F. R. Huth, No. 33561 5. 00 Howe 2. 00 E. A. EDMONDS, 321 Aug. 18, Livery $2. 00 Sundries 8. 40 Pfister (cigars) 4.40 Sundries 1. 50 Traveling expenses, No. 33622 (Lambeck) 28. 04 Northup, No. 33631 25. 00 Aug. 19, sundries 9. 30 Aug. 20: Langemark (2 checks, No. 336S0 and No. 33676) 5.00 Bradley, No. 33684 5.00 O’Brien, No. 33690 15. 00 Traveling expenses 29.90 Aug. 22: Traveling expenses 38. 66 McDonald, No. 33751 2. 50 Traveling expenses 50. 00 Aug. 24: Hotel Meyer, Janesville , 17. 50 Railway fare 11. 20 Cigars 4. 00 Sundries 12. 25 Cigars 2. 00 Sundries 16. 00 Traveling expenses G. 05 Aug. 25, Thompson, No. 33761 7. 00 Aug. 27, Johnson 1. 25 Sept. 5: Traveling expenses 19. 90 Sundries 20. 00 Berlin A. & I. Assn., No. 33946 150. 00 Malone, No. 33943 3. 00 Sundries, No. 33944 (Lambeck) 33.65 Waters, No. 33945 2.00 Traveling expenses 42. 45 Hill 25. 00 Traveling expenses 31. 40 O’Neill 22. 50 Sundries : 12. 70 Sept. 6, sundries 5. 40 Sept. 8, sundries 8. 00 Sept. 15: Wright Drug Co., No. 34046 5. 00 Traveling expenses 113.14 Sundry expenses 250. 00 Total 1, 420. 63 Oct. 16: Hotel bills 10. 70 J. B. Beach, No. 34274 150. 00 Republican Farmer, No. 34275 10. 25 L. E. Evans, No. 34276 79. 75 Platteville Journal, No. 34277 1. 50 Republican Observer, No. 34278 3. 25 Remington Co., No. 34279 4. 00 Wells Power Co., No. 34280 . 35 Sentinel Co., No. 34281 1.05 Wisconsin Telephone Co., No. 34282 105. 39 J. R. Grey, No. 34283 52. 75 E. H. Hamelrath, No. 34284 13. 00 W. Wilson, No. 34285 70. 00 Evening Wisconsin, No. 34286 . 50 E. J. Rogers, No. 34287 131. 79 E. J. Kempf, No. 34288 42. 75 W. E. Powell, No. 34289 50. 00 Saxe Sign Co., No. 34290 1. 50 T. J. Dexton, No. 34291 171. 10 15235°— vol 1—11 21 322 E. A. EDMONDS. Oct. 16— Continued. Register and Friend, No. 34293 $2. 80 J. B. Marshall, No. 34294 65. 00 Marion Advertiser, No. 34295 25.00 Randolph Advance, No. 34296 2.38 R. Rowe, No. 34287 48. 34 Sun Republic, No. 34298 20. 00 J. Smith. No. 34299 112. 50 A. Hudson, No. 34300 6. 50 M. Northup, No. 34301 20. 00 Tate Printing Co., No. 34382 6.50 F. R. Huth, No. 34303 60. 00 G. Arnett, No. 34304 30. 00 Kewaunee Printing Co., No. 34305 76. 20 Wisconsin Agriculturist, No. 34306 420. 21 Nee Ska Ra, No. 34307 6. 00 Wells Power Co., No. 34308 17. 05 Anderson Publishing Co., No. 34309 266. 20 Wayne Smith, No. 34358 75. 00 F. Parsons, No. 34359 6. 00 L. Barney, No. 34360 2. 00 C. D. Smith, No. 34362 112. 00 J. Ratz, No. 34361 1. 50 O. L. Gust, No. 34373 60. 00 Lew Ryerson, No. 34372 5. 00 American Citizen, cash 5.00 W. R. Knell, No. 34357 286. 61 Cary, Upham & Black, R 57. 39 F. H. Bulger, No. 34327 25.00 Catholic Sentinel, No. 34374 10.00 L. Barney, No. 34422 3.00 Western Union, No. 34428 10. 57 Sacket, No. 34429 42.00 L. H. Stevens, No. 34591 200. 00 Sundries 203. 27 Total 3, 188. 65 SUMMARY. General expenses in organizing State 46, 052. 29 Milwaukee County 11, 600. 00 Office expense 4, 074. 38 Telephone 256. 00 Telegraph 37.00 Postage stamps 9, 819. 00 Newspaper advertising 12, 696. 76 Sundry bills 8, 662. 28 Nomination papers 40. 86 Express bills 235. 87 Sundry, small 1, 420. 63 Bills after Sept. 1 3, 188. 65 Total 98, 083. 72 The Chairman. Has counsel before him the report that was used by Senator Sutherland in his examination of the witness ? Mr. Littlefield. No. I do not think that I care to spend anytime on that. Mr. Black tells me that he has in his office a copy of this particular pamphlet, to which the chairman referred. The Chairman. I think the record had better show that the report submitted to the Wisconsin Legislature on March 18, from which Senator Sutherland has read, came with the papers from the gov- ernor of the State of Wisconsin to the United States Senate, and passed into my hands as chairman of the subcommittee in the ordi- nary course of reference. That will give it a status in the record. E. A. EDMONDS. 323 Mr. Littlefield. That identifies it. Senator Pomerene. I think, also, that the following memorandum should be furnished as a part of the examination, the memorandum being furnished by Mr. Edmonds, showing the names of the local managers with whom he had arrangements for special compensation, together with the amount of that compensation, according to his best recollection. (The paper referred to was marked “ Exhibit Edmonds B,” and is as follows:) Exhibit Edmonds B. Names. Page. Recollec- tion as to recompense Names. Page. Recollec- tion as to recompense E. H. McMahon 588 i $100 Dr. Frank 589 $200 J. C. Miller 588 i 100 C. O. Larson 589 50 C. M. Hambright 588 UOO J. T. Kelley 590 2 500 J. R. Keyes 588 i 50 Wm. Haslem 590 UOO T. J. Sexton 588 1100 R. H. Morse 590 100 A. R. Ames 589 200 U. C. Kellar 591 1100 J. W. Wypszinski 589 50 W. Pflughoefft . 594 50 i Per month. 2 Speeches. Others may have asked for and received compensation, but these are all have any recollection of. E. A. Edmonds. I The Chairman. The record will also contain the statement of elec- tion expenses filed under the law on behalf of Isaac Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. I think that is already in. The Chairman. Then the record will contain it. It will not be necessary, of course, to put it in twice. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Edmonds, your attention has just been called to the fact that at one time shortly prior to the payment of the $30,000 by Senator Stephenson there were more or less conferences between yourself and the other managers with the Senator with ref- erence to the contribution of additional funds for carrying on the campaign. Be kind enough to state to the committee whether or not at that time there was not a period of something like 10 days when the Senator’s campaign was practically at a standstill, awaiting his determination whether he would go on and furnish additional funds to enable you to further prosecute it. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And during this period of 10 days had you then, or at the beginning of this period of 10 days, substantially exhausted the funds at the disposal of Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve? I do not say exhausted, but substantially exhausted. Mr. Edmonds. At the earliest date of those 10 days ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was the Senator informed that unless addi- tional funds were furnished by him the campaign would come prac- tically to a standstill ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. He was informed that the campaign would come to a standstill so far as the expenditure of money was con- cerned, and these men with whom I had contracted and agreed with for work would be called in. As the matter was stated, the cam- paign would end. 324 E. A. EDMUNDS. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator, as I understand it, did very vig- orously object to the amount of money that the campaign was cost- ing him ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You are able to state that the Senator felt, as the result of your conference during this period of 10 days, that too much money was being expended ? Mr. Edmonds. I believed he did. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that the Senator made any specific criticism as to the manner in which the money was being expended? Mr. Edmonds. He did not to me. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator’s position was, without going into details, that the whole campaign up to date had cost him more than he expected? Mr. Edmonds. It was. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know that the Senator’s original con- templation was that the campaign would not cost him more than probably $30,000 or thereabouts? Mr. Edmonds. I have not any idea. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Littlefield, I would suggest to you that the testimony w T ould be perhaps more valuable if you did not lead the witness quite so much. Mr. Littlefield. I am cross-examining him. Senator Sutherland. I understand that. However, you may take your own course about it. Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate the suggestion made by the Sen- ator. Senator Sutherland. I think you realize that the testimony might be more valuable if the witness were not led quite so much. Mr. Littlefield. I was proceeding upon the hypothesis that I was conducting the ordinary cross-examination. Of course, I appre- ciate that the witness was our manager, and also appreciate the sug- gestion of the Senator. Mr. Edmonds, state whether or not in any of your conferences with Senator Stephenson, from the time when he first made the arrangement with you in the latter part of June or during this period of the 10 days’ practical suspension of work, he said anything to you with reference to his original expectation as to the cost of the campaign. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I think he at no time ever told me what he expected to spend in the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. What was the fact during these 10 days when you were awaiting his decision ? During that period did you, or did you not, make any new contracts with new managers? Mr. Edmonds. My judgment is that during the earlier days 1 did, or attempted to do so, but possibly not during the whole period of 10 days; but the campaign was at a standstill. I was unable to determine whether we could go on with the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. What was the fact about men being in the field, to whom the sums to be paid for compensation and expenses had not been advanced? Were there men of that character at work in the field ? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. 15. A. EDMONDS. 325 Mr. Littlefield. Had you any way of making good your engage- ments with them, unless Senator Stephenson advanced additional money ? Mr. Edmonds. None; unless I paid it myself. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, I mean outside of your own personal money. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How frequently was the question as to whether or not additional money should be advanced by the Senator dis- cussed between you and the Senator in this period of 10 days? Mr. Edmonds. During this period of 10 days I do not think at all, until I wrote him a letter. Mr. Littlefield. Explaining the situation? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you hear from the Senator in relation to the letter, by phone or otherwise? Mr. Edmonds. By phone, and confirmed by letter, to my best recollection. Mr. Littlefield. Was that at the expiration of the period of 10 days? Mr. Edmonds. To which I referred, yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it was at that time that the Senator finally determined to go on with the campaign and furnish the additional funds. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know as to that. I know that he sent the $30,000. Mr. Littlefield. Was that the time when his determination was indicated to you? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds, you were about to or did state a particular sum? Mr. Edmonds. I referred to t? e $30,000. Mr. Littlefield. This period of 10 days ended substantially with the receipt of the $30,000 check ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did this check go to Mr. Puelicher, or did it come direct to you? Mr. Edmonds. It did not come to me. Senator Sutherland. There was a payment on July 30 of $10,000, and then on August 7 of $30,000, and on the 20th of $15,000. Mr. Littlefield. There was a period of practically 10 days. I do not know the exact amounts. When I say “ 10 days,” I do not mean that you are confined to just 10 days, but a period of approximately that amount of time. As I understand it, the $30,000 check came to you after a period of something like 10 days, more or less, during which you were awaiting the receipt of funds from the Senator ? Mr. Edmonds. That statement is correct, with the exception of the fact that it came to the bank, and not to me. Mr. Littlefield. That is what I mean. Is it a fact that during that period the Senator was considering this question as to whether he would have the campaign continued ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. The matter had been put up to him, had it not ? Mr. Edmonds. Not by me. 326 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. Do you not know that it had been put up to him by somebody? Mr. Edmonds. I believe it to have been ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. By Mr. Puelicher, I suppose? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And your understanding of the situation is that he took about that period of time to consider it ? Mr. Edmonds. As to that I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. Your knowledge is that something like 10 days elapsed before he finally decided to go on ? Mr. Edmonds. My knowledge is that during a period of about 10 days we were short of funds, and the campaign lapsed. Mr. Littlefield. Is it not also your knowledge that the Senator’s attention was called to the fact about 10 days before he paid in the $30,000? Mr. Edmonds. My belief is so, but not my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to ascertain, if I can, a little more in detail about this matter of organizing. You have frequently stated, in answer to inquiries, that money was placed in the hands of various people by you for organization? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not that term “ organ- ization,” as you call it, has a reasonably well-defined and well- understood meaning among the men with whom you were dealing, from a political point of view? Mr. Edmonds. I believe it has. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not the compensation and expenses of managers who were to take charge of the campaign in particular localities were, or were not, part of an organizing ex- pense, according to your understanding? Mr. Edmonds. They were. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not the securing of signatures to petitions, which petitions were to be the basis of the right of Senator Stephenson to enter the primary as a candidate, prior to the 30 days preceding the date of the election, was, or was not, an organizing expense, according to your understanding of the term “ organizing ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say it was ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And when I say, “ according to your understand- ing of the term,” I would be glad to have you to keep in mind that it applies to all the questions that I am about to put along that line, and to the sense in which you have used the term as a witness. Do I make myself clear? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. Be kind enough to state whether or not the ex- pense of circulating, distributing, and posting advertising matter, lithographs, and posters in the various localities was or not, in your understanding, a proper organizing expense. Mr. Edmonds. That was a proper organizing expense. Mr. Littlefield. Do you include that when you say that you au- thorized men to do organizing ? Mr. Edmonds. I do. Mr. Littlefield. Do you include that as an item ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 327 Mr. Littlefield. Be kind enough to state whether or not campaign meetings, sums paid to speakers, and for the renting of halls and the hiring of bands were within the sense in which you use the term “ organizing ” a proper organizing expense. Mr. Edmonds. I should consider that a legitimate expense. Mr. Littlefield. Do you include that in the term ? Mr. Edmonds. I do. Mr. Littlefield. Were there some campaign meetings in the in- terest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. Mr. Littlefield. At which speeches were made ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. Mr. Littlefield. Can you approximate the number ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not. They were under the direction of the local managers. Mr. Littlefield. I understand they were under the direction of local men. Would you say that there were 25? Mr. Edmonds. No; I would not make a statement as to the amount. Mr. Littlefield. Wherever there were campaign meetings was there an expense of hiring halls and bands? Mr. Edmonds. That I do not know, because it was entirely in the hands of the local managers. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not your attention at any time was called to the fact that a local band had been employed by repre- sentatives of some of the other candidates — Mr. Hatton, Mr. Cook, or Mr. McGovern — and that that resulted in a rivalry between the local managers and the bidding up of the prices of the bands — simply as an illustration of a feature in that campaign. Was that ever called to your attention ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not now recall any such instance. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the term “ organize,” in the sense in which you have used it includes sums paid by managers for automobiles and teams in going about the locality for the purpose of engaging men in each precinct, in their particular locality, to canvass and ascertain what Republicans were in favor of or willing to sup- port the Senator? Mr. Edmonds. I should consider that within the term “ organize ” ; yes, sir. The Chairman. If I understood the question correctly, it rather included whether there was any such expense. Mr. Littlefield. No; I asked him whether or not an expense of that kind would be included. Please state whether or not the ex- pense of men thus employed in each precinct to travel about the pre- cinct and present the qualifications and claims of the Senator and meet the arguments that were being made all over the State in the interest and in favor of candidates Hatton, Cook, and McGovern would be properly included in the term “ organizing expenses,” or “ organization.” Mr. Edmonds. I believe it would be included properly. Mr. Littlefield. Is it or not within your knowledge that during this campaign it was necessary for representatives of the Senator to go about among the Republicans in the various localities and meet the arguments and criticisms and assaults, if I may use that term, that 328 E. A. EDMONDS. were made by representatives of the other candidates upon the Senator ? Mr. Edmonds. That is certainly true. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Hatton had been in the field about 15 months, had he not ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the length of time. Mr. Littlefield. Well, quite a long period ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Cook had been in the campaign nearly a year? Mr. Edmonds. A long time ; yes. Mr. Littlefield. And Mr. McGovern had been in the campaign some time? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it is true that when you began this campaign without the slightest organization you had to work up against the whole tide running against the Senator? Mr. Edmonds. We certainly did. Mr. Littlefield. Were men scattered pretty much all over the State, so far as the organization of the other gentlemen would allow them to scatter them, who were engaged in personally canvassing the Republicans in the various sections? Mr. Edmonds. It was so reported to me. Mr. Littlefield. Endeavoring to pledge the support of Repub- licans to the various candidates? * Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You have stated that you found a large number of the friends of Senator Stephenson, on account of the lateness of his getting into the campaign, already pledged to the support of the other candidates? Mr. Edmonds. I think I so stated. Mr. Littlefield. Were those men who were friends of the Senator, who had pledged themselves to the other candidates in advance of knowing that the Senator was to be a candidate, gentlemen who were distributed pretty generally over the State? Mr. Edmonds. I should say so. In each locality there were some who pledged themselves to other candidates before the Senator’s candidacy was announced. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make any effort to enlist any of those gentlemen thus pledged? Mr. Edmonds. Most assuredly — anyone I saw. Mr. Littlefield. I mean men who were already pledged to the other candidates? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you succeed in getting many of the Senator’s friends back? Mr. Edmonds. I hoped so, and believe that some of them did come back. Mr. Littlefield. These other campaigns were all thoroughly under way, were they not? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not it is a fact, if it is, that in the developments of this campaign rather vigorous and active E. A. EDMONDS. 329 criticisms were made on the Senator by the various gentlemen who were acting in the interests of the other three candidates ? Mr. Edmonds. I should so consider them, and did so consider them at that time; yes. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any way, in your judgment, of meeting these criticisms — not to say assaults — that were being made by the representatives of the other candidates in their personal canvass of the Republicans throughout the State other than by procuring men to go out and meet the Republican voters and answer the arguments and the criticisms? Mr. Edmonds. I knew of no other way, except that and by adver- tising and by letters. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you considered the time and the expenses of men employed for the purpose of going about and canvassing and discussing with and arguing with people and meeting these criticisms and assaults upon the Senator a legitimate expense and within the scope of the term “ organization ” as you have used it. Mr. Edmonds. I certainly so considered it. Mr. Littlefield. I will inquire of you whether or not you would consider, or did consider, within the legitimate scope of the term “ organizing,” as you have used it, the expenses incurred in procuring lists of names of Republicans in the various sections for the purpose of enabling you at the headquarters to mail out to them literature in the interest of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that any expense attached to receiving such lists and reporting to me was legitimate. Mr. Littlefield. Did you consider that an item that was involved in the term “ organization ” or “ organizing,” as you have used the term ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you considered the hiring of teams and men, or automobiles and men, as the case may be, to get voters to the polls on election day, who otherwise would not be likely to go and vote, within the scope, in your judgment, of the term “ organization ” or u organizing,” as you have used it ? Mr. Edmonds. That is one of the items that I have referred to. The Chairman. In connection with that question and similar ques- tions 1 desire to put in the record the provision of the statute under which these charges are filed, section 338, which reads as follows: 338. Bribery in connection with caucus. Sec. 4542ft. Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any preliminary meeting or caucus mentioned in sections 11a to lli, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention held under said provisions shall be punished as provided in sec- tion 4542a. I read that at this point, because that is the section of the law under which these charges are made, and the language in that section, “ as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention,” are the words that are repeated in each of the statutes which were sent to the committee by the governor. 330 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. Were all of the other candidates in this campaign carrying on their organization upon the same basis to which I have just called your attention? Mr. Edmonds. I believe that to be true. The Chairman. What others were doing is entirely immaterial. Mr. Littlefield. In the term 44 organization,” or 44 organization expense,” did you consider the expense of a final canvass to ascertain, so far as you might be able, the men to be brought home and for whom teams would have to be sent on election day ? Mr. Edmonds. That would be considered legitimate, and under the term 44 organizing.” Mr. Littlefield. Would you consider legitimate the expense of em- ploying workers at the polls on election day to check up the vote and send for those who had not voted ? Mr. Edmonds. I would consider that a part of the organizing work ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I understand that you had conversations with practically all of these men whom you employed. Did you discuss with them the details involved in organizing? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection of having done so. I assume that I did. I believe that I did, in some instances. Mr. Littlefield. When you say you have no recollection of having done so, do you mean that you have no recollection of it in any par- ticular instance? Mr. Edmonds. I do. Mr. Littlefield. You may state what you did generally under such circumstances. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I can explain my talks with these men any more fully than I have. Senator Pomerene. I do not intend to raise an objection to the question, nor do I desire to exclude this testimony; but it has ap- peared in the record heretofore that this witness was, so it is claimed, practically without political experience; but now you are seeking to make an expert of him. I am not referring to this particular ques- tion, but to this line of questions. Mr. Littlefield. I submit this to the consideration of the com- mittee, and I will ask its ruling. This is the witness who did a great many of these things Senator Pomerene. I understand that. Mr. Littlefield. I understand it is not only competent, but per- haps necessary for us to show what the witness himself understood, and what he did and why he did it. I do not think that goes quite so far as to undertake to say that he is an expert. I am simply showing the acts and conduct of the witness. Senator Pomerene. Your examination smacked of the expert char- acter. I will not object to your going on. Mr. Littlefield. It is intended to be illuminative. Mr. Edmonds, you may state whether or not when you had your conversations with the gentlemen whom you employed for the purpose of organizing these various sections, you did or did not discuss with them any of the details to which your attention has been called, that are involved in the term 44 organizing.” E. A. EDMONDS. 331 Mr. Edmonds. I certainly believe that in some of the conversations I talked over these matters. I have no recollection that in any par- ticular instance I did. Mr. Littlefield. You have no recollection that in any particular instance you did ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You had the management of the campaign? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In the office here in Milwaukee ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You engaged something like TO men; or how many men did you engage, putting it roughly ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I think I stated first that I engaged approximately one for each county. Mr. Littlefield. Then there may have been 60 or 70 men ? Mr. Edmonds. The records will show that. Mr. Littlefield. What percentage of these men were not known to you at the time you examined them? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall now. Mr. Littlefield. Fifty per cent? Mr. Edmonds. I should not think as many as that ; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. As to those who were not known to you, what course did you pursue before you engaged them ? Mr. Edmonds. I endeavored to learn of their character and reputa- tion, and that was learned from someone of whom I inquired, some person or persons. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you mean by that that you had a personal conference with someone, or a conference over the phone. Mr. Edmonds. It might have been either way. Mr. Littlefield. Were your inquiries, under such circumstances, confined to one person or did they extend to more than one; I mean generally. Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any particular instance now, but I assume that 1 inquired of a man with whom I was acquainted ; some- times several men and sometimes only one. Mr. Littlefield. How long a time, as a rule, was occupied by you in your conferences with these gentlemen whom you employed ? Mr. Edmonds. That is very hard to say. Mr. Littlefield. I mean roughly speaking. Mr. Edmonds. From half an hour to three or four hours. Mr. Littlefield. How many people would you meet in a day at the headquarters? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know; a great many men whom I would meet would not take more than two or three minutes. Others would take a longer time. I can not recall, but I presume 40 or 50. I was busy all the time meeting people. In fact, that very materially in- terrupted the work that I had to do in the way of sending out let- ters, and so forth. Mr. Littlefield. Did you do any business over the long-distance telephone ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. 332 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. Can you give the committee any approximate estimate of the number of long-distance telephone calls you would answer, on an average, daily? Mr. Edmonds. That would be very hard for me to say. The telephone bill would perhaps be better evidence of that. Mr. Littlefield. I am simply getting your best judgment of it now. Mr. Edmonds. It would be very difficult for me to say ; anywhere from 25 to 50, probably. Mr. Littlefield. Could you give any estimate of the number of conversations .that you had, not only with the men whom you actually employed, but other men who were interested in the campaign, both personal conversations and conversations over the telephone, during this period of something like 52 days, which was, I think, the num- ber of working days that you had for your campaign? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I could. I was busy with that kind of work from 8 o’clock in the morning until anywhere from 11 o’clock at night to 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning. The Chairman. I should naturally expect to find those items on the bill of the telephone company. Is there a bill ? Mr. Edmonds. I believe there is a bill specifying the telephone charges. The Chairman. Showing each call? Mr. Littlefield. You would not find a statement of the conversa- tions on the telephone bill. The Chairman. You would find the item stating that there was a conversation. Mr. Littlefield. Not as to the people who called at the office. Your question was about conversations that he had, in the office or over the telephone. The Chairman. I was not asking with reference to that. I was suggesting that there was better evidence of the number of telephone calls, perhaps, than the recollection of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. Is it not a fact that during the progress of this campaign you had thousands of conversations with different people? Mr. Edmonds. I presume it would run up into the thousands. I had not thought of it in that way. Mr. Littlefield. I understand you to say you never asked any of the gentlemen whom you selected to help you whether or not there had been any unlawful expenditure of money. Is that the fact? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember ever having put that question up to a man. Mr. Littlefield. Did anything occur during the whole campaign that would have required such an inquiry by you? Did any report come to you that would lead you to make such an inquiry of an^ of the gentlemen with whom you made your engagements? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall any such instance and do not believe there was, because I think if there had been I would have inquired. Mr. Littlefield. You have already stated, but I would like to have you state in this connection, the character of the men whom you employed ; first with reference to their capacity to do their work, and next with reference to the question of their integrity and character. E. A. EDMONDS. 333 Senator Pomerene. The witness has already stated that as to many of these men he knew nothing. How could he testify as to their character ? Mr. Littlefield. He has also testified that he did not employ any man until he had inquired of men who did know as to his character. Senator Pomerene. That would have reference simply to their reputation. Mr. Littlefield. What he believed these men to be when he em- ployed them. I understand him to say that when he did not know a man he took pains to inquire of others concerning him before he engaged him. Senator Pomerene. You used the word u character,” and I assumed that you were using it in its technical legal meaning, and in contra- distinction from reputation, character being what a man is and reputation what he is known or believed to be. Mr. Littlefield. I should like, as far as this witness is concerned, to have him state what sort of men he understood he was employing, as bearing upon his good faith and his integrity. Mr. Edmonds. If I have made the statement in the record that I employed men whom I did not know anything about, I want to cor- rect it. Many men were not personally known to me Senator Pomerene. Except by inquiry? Mr. Edmonds. Some of these men were not known to me person- ally, but in every instance inquiry was made, so that I felt and be- lieved that I had a proper estimate of their reputation and character. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state to the com- mittee what sort of men you believed you were employing ? Mr. Edmonds. None but men of good reputation, who could natu- rally be intrusted w T ith the amount of money placed in their hands for organization work. Mr. Littlefield. You were asked if you knew whether these men to whom you intrusted funds in the campaign, under the circum- stances to which you have testified, did not keep all the money and I understood you to say that you did not know. Mr. Edmonds. I did not know. They made no report to me. Mr. Littlefield. Do you intend to have any inference drawn from that that in your judgment any of these men did keep the money that was intrusted to them? Mr. Edmonds. I should dislike to believe anything of the kind, and would not like to have an intimation of that kind go into the record. I do not believe it. Mr. Littlefield. Has any information ever come to you, except the guess of that committee, of $30,000 being misappropriated, which has just been called to your attention this morning? Has any infor- mation ever come to you from any reliable source that would lead you to believe that any of these gentlemen who were under you in the campaign as local or other managers had kept any of the money that you intrusted to them and used it for their own purposes, or other than the purposes for which the money was intrusted to them by you? Mr. Edmonds. From no reliable source; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Has that suggestion ever been made anywhere, except in the columns of some political newspaper in discussing this 334 E. A. EDMONDS. campaign, in making assaults upon Senator Stephenson and his management, to your knowledge ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say that that statement would cover those who have made such suggestions. Mr. Littlefield. How effectively was the State of Wisconsin advertised and posted with the posters and lithographs issued in the interest of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. It would be very difficult to state. Mr. Littlefield. So far as you know. I do not ask you to go into it in detail. Mr. Edmonds. Not nearly as thoroughly as we had expected to be able to do ; and so far as organization in the way of' getting lists was concerned, we had no information of that kind at all. Mr. Littlefield. Did you pay or authorize to be paid to any of the gentlemen who represented you any sums without an}' under- standing as to the purpose for which the sums were to be used? Mr. Edmonds. I believe in every instance where I had a conver- sation with a man we talked over in greater or less degree not only the situation in the territory in which he lived, but the expenditures as well. I have no personal definite recollection at this time of what was said in any particular instance. Mr. Littlefield. I understand that. Please state what the fact is, so far as you have knowledge of the fact, as to whether or not gentlemen like Mr. Perrin, Mr. Riordan, Mr. Gordon, and the others would or would not have supported Senator Stephenson if money had not been placed by you in their hands for the purposes which you have indicated? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe there is any possible question about it. There is no question in the minds of any of those who know these men. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any doubt about it yourself ? Mr. Edmonds. Not a particle. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that is true of all the men whom you employed. Mr. Edmonds. I believe that to be the case in every instance. Mr. Littlefield. Now, Mr. Edmonds, I should be very glad to have you take this list that you have put in here this morning, as to which the general inquiry was made. I rather feel it incumbent upon us to see that the details are taken care of. I should be very glad to have you take this list and go right through it, so that I need not keep repeating the questions, and state to whom the money was paid, the amount, the circumstances under which it was paid, and what you know about it, and the purposes for which it was paid. So far as you have already gone over arrangements made with men whose names are repeated here, of course it is understood you do not have any occasion to repeat the conversation. I do not want to fill the record up in that way, and I would suggest, if the committee have no objection, that when you reach the name of a man as to whom you have already explained, you simply say, “ I have made a full explanation as to this name.” I suppose there is no objection to that. In other words, please be kind enough to go through the list, and when you reach a name as to which you have made no explanation be land enough to make, in your own way, according to your recollection, a full explanation of all you know about it, of E. A. EDMONDS. 335 the date, and the circumstances under which it was done, and the purposes for which the money was paid. Do I make myself clear? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. Mr. Littlefield. Start with the list and go right down through it. Mr. Edmonds. One hundred dollars to J. H. Frank. That has been explained. That is a part of the expenditure which was to be made in that case of the money which had to be paid to him. City of Portage, J. H. Wells Mr. Black. He is not giving the dates. Mr. Littlefield. So that we can be sure to have each one identified give the dates as you go along and that will locate the items. Mr. Edmonds. It is marked here “August 28 .” Mr. Littlefield. Follow right along here so as to give the date, and then give the item. Mr. Edmonds. J. H. Wells was the organizer employed in Colum- bia County. He was paid $200. The same general arrangements were made with him, and the same general talk had that I had with others in regard to organizing work. I had that same talk with him in regard to organizing work in that county. The next item under the same date Senator Sutherland. What is the date? Mr. Edmonds. August 28 ; Medford W. Phlughhoeft, $ 126 . My recollection of that is not very clear. I remember the name and the fact that he did work among the Germans in German communities. The next item under the same date is “ Rock County, W. G. Wheeler, $600.” Mr. Wheeler was employed by me, or given this money rather, without any compensation to himself, to organize Rock County. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any compensation to Mr. Phlugh- hoeft or was it all for expenses and disbursements ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. Mr. Littlefield. Have you stated whether there was or not any compensation to Wells? Mr. Edmonds. To my best recollection there was not. Mr. Littlefield. That was, then, for disbursements? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along now. Mr. Edmonds. The next item under the same date is “ General, Henry Overbeck, $71.79.” I do not recall the particular item, but I know that Mr. Overbeck was at work for us and sent out from the office at different times, and I assume that this was an expense. The next item, under the same date, is “ Portage County, J. D. Curran, $250.” The Chairman. What is the date of that ? Mr. Edmonds. August 28. Mr. Curran was our organizer in Port- age County. I am not certain that I had a conversation with him or talked with him otherwise than by phone. The next item under the same date is “ J. T. Sexton, $50.12.” That is one of the items which has been referred to and explained heretofore. The next item is “ Racine County, J. R. Jones, August 29, $100.” That has been explained before. Under the same date, “ Barron County, A. T. Hulbert, $100.” That is an item I do iiot recall. It was undoubtedly arranged for 336 E. A. EDMONDS. by me, but I do not even remember the man. I do not know who he is now. Mr. Littlefield. What would you say that sum was for, so far as you have any recollection ? Mr. Edmonds. I should say it was for organizing work in Barron County, because I have no other record of an expenditure in Barron County in the office. The Chairman. At this point, in view of the testimony which the witness has just given, the committee will require this witness to file a list of the men employed as organizers, the counties they were to organize, and the amounts paid them, with the dates. It appears that one man was an organizer in a large number of counties. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the committee would like to have that information in summarized shape. The Chairman. We want that statement. We want this witness to file it as a part of his testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Edmonds, you understand what is required, do you ? Mr. Edmonds. With the explanation that the statement will have to be made from this, as to amounts, and my best recollection. The Chairman. You will make a statement for which you will be responsible. What did you say was the name of the man who organ- ized a large number of counties? Mr. Edmonds. No one that I have mentioned at this time. The Chairman. The reason for requiring this list is apparent. I will not interrupt the examination. Mr. Edmonds. I should like to explain Mr. Littlefield. Make such explanation as you desire. Mr. Edmonds. I should like to make the explanation that if I stated that a man was an organizer in different counties, my statement was incorrect. The Chairman. You made that statement with reference to Mr. Overbeck, did you not, that he had charge Mr. Edmonds. No; he was sent out from the office as one of what were yesterday termed “ political scouts.” Mr. Littlefield. I notice that you did not give the purpose for which the $250 was paid to Mr. Curran. Mr. Edmonds. For organizing in that county. Mr. Littlefield. The next item is Oconto County. Mr. Edmonds. The same date, August 29, George Beyer, $300. George Beyer did organization work in Oconto County. Mr. Littlefield. What was the money paid to him for ? Mr. Edmonds. For that purpose. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether that was for his dis- bursements, or did it include any sum for his compensation ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall now, but I do not believe any of it was for compensation. He is a man of considerable wealth, and that was not necessary. “ Iowa County, J. N. Riece, $50.” I do not recall that, but my present belief is that this is an item of advertising. I think Mr. Riece is a newspaper man. The next item under the same date, “ Middle- ton, D. F. Sherbel, $32.08.” I remember the man but I do not recall the particular amount paid or just what it was for. I remember that he did work for us, and brought in information at my suggestion. E. A. EDMONDS. 337 This was undoubtedly his expense. The next item is, “August 31, R. H. Morse.” Whether that has been referred to or not I do not know. At any rate, Mr. Morse was the organizer for the Stephenson campaign in Fond du Lac County. The Chairman. The committee will take a recess at this point until 2 o’clock. I will say at this time that it is evident that this witness can not be promised that he will be free to-day. His testimony this morning has given evidence of the necessity of some further ex- amination. (At 12 o’clock and 30 minutes p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF E. A. EDMONDS— Resumed. Mr. Littlefield. When we took the recess we were down to the item of “ R. H. Morse.” The next item is “ Distributing and hanging posters, M. P. Ed- wards.” If the subcommittee please, outside of the question of -organizing I am not going to spend very much time about other items. I want the witness to be more particularly careful about the organizing expenses. Mr. Edmonds. That item explains itself in so far as I can tell. The only reason I include it in my list is that it is marked “ E. A. E.” I do not recall the man himself. The next item under the same date, “ $220 ” — “ $200 to E. A. E.,” and “ H. Bowman, $20.” I no doubt received the $200, and it was used for the same purpose. Mr. Littlefield. And was the $20 paid Mr. Bowman ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall. I had no reason to doubt that it was. Senator Pomerene. Just read that item as it is contained here in the printed account. Mr. Edmonds. “ General (E. A. E., $200; H. Bowman, $20), $220.” Mr. Littlefield. Who is the “ H. Bowman ” ? Mr. Edmonds. I am not positive, but I think Harry Bowman, from Waukesha County. Mr. Littlefield. Was he one of the deputy game wardens? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have any present recollection as to that item of $20 to Mr. Bowman? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know where it was paid to him, whether at headquarters or elsewhere? Mr. Edmonds. I have not any recollection. “ Eau Claire County, J. T. Joyce, $50.” I remember having sent to Mr. Joyce some amount. I do not recall this particular amount. I know that Mr. Joyce was a friend of Senator Stephenson in that compaign, and through some source it was suggested that I send him this amount. I do not recall the circumstances. 15235 °— VOL 1—11 22 338 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose was the $50 sent to Mr. Joyce? Mr. Edmonds. I am unable to state now, but my judgment would be that it was either for money expended already by him in the cam- paign or to be expended. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose? That is, for what purpose expended? Have you any knowledge of the details? Mr. Edmonds. I do not ; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the best you can say about it is that you understood it to be expended for purposes involved in the organizing in the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Joyce was a very reputable banker in that city. Mr. Littlefield. You say he is a banker? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The next item under the same date is “Advertising, H. H. Morgan, $73.” I do not recall this particular item. I known that I saw Mr. Morgan two or three times, or oftener, perhaps, during the cam- paign. Mr. Morgan was in Madison and did a good deal of work for Senator Stephenson, I believe. In just what manner I do not know. The next item is “ Jefferson County, George Kispert, $50.” That has been already explained. Mr. Littlefield. Was that money advanced to him for the pur- poses you have already explained ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And under the arrangement you have already testified to? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The next item under the same date is “ Distributing posters, M. T. Park, $15.” That was for services performed. Mr. Littlefield. The item says “ Distributing and hanging post- ers.” Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What does the term “ hanging posters ” mean? Mr. Edmonds. Usually that would mean inside, because when they were placed outside they were tacked up. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean in show windows? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The next item is “Appleton, C. C. Whalen.” Mr. Littlefield. That should be changed so as to read “ Wayland.” Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The item is for $300. This was one of the items paid to Mr. Wayland in accordance with contract. The Chairman. What is the date of that ? Mr. Edmonds. The same date — August 31. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that is one of the items as to which you have already made as full explanation as you can. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; that was under the contract, an amount paid him. The next item is “ Chippewa County, M. C. Ring, $125.” Two amounts paid him under my agreement I have already testified to with him. This is an amount paid to him. The next item on that same date is “ General, D. H. Grady, $15.” I can not recall what that is. I remember having some transaction with Mr. Grady, whereby he did, I think, some legal work; but as E. A. EDMONDS. 339 to what it was I do not know. He is a Democrat and was not working for Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. What is he, a lawyer ? Mr. Edmonds. He is a lawyer ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You do not remember what that was paid to him for, do you? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I can not recall just what the services were. Mr. Littlefield. Was it to reimburse him for some bill that he had paid? Mr. Edmonds. That is my judgment, but I am not positive. It possibly was paid in advance, though the date would indicate it was for services already rendered. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember whether it was for some bill that had been paid by Mr. Grady where he had advanced money to some one for advertising? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not now recall. The next item is 44 Racine County, J. R. Jones, $150.” This is one of the items paid Mr. Jones on the agreement made with him pre- viously and heretofore explained. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that was advanced to him under the arrangement and for the purposes for which you have already testified? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The next item on the same date, “Advertising, C. E. Smith, $56.” My recollection is that C. E. Smith is the editor of a paper in Wash- ington County. Mr. Littlefield. Well, that being the case, what, in accordance with your best recollection, was the $56 paid for? Mr. Edmonds. For advertising, as stated, or for newspaper work. The next item, 44 General, W. E. Powell ” Mr. Littlefield. That goes down under the date of September 5, does it not? Mr. Edmonds. September 5, $44. Mr. Littlefield. Have you already made a statement in relation to Powell ? My recollection is that you have not. Mr. Edmonds. I think not. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. State briefly and concisely just ex- actly what that was for, so far as you can recall. Mr. Edmonds. I do not now recall just what the services were. Mr. Powell’s home was in Waukesha County, I believe, and in the pre- cinct where he lived he did certain work, for which he was paid. But just what it was I do not now remember. I do not recall that I ever had any agreement with him. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able to state any more definitely the char- acter of the work done? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I am not. Undoubtedly at that time he explained to me, but I do not recall now. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether that was paid to him in person or sent to him by mail ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The next item is 44 Ozaukee County, C. O. Larson, $254.” Mr. Littlefield. Is this the same Larson about whom you have already explained? 340 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not this sum was sent to him under the agreement and for the purposes that you have already explained. Mr. Edmonds. It was paid to him under the agreement ; yes, sir. The next item is “ Richland County, N. L. James, $200.” Mr. Littlefield. This is the first time his name has occurred, is it not ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Well, explain about that. Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that the efforts of N. L. James, whom I first met during the campaign, were not confined entirely to Richland County. Mr. Littlefield. In the first place, tell the committee who Mr. J ames is, if you know. Mr. Edmonds. Mr. N. L. James is an old soldier, living somewhere in Richland County, a very pronounced “ stalwart,” an old friend, I believe, of Senator Stephenson, and who was one of the first, among the first, to advocate and to urge the nomination of Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not he was a man of means. Mr. Edmonds. I do not know that I have been informed. Mr. Littlefield. You do not know about that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State what was done with him. Mr. Edmonds. I have no particular recollection of the conversation I had with him, but his work was in general to do work for Senator Stephenson wherever he saw fit in his locality. I think he had been a member of the State senate ; at least, he was a very prominent man in political life for a good many years in Wisconsin. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know what business he was engaged in at the time? Mr. Edmonds. If I did know it, I do not remember it now. Mr. Littlefield. Have you ever had a conversation with him that resulted in his taking pay or employment and the payment of money to him ? Mr. Edmonds. As to that, I do not recall. I know I talked with him at different times. My best judgment would be that he rendered services and worked for Senator Stephenson and announced that he had expended so much money, and he was paid in that way, though I am not positive as to that. Mr. Littlefield. You say you had several talks with him. What was the subject matter of the conversation? Mr. Edmonds. As to the condition of the campaign in his locality and where he had been during that period. The next item is “ Kenosha County, Fred Remold.” My best recol- lection of that item is that a check was sent to Fred Reinold — whether in person or by mail I am not sure — in payment for services rendered. As to where I got the idea, about the services, just what he had done, or why he was entitled to that amount of $111.05, I am not able to recall now. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to distinguish between services rendered and “ organization ” ? E. A. EDMONDS. 341 Mr. Edmonds. No; I should refer to services rendered in organiza- tion. I meant to distinguish in this way, that I do not remember ever having seen this man, but I do recall the name, and that he had to do with the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. What was the nature of the services he was rendering in the campaign? That is, how would you characterize them ? Mr. Edmonds. To the best of my recollection he had been working for Senator Stephenson in an effort to get out a large vote in Kenosha County. Senator Pomerene. What is the date of the last several items? Mr. Edmonds. September 5. The next item is 44 Milwaukee County, R. J. White, cash.” I remember having paid to Mr. White an amount of money, whether $150 or $100 I was not certain, until this called it to my attention. Mr. White was one of the managers, or assisted in the management of the county campaign, and I often saw him, and I believe at this time, as his record will show, the funds in the hands of the county campaign committee had been exhausted, and my recollection is that he reported to me that he had overpaid this amount, and needed it, and it was paid to him. Mr. Littlefield. You say the funds had been exhausted in the county campaign. State whether or not you refer to the Milwaukee County campaign. Mr. Edmonds. I should have stated so; j^es, sir. Mr. Littlefield. With the exception of some items on the latter end of the account, is it or not true that the Milwaukee campaign was conducted independently of your general headquarters ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; except for this item and one other, as far as I know. The next item is 44 General, $94.02.” I put that item down, because while it reads in the book [referring to 44 Exhibit 49,” p. 595] 44 Gen- . eral, No. 33965, L. B. Cox, $50 and $30.27,” I remember the $50. Senator Pomerene. L. B. Cox? Mr. Edmonds. He has been referred to in previous testimony. As to the $30.27, I have no recollection. The next item is 44 Racine County, J. R. Jones, $183.50.” This agreement has been testified to, and this is simply a payment in view of the contract made earlier in the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that was disbursed for the same purposes you have already described, in connection with Mr. Jones, and whether or not this sum that was paid to Mr. Jones of $183.50 was disbursed through Mr. Jones for that same purpose and under the same conditions that you have already described in relation to Mr. Jones. Mr. Edmonds. Yes. I meant to state that, if I did not. This item, which is the next one, of 44 Fond du Lac County, E. A. Morse,” is a mistake. That is, the location is. That is not Fond du Lac County. I remember distinctly the $27 that was paid to E. A. Morse. He was a Congressman at the time and was running for Congress, and I had seen him some time during the campaign, and had agreed with him that whatever expenses he had in connection with his campaign where he could work in with Senator Stephenson’s interests, we would divide up, and this amount was paid in, because he told me that was the amount that he had expended. 342 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. How much do you say that was? Mr. Edmonds. $27. Senator Sutherland. Do I understand you to say that that was half of his expense in the campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. That was half of certain expenses that he had paid in conection with his campaign and Senator Stephenson’s. Senator Pomerene. What expenses? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember, but I think that was part print- ing and part hall rent. That is my best judgment now. He told me at the time. Mr. Littlefield. Had he had previous authority to expend this money in the interest of the Senator, or did he report to you that it was done during his campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I saw him during the campaign, I am quite sure, and agreed with him that we would stand such part as we agreed upon. Mr. Littlefield. He was a candidate, was he ? Mr. Edmonds. He was a candidate for Congress; yes. The next item is “ New Medford, W. Pflughhoeft, $152.” This is the item paid to him in accordance with the earlier arrangement, as testified. Senator Pomerene. Are these dates all of September 5? Mr. Edmonds. All September 5. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that was paid for the pur- pose you have already described in connection with Mr. Pflughhoeft. Mr. Edmonds. To the best of my knowledge. The next item is, “Appleton, G. A. Dettman, $25.” This man re- ceived, I think, once before a small amount. I explained about it. It was for the same purpose. The next item is, “Clark County, J. H. Frank, $225.” This is • the Dr. Frank referred to before. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that sum was paid to him by you for the purposes and under the circumstances that you have already described in connection with Dr. Frank. Mr. Edmonds. I believe it to have been so expended. September 11, “ distributing posters, A. J. Knelling, $14.75.” I remember the name because of the spelling. I do not remember the man. I do not remember where he did the work. In fact, I did not spend the money if my recollection is correct, because I was not here on Sep- tember 11, but I have endeavored to make the explanation because the initials “ E. A. E.” are opposite that amount. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether a man of this name was engaged in distributing and hanging posters? Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; I remember that man’s name. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect that he was engaged in that work ? Mr. Edmonds. That is my recollection of it ; yes, sir. The next item is, “ General, $191.85.” That is under the same date. The explanation here in the State investigation is, “ General, E. A. E., Hoober, $64.85 ; William Halem, $47 ; Rock Flint, $80.” Were it not for the fact that my initials are associated with this, I should not have put it on my list, because I do not recall any except the item of $80, and I do not recall the payment. I remember hav- ing made an agreement with Rock Flint, whereby he was to do or- E. A. EDMONDS. 343 ganizing in, I think, his home county, Dunn, but I was not present on September 11 when that amount was paid. Mr. Littlefield. Then Rock Flint is the name of an individual? I had a notion that it was a locality. Mr. Edmonds. An individual; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have any recollection about Mr. Hoober and Mr. Halem? Mr. Edmonds. No; I am inclined to believe that William Halem should be William Haslam. Mr. Littlefield. A gentleman about whom you have heretofore testified ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Is he the gentleman who was the deputy game warden? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; he was on a vacation at that time, and was em- ployed by me. Mr. Littlefield. You say “on a vacation.” Will you be kind enough to say what you mean by that. I understand it to have been stated that they were receiving a per diem. State whether or not there is any specific time that is allowed these gentlemen for a vaca- tion. I do not know what the fact is and I do not know that you know. Senator Pomerene. That would be a matter of statute, would it not? Mr. Littlefield. Not necessarily. I do not know how that might be. I do not wish to prompt the witness, but I understand the real fact to be that they are on a per diem, and if they are allowed to go away, the per diem ceases, and they are treated as being on a vaca- tion. Mr. Edmonds, do you know anything about that? Mr. Edmonds. My belief in the matter is that the game wardens are paid $3 per day and expenses, or were at that time at least, and they would turn in their time for each day’s work — they were not hired by the month — and that this man had his vacation at this time and received no pay from the State. The next item is, September 15, “ Henry Overbeck, $100.” I have placed that on the list, not because I was here on September 15 and remember the payment but because Mr. Overbeck was working for us, and was undoubtedly paid this amount and probably by my au- thority. I have testified to his work before. Mr. Littlefield. The next item is “ Iron County, A. L. Osborn, $154.” Mr. Edmonds. Iron County, A. L. Osborn, $154. This item, as well as the next two on this list [referring to Exhibit Edmonds A], I do not recall the payment of. In fact, I was not present when they were paid. I remember having had a conversation, either by phone or in person, with Mr. Osborn relative to work that he would do for us in Iron County, and undoubtedly this was a bill paid after he had rendered the service. He had written a letter, probably, stating that it was due. Mr. Littlefield. What sort of work was he to do for you in Iron County ? Mr. Edmonds. I think “ organizing ” is the term that would ex- plain it as well as any I can use. He had milling interests, I believe, up in that county. The advertising was in the Superior Tidente. 344 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. LrrTLEFiELD. What about the Johnson item, Winnebago Counties and the Tidente? Mr. Edmonds. The Superior Tidente is the name of a paper; $150. Mr. Littlefield. What about the Johnson item, Winnebago County ? Mr. Edmonds. I have no recollection of that. I do not know who O. C. Johnson is. Mr. Littlefield. What about the Superior Tidente ? Mr. Edmonds. That was paid for services in the campaign. I have no recollection of having made the agreement now, though the name being so peculiar, it comes to me as being one of the papers that was with us. I think it is a Swedish paper. The next item is “ Oconomowoc, A. M. Jones, $150.” I do not re- member anything about this particular item. My judgment would be that Mr. Jones was paid more than $150, but I do not find it any- where here. I know he was in the office, and I talked the matter over with him of doing the work in Oconomowoc and Waukesha Coun- ties, but this is the only item I have seen. Senator Pomerene. How much more was he to get ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall that. I should think it was a larger amount than that, as Waukesha was a large county, and he was a very well known, influential politician. Senator Pomerene. Is that still owing him ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. It is possible that this is the only amount he expended, and the only amount he called for ; because com- ing here September 11, it would be supposed that that was in full payment. Mr. Littlefield. What sort of work was he to do ? Mr. Edmonds. Organizing in Waukesha County. Mr. Littlefield. In what sense do you use that term “organiz- ing”? You have described it. Mr. Edmonds. In the general sense explained at different times dur- ing the examination. Mr. Littlefield. I notice on this exhibit that you have filed you have “items passed yesterday and not checked by me, that possibly accounted for during the examination; advertising, John M. Piece, page 594.” Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain whether I explained those or not. Mr. Littlefield. I think instead of taking your time to go back over your examination, we had better go through them briefly, so as to be sure to get your explanation. Mr. Edmonds. The item for J. M. Piece is near the top of page 594. Mr. Littlefield. I see there are two items, one August 28 and the other August 29. Mr. Edmonds. I explained relative to the other item this morning. 1 think he is a newspaper man. I think this was paid for advertis- ing. That is my recollection. Mr. Littlefield. Pichland County, N. L. James, $300. You have already explained this afternoon about an item of $200 to N. L. James. Now here is an item of $300. Where did you find that in the account ? Mr. Edmonds. August 25. The two items are together. Mr. Littlefield. That is on page 593 ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 345 Mr. Littlefield. Richland County, state what you know about that; or, so as to make it more brief, state whether or not this sum that appears to have been paid to Mr. N. L. J ames of $300 on August 25, was or was not under the arrangement for the purposes and under the circumstances to which you have already testified in relation to Mr. James in connection with the $200 item. Mr. Edmonds. I believe that was the case, paid for the same pur- poses as the $200 item. Under the same date, G. L. Miner, $300, Richland County. Mr. Littlefield. August 25. What about that? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection in regard to that is very faint. I remember the name Grant L. Miner. I do not recall when I saw him, or if I saw him at all. The amount indicated here does not appeal to me as being the amount Mr. Miner received, but I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement. Mr. Littlefield. Then you have no definite recollection as to that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have not. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it is your belief that that was expended for organization purposes in that county. Senator Pomerene. It is not a question of belief, is it? Mr. Littlefield. No; not strictly speaking, except I suppose this witness would be allowed to go further than other witnesses in that regard. Senator Pomerene. No; you are asking specifically for belief, and it is a question of memory. Mr. Littlefield. Yes ; I am aware that I am a little outside of the line. Can you state, Mr. Edmonds, in relation to that, whether you have any recollection about it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have stated the best recollection I have in regard to it. The next item on the same page is “ Calumet, Frank Ekland, $25.” Mr. Littlefield. What about that? Mr. Edmonds. I remember that name, because of the peculiar spelling, and that very little work for our candidate was done in Calumet County, because it was known to be very strongly in favor of one of the other candidates, Mr. Cook. This man in some man- ner, and for services that I believed at that time to have been per- formed for Senator Stephenson, received $25. Senator Pomerene. Have you any knowledge as to what those services were? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; none at all. On the same page, Ashland, D. G. Sampson, $100. Mr. Littlefield. My notes would indicate that you have already explained about that, but I do not undertake to have any recollec- tion in regard to it. Mr. Edmonds. I think his name appears in another place, and that he was doing work for Senator Stephenson in the way of or- ganizing in that county. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the money was paid to him for that purpose? Mr. Edmonds. It was, and for no other. On page 593, the last item, $18, O. L. Gust, Baraboo, Sauk County. I can not now recall O. L. Gust. The name is familiar, but not this expenditure of $18. 346 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have sufficient recollection so that you are able to state that he was doing any work for you in the cam- paign, and if so what work? Mr. Edmonds. The only work he could possibly have been doing was Senator Pomerene. It is not a question of possibility; it is a question of recollection. Mr. Littlefield. The question is whether you have any recol- lection, so as to be able to state what he was doing? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have not. On page 592 there are two items, Juneau County, J. T. Hanson, $250, and another item to the same man of $150. Mr. Littlefield. The $250 item comes first under date of August 19, and the $150 item comes under date of August 30. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What about those? Mr. Edmonds. That was for advertising in Juneau County. The reason I did not check that when going over it before was that the name J. T. ITanson did not then appear to be the name of the organ- izer in Juneau County. Whether it is a misprint or not, I am not sure. The man whom I emploj^ed there, I am quite certain, was a banker, and I agreed with him to pay him $400. As I say, it does not seem to me that his name was Hanson. Senator Pomerene. What was the banker’s name? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall. This is the only- amount paid in that county, and I do not know whether my recollection is at fault. Senator Pomerene. How do you account for this being here, or can you account for it? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make up this list from which you have been testifying — the list that is printed in the proceedings, marked “ Exhibit 49 ”? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Then, as to Juneau County, are you able to state that you actually did have an organizer there? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I had an organizer there, and arranged with him. My recollection is that I arranged with him for $400, and my judgment is that part of that was for services. Mr. Littlefield. But whether the man Hanson whose name is here, as apparently the organizer for that county, is the correct name of the man whom you employed, as I understand, you are not able to say* Mr. Edmonds. I am not able to say ; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you any way of ascertaining definitely who the man was there who was a banker, whom you think you employed ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Will you ascertain? Mr. Edmonds. I should think that by making inquiries I could determine. I have not done so. Senator Pomerene. Do you know what bank he was connected with ? E. A. EDMONDS. 347 Mr. Edmonds. I think the bank in Mauston, but I am not certain. Mr. Littlefield. Will you make efforts to refresh your recollec- tion about that, ancl give us the name if you can? Mr. Edmonds. I will. This is probably the name, but it does not make itself clear to me. That concludes the items. Mr. Littlefield. If I recall correctly, I understood you to say in answer to Senator Sutherland’s inquiries, that at the time you had the conversation which resulted in the employment of Mr. Stone, chief game warden, at which time reference was made to other deputy wardens, you knew that the game warden’s force had been an active and efficient force in political campaigns. Did you know^ whether or not, or did you mean by the statement of “ years before,” that there was a period during which they were active politically and then a period intervening when the activities ceased? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I meant to state that years before, when I knew of the conditions, that was the case; but from 1902 or 1903 until 1908, when I took charge of this, I was very busily engaged in busi- ness operations and took no interest in politics in Wisconsin. Mr. Littlefield. Then, is it a fact that you are simply giving, in answer to the question, the result of your own personal knowledge, in a sense, resulting from your political experience at that time? Mr. Edmonds. I knew of it from experience in 1900 to 1902. Mr. Littlefield. Just exactly whether the activity and efficiency continued from that time on, I understand you are not able to state? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did it continue after you took charge of this campaign ? Mr. Edmonds. As far as I know, they were a pretty active force. Mr. Littlefield. Had you any reason to doubt that their activity and efficiency continued in political campaigns from the time you first knew them until the employment by you of Mr. Stone? Mr. Edmonds. I had no reason to doubt it; no, sir. I believed it was an active force. Mr. Littlefield. The real fact is that everybody in the State knew it, did they not? Mr. Edmonds. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. And had there not been, as a matter of fact, a good deal of discussion about it? Mr. Edmonds. It has been pretty generally known and discussed in the papers and otherwise. Mr. Littlefield. The people who did not have the benefit of their services were complaining, I suppose, more than the people who did. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Is that all of the questions ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I desire to interrogate you in regard to the specific charges that are contained in the record sent to the Senate of the United States by the governor of the State of Wisconsin. I will read these charges and then interrogate you in regard to them separately. On page 4 of what is now known as Senate Document No. 53, but which is the communication sent to the Senate by the governor of Wisconsin, there is the following: 348 E. A. EDMONDS, SPECIFIC CHARGES. To the honorable Senate and Assembly of the State of Wisconsin: I, John J. Blaine, an elector of tlie State of Wisconsin and a member of the State senate, upon information and belief, do hereby specifically charge and allege : 1. That Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette, Wis., now United States Senator and a candidate for reelection, did, as such candidate for such reelection, give to one E. A. Edmonds, of the city of Appleton, Wis., an elector of the State of Wisconsin and said city of Appleton, a valuable thing, to wit, a sum of money in excess of $106,000, and approximating the sum of $250,000, as a consideration for some act to be done by said E. A. Edmonds in relation to the primary election held on the 1st day of September, 1908, which consideration was paid prior to said primary election, and that said Isaac Stephenson was at the time of such payment a can- didate for the Republican nomination for United States Senator at such primary, and did, by such acts as above set forth, violate section 4542b of the statutes. Are you the E. A. Edmonds referred to in that charge ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson give you the sum of $100,000, or any sum, as a consideration for some act to be done by you in relation to the primary elections referred to? Mr. Edmonds. Senator Stephenson placed in my hands, or under my control, certain moneys for the purpose of using them in the interest of his candidacy for the United States Senate. The Chairman. What sum of money did he place in your hands ? Mr. Edmonds. A check for $5,000. The Chairman. Did he place, subject to your control, any other or further sum of money as stated in that charge ? Mr. Edmonds. At various times stated amounts. The Chairman. Give the aggregate sum. Mr. Edmonds. As nearly as I can recall, approximately $100,000. The Chairman. These are the same sums in regard to which you have already testified, are they? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Were there any other sums of money, in addition to the sums in regard to which you have already testified, given you by Senator Stephenson or placed under your control by him ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not from him or from any other source. The Chairman. The second charge is as follows : That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to said primary, pay to said Edmonds, above mentioned, sums with the design that said Edmonds should pay to other electors of this State, out of said sums above mentioned and other sums of money received by said Edmonds from said Isaac Stephenson, prior to said primary, sums ranging from $5 per day to $1,000, in bulk, as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to said primary by said electors for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate in violation of said section. Is that statement true ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Wherein is it not true? Mr. Edmonds. It is a pretty long statement. One of the things that appeals to me as not being true is that neither of those sums is in violation of the law. The Chairman. Then we will waive that last statement “ in viola- tion of said section.” Did he give you those sums, or any of them, to pay to other electors of the State? Mr. Edmonds. To other electors of the State? E. A. EDMONDS. 349 The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; I should say that he understood that in his payment of the money. The Chairman. Then the statement of facts, aside from the final clause “ in violation of said section,” is substantially correct, is it ? Mr. Edmonds. There are a good many items in there enumerated, but I should say it is substantially correct. The Chairman. There are only two items. It says “ from $5 per day to $1,000 in bulk.” That is correct, is it? Mr. Edmonds. There was no limitation as to that amount, but that was the way I handled it. The Chairman. There were such items? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The third charge is : That, with full knowledge and with instructions from said Isaac Stephenson as to how and for what purposes said sums were to be expended, said sums were so paid, as above stated, to said Edmonds by said Isaac Stephenson and that said sums were paid as above stated for the purpose above stated and also for the purpose of bribing and corrupting a sufficient number of the electors of the State of Wisconsin to encompass the nomination of said Isaac Stephenson at said primary for the office of United States Senator. Is that charge true? Mr. Edmonds. Absolutely untrue. The Chairman. Is any part of it true? Mr. Edmonds. I do not believe so, as I recall the reading of it. The Chairman. The fourth charge is: That, in pursuance of the purposes and design above stated, said Isaac Ste- phenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary pay to one U. G. Keller, of Sauk County, an elector of this State, the sum of $300 as a considera- tion for some act to be done by said Keller for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary. Mr. Edmonds. As to the amount, I am not certain. Some amount was paid him. The Chairman. Through whom? Mr. Edmonds. Through me. The Chairman. For Isaac Stephenson? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; in his behalf. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman be kind enough to read the last few words? The Chairman. I am going to do so, and I will read them in order that this may be intelligently presented. Appended to the portion that I have read of the fourth charge is the statement “corruptly and unlawfully.” Did you make this payment corruptly or unlaw- fully ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. How did you make it? Mr. Edmonds. In a perfectly lawful manner. Senator Pomerene. That is a conclusion. The Chairman. Yes. Describe what constituted the manner. Mr. Edmonds. The manner of the payment? The Chairman. Is that one of the items in your list? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so. I am sure it was in the list. Mr. Littlefield. Is there any statement in here as to Keller? 350 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. I am quite certain it is in the list. Senator Pomerene. He testified concerning an item of $150 to Keller — I have a memorandum of it on my notes — possibly some others. The Chairman. That money was paid by you as campaign man- ager for Senator Stephenson, was it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. The Chairman. And it was so stated by Senator Stephenson in his testimony that it was as his campaign manager that you paid that money, was it? You were present when Senator Stephenson testified to it? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall his making a statement of this par- ticular item. Did he? The Chairman. I will merely let it go in the record. It is on page 70 of Senator Stephenson’s testimony. Mr. Littlefield. That is the testimony before the legislative com- mittee, not before this subcommittee. The Chairman. It will be now before this subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. But I just simply wanted to identify it. Mr. Black. You referred to a payment by Stephenson to Keller? The Chairman. That conclusion goes to the capacity in which he paid it. Because of that testimony they have evidently selected it from a number of other payments. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman be kind enough to give us the page so that I can have it? The Chairman. I did. I will give you both of those. Page 70 of Mr. Stephenson’s testimony, page 2261 of Mr. Keller’s testimony. You say you paid that money to Mr. Keller as Senator Stephen- son’s representative? Mr. Littlefield. I am not going to read the record to the chair- man, but I would like to ascertain what you are referring to. The Chairman. I am referring to it merely because it is in these specific charges. Mr. Littlefield. The statement in the record by Mr. Stephenson is that he “ supposed Mr. Edmonds,” etc. The Chairman. Yes. I am not attempting to apply it. Mr. Littlefield. I understand — simply to identify it. The Chairman. But I go through these specific charges in order that when the man who made them is before the committee we will have an opportunity to ask him, and this witness who is charged to have made the payment will have notice that that question will be investigated. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Now have you anything to say in regard to the purpose for which you gave Mr. Keller that money ? Mr. Edmonds. It was for the purpose of reimbursing him for time and expense in furthering the interests of Senator Stephenson’s campaign. The Chairman. Who was Mr. Keller? Mr. Edmonds. Pie was formerly clerk of the court of Sauk County. The Chairman. You paid this to him in money? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall ; I do not think so. The Chairman. But you paid it to him ? E. A. EDMONDS. 351 Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. In answering that question in the affirma- tive, Senator, I am not certain as to the amount, but there was an amount paid. The Chairman. This charge is that it was paid “ as a considera- tion for some act to be done by said Keller for said Stephenson pre- liminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully.” Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. What part of it is not true? Mr. Edmonds. It was not paid him for services to be performed corruptly or unlawfully. The Chairman. Was it paid for services preliminary to the pri- mary election? Mr. Edmonds. For work done preliminary to the primary cam- paign. The Chairman. The fifth specific charge is: That in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to one Hambright, of Racine, Wis., large sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by said Hambright for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, said Hambright being then an elector of this State, corruptly and unlawfully. Did you pay any sum of money to Mr. Hambright preliminary to the primary election ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him the money? Mr. Edmonds. He was employed by me — no he w T as employed by the headquarters, and his movements were directed by me in an effort to secure information in regard to the campaign that would enable me more successfully to conduct the general campaign for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What do you mean by “headquarters”? Mr. Edmonds. The Milwaukee headquarters of the Stephenson campaign. I make that distinction because he was one of the men employed before I took charge. Mr. Littlefield. I think he is what you call a scout? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is that the same man? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It is true, is it not, that Mr. Hambright rendered an account of the expenditure of these moneys to you? Mr. Edmonds. Not to me; perhaps to the office. The Chairman. At pages 2759-2763 I find Exhibit 117, which pur- ports to be C. M. Hambright’s account of Stephenson campaign ex- penses. Was that brought to your attention? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I did not know that he rendered an account. The Chairman. In the expense account we find, among other items, on J uly 9, “ Sundries, $5.35.” Have you any knowledge as to what constituted that item of sundries? Mr. Edmonds. None whatever. The Chairman. On page 2761 I find the item of “Cigars, $1.50.” Do you know anything about that item — for whom those cigars were purchased ? Mr, Edmonds. No, sir. 352 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. On August 1 1 find 44 Extra meals, $3.” Have you any knowledge as to whom those extra meals were purchased for? Mr. Edmonds. I have not. The Chairman. I find on August 7 44 Sundries, $17.02.” Have you any knowledge as to what items were included within 44 Sundries ” ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. I find on August 29 44 Sundries, $11.86.” Have you any knowledge as to the items that are included w r ithin that charge? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did this statement ever come to your notice ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; not to my best knowledge and belief. The Chairman. I beg pardon? Mr. Edmonds. Not to my best recollection and belief. The Chairman. It is an exhibit in the testimony of C. M. Ham- bright, who appeared before the committee on March 24, 1909. Were you present there at that time? Mr. Edmonds. At the investigation? No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You mean when Hambright testified? Mr. Edmonds. I was not there when Hambright testified; no, sir. The Chairman. Has your attention ever been called to this testi- mony that was taken before the joint committee? Mr. Edmonds. No. sir; not to have me read it or go over it at all. The Chairman. You never have? Mr. Edmonds. I never have. The Chairman. You have never interested yourself to know what facts were testified to by the witnesses before that committee ? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly never have taken interest enough in it to read the testimony before the investigating committee. The Chairman. Did you ever read over the testimony that you gave before the committee? Mr. Edmonds. I never have read it over. The Chairman. You seem to have completely divorced yourself from this question of the regularity of Senator Stephenson's elec- tion since September, 1908, have you ? Mr. Edmonds. Since the end of my connection with the campaign, yes, sir. The Chairman. Well, you appeared Mr. Edmonds. Of course I appeared before a committee and testi- fied since that date. The Chairman. When did you appear before the committee? Mr. Edmonds. One of the first witnesses, early in the testimony; I do not recall ; I think I was the second or third witness, perhaps. The Chairman. You appear as the first witness in volume 2, but I do not find a date. Mr. Edmonds. I appeared at different times before the committee; I think three different times before the two committees. The Chairman. May 4, 1909 ; was that the date ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall the date. The Chairman. Did you receive accounts with such items as that without question, 44 Sundries, $17.02,” and 44 Sundries, $11.86,” from those that you had employed in Senator Stephenson’s behalf? Mr. Edmonds. Those accounts were not rendered to me and I did not pay them. E. A. EDMONDS. 353 The Chairman. Were you in the habit of receiving statements with such items unexplained? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not think I received a statement of that kind during the campaign. The Chairman. You did not? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think I did. The Chairman. I have called your attention to it, and it is one of the specific charges contained in this record. The sixth charge is : That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above stated, said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one Roy Morse, of Fond du Lac, Wis., then an elector of this iftate, the sum of $1,000 as a consideration for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephen- son preliminary to said primary. Did you pay him such a sum? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think so. I paid him some amount, but I do not think that was the amount. I think it was less than that. The Chairman. The testimony of Roy L. Morse, at page 2553 of the record of testimony before the joint committee, discloses the fact that you made several payments to him — one of $450, one of $250, one of $700, one of $200, and some other items. Mr. Littlefield. At what page does the chairman get that? The Chairman. I was reading from page 2557 and that which follows it. You did pay him such sums of money; for what purpose did you pay him that money? Mr. Littlefield. I did not get what the witness said, if the chair- man please. The Chairman. He has not answered. Mr. Edmonds. As to paying the amounts indicated there, that would not be my recollection of it; but I paid him some amounts, aggregating several hundred dollars. The Chairman. Aggregating how much? Mr. Edmonds. Several hundred dollars. I am not certain as to the amount. Mr. Littlefield. If it be important, if the chairman please, can not the witness have the opportunity to look over Exhibit 49 and pick them out and give them to the chairman correctly ? The Chairman. I think, for the purpose of this examination, that the payment of any sum of money is probably sufficient. I am having these consolidated. Mr. Littlefield. Then if the amount be not important, there is no need of going over the details. The witness, I understand, says he did pay him sums of money. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of organizing the voters of Fond du Lac and neighboring counties — Fond du Lac County particu- larly — in an effort to secure as large a vote as possible at the polls for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. It was, then, for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephenson, preliminary to said primary, was it? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. 15235°— vol 1—11 23 354 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. It is charged here that it was corruptly and un- lawfully done. Was it corruptly and unlawfully done, this act of paying him the money ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. The seventh specific charge is: That in furtherance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to divers persons, then electors of the county of Grant, Wis., ranging from $5 per day and upward, as a consideration for some act to be done by said several electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary. Were such sums paid with your knowledge? Mr. Edmonds. There were several sums — that is, there were, I should say, more than one sum paid to persons in Grant County for the purpose of organizing that county in the interests of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Who paid them ; did you pay them ? Mr. Edmonds. They were paid through my instructions at least. The Chairman. Acting as the representative of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It is charged here that they were corruptly and unlawfully paid. Mr. Edmonds. None of them were. The Chairman. Do you know to whom these items were paid ? Mr. Edmonds. Grant County ? The Chairman. Yes. Can you name any of them? Mr. Edmonds. L. II. Stevens, for one. The Chairman. How much was paid to Stevens ? Mr. Edmonds. I can not recall the amount. The Chairman. Was it more than $5? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose was it paid to Stevens? Mr. Edmonds. For the purpose of organizing the county, in an effort to get out the full vote for Senator Stephenson at the primary election. The Chairman. Can you name others than Stevens in Grant County Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. To whom more than the sum of $5 was paid for any purpose ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I do not now recall any of them. The Chairman. Were there others? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know of any others ; no, sir. The Chairman. The eighth specific charge is : That in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to divers persons who were at such time electors in this State a consideration for some act to be done for said Isaac Stephenson by such electors preliminary to such primary. Were such payments made through you? Mr. Edmonds. I failed to get just that question ? I took it to mean that other amounts w 7 ere paid to other persons in the State? The Chairman. The payment there is of a consideration not speci- fied to have been in money. Was any consideration given to any other person or to any persons for such purposes through you ? Mr. Edmonds. Unlawfully and corruptly ? No, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 355 The Chairman. Omit the words “ unlawfully and corruptly.” Was any consideration at all given by you as the representative of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. To other persons than those named? Yes, sir; in different parts of the State. The Chairman. You say it was not corruptly and unlawfully done? Mr. Edmonds. It was not. The Chairman. The ninth specific charge is: That, in further pursuance of such purposes and designs, said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to said preliminary, did pay to electors of this State, who were of a different political opinion, and who held to other political principles than that of the Republican Party, more particularly Demo- crats, sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by such electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. No such sums were paid by me, and I do not believe it to be true in any instance. The Chairman. Were any sums of money paid to persons other than Republicans for services to be rendered by them on behalf of Senator Stephenson at the primaries or before? Mr. Edmonds. In one particular instance that I recall now ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Was that the case of Tilton? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; that was Mr. Grady. Mr. Littlefield. Grady, $15? Mr. Edmonds. $15, referred to to-day. The Chairman. For what purpose was that paid? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection, it was for some service per- formed by him of a legal character; just what I do not recall now. The Chairman. You have no further explanation to make of it than that? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. I know of no Mr. Littlefield. Let me ask here. Was there any effort made to influence his vote in the primary b} 7 that payment? Mr. Edmonds. None whatever. Mr. Littlefield. Or any expectation on your part to be influenced? Mr. Edmonds. None whatever. Mr. Littlefield. And was it in any way influenced, so far as you know ? Mr. Edmonds. I do not know. The Chairman. You do not know whether or not he was influenced by the payment of this money? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I have no means of knowing. The Chairman. The tenth specific charge is : That, iu further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephen- son, by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did offer to pay to Edward Pollock, of Lancaster, Wis.. certain sums of money, as editor of the Teller, a newspaper published in said city of Lancaster, Wis., and to other editors of newspapers who were at such time electors of this State, for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support of such editors, and as a consideration of some- thing to be done relating to such primary. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. I do not remember this particular individual, and I do not think I can answer the question — it was a long one. I do not think I can answer the statement without having that again. 356 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. “ That, in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did oner to pay to Edward Pollock, of Lancaster, Wis.” Now, to avoid confusion, is that true? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall having — knowing The Chairman. Can you say it is not true ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I can not say. The* Chairman. Because you may be confronted by an affirmative statement from some one that it is true. Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. I can not say. Mr. Littlefield. One moment. I beg pardon The Chairman. Just a moment, till I finish. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Now, I want to be candid with you and give you an opportunity to answer whether or not through you, as the repre- sentative of Senator Stephenson, any such offer was ever made to Edward Pollock? Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment. I submit, if the chairman please, that the witness ought to be allowed to answer that irre- spective of whether somebody is expected to come on and confront him with a statement. The Chairman. Well, it was rather a friendly act toward the wit- ness and entirely within the privilege of the subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. That may be ; of course, it is within the privilege of the subcommittee to ask any question. The Chairman. We are investigating, and we are anxious that the witnesses shall be treated candidly and fairly, and that where it is necessary to call their attention to the special importance of a matter about which they are interrogated, that they should have notice of its importance, and it seems to me that rather than being a subject of objection it should be rather one of congratulation. Mr. Littlefield. I regret that we did not appreciate the signifi- cance of it until suggested by the chairman. The Chairman. This witness, I will say, has indicated that he desires to be excused for a few days, and during the time he is absent it is entirely probable that the party making these charges will be here to testify, and the witness should be placed upon notice of that fact, so that he may give the very closest attention to the answers to such questions. Mr. Littlefield. That being the purpose, I have not any objection. Senator Pomerene. If I may ask here, in view of this charge, is there any Wisconsin statute on the subject of newspaper advertis- ing or the purchase of the editorial influence ? Mr. Littlefield. I will ask Brother Black to answer that. So far as I am concerned, my attention has not been called to any. I do not know what the fact is. Senator Pomerene. Do you know, Mr. Black? Mr. Black. There was not at the time of this primary. Senator Pomerene. Is there since? Mr. Black. There was some bill passed at the last session relating to it. Mr. Littlefield. While I have not examined it with great care, my advice was that there was not any statute that had even the remotest relation to newspaper advertising or contracts in any way. E. A. EDMONDS. 357 Senator Pomerene. This charge is made so specific here I was a little curious to know whether there was any statute on the subject. Mr. Littlefield. My advice is that there is not. The Chairman. It is doubtless made under section 338, which I have read into the record. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I think very likely. The Chairman. I intended that this statute should be read imme- diately preceding the examination in regard to these specific charges; but counsel proceeded to examine the witness, thus interjecting some testimony between it and such examination, and I think when we have it printed, we will print this section of the statute immediately preceding the testimony in regard to these specific charges, because they refer to it. Mr. Littlefield. We will be very glad to have it done in that way. The Chairman. And it was undoubtedly intended that these charges should come within the language of the statute, which is “ for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting,” etc. Senator Pomerene. Is there any Wisconsin decision of any of your courts here as to the meaning of the term “ preliminary meeting ? ” Mr. Littlefield. I do not think so. Mr. Black. I do not recall any. Senator Pomerene. The purpose of my question is, is that broad enough to cover the matter of the primary ? The Chairman. “ Meeting, caucus, or convention.” Senator Pomerene. Preliminary meeting? Mr. Black. I took your question, Senator Pomerene, in relation to a law respecting advertising, to mean specifically advertising in newspapers, and not as relating to the section to which the chairman has referred. Senator Pomerene. Yes. My further question was whether or not there was any judicial determination of the term “ preliminary meet- ing? ” Mr. Littlefield. I had Brother Black examine the authorities with reference to the construction of this statute — that is, I requested him to do so — and the information I got from his office was that it had not been judicially construed by the courts. Of course, if there has been any case it has simply escaped his investigation. The Chairman. You say there was no offer to pay Edward Pollock any sum of money for his newspaper support ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not mean to deny the statement made there, because I do not recall having made such a tender to him. The Chairman. Did you pay Edward Pollock any sum of money ? Mr. Edmonds. Not to the best of my knowledge and belief. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman notices this is an offer to pay ; no allegation here of any payment ; simply an offer to pay. The Chairman. I am asking the question merely to get at the facts. Did you offer to pay him any sum of money ? Mr. Edmonds. Not to the best of my knowledge and belief. The Chairman. Did anyone representing Senator Stephenson offer to pay him any sum of money for his support in a newspaper ? Mr. Edmonds. Not so far as I can recollect. I make that statement in that manner, Senator, because at different times efforts were made, by telephone and by letter, to interest and urge upon different editors 358 E. A. EDMONDS. in different localities their support, and the use of their papers for Senator Stephenson; so it is possible that he was solicited, but I do not recall it. The Chairman. You do not know by whom he was solicited? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Might it be that you telephoned him, or solicited him to support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Edmonds. I am quite sure that I did call up different persons, and he may have been one ; but I do not recall it now. The Chairman. When you called newspaper men up in that way, did you make a statement to them as to what compensation they might receive for it ? Mr. Edmonds. My best recollection is that in talking with news- paper men they usually called me up. I think the newspaper frater- nity, as a rule, were the ones who solicited assistance. The Chairman. This tenth specification or specific charge proceeds to say “ and to other editors of newspapers who were at such time electors of this State.” Did you call up any papers, or did you pay any papers any sum of money for their support of Senator Stephen- son? Mr. Edmonds. I paid newspaper publishers in the State for sup- port of Senator Stephenson — possibly that is not a fair statement — at least, to further the candidacy of Senator Stephenson. They were paid for space in their papers. The Chairman. For favorable comment? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you state to what papers you paid sums of money for Senator Stephenson to procure the support of such papers ? Mr. Edmonds. One of them I think I testified to yesterday as the Wausau Record-Herald. The Chairman. How much did you pay that paper? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is not complete; $100 or $150. The Chairman. What other paper can you recollect having paid money to for such purpose? Mr. Edmonds. The Oconto Falls Herald. The Chairman. How much did you pay that paper? Mr. Edmonds. I am not certain, but I think $100. The Chairman. Name another one, can you? Mr. Edmonds. I do not recall another one ; no, sir. The Chairman. This specification charges that such payment was made “ for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support of such editors.” Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you not contract with the paper when you made the payment, or at some time, that it should give Senator Stephenson’s candidacy its editorial support? Mr. Edmonds. My best judgment is that they were, in both in- stances, favorable to the senatorial candidacy of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Had they so expressed themselves prior to your payment or contract to pay them money ? Mr. Edmonds. I am unable to say now. The Chairman. We will proceed to the eleventh specification Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman close up with the inquiry as to “ corruptly and unlawfully,” so as to clean that up ? E. A. EDMONDS. 359 The Chairman. Yes. I thought I had, in this case. These payments, were they made corruptly or unlawfully? Mr. Edmonds. In no instance. The Chairman. That is a legal conclusion. I hardly think the witness’s testimony on the subject adds anything to the facts. Mr. Littlefield. That may be true; but, of course, it charac- terizes the charge. The charge without that does not amount to anything. The Chairman. That is a part of the charge. Mr. Littlefield. Yes ; I would like, if it be agreeable to the chair- man, as he goes along with the charges, as you have done already, to give him the opportunity to negative The Chairman. Yes; he will be given that opportunity. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember the men with whom you made the arrangement for this newspaper support? Mr. Edmonds. In the instance of the Wausau paper, J. L. Sturte- vandt ; and I think T. F. Reynolds in the other instance. Senator Pomerene. Was he a member of the legislature? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Proceed now to the eleventh specific charge: That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to such primary, by and through his agents, promise, and agree to pay to one Lester Tilton, a then resident and elector of this State, and residing at the city of Neillsville, Wis., a sum in excess of $500 to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of said Lester Tilton to the assembly of this State from Clark County, and did offer to give to said Lester Tilton a sum in excess of $500 if said Lester Tilton would become a can- didate for the assembly from said Clark County, if said Lester Tilton would support said Isaac Stephenson for the office of United States Senator, all of which is in violation of sections 4542b and 4543b of the 249th statute. Omitting the allegation that it is in violation of the statutes, did you have, or have knowledge of, such a transaction ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. Have you any statement to make in regard to this charge, as to its truth or falsity? Mr. Edmonds. So far as I am concerned it is not true, and I do not believe it to be true. The Chairman. Upon what do you base the belief that it is not true? Mr. Edmonds. I am inclined to believe my opinion is prejudiced, on account of my disbelief in the information in hand that this man had, who made the charges. The Chairman. It is to this item, Exhibit 120, at page 2810 of the State investigation, that that refers. Have you seen that exhibit? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. It is an affidavit made by Lester Tilton, on the 28th of January, 1909. Mr. Edmonds. No, sir ; I have not seen it. The Chairman. Do you say that no person made such a proposi- tion to Mr. Tilton? Mr. Edmonds. No; I do not make that statement. I know I did not. The Chairman. Have you ever had any knowledge of such a propo- sition being made? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. 360 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask the chairman to ask him if he ever authorized such a proposition to be made. The Chairman. Yes. Did you ever authorize any such proposi- tion to be made ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not. The Chairman. I will say that in the exhibit, which is an affidavit, Mr. Tilton denies the truth of the allegation. Mr. Littlefield. He denies the charge altogether? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I was just running my eye through it, and I see there is nothing said about Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. We will proceed to the twelfth specific charge: That said Isaac Stephenson did, by, and through his agents, give, and promise, and pay, or agree to pay, to other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State other than those electors residing in the district where said Isaac Stephenson resides. Is that true? Mr. Edmonds. Not in my case; no, sir. The Chairman. Did any such transaction pass under your notice? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. I will say, Mr. Edmonds, you are at full liberty to enter upon the consideration of these charges, because they are the responsible basis of the investigation. Have you nothing more to say in regard to that charge that Mr. Stephenson did, “by and through his agents, give and promise and pay or agree to pay other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State other than those electors residing in the district where said Isaac Stephenson resides? ” Mr. Edmonds. I deny having done so as his agent. I do not be- lieve, and have no knowledge of, anything of that kind having been done by any agent of his, or any man who was working for him during the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. How about the Senator himself? Mr. Edmonds. I have no knowledge of course of what the Sena- tor did ; but I certainly do not believe that he did. The Chairman. That is under another section? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. The thirteenth specific charge is: That E. M. Heyzer and Max Sells, prior to said primary, being at such time employees of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., a corporation doing business in this State, did contribute and agree to contribute, free services as such employees for the purpose to defeat the candidacy of former Assembly- man E. F. Nelson, from the district embracing Florence, Forest, and Langlade Counties, for the nomination for assemblyman from said district, all of which was done with the knowledge and consent and under the direction of said Isaac Stephenson, his agents, and employees contrary to chapter 492, laws of 1905. Do you know anything of that transaction, or the allegations upon which that transaction is based ? Mr. Edmonds. Nothing whatever. Senator Sutherland. To what does that refer? The Chairman. There is a statute that no such corporation shall contribute, et cetera. E. A. EDMONDS. 361 Senator Sutherland. I wondered what it had to do with Senator Stephenson. There does not seem a suggestion that it was with his knowledge or consent or procurement. Mr. Littlefield. A great many intelligent people have had that same wonder ever since the charge was made. Senator Sutherland. It simply seems to be a statement that these people for some purpose went out to defeat these candidates, and so far as the charge is concerned, it does not seem to have the remotest connection with Senator Stephenson or any of his agents. Mr. Littlefield. We agree to that, Senator Mr. Black. There never was a word of testimony in support of that. The Chairman. I will refer to that. I have notes upon that. Mr. Littlefield. As I remember it, there was no testimony in sup- port of it. The Chairman. I have some notes to which I will call attention in a moment, as soon as I find the statute. There is a provision with reference to the contribution of a corporation to a campaign fund. Mr. Black. That is true. Senator Sutherland. My inquiry about it was based upon the face of the charge, as to what it had to do with this inquiry. The Chairman. It is one of the specific charges. Senator Pomerene. It might be pertinent in an inquiry about the officials of that company. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. It is to be found in sections 318 to 322. The statute about which that specific charge is made is doubtless section 318, which reads as follows: No corporation doing business in this State shall pay or contribute, or offer, consent, or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money! property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee, or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment, or election to any political office. Senator Sutherland. I did not want to take up any time on the matter, but I simply wondered whether there was concealed in the statement something that had not attracted my attention. For the life of me I could not see what it had to do with Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. You did not know but that there might be some- thing latent in it. The Chairman. The penalty is prescribed in section 322. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I have a reference to it here, page 2912 and suc- ceeding pages. This matter seems to have been gone into in the hearing. Senator Sutherland. It simply occurred to me that we ought to occupy the time of this inquiry in looking into matters that affected Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. I felt that these specific charges should receive special, specific attention; otherwise it might be charged that we had overlooked the indictment. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe anybody will charge that you have overlooked anything. If they do, you may call me, if you want a “ character ” in that respect. 362 E. A. EDMONDS. The Chairman. One of the most difficult things in the world is to anticipate what men may charge. Mr. Littlefield. I think you are doing very well. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge of that transaction whatever ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you employ those men, either Mr. Hizer or Mr. Sells, being, as they were, employees of the Chicago & North- western Railway Co., to do anything or perform any service during that campaign? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that a sum of $25 has been stated as having been paid to Mr. Sells in our report. It had nothing to do with anything of this kind. The Chairman. With what did it have to do? Mr. Edmonds. As to the exact service I do not recall now. He was a very warm friend of Mr. Hizer and other friends of Senator Stephenson, and I think was favorable to his candidacy. The Chairman. You engaged him, knowing that he was the agent and representative of the railroad company, did you ? Mr. Edmonds. No. I am not certain that I engaged him, and do not recall now how he happened to be paid the $25. The Chairman. We will proceed now to the next charge, the four- teenth : That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above set forth said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, did, in addition to paying certain sums as above set forth, offer and agree to pay to electors of this State prior to said primary a premium or bonus to those who in his employ carried their re- spective precincts in such primary for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate. Do you know of any such arrangement ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; I certainly do not. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge in regard to the matters and things charged in that fourteenth charge ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir; none whatever. The Chairman. The fifteenth charge is as follows : That said Isaac Stephenson, if claiming an election by virtue of receiving a plurality of votes at such primary, then said Isaac Stephenson has violated chapter 562 of the laws of 1905, by failing and neglecting to file his expense account as provided by said chapter. I think it is hardly necessary to inquire of you anything in respect to that, further than to inquire whether as his representative you did comply with the statute in filing the expense account. Mr. Littlefield. The charge is that if he claimed the election, he violated the law. The Chairman. He is here claiming election. Mr. Black. But not by virtue of receiving a plurality at the primary. The Chairman. At the time of the filing of these specific charges he was not claiming the election. Mr. Littlefield. No. The Chairman. These specific charges were filed January 26, 1909. Mr. Littlefield. He never claimed the election by virtue of receiv- ing a plurality of the votes. The Chairman. That is rather technical. Mr. Littlefield. I think so, too. E. A. EDMONDS. 363 The Chairman. And we need waste no time over that. It seems to me the fifteenth and the sixteenth charges are statements of a con- clusion rather than matters about which this witness should be in- terrogated. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Edmonds, I understood you to say, in answer to questions put to you by counsel, that Senator Stephenson expected $30,000 to cover his expenses. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no; I beg the Senator’s pardon. I think you have misunderstood me. I tried to get the witness to testify to that. I supposed he knew it. To be perfectly frank, I do not know where I got the information, but I had it in my mind that the Senator started in with the idea that he probably would have to expend about $30,000 in the election, and I thought Mr. Edmonds knew that. He said, however, he did not know it and could not testify to it. Senator Sutherland. Then I obtained the wrong impression. Is that a correct statement of the matter as made by Mr. Littlefield? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; that is a correct statement. Senator Sutherland. Was it suggested, so far as you know, at any time, what amount he was willing to spend ? Mr. Edmonds. No; he never made known to me the amount that he was willing to expend. Senator Sutherland. At the time he objected — or, perhaps, I had better not say “ objected ” — at the time some controversy arose respecting the further spending of sums of money, was it stated how much had then been expended ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Just what was the objection that Senator Stephenson made? Do you recall it? Mr. Edmonds. In my talk with Senator Stephenson I wanted to learn from him the amount of money he expected to expend. He seemed to think that too much money was being expended. I en- deavored to have him fix an amount so that we would not exceed it. This he declined to do, and I endeavored to show him the difficulty of conducting a campaign without knowing how much I might be allowed to expend; but I was not able to get him to state, and he said to go on and conduct the campaign — ■“ use your best ability in conducting it,” and left it in that way. Senator Sutherland. Just what did he say, as near as you can recall, about the excess of expenditures? Mr. Littlefield. May I suggest that the Senator [Mr. Suther- land] is willing to take the substance of what he said, if the witness can not recollect in detail. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Edmonds. In my talk I had endeavored to show him that his expenditure was not in excess of what the other candidates who might be called leading candidates against him were spending. They were spending money in different places, and it would be very diffi- cult for him to win unless he endeavored in every possible manner to get out the vote — organize thoroughly in each locality, and in my discussion of that matter he used his own language and stated that it did not make any difference how much those fellows paid, that would not govern him; that he wanted to win the election, but he did not propose to buy it. I remember his using that particular term. 364 E. A. EDMONDS. Senator Sutherland. How did you know what the others were paying ? Mr. Edmonds. Only in a general way as I would run across it and get reports from different localities. Senator Sutherland. You did not learn the amount they were spending, I suppose? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. But you learned they were spending money somewhat lavishly? Mr. Edmonds. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Is that all he said on the subject of spending too much monej^? Mr. Edmonds. That is all I recall now ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did he make any further complaint about it as you went along? Mr, Edmonds. Not to me. May I explain that I did not conduct the negotiations with him for this money except at this particular time I had this talk with him, and then all requests for money came from another source. The custodian of funds did that. Senator Sutherland. At the time he was complaining about the Jarge expenditure of money, did he ask you what you were spending it for? Mr. Edmonds. I do not think we went into that in detail at all. I do not think he inquired. Senator Sutherland. Or why there was any necessity of spending as much as you were doing? Mr. Edmonds. I can only assume we did, because we went into it quite thoroughly, but as to our talk, I do not recall. Senator Sutherland. Did you tell him what you were spending it for? Mr. Edmonds. In detail, no, sir; just in this manner in a general way, that we were contemplating going into the organization of each township in a county. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean each township or voting precinct? Mr. Edmonds. Usually that is the voting precinct. I should have said voting precinct — for the purpose of organizing thoroughly. That matter was discussed, and he said : No; we could not afford to do that; that would cost too much money. Senator Sutherland. Then did you alter your plans upon that statement ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that that talk was had with him before any definite plan had been determined upon, that in some in- stances perhaps I had gone that far, but no policy had been adopted. Senator Sutherland. You say in addition to the conversation you wrote him a letter about the necessity of expenditure, as I understood you ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Did you keep a copy of that letter? Mr. Edmonds. It was written from headquarters. I think a copy was left in the headquarters. Senator Sutherland. Can you procure that copy and produce it? Mr. Edmonds. I have no means of knowing where that is. I should be glad to endeavor to produce it. Senator Sutherland. Can you produce that, Mr. Littlefield. B. A. EDMONDS. 365 Mr. Littlefield. I do not know a thing about it, but I will inquire. I will surely endeavor to do it, if we have it. So as to be sure what we have in mind, that is a letter that was written by Mr. Edmonds to Senator Stephenson ? Senator Sutherland. Yes; a letter he testified about. This talk was about August 7, as I understand you. That is, at any rate, the payment of the $30,000 which was made in response to that talk was made on August 7 ? Mr. Edmonds. As I think of it, that talk that I had with Senator Stephenson was at the time I saw him in relation to the placing of the $5,000 in the National Exchange Bank, rather than at this par- ticular time. Senator Sutherland. Which $5,000 do you mean? Mr. Littlefield. There is only one that was given to him. Mr. Edmonds. There was only one $5,000 that was given to me. Senator Sutherland. That would be on August 27 ? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that was a good deal earlier. Senator Sutherland. There is an item of $5,000 on August 27. Mr. Edmonds. Paid to me ? Senator Sutherland. That is the only item of $5,000 that I find in the accounts at all. Did he give you more than one $5,000? Mr. Edmonds. No; and I should say that was in July rather than in August. Mr. Littlefield. Will the Senator please look on page 37? Senator Sutherland. I did not understand he meant the first $5,000 that was paid. Mr. Edmonds. There was only one $5,000 that was paid to me. Senator Sutherland. You mean $5,000 that was paid to you when you first took hold of the matter ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. That was, as I should think, three weeks later. Senator Sutherland. I do not understand you. Let us get a fresh start. When was this talk with Senator Stephenson about the neces- sity of the expenditure? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that it was at the time I asked him to place the $5,000 in the National Exchange Bank, on which I should check. Senator Sutherland. When was it? Mr. Edmonds. My recollection is that it was late in July. Senator Sutherland. That was placed in the bank ? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. He gave me, I think, a draft, and I placed it in the bank to my credit. Senator Sutherland. At that time there had been comparatively little money paid over by him, had there? Mr. Edmonds. Well, I do not recall how much. I have no means of knowing. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any objection to looking at the record? Senator Sutherland. No ; I would like to see that. Mr. Littlefield. It is page 37, marked “ Exhibit 1.” There is $12,000 that had been paid over prior to that date. Senator Sutherland. This seems to be in accordance with what I have already stated. There is a check to you on July 18, $5,000. That is not the one to which you refer ? 366 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. Yes ; that is the one to which I refer. Senator Sutherland. That was paid to you at the time you were first employed, as I understood ? Mr. Edmonds. No. If I made a statement of that kind you mis- understood me. There was no money paid to me until two or three weeks after I came around to headquarters. Senator Sutherland. At that time there had been a check of $2,000 paid to Van Cleve and a second check of $10,000 to Van Cleve, mak- ing $12,000 in all. Mr. Edmonds. Yes; that is true according to this statement, though at that time I did not know the amounts. Senator Sutherland. So that there was a lapse in your activities because of the lack of money, say, between July 6 and July 18? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. When was that? Mr. Edmonds. That was 10 days or about that time prior to the receipt of the $30,000. Senator Sutherland. Then I did not understand your testimony at all. Mr. Edmonds. I am very sorry that I have not made myself plain. Senator Sutherland. It may be due to me. Mr. Littlefield. May I make this suggestion? As I understand, Mr. Edmonds had two conversations in which the matter of finances were discussed, and the one in which the discussion took place as to whether they would have a detailed precinct organization, if I get it right, was about the time of the $5,000 payment ; the one when this complaint was made about the excessive expenditures being along about the time of the $30,000 talk. Senator Sutherland. Is that correct? Mr. Edmonds. No. Mr. Littlefield. Then I am all w r rong. Mr. Edmonds. It is not quite correct. I think the confusion is due to my lack of recollection this morning and yesterday, when I testified. Senator Sutherland. Suppose you take an absolutely fresh start and tell us about this matter. Mr. Edmonds. The impression seems to have gone out from the testimony that has been given that I did not start until I received $5,000 to start in with. That is a mistake. I came down here with the understanding with Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Van Cleve that the money would be in the bank to begin business with whenever I came, which was about a week later. I arrived soon after the 4th of July, I think. Then, on the 18th, according to this, I received a check or a draft for $5,000. I received that after the conversation with Sena- tor Stephenson, in which I asked him to place this amount to my credit and check out against it. Senator Sutherland. But that was not after any complaint about excessive expenditures ? Mr. Edmonds. During that conversation was the time when he made the complaint. I wanted him to place, as I recall, $10,000 to my credit in the bank, and at that time he objected to the expendi- tures. Senator Sutherland. That was on July 18. Was it after he had given you the $5,000 that he complained about the expenditures? E. A. EDMONDS. 367 Mr. Edmonds. During the conversation with me, when I asked him to do this. Senator Sutherland. Was there any subsequent time when he complained about the expenditure? Mr. Edmonds. Not that I recall, to me. Senator Sutherland. Then was the payment of this $30,000 on August 7 after a period of inactivity? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Because of the shortness of funds? Mr. Edmonds. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Was there any complaint during that time about the excessive use of money? Mr. Edmonds. Not to me, because I had no conversation with him that I recall. Senator Sutherland. Then I misunderstood the situation. Mr. Edmonds. There was a shortage of money in the bank. The negotiations for funds from Senator Stephenson were not made directly by me — always by Mr. Puelicher. I looked to him for funds. When they were not there I made complaint to him. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean that prior to the payment of $30,000 and after the payment of the preceding $10,000 there had been a period of inactivity because of shortness of funds? Mr. Edmonds. As to when any given amounts were placed to the credit of the bank, I do not know. This would seem to confuse the matter somewhat — this date, $10,000 having been received on July 30, and then $30,000 on August 7, and one would suppose that $10,000 would take care of things; but for almost, if not quite, 10 days be- fore the receipt of that $30,000 there had been no money in the bank for use in organizing in the counties. Whether that money — the $10,000 — and other sums preceding it had been expended in the pay- ment of other bills, I do not know. I know there was a shortage. Mr. Littlefield. At which conversation was it, if the Senator will excuse me, that Senator Stephenson objected to the detailed precinct organization? Mr. Edmonds. At the time that I asked him for this $5,000 to be placed to my credit in the bank. Senator Sutherland. I understand you now. Senator Pomerene. When was it you had this conversation with the Senator in which you told him about the lavish expenditures of the other candidates and wanted him to place a limit upon the amount you were to put in ? Mr. Edmonds. At this particular time — when I got the $5,000 and it was placed to my credit. Senator Pomerene. Then, I did not understand it. Mr. Edmonds. I think I am at fault for your not understanding it, because I was confused this morning in the dates. I am positive now that before receiving the $30,000 I did not see him. Senator Pomerene. Was anyone else present at the time you had this conversation with him ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Where was it? Mr. Edmonds. At Marinette. Senator Pomerene. At his home? 368 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Edmonds. At his home. Senator Pomerene. You understood, then, from that conversation there was not any limit placed upon you at all, except what in your judgment was necessary? Mr. Edmonds. Yes; rather by inference, to be as careful as pos- sible and not go too far, but no limit was placed. Senator Pomerene. Did he make any inquiries at that time as to how this money was being expended? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or suggest to you any methods of expendi- ture? Mr. Edmonds. Not to my recollection, except as I asked him about the organization of precincts. He objected to that, but I do not recall any other. Senator Pomerene. There is one other matter I noticed in going over these charges. Charge 15 refers to an alleged violation of chapter 562. Does not that mean chapter 502? I have before me the election laws, in which I note that the section requiring the filing of the account seems to be designated as section 4543B, and at the end of it chapter 502. Mr. Littlefield. What page is that? Senator Sutherland. I am looking at page 1T98. I wondered whether there was another chapter. Mr. Black. No. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Blaine’s charge 15 refers to an alleged violation of chapter 562. Mr. Littlefield. Requiring returns to be filed? Senator Pomerene. Yes. That is probably a misprint, is it not? Senator Sutherland. It is a misprint. Senator Pomerene. I wanted to be sure about that. No other sec- tion of the statute was called to my attention. Mr. Littlefield. We have not verified that. I presume you are right about it. If there is any error in the citation, we will get it right. Mr. Black. Section 502 of the laws of 1905 is the citation I have. Senator Pomerene. Probably that is a typographical error. Mr. Black. Yes. Senator Sutherland. With reference to section 338, has there been any construction of that section by the attorney general, or anybody else whom you know of? Mr. Black. I have examined the decisions, as Mr. Littlefield has said, and I do not find where that question or that statute has been passed upon. You ask whether there has been any ruling of the attorney general. I am not aware of any, though I have not inquired. Senator Sutherland. It appears to be a loosely drawn section, and would seem to require considerable construction to give it effect. Mr. Black. I do not know that there has ever been a prosecution under that section. Mr. Littlefield. Our view is that the statute all the way through is characterized by the first sentence, the expression “ bribery, or cor- rupt or unlawful means.” Everything else is in the alternative, and in our judgment relates back to that declaration. Any other con- struction would absolutely eliminate any campaign on the part of any candidate. E. A. EDMONDS. 369 Senator Pomerene. When was your primary law passed ? Mr. Black. Originally in 1903, and amended in 1905. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think there can be any doubt about that as a matter of legal construction, because any other construction would be grotesque. A man could not do anything toward promot- ing his election, unless he did it personally. The minute he stepped outside of himself, he would be committing a crime. Senator Sutherland. I notice in the last section, 341, a provision that — The district attorney of the county is hereby authorized and empowered to conduct prosecutions for violations of this act, upon complaint of duly qualified elector of the caucus district in which such violations of this act may have occurred. Does that mean that no one else can make a complaint? Mr. Littlefield. This is the first time my attention has been called to it. It would seem to me to look in that direction. I would say offhand that I should doubt somewhat whether it could be confined to that. Senator Sutherland. It very plainly says: Upon complaint of duly qualified elector of the caucus district in which such violations of this act may have occurred. Mr. Littlefield. The district attorney is authorized, on the com- plaint of a duly qualified elector. That does not necessarily exclude any other person. The Chairman. As to a taxpayer’s right to sue under certain sec- tions, it is coextensive with that of the attorney general. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, but that that is on the civil side, and this is a criminal prosecution. Mr. Sutherland. What is the purpose of extending the right to a qualified elector? Mr. Littlefield. You mean of confining it to a qualified elector? Senator Sutherland. No ; in your view it would not confine it to him. If it does not confine it to him, it must extend it to him. Mr. Littlefield. In the absence of this statute I suppose any- body could make a complaint. Senator Sutherland. The only object for a provision of that kind must be either to extend the right to the elector to do something that he would not otherwise have a right to do or to confine it to the elector. I am speaking of statutory construction generally. Mr. Littlefield. I should think perhaps the purpose of the act might be to do that, but I should doubt somewhat whether a com- plaint made by anybody, of a violation of a criminal statute, would not be competent. Senator Sutherland. I never heard of any statute before where the right to file a criminal complaint was either extended to par- ticular individuals or confined to them. Mr. Littlefield. So as to limit it to a particular channel. The Chairman. I suggest that this is in harmony with the spirit from which the law emanated. The statute is evidently passed in response to a demand that the individual shall have a right to go around the officer in the event of the officer failing to enforce the law. I am rather inclined to think it is intended to meet some such idea. 15235 °— vol 1—11 24 370 B. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. On general principles there is no occasion for specifying the complainant. The Chairman. It might be made a very taking text, speaking under certain circumstances. Senator Sutherland. You do not mean by that that there is a sort of local-option arrangement by which electors in certain dis- tricts may have the law enforced, and electors in other districts not have them enforced ? Mr. Littlefield. A sort of statutory monopoly of purity. The Chairman. That is among the possibilities. Senator Sutherland. That is a modern extension of the local- option idea. The Chairman. I am rather impressed with the idea that the purpose of section 338 was to eliminate the candidate entirely from the canvass or the campaign. I think they might have emphasized it, or rather made it plainer, by providing that the candidate should absent himself from the State during the campaign. Under the language of this section there is nothing that he can do that is not a violation of the law. Mr. Littlefield. Absolutely. The Chairman. Because it says that he shall not do any act in relation to such primary meeting, and if he does it, he is violating that law. Mr. Littlefield. He is anathema maranatha. The Chairman. It does not leave him the right to canvass. It leaves the elector in the solitude of his own thoughts and judgment, to determine for whom he will vote, without any advice or any in- formation being brought to him. Mr. Littlefield. And if that is the idea, in order to carry it to its logical conclusion, he should be excluded from the contagion of the presence of the candidate, whose personal influence should be segregated and carried to some other clime. The Chairman. I am well satisfied that that was the intention of those who enacted the section, but it is a question of what construc- tion will be placed upon it by the courts of the State. Senator Pomerene. Did the Senator notice that the words “ pri- mary election ” are not used in that section, but simply “ preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention ” ? The Chairman. There is a general section here that would bring that in. Mr. Littlefield. That would not allow them to meet even at a bridge party for the purpose of talking the matter over. The Chairman. There is a general section which makes it ap- plicable. Mr. Littlefield. There is a section which undertakes to make the general statutes applicable to all election laws. Senator Pomerene. I did not know that. Have you a memoran- dum of that section ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; on page 33 of this pamphlet, election laws of Wisconsin, section 40. General election laws applicable. The provisions of the statutes now in force in relation to the holding of elec- tions, the solicitation of voters at the polls, the challenging of voters, the man- ner of conducting elections, of counting the ballots and making return thereof. E. A. EDMONDS. 371 and all other kindred subjects shall apply to all primaries in so far as they are consistent with this act, the intent of this act being to place the primary under the regulation and protection of the laws now in force as to elections. Mr. Black. There is another section. Mr. Littlefield. I will read that into the record also. Senator Sutherland. Section 338 does not refer to anything relat- ing to elections. It applies to preliminary meetings. The Chairman. There is another section that covers that. Senator Pomerene. Look at the section at the top of page 33, “ Penalties : Caucus and general election laws applicable.” Mr. Black. That is the one. Mr. Littlefield. I will read that in. Penalties : Caucus and general election laws applicable. Any act declared an offense by the general laws of this State concerning caucuses and elections shall also, in like case, be an offense in all primaries, and shall be punished in the same form and manner as therein provided, and all the penalties and provisions of the law as to such caucuses and elections, except as herein otherwise provided, shall apply in such case with equal force, and to the same extent as though fully set forth in this act. Senator Sutherland. That would make section 338 applicable. Mr. Littlefield. I think so. Senator Sutherland. The other section would not. Senator Pomerene. While reading these sections of the statute into the record, would it not be well to have all the sections which may define the different election offenses — as, for instance, bribery and corruption — read into the record, so that we can have them ? The Chairman. We will preface our report with them, un- doubtedly. Mr. Littlefield. It seems to me to be a very good idea that when the record is made up there should be a summary of all the various legislation relating to any of these controversies. Senator Pomerene. We would be glad to have counsel put into the record any special sections that they have in mind. Mr. Littlefield. I will be glad to take that up with the committee before we get to the final printing of the report, so everything will be in it that any of us think material. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds, you have indicated a desire to be absent for a few days. How long do you desire to be away? Mr. Edmonds. I should like if possible to be away all of next week, and if I may be subject to telegraphic call, I shall appreciate that very much. The Chairman. I think it better that the record show that you are excused until a certain time. Occupying the relation that you do to this matter, questions may arise at any time, out of the examina- tion of other witnesses, which may make it necessary for you to be present. Can you be here by October 15 ? Mr. Edmonds. I would appreciate it if I might be here one week from Monday at 11 o’clock. The Chairman. Then you will be excused until Monday, October 16, at which time you will report. Mr. Edmonds. Would it be satisfactory if I arrive at 11 o’clock in- stead of 10 ? I can come down on the early train from my home. The Chairman. Be here at the afternoon session on that day. The hour of adjournment is now so close at hand that we can hardly enter upon the examination of Mr. Sacket. 372 E. A. EDMONDS. Mr. Littlefield. I have just a question or two to ask of Mr. Ed- monds, to clean up so far as we have gone. I might forget to ask these questions unless I do it now. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Edmonds, calling your special attention to section 338, upon which a number of the charges made by Mr. Blaine appear to have been predicated, I should like to inquire of you whether or not you received any sum of money from Senator Stephen- son for use in the primary campaign for bribery or corrupt or un- lawful means. Mr. Edmonds. None whatever. Mr. Littlefield. Did you expend any money in the interests of Senator Stephenson in that primary election or campaign for bribery or corrupt or unlawful means ? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Does it not occur to you that that calls for a legal conclusion? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, yes; but of course he is inquired of in rela- tion to these charges, and I should like to have the intent and pur- pose of the witness. Senator Pomerene. As far as the question of the intent with which he expended the money is concerned, undoubtedly he has a right to answer as to that; but when the question is asked broadly whether he expended any money for bribery, that is asking for an ultimate conclusion. Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate the propriety of your suggestion. All I desire to cover, as far as this witness is concerned, is his intent. Of course the committee must understand that I do not expect to foreclose this question by the statement of Mr. Edmonds on a legal construction. I think the suggestion of the Senator is perfectly appropriate. What I want to get from Mr. Edmonds is a statement as to his intent, and I will put it in that way : Did you, Mr. Edmonds, expend any money in the interest of Senator Stephenson with the intent to bribe or corrupt or accomplish the result by unlawful means ? Mr. Edmonds. I certainly did not. Mr. Littlefield. Calling your special attention to charge 6, as to which I do not think the inquiry was made, were any expenditures that were made by you in connection with Mr. Boy Morse made with a corrupt or unlawful intent upon your part? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I take it there is certainly no question as to the propriety of that inquiry. Senator Pomerene. Certainly not. Where the question of intent is an element of a crime he has a right to answer. Mr. Littlefield. Calling your attention now to charges 7 and 8, which I will not stop to read unless the committee desire it, they charge generally that you paid to divers persons, then electors, and so forth, and that Senator Stephenson, by and through his agents, charge generally that you paid to divers persons, then electors, and so forth. I will ask you whether or not the payments that you have stated as having been made in connection with those paragraphs were the payments to which you have already testified in your pre- vious examination? Mr. Edmonds. I believe so; yes, sir. E. A. EDMONDS. 373 Mr. Littlefield. Have you any recollection of any other pay- ments that might be covered by the particular or general language of paragraphs 7 and 8 other than those that you have definitely de- scribed in your testimony heretofore to the committee? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether any payments that were made by you, and to which you referred in the general answers to these two paragraphs, were made by you with any corrupt or un- lawful intent? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The Chairman. You were asked as to whether or not in the con- versation you had with Senator Stephenson at the time when you received the $5,000 check any limit was placed upon your expendi- tures, and I understood you to say that no limit was placed. Now, do I understand you to mean that after the Senator told you that you were not to go into the detail of organizing this State by pre- cincts, on account of the expense involved, you considered yourself at liberty to go into the organization in that detail? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. The idea I intended to convey by my answer was that no specific amount was named by the Senator as limiting the expenditure. Mr. Littlefield. What you meant by that was that no sum of money was fixed as a limit? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You did not intend to negative his instruction to you not to go into the detailed organization by precincts? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly not. I did not intend to after I was in- structed not to do so. Mr. Littlefield. Did you or not consider that a limit upon your duties as acting for him? Mr. Edmonds. Certainly. Mr. Littlefield. Then, I do not understand that after his sug- gestion in that regard you felt at liberty to organize in that detail? Mr. Edmonds. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have been asked several times with reference to whether or not you had read your testimony that you gave before the State investigating committee, and whether or not you had read the record. I should like to inquire whether there was or not any- thing, either in your conduct, your acts, or your testimony, that led you to believe that any foundation had been laid for any serious consequences of a criminal or other nature, so far as either you or Senator Stephenson was concerned, by the acts or conduct of your- self or by any testimony that you had given ? Mr. Edmonds. I did not believe the foundation had been laid for any criminal act; or, rather, I mean to say, I did not believe that the investigation and the charges that had been made had anything more than political significance. I always felt that that was a fight within the party here, never expecting that it would go beyond the bounds of the State. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any apprehension of any kind of any serious consequences either to yourself or Senator Stephenson, on account of anything that had been done in this campaign ? 374 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Edmonds. None, whatever. Mr. Littlefield. Then what occasion, if any, did you have to read the testimony of yourself or others ? Mr. Edmonds. I had no occasion to. Mr. Littlefield. I think that is all.' At 4.32 o’clock p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, October 6, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pome- rene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The Chairman. The secretary will call the names of the witnesses subpoenaed for to-day. The secretary called the names of G. L. Kingsley, S. P. Richtman, J. E. Thomas, Nels Johnson, and H. A. Bowman. They responded to their names and the oath was administered to them by the chair- man. The Chairman. Mr. Kingsley, I advised you that you would be examined upon your appearance here. Of course that was subject to the examination of the witness upon the stand. You will be placed upon the stand after the conclusion of the witness we are to examine this morning. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Resumed. The Chairman. The Chair will ask the reporter to read the last question that was asked of Mr. Sacket when his testimony was inter- rupted. The reporter read as follows: The Chairman. George Gordon received $1,300 on the same day for some purpose. What purpose was it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Who would know? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. That was the point at which your testimony was interrupted, Mr. Sacket. In view of the testimony of Mr. Edmonds, I will go back with you, covering the items that you are said to know about, commencing with the first item, at the expense, perhaps, of repeating a few of those already testified to. On July 6 Exhibits 47 and 49 of the State investigation show a payment to E. H. McMahon of $50 for organizing. Do you know about that payment ? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. For what services to be rendered by Mr. McMahon was that money paid ? RODNEY SAOKET. 375 Mr. Sacket. That $50 was to cover his expenses in going out into the State, gathering information, and creating sentiment for Senator Stephenson as much as possible. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ creating sentiment ” ? Mr. Sacket. Telling the different people with whom he came in contact the good qualities of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did he perform this service? Mr. Sacket. He told me that he did. The Chairman. Have you any personal knowledge as to whether he did or not? Mr. Sacket. I did not see him perform any. The Chairman. Was he to spend any of this money in employing other people? Mr. Sacket. Generally, no. I do not remember giving him any specific instructions to do that. The Chairman. What instructions did you give him when you paid him the $50? Mr. Sacket. I told him to go out into those parts of the State where he had an acquaintance, and thought that he could do good work, to learn the sentiment of the people in those localities, to send up the names of the persons who appeared to be friendly to Senator Stephenson’s candidacy, and to do everything he could to advance Senator Stephenson’s candidacy, and to keep within the law all the time. The Chairman. Did you advise him as to the law that would govern him in making expenditures? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean the State law? The Chairman. Any law. Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. The Chairman. Be it State or otherwise. Is that right? Mr. Sacket. I did not advise him as to the meaning of the law. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not he knew what the law was; what restrictions there were as to the expenditure of the money ? Mr. Sacket. I have no absolute knowledge that he knew the law. The Chairman. Did you ask him if he knew when you gave him the money? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. For whom did you give him this money? For whom were you acting? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Were you acting under instructions from Senator Stephenson to give him this money? I am referring now to the MgMahon item. Mr. Sacket. I had no instruction from Senator Stephenson to give Mr. McMahon this money. The Chairman. Was it under a general instruction? Mr. Sacket. Under a general instruction ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Was the discretion left to you by Senator Stephen- son as to whom you would give the money to on his account? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. What were those instructions? Mr. Sacket. To do what I could to promote his candidacy and keep within the law. 376 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Give us the conversation, as near as you can, the language used by Senator Stephenson in giving you such instruc- tions. Mr. Sacket. I can not remember the exact words of the conversa- tion. The Chairman. Give us the purport of it. Mr. Sacket. The only part of the conversation that I do remem- ber in exact language is that phrase u to keep within the law.” The general purport of the conversation was that I go ahead and do what I could for him. The Chairman. Within what law was it that you were to keep ? Mr. Sacket. He did not say. He simply said the law. The Chairman. Did you discuss with him the provisions of the law governing the expenditure of that money ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did you ever talk with him about it at all ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Your minds never came together as to what law was to be kept within ? Mr. Sacket. I considered that we understood The Chairman. Answer the question. Did your minds ever come together? Did you discuss the law and agree between you as to what the 1 aw was ? Mr. Sacket. How can I answer as to our minds getting together without saying what I thought? The Chairman. Never mind what you thought, I want to know what two men thought, not one. Mr. Sacket. I would be very glad to answer that question, but how can I tell what Senator Stephenson thought ? The Chairman. Then you can say that you can not tell. Senator Pomerene. Tell what he said. The Chairman. I have asked Mr. Sacket for that, and he said that he did not say anything. The process of two minds coming together implies that each mind knows what conclusion the other has arrived at. That is what I mean. If you can not say that, very well. Mr. Sacket. I could only give my own understanding of it. The Chairman. I will ask you in regard to your understanding of the law. If you say you did not discuss as to what the law was, then there was no coming together of the minds of the two people. Did you know the provisions of the law governing the expenditure of money in a political campaign at the time you gave Mr. McMahon the $50? Mr. Sacket. I had read the law and thought I knew ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Were you familiar with the provisions of section 338 of the election laws of the State of Wisconsin, which is section 4542a, when you gave this mone}^ to Mr. McMahon ? Mr. Sacket. I do not recall the section by number. The Chairman. It is the section that provides that it shall be unlawful — to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention. RODNEY SACKET. 377 Mr. Sacket. I thought that I understood the application of that section; yes, sir. The Chairman. What construction did you place upon it ? Mr. Sacket. I read ahead in the law, in that section or some other, and presumed that it meant to give it corruptly, or for the purpose of bribing. The Chairman. This law recites that purpose, and recites the general giving. Mr. Sacket. It was not my understanding that that law pro- hibited the general giving of anything of value for the purpose of procuring votes, properly. The Chairman. You thought you were at liberty to give money or something of value for the purpose of procuring votes ? Mr. Littlefield. He said properly. Mr. Sacket. I thought so, and do think so now. Mr. Littlefield. Is there any objection, Mr. Chairman, to the witness having that section of the law before him, if the Chair desires to examine him further upon it? The Chairman. It is not necessary to have that before him. Mr. Littlefield. The witness it not a lawyer. The Chairman. Counsel may, of course, at the proper time ask him about that. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose the only important feature of that is as it bears on the acquaintance and knowledge of the witness him- self. It is not what the law is or was. Senator Pomerene. He is presumed to know what the law is. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; but then the question comes as to whether he did or did not intend to comply with it. The Chairman. Supplementing the suggestion of Senator Pome- rene that the duty rests upon a man who assumes to distribute large sums of money in a campaign under this law, to know the law, I think that would probably go as far as the duty resting upon a judge. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite catch the analogy, but I have no doubt the Chair has in mind an accurate legal propo- sition. Senator Pomerene. We can not differ on the subject of the pre- sumption to know the law. Mr. Littlefield. I have an indistinct notion that I am somewhat familiar with it. Senator Pomerene. I am entirely sure you are. The Chairman. Speaking for myself, my construction was that the duty rested upon a man disbursing money for another in an election, at least during a campaign, to know the law just as much as a judge or an executive officer. He becomes an executive officer under the law. Mr. Littlefield. I should not hesitate to suggest that it is in- cumbent on every man connected with Senator Stephenson in his campaign not to commit a crime, or to do a corrupt or unlawful act. I think they are bound not to do it. The Chairman. They are bound to know the law. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. While the law says they shall not commit a crime, shall not bribe, and shall not use money corruptly, I have 378 RODNEY SACKET. no doubt at all but that they were under an obligation to see they did not do it knowingly. The Chairman. You were familiar with this section of the law at the time you paid out this money, were you ? Mr. Sacket. I had read the section ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you at that time interpreted it as you have just now expressed your understanding? Mr. Sacket. I had; yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know what Mr. E. H. McMahon did with the $50 that you gave him ? Did he render you an account ? Mr. Sacket. He did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Where is that account? Mr. Sacket. The account was left with the joint committee at Madison at the time of their investigation. The Chairman. Is it in this published volume of the testimony taken at that hearing? Mr. Sacket. I am not certain. Mr. Littlefield. I am having Brother Black’s office take the copy cf the record they have and go through it and give me the list of all the accounts that were filed, and that appear in this record, by the so-called managers, local representatives, and just as soon as we get that I will have a duplicate of it made so the subcommittee may have it. I do not think there were many; I think there were some; but such as they are I will see that the subcommittee has a copy of the same. The Chairman. Did you know anything of an arrangement made between Mr. McMahon and a Mr. Dart for the expenditure of money on behalf of Senator Stephenson in this campaign? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. He did not report that to you ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. I will call your attention to Mr. McMahon’s testi- mony. which will refresh your mind perhaps. He was asked as to the interview he had with Mr. G. W. Dart. He says: Well, there had been nothing done in Marquette County, and correspondence had come into the office about Marquette County, and I was sent down there by Mr. Edmonds. I saw Mr. Dart. Do you know about the sending of Mr. McMahon on to see Mr. Dart by Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Sacket. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. From what page is the chairman reading? The Chairman. From page 3911 of the joint investigation. Q. Were you sent there to see anyone there in particular? A. Well, I was told Mr. Dart would be a good man to see because he had written some of the correspondence. Who was Mr. Dart? Mr. Sacket. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Dart at all. I had no talk with him and remember him only from hearing you read the testimony. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the transaction which Mr. McMahon had with Mr. Dart pursuant to your employ- ment of him ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing at all. RODNEY SACKET. 379 The Chairman. Did he never report to you that he had made an arrangement with Mr. Dart? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection. The Chairman. Did he make any report to you at all? Mr. Sacket. About Mr. Dart ? The Chairman. About this money that you had given him, and the manner in which he had used it ? Mr. Sacket. He reported the expenditure of this $50 in the first item to me. The Chairman. That was not the only money you gave him, was it? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. That was given him July 6, was it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On July 13 you gave him $50 more; did you not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And on July 21 you gave him $50 more? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And on July 30 you gave him $50 more? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. And on September 5 you gave him $300 more? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he report to you how he had expended any of those sums of money ? Mr. Sacket. The $50 items were all reported to me in detail. The $300 was for his salary. The Chairman. He reported to you in detail, then, what he had done with all of the $50 items, which amount in the aggregate to $ 200 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he not tell you that he had arranged with Mr. Dart to assist him and cooperate with him in campaign work? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of his telling me anything of the kind. The Chairman. Would you remember it if he had reported such an arrangement? Mr. Sacket. I think I would. Mr. Littlefield. Does not the record show that he communicated with Mr. Edmonds? The Chairman. I will bring the witness’s attention to that now. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will excuse me just a moment; I got the impression The Chairman. I do not want any suggestion made to the wit- ness. I am going to bring his attention to the item now in regard to this, and then I will yield to counsel. Mr. McMahon testifies as follows in answer to a question as to Mr. Dart being a good man, etc. : Yes; advising that something be done. I saw Mr. Dart and talked over things, spent the night with him, and figured on what would be necessary to put into Marquette County. As I remember it, it was $500 — five hundred or six hundred dollars. Did he report that arrangement or conversation to you? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any such report. 380 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Would you have any such recollection? Mr. Sacket. I probably would ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Then, you say he did not report it to you? Mr. Sacket. He did not, to the best of my recollection. The Chairman. Then, you have no knowledge of any arrangement being made through your agent, Mr. McMahon, with Mr. Dart, for you? Mr. Sacket. I have not ; no, sir. The Chairman. Did it ever come to your knowledge that such an arrangement had been made? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge ; no, sir. The Chairman. Mr. George W. Dart was a deputy game warden. Does that assist you in recalling him, as to who he was? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever see him or meet him ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember ever having seen him or talked to him. The Chairman. He received a check from Mr. Edmonds for $400, he testifies on page 4486 of the joint investigation. Do you know anything of that check ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it whatever. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds would know about that item, would he? Mr. Sacket. I should think so ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Any check for $400 drawn against the campaign fund then would be within the knowledge of either you or Mr. Ed- monds, would it ? Mr. Sacket. I think so ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Pass that item. You made the payment to J. C. Miller of $50 on August 20 ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give him that money? Mr. Sacket. For the purpose of traveling through the State to ascertain the Stephenson sentiment in different localities and influ- encing it as much as possible. The Chairman. Influencing them ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. In what way? Mr. Sacket. By talking to people, by argument. The Chairman. Who is J. C. Miller ; do you know him now ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know where he is now. I would know him if I were to see him ; yes, sir. The Chairman. You have an item here, “ General expense of or- ganizing,” on July 6. Have you the items of that charge? Mr. Sacket. There is nothing here to make me have any recollec- tion of that item at all. The Chairman. It is not included in any itemized statement that you rendered, is it ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item at all. I do not know anything about it. The Chairman. Just answer the question, whether it is included. You know whether you have already included it in some statement. Mr. Sacket. I have not. RODNEY SACKET. 381 The Chairman. It is not included in any statement that you have rendered ? Mr. Sachet. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. The Chairman. Have you a recollection as to the class of expenses that you charged under that item, “ General expense, organizing ” ? Mr. Sachet. Only from what I know I meant when I put down the word “ general.” The Chairman. What did you mean? Mr. Sachet. I meant the expenditure of money covering a larger territory than a county ; possibly all over the State ; anyway, larger than one county. The Chairman. Whom did you pay that money to ? Mr. Sachet. I have no knowledge. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you pay it to some one? Mr. Sachet. I could not say. The Chairman. You could not say whether it was money you paid to some one to be expended, or whether it was money that you ex- pended and paid out yourself, could you ? Mr. Sachet. I would say that I did not expend it and pay it out myself, because I would not have put it in this part of this account if I had. The Chairman. Where would you have put it ? Mr. Sachet. Over in one of the later schedules. The Chairman. So that you have no other account to give of that item, have you ? Mr. Sachet. None. The Chairman. Did you ever take up these items and present them to Senator Stephenson at any time in the shape of memoranda or otherwise? Mr. Sachet. I did not; no, sir. The Chairman. When you were having this stay of proceedings, during which you were considering the question of putting more money in, was there no going over of items with Senator Stephen- son? Mr. Sachet. Not with me; no, sir. The Chairman. Were you present at any interview with Senator Stephenson in regard to the necessity for having more money? Mr. Sachet. Not to my recollection, at that time ; no, sir. The Chairman. Then, 3 r ou can not account for the $50? Mr. Sachet. I can not. The Chairman. On the same day, July 6, you paid Mr. Ham- bright $50. What did you pay him $50 for? Mr. Sachet. For traveling through the State; for the same pur- pose that it was paid to Mr. Miller and Mr. McMahon, substantially. The Chairman. How much did you give Mr. Hambright alto- gether for political purposes? Mr. Sachet. I have made no computation as to that. The several items appear in the account here. The Chairman. I will call your attention to them. On July 6 you gave him $50, of which you have just spoken, which you say was for the purpose of organizing and influencing votes for Senator Stephenson. Did he vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sachet. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you ask him whether or not he did or would ? 382 RODNEY 3ACKET. Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did you know whether or not he was favorable to Senator Stephenson’s election when you gave him this money? Mr. Sacket. Only from his statement. The Chairman. From any cause did you know that he was favor- able, or whether or not he was favorable, to Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. He was favorable. The Chairman. Did he tell you so? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay him the money before or after he told you? Mr. Sacket. Afterwards. The Chairman. On July 18 you gave him another $50. Was that for organizing? Mr. Sacket. That was for his expenses in organizing. The Chairman. What expenses? Mr. Sacket. Traveling expenses and all expenses. The Chairman. Where did he travel? Mr. Sacket. In different parts of the State. The Chairman. Name some parts of the State. Mr. Sacket. Racine County, Kenosha County; I think of those now. He traveled west in the direction of Dane County, not going into Dane County, as I remember it. The Chairman. How did he travel? Mr. Sacket. As I remember it, by rail, by team, and possibly by auto. The Chairman. You say “ possibly.” Do you know of his using an auto at any time? Mr. Sacket. The only knowledge that I have is from reading his expense account which he filed. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. Left at Madison. The Chairman. Is Mr. Hambright’s account filed? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly, it is in the printed testi- mony here of the joint investigation. Senator Pomerene. When you say “ left at Madison,” do you mean left with the legislative committee? Mr. Sacket. Yes; the joint committee. The Chairman. Do you know that as a matter of fact? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of it. You see it has been three years since these things happened, and I am giving my best recollection. The Chairman. It is on page 2759 of the printed testimony in the joint committee investigation. Did you examine this expense account filed by Mr. Hambright? Mr. Sacket. I did. I examined the expense account that he handed me ; not that account ; no, sir. The Chairman. Did he hand you a different account from this? Mr. Sacket. He handed me a different account, which I presume that to be a copy of. The Chairman. You do not mean to be understood as saying that he handed you another account? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. This account that I have before me is printed. RODNEY SACKET. 383 Mr. Sacket. I have not compared the account that he handed to me with that copy. The Chairman. Did you pass upon the propriety of the items in his account? Mr. Sacket. I did ; yes, sir. The Chairman. There is an item on July 9 of sundries, $5.35. Of what was that item composed ? Mr. Sacket. I can not remember at this time. The Chairman. Did you inquire of him at that time? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Was that for expenses at the bar — for drinks and cigars ? Mr. Sacket. I believe not. It might have included cigars, but I do not think Mr. Hambright was a man who went to the bar and bought drinks. The Chairman. You say you do not think so. Do you know? Mr. Sacket. Only what he told me himself. The Chairman. Did he tell you he did not buy any drinks? Mr. Sacket. He told me that he was not in the habit of going into the bars and spending money. The Chairman. I am not speaking about his habit. The question is what he did. Now we will go to the 25th of July, an item of cigars $1.50. Did you inquire of him whether he bought those cigars and treated people in order to induce them to be friendly to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I made any such inquiry; no, sir. The Chairman. We come to the item “ Extra meals,” on August 1, $3. Did he tell you that he had treated some electors in the State in order that they might feel friendly toward the cause that he rep- resented ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say as to that identical item. Do you want me to continue? The Chairman. Yes; if you have anything to say. Mr. Sacket. But Mr. Hambright did say to me that he did take people into the hotel and invite them to dinner and to meals and pay their bills. The Chairman. While he was electioneering? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Sacket. I presume that it was simply for the purpose of mak- ing himself appear to be a good fellow, and to help influence their opinion. The Chairman. Their opinion in regard to what? Mr. Sacket. In regard to Senator Stephenson, in favor of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. On the 7th of August there is an item of $17.02 for sundries, presumably at Kenosha. Do you know where he ex- pended that money? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that particular item. The Chairman. Did you ask him ? Mr. Sacket. He explained items to me in a number of instances. I do not remember that it was ever asked him ; but, according to my best recollection, he explained that item to me, and it was satisfactory at the time. 384 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. He had only $50 at that time, according to the account, in the way of expense money. He expended over one-third of it for sundries in one day. Do you know what those sundries were? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. You did not ask him? Mr. Sacket. I am quite certain that he told me what they were, either at that time or afterwards. I have no recollection of what the items were; but I do remember that I considered Mr. Hambright’s account, proper. The Chairman. Did you make a memorandum of the things that he told you at that time? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. You had a card system, I understand, quite an elaborate one, intended to be a substitute for book accounts, showing the expenditures. Did you not put this item, which was one-third of all the money you had given this man, into your card system? Mr. Sacket. I put the $50 on the card system. The Chairman. That was when it went out? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you not put anything on that card, or some other, to show what became of the $50? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. When a man would spend one-third of what you had given him for expense account, in one item in one day, did it not suggest itself to you that the expenditure was important to know about ? Mr. Sacket. It might have been important to know about ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Was that item of $17.02 for sundries spent for drinks and cigars, or meals to constituents, for the purpose of in- fluencing them to vote for Senator Stephenson, or to give him their support ? Mr. Sacket. I can not remember what the items of that one sum are — what the component parts of that item are — but I presume that I considered the money expended in the interest of Senator Stephenson or I would not have passed the account. The Chairman. When you use the term “ in the interest of Sena- tor Stephenson ” you mean for the purpose of influencing votes for him, do you ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you authorized and approved of that ex- penditure? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson authorize and approve of that expenditure? Mr. Sacket. Not that particular expenditure; no, sir, to my knowledge. The Chairman. Was it included within a list of items that did receive his approval? Mr. Sacket. I do not know T that the items were ever submitted to Senator Stephenson, or any items including that item. The Chairman. On the 29th of August, which was immediately on the eve of the primary election, chere is an item of “Sundries, $11.86,” nearly one-fourth of the sum in his hands. Did you inquire RODNEY SACKET. 385 as to the items which you charged up as sundries against the ac- count ? Mr. Sacket. I did not inquire of Mr. Hambright. As I remember my dealings with him, he volunteered the information in regard to his accounts. The Chairman. What did he tell you that item was for? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. Can you say whether or not he told you that it was for cigars, liquors, or meals to electors for the purpose of creat- ing a friendly influence with them or exerting one ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of the particular items in that account. My recollection of his accounting to me is only general. The Chairman. Three days after the primary — that is, on Sep- tember 5 — you gave him $300; what did you give him $300 for at that time? Mr. Sacket. In payment for his services, two months, for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. The services that you paid him for were for can- vassing, with others, to engage them to support Senator Stephenson, were they? Mr. Sacket. For canvassing, general organizing — as the term has been used here — including every thing in the way of campaigning in the interest of Senator Stephenson; yes, sir. The Chairman. He devoted his time to going about the country to present the claims of Senator Stephenson and to induce men to vote for him, did he? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And it was for that that you paid him the $300 ? Mr. Sacket. It was. And for The Chairman. And not for money expended? Mr. Sacket. The $300 was not expended by him, in our expense account, at all. The Chairman. That was compensation? Mr. Sacket. Compensation. The Chairman. That you paid on behalf of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. It was; yes, sir. The Chairman. In performing that undertaking you say that you had knowledge of the fact, that he told you, that he had expended at least a part of it in the purchase of meals and cigars and other com- forts for other electors, did he ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you had full knowledge of that? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. And you knew of the provisions of the statute at that time, of section 338, did you ? Mr. Sacket. That is the section regarding a thing of value ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; I knew that. The Chairman. Did you not think that those items fell within the prohibition of the law in regard to moneys expended by a candi- date for office? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Why did you not think that they fell within the law? 15235 °— vol 1—11 25 386 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. Because they were not for the purpose of bribing or corrupting anything. The Chairman. The law 5 while it does use those terms, it also uses the general term “ to give any valuable thing to an elector as a con- sideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus,” etc. Mr. Littlefield. One moment, if the chairman please. Do I understand the chairman to hold that that clause is not to be rele- gated back to and qualified by the main purpose of this section? The Chairman. Speaking for myself, I do not hold on the subject at all. I am preparing a record here that will be considered by those who will hold responsibly upon this question. That is all I am doing. Any suggestion that may seem to flow from the questions I ask is merely for the purpose of developing the facts, and the application of the law will be made hereafter. But it is only fair to a witness on the stand that he should know what possible construction may be placed upon his acts, and it is in that spirit that I call his attention to these questions, so that if he has anything to say, it may be in the record with the testimony. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Sacket, do you think that the expendi- ture of money in purchasing drinks and meals for the purpose of influencing the voter, in the interest of the candidate, would not be a violation of the statute? Mr. Sacket. I think it would not ; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Where would you draw the line? Would you think that the purchase of a suit of clothes for an elector would not be a violation of the statute? Mr. Sacket. That might be a violation. Senator Sutherland. How do you draw the distinction? Mr. Sacket. I would draw the line at what was customary in such cases and what was not. It is not customary to buy suits of clothes for voters ; it is customary to buy meals and drinks and cigars. The Chairman. It seems to have been customary, if Ave are to trust the public newspapers, in one of the near-by States, to pay voters so much money for their votes ; do you think the fact that that had been customary Avould render it legal? Mr. Sacket. If it had been customary, and I knew it, I would not consider that it made it lawful ; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Then the fact that it is customary does not render it lawful, does it ? Mr. Sacket. Within reason, I should think it Avould have an influ- ence upon my opinion of what was lawful. Senator Sutherland. You seem to be drawing a rather fine dis- tinction, and I would like to get the exact point of separation. Where would you draw the line as to what would be legal and what would be illegal, in expenditures of that kind, as affected by a custom ? Mr. Sacket. If I am required to draAV a line of that kind I should draw it in this Avay : Anything purchased for a candidate, to be con- sumed on the spot and not kept, might be considered in the sense of an ordinary treat, a common custom. Anything purchased for him which lie might keep and use afterward might be on the other side of the line. KODNEY SACKET. 387 Senator Sutherland. That is, if the campaign fund distributor purchased a $2 meal for a voter that would not be illegal ? Mr. Sacket. In my opinion; no. Senator Sutherland. But if he purchased a 5-cent loaf of bread and gave to him to carry away, that would be illegal? Mr. Sacket. Possibly. Senator Pomerene. Or, if he got a drink of whisky at the bar and drank it there, that would not be prohibited ; but if he got a half a pint and put it in his pocket and took it away for a swig after a while, that would be illegal? Mr. Sacket. I think I should have to revert to the custom again and say that the half pint was lawful. Senator Sutherland, Is it the custom in Wisconsin to buy the voters bottles of whisky and give to them? Mr. Sacket. And kegs of beer; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And kegs of beer? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Let me get that question. Senator Pomerene. Being from Maine, you do not know anything about that. Mr. Littlefield. That is why I was quite anxious to get the actual practical situation. I trust we are adding to the sum of human knowledge and at the same time increasing my own infor- mation. Of course, I fully realize my infirmity. Senator Sutherland. Now, Mr. Sacket, do you seriously mean that ; that is the custom in Wisconsin Mr. Sacket. The custom as I understand it ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To purchase bottles of whisky and kegs of beer for voters ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And give them? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was that after the passage of this law, that the general custom ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; after the passage of that law. Senator Sutherland. Since 1905? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You mean on the part of candidates before the primary and also candidates for election ? Mr. Sacket. Candidates before all sorts of elections, primary and general. Senator Sutherland. Candidates for election were in the habit in Wisconsin of purchasing for individual voters bottles of whisky and kegs of beer? Mr. Sacket. Now, the “ individual voter” part of it, I do not be- lieve I just understand that. If I may tell this in my own way? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I understand it has been the custom, in fact I am quite certain that it has been the custom in Wisconsin, always to send a keg of beer and possibly a jug of whisky and other things of simi- lar nature out to certain localities just before election, and let the boys have a big time at the expense of certain candidates. Mr. Littlefield. Is that a consideration for their votes? 388 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. It is to influence them, in my opinion, in favor of the candidate who buys the liquor. Senator Sutherland. Has that been done generally ? Mr. Sacket. It is my understanding that it has been done generally throughout the State, always. Senator Sutherland. Are the electorate of Wisconsin usually sober the morning after election? Mr. Sacket. I do not know, Senator, whether they are or not. The Chairman. Did you observe this custom during this cam- paign ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did those whom you employed and paid out of this campaign fund adopt that custom? Mr. Sacket. They were specifically instructed by me not to. The Chairman. Did they obey your instructions? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my knowledge and belief, yes. The Chairman. And none of them expended any of the money for the purpose of purchasing or furnishing drinks or cigars to voters, as you have said was customary ; is that true ? Mr. Sacket. I do not believe I can answer that without explaining, Senator. The Chairman. Answer it first and then explain it. Mr. Sacket. I do not know whether any of them expended money for whisky and cigars or not. I think some of them did. Now, may I explain? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I did not give any instruction that they must not spend any money for whisky and cigars; but I did give instruction against this custom of buying a keg of beer and jug of whisky and getting everybody drunk. I did instruct a number of the men whom I employed that it was not our policy to conduct a saloon campaign ; I presumed that they knew what I meant by a “ saloon campaign ; ” I meant for our electioneered or whatever he might be called, not to walk into a big saloon and say, “ Come on up, boys, and all have something on Mr. Stephenson.” I did not want that sort of cam- paign conducted. But I did not prohibit a man taking his friend in and buying a drink or taking in the man with whom he was talking and buying him a drink. Senator Pomerene. Let me understand. You were then about as careful in complying with the prevailing customs as you were in complying with the law ? Mr. Sacket. I did not approve of some of the prevailing customs and did not propose to follow them. Senator Pomerene. What did you understand the purpose of this statute to be? Mr. Sacket. The statute which refers to the giving of a thing of value ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Sacket. My understanding was that it prohibited the giving if it be corruptly or for the purposes of bribery. Senator Pomerene. Assuming that such customs prevailed as you have indicated here, do you not think that one of the purposes of this statute was to check that custom ? RODNEY SACKET. 389 Mr. Sacket. I do not think that that statute would affect that custom at all. The Chairman. This was known as the antitreating law of Wis- consin ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of hearing it referred to as such at all. The Chairman. You do not know that it was claimed that it was enacted for the purpose of preventing the treating during campaigns? Mr. Sacket. That was not my understanding of it ; no, sir. The Chairman. What was your understanding as to the purpose of this law. Mr. Sacket. It prohibited the giving of anything of value for the purposes of bribery or corruption. The Chairman. That is one purpose recited; but it also recites, “ to give any valuable thing to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done.” I have omitted the phrase that you refer to every time, leaving out the “ bribery and corruption.” Mr. Sacket. Some corrupt act, I should presume that that meant. The Chairman. I think it is not necessary to write any words into the statute. Mr. Littlefield. I do not understand the witness is undertaking to construe the statute. The Chairman. He undertook the responsibility of disbursing a fund in a lawful manner. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. And I understand he is intending to state his understanding of it and what he did in accordance with that un- derstanding. I do not think it can go any further than that. The Chairman. We might probe his understanding. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly; but then, in the last analysis, his un- derstanding of it is what controls, as far as he is concerned, I take it. The Chairman. In some other statutes here it is specified certain things shall not be done corruptly or for the purpose of corrupting, but in this particular statute that phrase seems to be omitted. So that Mr. Littlefield. What other statutes does the chairman have in mind ? So that I can get the question intelligibly to me. The Chairman. I think I will leave that for the examination. There are many statutes that provide that certain things when cor- ruptly done shall be punishable in a certain manner. Mr. Littlefield. I feel bound to say that I do not get The Chairman. I do not think the occasion requires that the sub- committee or any member of it shall be subjected to cross-examina- tion. Mr. Littlefield. No ; but I would like to have it go into the record that I can not myself understand the value of the question with that generality, and I would be very glad to have it, but I can not insist upon it. The Chairman. I call attention to the fact that the language of this section is peculiar, in that it makes the giving, regardless of the motive, the offense. Mr. Littlefield. I wish to enter upon the record my dissent to that construction given by the chairman. I do not wish by my silence to be understood to assent to that construction of the law by the chairman. 390 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. I hardly think that we need start out with a misapprehension, at this early stage of the investigation, as to the re- lation of the remarks of members of the subcommittee to the ultimate determination of this matter. The subcommittee will exercise the privilege of expressing their views on legal matters without being called upon to defend them at this time. There doubtless will be a place and a tribunal in which members of the committee will be ex- pected to defend any expression of legal opinion that they may give. Mr. Littlefield. I trust the chairman will apreciate that I was not undertaking to discuss it. I did not want to have it appear by my silence that I apparently assented. That is as far as I care to go. I trust that I have that privilege, have I not ? The Chairman. It is not a privilege. It is not necessary that counsel should either assent or differ. If they do either, that is the exercise of a privilege extended by the subcommittee. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. How much of this money that' you gave to Mr. Hambright was expended for the purchase of liquors, of drinks — beer, whisky, or any other beverage — for electors? Mr. Sacket. I could not say. I do not know. The Chairman. You have no knowledge as to whether all of it, or a small part of it, was expended for those things? Mr. Sacket. I have a very distinct recollection that not all of it was so expended. The Chairman. So that of the $400 given Mr. Hambright, you are not able to say what proportion of it, if any, was expended for the purchase of liquors and cigars with which to treat electors for the purpose of creating a friendly feeling on their part toward the can- didacy of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I can not state the proportion. The Chairman. Now I recur — inasmuch as I now have the statute before me — to the previous party, J. C. Miller, I find you paid him July 6, $50; July 24, $50; August 6, $75; August 18, $50; August 31 , $25 ; September 5, $300 ; is it a fact that all of that except the pay- ment of $300 was for expense money, and that that money was ex- pended by Mr. Miller in practically the same way that Mr. Ham- bright spent the money? Mr. Sacket. It was ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Are the facts in regard to Mr. Miller’s expenses the same, in substance, as those relating to Mr. Hambright’s? Mr. Sacket. They are ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Now we have u J. R. Keyes.” You made a pay- ment to Mr. Keyes, did you? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. It is one of the items that Mr. Edmonds says he knows nothing about and that the knowledge is all within your pos- session. Mr. Sacket. I have knowledge of the item. The Chairman. For what did you give Mr. Keyes $25 on July 13 ? Mr. Sacket. For expenses. The Chairman. To be expended in a manner similar to that in which Mr. Hambright expended the money? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 391 The Chairman. Are the facts as you have stated them in regard to Mr. Hambright’s expenditure applicable to those made by Mr. Keyes ? Mr. Sacket. My instructions to Mr. Keyes and Mr. Hambright were practically the same. The Chairman. Were their statements to you as to the manner of expenditure the same, in substance? Mr. Sacket. They all rendered expense accounts, which I ap- proved of; the substance of their accounts were practically the same. The Chairman. Did Mr. Keyes render an expense account? Mr. Sacket. He did. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you have it in your possession at any time ? Mr. Sacket. According to my best recollection it was among the papers left with the joint committee at Madison. The Chairman. That would not be indicated by the index, as in the case of Mr. Hambright. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember having seen it in the testimony. The Chairman. Were any papers which were not introduced in evidence left with the committee? Mr. Sacket. I left a large number of papers with the committee, and I do not think they were all introduced in evidence and printed ; I believe they were not ; a large number of them. The Chairman. What papers did you leave with the committee which were not introduced in evidence? Mr. Sacket. The expense account of J. R. Keyes I have not been able to find in the testimony here; the The Chairman. Did you refer to it in your testimony? Mr. Sacket. According to my best recollection, I submitted the expense account, with other papers, to the committee. I do not re- member whether or not I referred to the expense account in my testi- mony. The Chairman. Was Mr. Keyes employed on the same basis as Mr. Hambright and others? Mr. Sacket. Practically the same. The Chairman. In regard to salary? Mr. Sacket. He had a salary, but I do not remember the amount. The Chairman. The items paid to Mr. Keyes are: July 13, $25 — that is the one about which I have just questioned you — July 21, $50. Was that for the same purpose, or was that on account of salary? Mr. Sacket. It would be impossible for me at this time to sepa- rate, in a great many of these instances, the expense money from salary ; I may have advanced salary and expense money at the same time ; I do not know. The Chairman. Then you paid him on July 31, $25; August 5, $25; August 8, $50; August 20, $48.50; September 5, $52.40. Part of that was for salary and part money to be expended by him, was it ? Mr. Sacket. I presume that it was. He was to receive a salary and his expenses. The Chairman. Did he expend any part of that for drinks or cigars for electors? Mr. Sacket. I could not say positively whether he did or did not. If you want my opinion, I will give it. 392 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Unless you have some recollection or some facts, it is not necessary to give an opinion. Mr. Sacket. My recollection is not very positive ; it is rather faint. The Chairman. Where is Mr. Keyes ; do you know ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Keyes lived, at the time he was employed, in Madison ; I have no knowledge of his present residence. The Chairman. What was his occupation? Mr. Sacket. He was not employed at any work at that time. The Chairman. Was he engaged in any business? Mr. Sacket. No business that I know of; no, sir. The Chairman. How old a man was he? Mr. Sacket. I should think he was over 40 ; possibly under 50. The Chairman. Did he tell you that he would vote for Senator Stephenson, or support him, prior to your giving him this money, any part of it? Mr. Sacket. He did not tell me that he would vote for Senator Stephenson, but he did say that he was friendly to Senator Stephen- son — in favor of his election. The Chairman. What had been his business, if he had ever been en- gaged in any? Mr. Sacket. He was a railroad man at one time. The Chairman. He had been a railroad man up close to the time that you employed him ? Mr. Sacket. Up to comparatively recently ; yes, sir. The Chairman. How many railroad men did you engage in the interest of Senator Stephenson during the campaign? Mr. Sacket. I think Mr. Keyes is the only one that I engaged. The Chairman. How many were engaged? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection, there was one other — Mr. Shauers, engaged by Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Now, we will pass to Mr. Hambright. You have testified pretty fully as to Mr. Hambright. The item of “July 21, general organizing, $250,” who paid out that money ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection, no knowledge of that item at the present time whatever. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds says he has no knowledge of it. Now, who has? Mr. Sacket. I do not know that anybody has. The Chairman. It is in the air, so to speak, is it? Mr. Sacket. I think that that $250 is absolutely so. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will excuse me, I noticed you have passed the item of “ July 20, Sexton.” The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified to that and I have it so marked. Mr. Littlefield. My check does not show that. The Chairman. Mine does. Mr. Littlefield. I just simply wanted to get the reason. My check does not show it. The Chairman. Yes; that is the reason I pass it; I am passing over those; it is not necessary to duplicate the testimony. Mr. Littlefield. That is all right. The Chairman. That was by check or cashier’s check and the number was given. To whom can you refer us for knowledge as to the $250 on July 21? RODNEY SACKET. 393 Mr. Sacket. No one. The Chairman. What became of that money? Mr. Sacket. The money was expended The Chairman. You just said you did not know how it was ex- pended. Mr. Sacket. I presume, from the way that the item is entered here The Chairman. Well, unless you have knowledge of it Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection whatever. The Chairman. The subcommittee would not be assisted any by a presumption if you have no knowledge or no recollection. Do you know that it was expended at all? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How do you know it? Mr. Sacket. Because it is in this account. The Chairman. And that is the only reason you have for know- ing it? Mr. Sacket. That is all I know about it; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, may it not appear there that this is the account that Mr. Sacket made up for the use of the legislative committee ? The Chairman. Yes. That is already in evidence. Mr. Sacket has identified this exhibit as one which he made up. Mr. Sacket. A copy of a copy I made up. The Chairman. It is not necessary to distinguish between them. If the witness says this is not correct, then we will call for better evidence, but the witness has said this is a copy and that means it is the same. Mr. Littlefield. Well, if the record does show that The Chairman. Yes; the record shows that. Mr. Littlefield. I was not quite clear in my mind whether it did or not. The Chairman. You have testified to all of the McMahon expendi- tures, so we will pass the next item, and the Keys expenditure. When you made up this account and put the item of $250 there, on July 21, from what did you get the basis of that entry? Mr. Sacket. From an entry on one of my cards. The Chairman. Oh; in the card system? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was the card? Mr. Sacket. Nothing more than appears here, if this is a correct copy. The Chairman. Now, we will dispose of that question of the correct copy. Is this a correct copy of your statement which you rendered before the committee ? Mr. Sacket. In all instances, it is not. The Chairman. In what? Mr. Sacket. In some instances it is not. The Chairman. Point out the instances in which it is not? Mr. Sacket. On page 590, under the date August 8, item “ Grant County, No. 33470, O. L. Gust, $300,” should be $25. Omitted under that item should be “ Dane Countjq A. R. Ames,” and a check number which I have not here, “ $300.” Senator Sutherland. That is left out from the copy? 394 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. What is it? One item missing altogether? Mr. Sacket. One item is missing altogether. The $300 item is charged to Gust, in Grant County, when as a matter of fact it was given to Ames, in Dane County. The Chairman. But we have an item just below, “Dane County, to Ames, $350.” Mr. Sacket. That is another item. The Chairman. Then Ames got $650, did he? Mr. Sacket. In those two items ; yes, sir. The Chairman. We will wait till we come to those two items, then. Is this statement correct, “July 21, general organizing, $250 ” ; was that in the account that you rendered ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. I did not check this account with the account that I rendered. I can go on and show you other in- stances where items of that kind appear in this account and The Chairman. Let me call your attention. We can probably get closer to this without much trouble. Will you look at Ex- hibit 47 ? Mr. Sacket. I am looking at Exhibit 49 now. The Chairman. Turn to Exhibit 47, which I understand was also made up under your direction. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And we find the same item. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It appears that the item is the same in the two exhibits ; is it correct ? Mr. Sacket. That would not prove that it was correct ; no, sir. The Chairman. Then the error was repeated, was it, in making up these statements? Mr. Sacket. Not necessarily. In Exhibit 47 the names in a great many cases were omitted; in Exhibit 49 I supplied them, wherever I could. Mr. Littlefield. I think the chairman is in error about that, or else I am. Page 477, Exhibit 47, shows “ Grant County, organizing, $25.” The Chairman. No; I am not dealing with that item. I am deal- ing with the item at the bottom of page 588. Mr. Littlefield. You mean the $250 item? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I wanted to call attention to the fact that this The Chairman. I know, but I would rather not confuse it. The other was instanced by the witness merely as a case of error ; and let us probe the item under consideration. Mr. Littlefield. I was about to make this suggestion for the chairman ; that is, the chairman’s general question was to the witness to point out the items of error, and the witness had only pointed out one when the chairman went back to the item of $250. The Chairman. Yes; we then abandoned the quest for the present. Mr. Littlefield. Personally I would be glad to have him point out these discrepancies. The Chairman. I think we had better search for the error as we come to the items, and then the record will be less confused. Mr. Littlefield. All right. RODNEY SACKET. 395 The Chairman. The object of withdrawing that pursuit was that it appeared to be entering upon an extended examination of the account in a desultory way. When you corrected this Exhibit 47 in making up Exhibit 49, your attention was called to this item of “ General expense, $250,” on July 21, and you added the word “ organizing,” did you not, so you must have given it consideration? In the first statement you made up you just say “ General, $250,” and in the corrected statement (Exhibit 49) you have added the word “ organizing.” That was done, of course, for some reason, an afterconsideration, was it not? Mr. Sacket. I do not think that is the way it was done. I believe, in Exhibit 47, in my original copy, the word “ organizing ” followed the word “ general,” and I think that my testimony — I can not cite the page now — before the State committee at that time will show that this Exhibit 49 was not a true copy of my statement in just that instance; that the word “organizing” was dittoed in my statement and not in the copy. The Chairman. You mean Exhibit 47 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. But Exhibit 49 was made to conform to your recollection ? Mr. Sacket. Exhibit 49 was made to supply the names of the per- sons, after the committee had decided that they would ask me to give them. The Chairman. So that you concede the item on July 21, “ general organizing,” was taken from your accounts correctly? Mr. Sacket. I do not state positively that it was correctly taken. The Chairman. Why did you not make it correct? When you were making any correction, why did you not make it entirely cor- rect? Mr. Sacket. I did not have an opportunity to correct this copy. This copy was not in existence at the time that I was before the com- mittee, and since this copy has been printed I have not had access to my original copy. The Chairman. I think I will just put the question directly to you. In your statement of account, Exhibit 49, did you include the item of u July 21, general organizing, $250 ”? Mr. Sacket. I can not say positively. Senator Sutherland. If I understand you, Mr. Sacket, what you say is that the account which you corrected and filed with the com- mittee is correct, but you do not know whether it has been correctly set forth in the printed copy ? Mr. Sacket. That is exactly what I meant. The Chairman. I will call you attention to your own testimony in regard to this Exhibit 47 (p. 475). When you were on the wit- ness stand before the committee you were being inquired of as to the manner and method in which you made up this statement, and you said : Q. I understand you to say you kept no account of that money? That is, referring to the $98,000. You answer: No book. Q. Now, what did you keep? — A. A lot of slips of paper and cards, on which I attempted to keep the memoranda. Q. Slips and cards? — A. Slips of paper, and cards. 396 RODNEY SACKET. Q. Well, now, how many cards did you have during the campaign? — A. I don’t k?iow. From time to time when I could clear up my desk and get time I would take those cards and put them in some sort of form on a typewriter on a sheet of paper. A number of times I would clear up my desk and straighten up. I had a large number of cards at my disposal, but I didn’t use them all for the purpose of keeping my cash account. Q. Then do I understand you to say that you took the items or data from these cards and slips of paper and made a record? — A. I made copies of them in more concise form, so that I could show to Senator Stephenson, when the matter was all over, approximately where his money went to. Q. Have you that record now? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Does that record account for all this money? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You have that account with you, have you? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you produce it now? [Witness produces account.] Mr. Hambright. Have it marked as an exhibit. [Marked “ Exhibit 47, C. H. Welch, stenographer.”] Then follows the exhibit. Now do you charge that that exhibit was not properly copied and printed in this book? Mr. Sacket. There are mistakes, or were mistakes, in Exhibit 47 as it was copied by the typewriter for the record before the com- mittee at that time. I can not give you the page, but my testimony shortly' following the exhibit will show that in some instances the word “ organizing ” was omitted — some trivial error of that kind — that is, the ditto marks that I carried down were not carried down in the copy then before the committee. This copy I never have exam- ined as to Exhibit 47. The Chairman. Did you accompany Mr. Edmonds when he went to see Senator Stephenson in regard to filing this account ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I did. I do not remember going any- where with Mr. Edmonds to see Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Is it not a fact that in order that the account might be safely adopted and sworn to by Senator Stephenson, you made what is Exhibit 49 here, which contained all of the necessary corrections that should be made in Exhibit 47? It would seem from this record that Exhibit 49 was prepared for Mr. Edmonds to present to Senator Stephenson as a basis for making up his account to be filed under the law. Was not that the condition under which you made the corrections? Mr. Sacket. That is not my recollection of it at all ; no, sir. Ex- hibit 49, according to my recollection, was made for the joint com- mittee of the Wisconsin Legislature. The account of Mr. Stephenson had been filed before Exhibit 49 was made. The Chairman. We will get rid of that for the present on the basis of the testimony that you have given. It would appear from the testimony of Mr. Edmonds, while Mr. Edmonds was on the stand, that the data contained in Exhibit 47 was used for making a more careful exhibit, which is 49, and that that was taken as a basis from which to make up the official statement ; it was not made up in that form, but that seems to have been the basis. I will not read Mr. Edmonds’s testimony now, but at the proper time I will call attention to it, that it may go in the record. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman’s recollection may be correct. I call your attention to this, in connection with the witness’s statement, so that there need not be any misunderstanding. Exhibit 49 comes into the record after the notation of an adjournment to February 25, 1909. The official return was filed by Mr. Stephenson, according to the certificate of the secretary of state, February 11, 1909. So that RODNEY SACKET. 397 Exhibit 49 was long subsequent, at least two weeks subsequent, to the filing of the official return by the Senator. The Chairman. That is its use was, but its existence was not. Mr. Littlefield. That I do not know anything about. It is put in the record two weeks later. The Chairman. I do not want to confuse this witness’s testimony with the testimony of a witness who will necessarily bring in those facts. Now, we will proceed with these items. What have you to say about the item of J. P. Keyes, for organizing, paid July 21 ? Mr. Sacket. That was money sent him for expenses; possibly some of his salary was included in it; and under the same circum- stances and instructions practically that were given to Miller, Mc- Mahon, and Ham'bright. The Chairman. The next item is, “ General organizing, E. A. E., stamps; G. Peterson, $25 — $225.” That is on July 22. Do you know the facts in regard to that entry? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of the transaction except from what is recalled to my memory from reading the item. The fact that the $200 for postage stamps is in there would indicate that I bought the postage stamps and used them, or that they were used under my direction. The Peterson part of the item I have no recol- lection of whatever. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified that he had no recollec- tion of the item. I have it marked on my notes to that effect. So that neither of you can account for that item other than that you say you used the $200 worth of postage stamps? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Did you buy all of your postage stamps from the postoffice here? Mr. Sacket. I think I did. I do not remember buying any any- where else. The Chairman. The next item is July 23, “General organizing, paid to E. A. E.” That means Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. That was $200. Mr. Edmonds has testified that he has no knowledge of that. What do you know about that? Mr. Sacket. I do not know anything about that. The Chairman. Neither of you knows anything about it? Mr. Sacket. I know nothing about that. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, my recollection may not be clear, but is not that one of the items that Mr. Edmonds stated was paid to him from time to time in cash ? The Chairman. No; I have marked with a cipher the items where Mr. Edmonds said he had no knowledge in regard to them, and I have a peculiar check or a distinct check in my notes for the items of which he had knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. Your recollection of the matter may be correct about that. The Chairman. So that, as to those items of $425, one on July 22 and one on July 23, you can give us no information as to the nature of the expenditures except the stamps? Mr. Sacket. $200 for stamps. That should be $25 and $200 that I have not any knowledge of. 398 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. The next item is on July 24, “ E. Eowe, organiz- ing, $50.” Did you pay that to him? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. What was he to do in consideration of that pay- ment ? Mr. Sacket. He was to do general organizing in Waupaca County, if I remember correctly. The Chairman. Did he do it ? Mr. Sacket. He reported to me that he did. The Chairman. Did he render you an itemized statement of the expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection, he did. The Chairman. Well, you paid him other considerable sums of money, did you not ? Mr. Sacket. There were other payments, if I remember correctly. The Chairman. This payment was on July 24, and was for $50. You say that was for organizing, and he did or did not render you an itemized statement of the expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. He did render me an itemized statement. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know at this time. The Chairman. Did you destroy it? Mr. Sacket. Not intentionally; no, sir. The Chairman. May you have destroyed it? Mr. Sacket. It is possible. The Chairman. Was any part of that money expended for liquors or cigars or meals for electors, with a view of inducing' them to sup- port Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember at this time just what the items were. The Chairman. You do not know, then? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. You paid him on August 5, $35.25. Was that for the same purpose? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection, it was. The Chairman. What have you to say about whether or not it was expended for treats to electors for the purpose of creating an im- pression favorable to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know at this time. The Chairman. On August 10 you paid him $19.20. Was that for the same purpose? Mr. Sacket. The same purpose; yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you any different statement as to the use made of that money? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge; no recollection. The Chairman. On August 18 you paid him $24.40. What have you to say in regard to that? Mr. Sacket. The same as to the other items. The Chairman. On August 22 you paid him $300. For what was that paid? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that amount particularly, but if I may give my best recollection I think I can throw some light upon it. RODNEY SACKET. 399 Mr. Sacket. That was given to employ men and teams to work on election day, as I remember. The Chairman. That was 12 days before election? Mr. Sacket. Yes; or 13. The Chairman. Did you pay it to him? Mr. Sacket. I think I sent it to him ; yes, sir. The Chairman. What was he to do with that money, specifically? Mr. Sacket. He was to employ teams to bring the voters to the polls and men to drive those teams, men to go out into the different precincts and read the list of voters, and send the men with teams to those of our friends among the voters who had not voted. The Chairman. Irrespective of party, or whether or not they were favorable to Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. The expression, “ of our friends,” which I just used, would indicate he was to look after persons we expected to vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. That was his instructions? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. To haul those only to the polls who were favor- able ? Mr. Sacket. Oh, no; his instructions were to use his best judgment, not to refuse anybody who wanted to go, but to pay particular at- tention to those we expected to vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was he to charge those he hauled to the polls any- thing for hauling them? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. He was to do something for the elector as an in- ducement to receive his vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. He had no instructions to do anything beyond The Chairman. Was that the purpose? You being the organizer of the plan must know the purpose. Mr. Sacket. My purpose was to get a man who was favorable to Senator Stephenson to the poll§. so that he could vote, if he lived at at great distance from the voting place, or was old and infirm and could not walk, or if he were busy and could not spare the time to walk in. These teams were supposed to bring him in and take him back home. The Chairman. Did you fix a limit within which men would be hauled to the polls, or did you haul anybody even for a short distance? Mr. Sacket. Hauled anybody w T ho would go. The Chairman. Any distance, irrespective of distance? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you instruct him out of this fund to furnish those people with refreshments of any kind ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did he do it? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. He paid out the money furnished by Mr. Stephen- son for the teams with which he hauled these people to the polls? Mr. Sacket. I presume he did. The Chairman. He told you he did ? Mr. Sacket. I instructed him to, and he said he did. The Chairman. And he paid other men to drive teams for the same purpose? 400 RODNEY SACKET, Mr. Sacket. He did. The Chairman. Under your instructions? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. That was paid out of this fund you had placed in his hands? Mr. Sacket. It was. The Chairman. Did he account for any balance remaining un- expended after the primary election? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection he did not. The Chairman. Did he render you any itemized account of the expenditures that he had made? Mr. Sacket. He did from time to time. The Chairman. On October 16 you paid him $48.34. What was that paid to him for ? Mr. Sacket. That was to reimburse him for money that he ex- pended in excess of this last $300 and any other moneys that he may have received. The Chairman. Then he rendered a statement to you showing the deficiency, did he? Mr. Sacket. The item under October 16 would indicate that he did. Senator Pomerene. What do you know about it? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of all of those items under that date is that they rendered statements. The Chairman. Do you know whether he expended any part of this mone;y for purchasing refreshments, meals, or drinks for electors, either during the campaign or on the day of the election, when he was hauling them to the polls? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Did you ask him whether he had done so or not? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. On August 25 you paid him $21.15. Was that for the same purpose, the same class of expenditure? Mr. Sacket. It was — not the same purpose of hiring teams. It was for his expenses. The Chairman. In all you paid him $499.34. Is that correct ? Mr. Sacket. I have not computed the amounts. If they appear here, that is probably right. The Chairman. The next item is J. C. Miller, for organizing, $50. That is the J. C. Miller about whom you testified as to the second item, is it? Mr. Sacket. The next item after $21.15 for Mr. Rowe? The Chairman. On July 6 you have testified in regard to giving J. C. Miller $50, and I find another item here. I have gone over those items with you once. Mr. Littlefield. Which particular date does the chairman have in mind? The Chairman. The items were: July 6, $50; July 24, $50; August 6, $75; August 18, $50; August 31, $25; and September 5, $300. I interrogated this witness in regard to those items. Mr. Littlefield. I have the first two checked, but I did not have the others. The Chairman. I have read it from a memorandum that is made up in order that we may not duplicate. The next item to which I RODNEY SACKET. 401 call your attention is one of $50 to J. T. Marshall on July 30, Colum- bia County, organizing. Do you know about that ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that item. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds said he did not know about it and that you would. You say you do not know? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it at present ; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I may be mistaken about that, but I have that checked as accounted for by Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. My memorandum is that Edmonds did not know him. I have written it out in full “ don’t know him.” You do not know anything about it? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you know who Mr. Marshall is? Mr. Sacket. I have no present recollection of him whatever. The Chairman. Your memory may be refreshed by the items. It appears that on July 30 this item of $50 was paid him and on August 27 he was paid $100, and on October 16 he was paid $65, making in all, $215. Do you know anything about any of those payments? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any of them. October 16, do you find the payment to him ? The Chairman. October 16 he was paid $65. We will pass now to F. Remold, $50 on July 30. Mr. Edmonds has indicated that he knows nothing of that payment, but that you will know. Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What was it for? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Reinold, as I remember, was to organize in Kenosha County. Fifty dollars was for expenses, and possibly in- cluded some salary. The Chairman. You gave it to him? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did he spend any of it for treating electors to meals or liquors or to cigars for the purpose of creating a friendly feeling on the part of the elector for Senator Stephenson’s candidacy ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know at this time. The Chairman. There was a further sum paid him on September 5 of $11.05. What have you to say about that? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that item is that it was a final settlement of his expense account, rendered, and a balance of salary finally due him at that time. The Chairman. How much of it was salary? Mr. Sacket. I could not tell. The Chairman. Is your statement as to your lack of knowledge of the manner of expenditure in regard to the item of $50 paid to him true as to the item of $11.05? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The next item is “ E. H. McMahon.” We have already gone over that. The next item is “ Richland County, cash, L. Bancroft, $250,” and that is on July 31. Tell us about that. For what did you pay that to Mr. Bancroft? Mr. Sacket. I presume I am to assume that I paid it if I au- thorized the payment of it. The Chairman. Yes; if it was paid by your responsibility. Mr. Edmonds has said it was an item about which you would know, and he did not. 15235 °— vol 1—11 26 402 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. Yes; that money was paid to Mr. Bancroft for the purpose of promoting Senator Stephenson’s campaign in his locality, Richland County. The Chairman. Was he then attorney general? Mr. Sacket. He was not. The Chairman. Is he now ? Mr. Sacket. He is; yes. The Chairman. Was he a candidate for office at that time? Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. In that campaign? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And was elected? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. And is now serving, is he? Mr. Littlefield. I suppose the chairman will want it to appear that he was a candidate for the legislature. The Chairman. I have a memorandum that he is the attorney general. Mr. Littlefield. I imagined that you wanted to get into your question whether he was a candidate for the assembly. Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. Yes ; I want to find out what he was a candidate for. What was he a candidate for at that time? Mr. Sacket. The assembly. The Chairman. From what district or county? Mr. Sacket. Richland County. The Chairman. Was he elected? Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. From what district or county? Mr. Sacket. Richland County. The Chairman. Was he elected? Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. And was speaker of the house? Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. You paid him $250, or authorized its payment, on July 21. What did you pay that to him for? Mr. Sacket. For general organizing in Richland County in be- half of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. You knew that he was a candidate for the legis- lature at that time ? Mr. Sacket. I did know that he was a candidate. The Chairman. With the full knowledge of that fact you paid him the money to work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not he voted for Senator Stephenson for United States Senator in the legislature? Mr. Sacket. He did. Let me correct one statement made just before this. I gave him the money, not to work for Senator Stephen- son, but to use for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Oh ; to expend on his behalf ? Mr. Sacket. To use ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Is that the same Bancroft who is now attor- ney general? RODNEY SACKET. 403 Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. When was he elected attorney general? Mr. Sacket. A year ago — last fall. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not Senator Stephenson knew that you were paying $250 to a candidate for the legislature to work for him? Mr. Sacket. I did not tell him. The Chairman. Do you know whether he knew it? Mr. Sacket. He did not know it to my knowledge. I believe he did not. The Chairman. Who had the responsibility for paying that money to Mr. Bancroft ? Mr. Sacket. I asked Mr. Puelicher to talk with Mr. Bancroft and arrange with him. The Chairman. You and Mr. Puelicher? Mr. Sacket. I asked Mr. Puelicher to do it. I was not present at the time. The Chairman. Did Mr. Puelicher talk with Mr. Bancroft in your presence ? Mr. Sacket. He did not. The Chairman. Did you ever talk with Mr. Bancroft in regard to the payment of this money or the use of it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. Did he ever come to headquarters or come to you during the campaign? Mr. Sacket. Not during the campaign, to the best of my recollec- tion. The Chairman. Do you know what Mr. Bancroft did and where he went in the performance of this undertaking during the cam- paign ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge. He made no report to me. The Chairman. Did you see a report that he did make in regard to what he had done and what expenses he had incurred ? Mr. Sacket. I read his testimony in this investigation. The Chairman. When did you read that? Mr. Sacket. I think within the past six or eight weeks. The Chairman. Was that the first time that you had read it? Mr. Sacket. I think it was ; yes, sir. The Chairman. What conversation did you have with Mr. Puelicher in regard to the payment of this money to Mr. Bancroft and the purpose for which it was to be paid to him ? Mr. Littlefield. Does it call for a conversation between Mr. Sacket and Mr. Puelicher? The Chairman. Yes; Mr. Sacket and Mr. Puelicher, who were jointly interested in this. Mr. Sacket. I can not remember the words of the conversation, but I think I can give the substance. In fact, I know I can. The Chairman. Give the substance. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher was to arrange with Mr. Bancroft to look after Senator Stephenson’s interests in Richland County, was to give Mr. Bancroft money with which to pay the expenses for Sena- tor Stephenson’s work, with the distinct understanding that all the money given to Mr. Bancroft by our headquarters was to be used for Senator Stephenson’s interests, and none of it was to be used to pro- 404 RODNEY SACKET. mote Mr. Bancroft’s campaign, or for Mr. Bancroft’s interest in any- way. The Chairman. Did you provide any method by which the uses could be separated, and when Mr. Bancroft approached a man on be- half of Mr. Stephenson, that he was to make that fact known, and that the man was not to give him any credit for it because he was under pay to work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I made no such provision. The Chairman. The next item here is A. J. Weisman. Did you pay that money ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Sacket. For the purpose of organizing in Manitowoc County. The Chairman. Do you use the term “ organizing” in that case the same as you have used it in other cases that you have spoken of, that it comprised the soliciting of votes for Senator Stephenson by those men, and expenditures for entertainment, to be made in the judgment of the person expending the money? Mr. Sacket. My understanding of my use of the word was in- tended to convey any act of campaigning, any act in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s candidacy. The Chairman. That would induce the elector to vote for him or support him ? Mr. Sacket. That would produce votes for Senator Stephenson; yes, practically that. The Chairman. Do you know of any person by name who was induced to vote for Senator Stephenson by any of these men to whom you gave money for the purpose of inducing them or influencing them to vote for him ? Mr. Sacket. I do not; no, sir. The Chairman. Do you know that in this entire campaign, and with the expenditure of all this money, any single man was induced to vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. By name I do not ; no, sir. The Chairman. By name or by description can you refer us to a single one? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; not in any individual case. I do not know of any instance. The Chairman. Do you wish to be understood as saying that you do not know that your labor in the expenditure and disbursement of this money bore any fruit whatever for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. That is not the idea I wish to convey. I understood the question to be, if I knew of any particular man by name or de- scription who was induced. I do not. The Chairman. Was it not a part of your duty, undertaking to induce men either through your own action or that of those whom you appointed, to accomplish this purpose? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Did you never take any pains to ascertain whether or not you had accomplished anything by the expenditure of this money ? Mr. Sacket. The result was perfectly satisfactory to me. I did not consider it necessary. RODNEY SACKET. 405 The Chairman. You continued your interest in this campaign until some time after it was over, did you not, as representing Sena- tor Stephenson’s interests? Mr. Sacket. I settled the outstanding accounts. The Chairman. When did you sever your connection with the campaign? Mr. Sacket. I considered it severed after October 16, when I set- tled the final outstanding accounts. The Chairman. The full returns at the primary were in, and of course you received them and analyzed them and gave attention to them, did you not? Mr. Sacket. I did to a certain extent ; yes, sir. The Chairman. You naturally would? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. You knew how much money had been expended at that time, did you not, when you had the returns all in — how much money had been expended by Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I did not at the time the election returns were all in ; no, sir. The Chairman. You had paid all of the bills on October 16, ac- cording to your statement? Mr. Sacket. The election returns of the primary were in before that. The Chairman. Let us refer to the primary. The election had not been held in October. At the time you say you severed your connection with the Stephenson canrpaign Senator Stephenson had received in the primary 56,809 votes, had he not? Mr. Sacket. That is approximately it. I do not remember exactly. The Chairman. And at a cost of $111,389.49, according to this statement which you made up? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. That would be at the rate of more than $2 for every vote? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. While it is a small matter, Mr. Chairman, I suggest whether or not the chairman ought not to take into account the fact that the net amount was $107,000 and odd. The Chairman. Doubtless those who argue this for final decision will call all of those things to the attention of the tribunal, but I am dealing with the round figures as I have them. In other words, the money expended through the efforts of you, Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds, amounted to more than $2 for every vote received by Senator Stephenson at the primary. That is true, is it not? Mr. Sacket. Approximately so; yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know the total Republican vote cast at the genral election in Wisconsin in that fall ? Mr. Sacket. I think I had some knowledge of it at that time, and I remember hearing Mr. Edmonds testify here within the last few days. The Chairman. How much was it? Mr. Sacket. About 450,000, as I remember. The Chairman. That is the total vote? Mr. Sacket. The total vote. 406 BODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. How much was the total Republican vote? Mr. Sacket. The Republican vote was over 300,000. The Chairman. Then out of over 300,000 Republican votes, your efforts and expenditures secured only 56,839 for Senator Stephenson. That is true, is it not? Mr. Sacket. That is approximately true. The Chairman. That is at an expense of over $2 for every vote. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you can not name a single vote or voter brought to support Senator Stephenson through the expenditure of this amount of money ? Mr. Sacket. I can not. The Chairman. Have you made any estimate of the number of votes that Senator Stephenson would have received at that primary, had there been no money expended, or no one employed as were you and your associates? Mr. Sacket. I never estimated the number ; no, sir. The Chairman. Men in charge of a political campaign generally do go into those calculations as a basis for organizing, do they not ? Mr. Littlefield. That is, calculations of how many votes they would get if they did not organize ? The Chairman. Yes ; of the benefit to be gained by organizing. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to hear about that. I never heard of it before, but if the witness has any information, I should like it. The Chairman. Did you consider that question? Mr. Sacket. I did not make any figures. The Chairman. Did any of you ? Mr. Sacket. We talked generally about the effect different things might have on the voters, and the advisability of doing certain things. The Chairman. Did you never make any figures in connection with that talk or discussion, in regard to the vote that he would receive, and how it could be augmented by the expenditure of money, and the efforts you made. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember making any figures, in that sense. The Chairman. What did you talk about when you conferred? Mr. Sacket. We talked about the votes and the influence different things might have on the voters. The Chairman. Without attempting to measure it at all ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember it so. The Chairman. If a county was conceded to be strongly for Sena- tor Stephenson, would you consider the necessity of expending money in that county, as compared with the necessity for expending it in counties where the sentiment was unorganized or unknown ? Mr. Sacket. Those things were talked about to a greater or less extent, but my recollection of those talks is very faint at this time. The Chairman. What did you talk about? Mr. Sacket. Matters of that kind. The Chairman. Oh, you do remember that? Mr. Sacket. I remember that there were conversations about such subjects. The Chairman. Were there any counties in which you expended no money? Mr. Sacket. I do not recall any now. RODNEY SACKET. 407 The Chairman. Did you have a poll made up of the voters in any or all of the counties that you counted favorable to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think that we went as far as to have the poll lists. Is that what you mean? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. A list of the voters. No ; we did not do that. The Chairman. You did not go that far. That is generally the first thing that the organizer does, is it not? Mr. Sacket. If he has an organization, and money enough to do it. The Chairman. You have denominated a great many men here as organizers, and have specified large sums of money as being paid out for organizing. Do you mean to say that did not include the polling of the vote, for the purpose of knowing what strength you might count on for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. We went as far as we could in that direction. The Chairman. How far did you go? Mr. Sacket. As far as our ability would permit us. The Chairman. How many names did you have on the poll list favorable to Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember the figures. The Chairman. You have no recollection of the poll of a cam- paign of which you were largely in charge? Mr. Sacket. We had lists of names of persons in different parts of the State, who had expressed sentiments favorable toward Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. How many were there? Mr. Sacket. I should thing, perhaps, we had a list of a thousand names of that kind. The Chairman. Only a thousand names of people favorable to Senator Stephenson in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. Sacket. I will correct that. We had altogether, I think, about 20,000. The Chairman. Oh; you had 20,000 names of people who were favorable to Senator Stephenson, and he received only 56,839. There were more than half the people who supported Senator Stephenson, of whom you had no knowledge at all. Senator Pomerene. Two-thirds. The Chairman. Yes; two-thirds. Mr. Sacket. Of whom we had no record in our office, to my knowledge. The Chairman. Had they not been seen? Mr. Sacket. I presume they had received circulars, and read the advertisements in the newspapers. I have no knowledge of their having been seen personally; no, sir. The Chairman. Then you missed the poll by about 30,000 ? Mr. Sacket. I did not at any time presume that the list of 20,000 names that we had was a list of all the people in the State who were favorable to Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was not all of this information sent to head- quarters ? Mr. Sacket. It was a list of all those persons whom we know, or had reason to suppose, were favorable to the Senator. The list was 408 RODNEY SACKET. obtained from the signers of his nomination papers, and in other ways. The Chairman. You must have expected Senator Stephenson to be badly beaten at the primaries then, with a list of only about 20,000 for him, did you not? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. You knew that 20,000 votes would not nominate anybody, did you not ? Mr. Sacket. I did not suppose that was all the votes we would get. The Chairman. What was your estimate of the vote Senator Stephenson would receive? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember having made an estimate in figures. The Chairman. Do you not know that there were five candidates, each of whom received more than 20,000 votes at that primary? You were managing a $100,000 campaign for Senator Stephenson and figuring on only 20,000 votes. Mr. Sacket. I do not think you understand me. I did not figure on only 20,000 votes. The Chairman. I asked you how many you did figure on. Mr. Sacket. I said we had a list of 20,000. The Chairman. I know ; but how many did you figure on ? Mr. Sacket. I figured on enough to elect Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. That will not do. You know how many you fig- ured on. Mr. Sacket. If you want me to give my best recollection, I should say we expected to get 75,000 or 80,000 votes. The Chairman. Now, that is a more reasonable statement. You thought you had accomplished that result, that would bring him about 75,000 votes? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. By the methods that you have explained? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now, you have nothing further to say in regard to your transactions with Mr. Bancroft, have you ? Mr. Sacket. I think I have covered the ground fully. The Chairman. Did you ever talk to Senator Stephenson about the employment of Mr. Bancroft in the manner you have described ? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. The Chairman. Did he ever speak to you about it? Mr. Sacket. He did not, to my recollection. The Chairman. Or communicate with you in any way about it ? Mr. Sacket. In no way that I remember. The Chairman. Did you communicate with him? Mr. Sacket. In no way that I remember. The Chairman. Whatever the responsibility is for this, as far as you know, it rests on you as his agent? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Who suggested to you to employ Mr. Bancroft ? Mr. Sacket. I think Mr. McMahon sent his name in to Mr. Ed- monds. Mr. Edmonds agreed to see him, but was called away. I was busy at that time, and I asked Mr. Puelicher to talk to him. That is the whole of my recollection of the matter. RODNEY SACKET. 409 The Chairman. So that all three of the committee — that is, Pue- licher, Edmonds, and yourself, whom Senator Stephenson had named as the committee — all three of the committee, then, had personal com- munication with Mr. Bancroft in regard to the payment of money to him, on behalf of Senator Stephenson, to get him to work for Senator Stephenson during the campaign at which he was a candidate for nomination as a member of the State legislature. That is true, is it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not say that they all had personal communica- tions with him. The Chairman. I have understood you to say that Mr. Edmonds did, and that Mr. Puelicher did. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds was informed The Chairman. By whom? Mr. Sacket. By Mr. McMahon, as I understand it, that Mr. Ban- croft would come in. He told Mr. McMahon to induce him to come in if he could. The Chairman. To come in where? Mr. Sacket. To come into Milwaukee and talk to Mr. Edmonds about it. I do not know that Mr. Edmonds had any idea of paying him money at that time. The Chairman. Mr. Bancroft had not announced his intention in regard to whom he would support for United States Senator at the time that he came in, had he ? Mr. Sacket. It was my understanding that he was for Senator Stephenson. If I remember correctly, Mr. McMahon said he was for Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Who said that? Mr. Sacket. Mr. McMahon. The Chairman. Did Bancroft say so? Mr. Sacket. Not to me, he did not. The Chairman. Was not Mr. Bancroft’s support of Senator Stephenson during that campaign for the primary in consideration of Senator Stephenson’s supporting Mr. Bancroft, or Senator Stephenson’s friends supporting Mr. Bancroft? Mr. Sacket. I do not so understand it. The Chairman. You do not know that that is true or that it is not true, do you mean? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection and information, I would say that it was not true. The Chairman. Were you in Madison when the legislature was organized, or during the contest for the election of speaker? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; I was not. .The Chairman. At no time? Mr. Sacket. At no time. The Chairman. Did you communicate with any member of the legislature in respect to the selection of the speaker ? Mr. Sacket. I think I had some conversation with the member from the district in which I lived. The Chairman. Did you advise him or urge him to vote for Mr. Bancroft for speaker? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly, he told me voluntarily that he was for Bancroft; that Bancroft would be a good speaker, and that he was for him. 410 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. What did you say to him? Mr. Sacket. I said I was glad of it. I agreed with him. The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Weisman? Mr. Sacket. I remember him; yes, sir. The Chairman. You testified as to the payments made to Weis- man. You also testified as to the payments to Hambright. We come now to E. J. Rogers. On August 5 you paid Rogers $50. What did you pay him that money for? Mr. Sacket. For expenses, and possibly some salary, for organ- izing, I think it was, Grant County ; either Grant or Iowa County. The Chairman. Do you know what he expended the money for? Mr. Sacket. I received reports from him from time to time. The Chairman. W T ere your reports in writing? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you those reports? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Where are they ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Were they among the papers that you destroyed, as you testified when you were on the stand before? Mr. Sacket. I think not. The Chairman. Where do you think they are now ? Mr. Sacket. I think they were left with the State legislative com- mittee, at Madison. The Chairman. You paid him $300 on August 22. What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. I think that was for hiring teams and men to work at the polls. The Chairman. That was 10 days before the election? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Sacket. He lives in Iowa County, I think. Mr. Littlefield. What date was that? The Chairman. August 22, page 592, of the joint committee pro- ceedings. Mr. Littlefield. I am trying to check these names with a type- written list that Mr. Sacket has furnished, but I do not find Mr. E. J. Rogers on this typewritten list, under date of August 22. The Chairman. You will find it on the printed page 592, the first item under date of August 22. Mr. Littlefield. Yes ; I do find it there. It did not get onto this typewritten list. The Chairman. Did Rogers expend any of that money for the purchase of drinks or treats of any kind to electors of the State as an inducement or with the intention of creating a feeling that would result in those persons supporting Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. He may have expended any part of it or all of it for that purpose, so far as you know? Mr. Sacket. My recollection would be quite positive that he did not expend all of it, or a very large part of it, although he may have made some expenditures of that kind. At 12.30 o’clock p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m. RODNEY SAOKET. 411 AFTER RECESS. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. Mr. Littlefield. If the subcommittee please, Mr. Brown, who is subpoenaed, and who has been in attendance, I think, nearly every day, is cashier of a bank in Senator Stephenson’s home town, Mari- nette, and while, of course, I do not know what the subcommittee may have in mind as to his examination, my notion is that it will be very short. It would be quite a great personal convenience to him if the subcommittee could examine him this afternoon and excuse him. I do not ask that, if it is going to embarrass the subcommittee, but it would be a great convenience to him. There is very little that he knows about the matter, I think ; but, of course, the subcommittee knows what it desires to get from him. The Chairman. The subcommittee desire to accommodate Mr. Brown, but we dislike to break in on Mr. Sacket’s testimony, if we can finish that this afternoon. Mr. Littlefield. Would it do to have this understanding, that we will suspend with Mr. Sacket, say, 15 or 20 minutes before adjourn- ment, this afternoon, for the purpose of examining Mr. Brown? Would that be agreeable to the subcommittee? The Chairman. There is another witness, Mr. Kingsley, whom we promised in open session this morning we would hear. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think Mr. Brown would want to incon- venience any of the other witnesses. As far as we are concerned, we will be glad to do everything we can, not only to meet the con- venience of the subcommittee, but, of course, the convenience of gentlemen who are in attendance under subpoena. The Chairman. The subcommittee desire to suit the convenience of witnesses, but we must regard promises already made. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, certainly. The Chairman. After a very few days we will undoubtedly be quite caught up with the witnesses. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think Mr. Brown would want the sub- committee to discommode any other witnesses for his convenience. The Chairman. We will give Mr. Brown an opportunity to testify during the afternoon before adjournment. Mr. Littlefield. I doubt very much whether we will be able to get through with Mr. Sacket this afternoon, because there are quite a good many details I will have to go over, and I would not want Mr. Brown examined to the inconvenience of Mr. Kingsley. The Chairman. Mr. Brown’s testimony occupies about three pages in the former examination, but how long it will occupy at this time I can not undertake to say. Mr. Riordan has requested that he be excused until Monday. He may be excused until Monday, next, at 2 o’clock. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Resumed. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket, I think the last item of which we inquired of you was “ E. J. Rogers.” Mr. Littlefield. That is at the top of page 590 of the testimony taken at the State investigation. 412 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. On August 5, you paid Mr. Rogers $50. What did you give him that money for? Mr. Sacket. For expenses. Probably some of it was for salary for promoting Senator Stephenson’s candidacy in Iowa County. The Chairman. You say “ probably.” There is an item on August 22 of $300, and one on October 16 of $131.79, moneys paid to Mr. Rogers. I think you have already testified that you did not know how much of that was for salary and how much for expenses. Mr. Sacket. There is nothing in this account which discriminates between expense account and salary. The Chairman. I know, but your recollection is appealed to. What recollection have you ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that any amount might contain both items — salary and expenses. The Chairman. What would be the maximum of this item that would be reasonably charged to salary? The three items amount to $481.79, and it is all after August 5. Mr. Sacket. He was to receive $3 a day for the time that he worked for Mr. Stephenson, and he was employed probably earlier than August 5. I should think that $90 would cover the amount, in these sums, paid him as salary, and the rest of it for expenses. The Chairman. That would leave $391.79, money for which he should account? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he account for the expenditure of that money ? Mr. Sacket. He did. The Chairman. Have you the account? Mr. Sacket. I did have it. I do not have it now. The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Sacket. 1 do not know. Mr. Littlefield. On what page does the chairman find that item under the date of October 16 ? I desire to check it. The Chairman. The item of August 5 is on page 590, the item of August 22 is on page 592, and the item of October 16 is on page 611. Mr. Sacket. My last recollection of seeing his account was in the office of the headquarters in the Wells Building. That is my last distinct recollection. The Chairman. In whose office? Mr. Sacket. In the office — the headquarters of the Stephenson campaign. The Chairman. In whose office? That is, who occupied it? Mr. Sacket. In my own office. The Chairman. And you saw his statement of account? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you say whether or not you destroyed that account when you made that general destruction of papers ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I did. It was not my intention to do so. The Chairman. May it still be in that office ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Who occupies that office now? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did you have a desk there in which these papers were kept? RODNEY SACKET. 413 Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did you lock that desk when you left the office ? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean when I left it finally ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember whether I locked the desk or not when I left the office finally. The Chairman. Did you leave anyone in charge of that desk? Mr. Sacket. I think the office was closed when I left it finally. The Chairman. Do you think the paper was left in the office then ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Well, what do you think about it? Mr. Sacket. I think the paper ultimately found its way to the State committee, with a lot of other papers that I produced there. Mr. Littlefield. What do you mean by the State committee ? Mr. Sacket. The joint committee investigating the election of Sen- ator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. That is not a State committee at all. The Chairman. A moment. You were the custbdian of that paper. Was there anyone else authorized to produce that paper before that committee ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you produce it before that committee? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection, I did. The Chairman. Did you testify relative to the items in that state- ment? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember testifying to any of them. The Chairman. Do you remember whether or not in the account rendered you by Mr. Rogers it was shown that money had been ex- pended for treats, liquors, and cigars? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. And can you say that no part of that money was sp ' 1 ™ ^ J hose purposes ? The Chairman. Where does Mr. Rogers live ? Mr. Sacket. In Iowa County. I do not remember the name of the town. The Chairman. Do you know him personally ? Mr. Sacket. I think I would know him if I were to see him now. The Chairman. What does he do ? Mr. Sacket. He was the agent of an express company there, I think. The Chairman. In charge of the express office? Mr. Sacket. Either in charge or working in the office, I am not certain which. I think he was in charge. The Chairman. You think he was in charge — the head man? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Could he leave the express office and canvass a county or part of a State? Mr. Sacket. He said he could. The Chairman. Did he do it? Mr. Sacket. He said he did. The Chairman. Do you know as a fact whether he did perform any services of that kind ? 414 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. Only from recollection of his statements to me. The Chairman. The next item is “ Rowe.” We have already dis- posed of that, have we not? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I have checked up that item and then the suc- ceeding item, “ Rowe,” under August 10. The Chairman. The next item is “ C. C. Wayland.” Mr. Sacket. I know nothing about that. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified that he knew nothing about him. Mr. Littlefield. What, C. C. Wayland? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. He is Mr. Edmonds’ partner in business. Mr. Edmonds went over that item again and again. The chairman must be mistaken. The Chairman. I have it marked here in my memorandum with a cipher in front of it. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman must be wrong about that, be- cause Mr. Edmonds went over that item again and again. The Chairman. I have the item on the memorandum and opposite it the word “ Sacket ” written. Mr. Littlefield. As the judge in the Pickwick case said, you have got it down wrong. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified as to knowledge of other items, and as to this particular item he said he knew nothing about it. Mr. Littlefield. If the subcommittee please, the next item I have is “Iowa County, L. H. Stevens,” which, according to my memo- randum, is unaccounted for by anybody. That is, up to date. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified that he had knowledge of the item of $100, July 27, to Wayland, and of the item of $300 of August 31 to Wayland, and left you to account for the item of August 5, of $48.18, August 7, of $250, and August 22, of $500. That is according to my record, which is quite explicit. I will now recur to that item of $48.18. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will give me those dates I will look up the particular items. I have just had the items indexed. The Chairman. The items that Mr. Edmonds identified are marked “ Edmonds,” and those that he did not undertake to identify are the ones that I have named. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman give them to me again, please, in order that I may check them up in my memorandum ? The Chairman." It will be an overlap in any event. I will give them to counsel, but no serious breach will occur by reason of asking this witness about them. Mr. Littlefield. No; but I want to be sure to get them in in the end. The Chairman. That is the intention of the subcommittee, that they shall all be in. Coming now to the item of August 5, $49.18, found at page 590 of the account, will you state whether or not you know of the payment of that money to Mr. Wayland ? Mr. Sacket. I have absolutely no recollection of it whatever. The Chairman. And you are not able to account for it? Mr. Sacket. I am not; no, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 415 The Chairman. Are you able to account for the item of August 7 of $250 paid to Wayland? Mr. Sacket. I am not. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds has given us some information on that item. You have none? Mr. Sacket. I have none whatever. The Chairman. Take the item of August 22, of $500. Have you any information in regard to that item? Mr. Sacket. I have absolutely no recollection of having anything to do with it. The Chairman. You can add nothing to what Mr. Edmonds said? Mr. Edmonds has given us the $300 item. I will say to counsel I have this posted up and indexed, so that I am speaking from such information as I have before me. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, I was giving only my general recollec- tion. If the chairman has a duplicate of that index to which he refers, I think perhaps it would help me in working out the details. The Chairman. The clerks have been working at it for the most of two nights. I understand they have not made any copy. It has been very difficult work that required constant reference from one item to another. It has not as yet been copied. Mr. Littlefield. We are trying to have a similar thing done in Mr. Black’s office, but up to date have not got around to it. The Chairman. “ L. H. Stevens, Iowa County, August 5, $28.93.” That item Mr. Edmonds has referred to your knowledge. What do you know about that payment? Mr. Sacket. That was expense money for Mr. Stevens, who was to organize Iowa County for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did he agree with you that he would perform any service in the nature of inducing electors to vote for Senator Stephen- son? Mr. Sacket. He did; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay him the money for that purpose ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Do you know what he did, if anything, pursuant to that arrangement? Mr. Sacket. Only from his report to me. The Chairman. Was the report in writing? Mr. Sacket. His report was in writing ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Where is the report? Mr. Sacket. It was placed with other papers of a similar nature, and I have no exact recollection of the final disposition of it. The Chairman. And you would not be able to account for any item in the statement were it present. Is that true? Mr. Sacket. I could not say whether I would know of any item in his statement of expenses unless I would see his statement. That might remind me. The Chairman. Did you turn this statement over to the legislative committee ? Mr. Sacket. I think that is what I did with all of them, eventually. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep a memorandum of the state- ments which you turned over to this legislative committee? 416 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. That is the Stevens item. You paid him, on August 22, $300. What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. That was for hiring teams and men at the polls, I think. The Chairman. Did he use the money represented by that item for hiring men to haul persons to the polls as an inducement for them to vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I have no absolute knowledge of what he did do. The Chairman. That was what you employed him to do, was it not? Mr. Sacket. I did not instruct him to haul men for that purpose ; no, sir. The Chairman. What instructions did you give him ? Mr. Sacket. My instructions were to the effect that he should provide these teams and men in order to bring people to the polls — men who intended to vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did he do as you had instructed him? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Did he report to you that he had done so? Mr. Sacket. He made no report to me after the primary of this $300. The Chairman. You paid him $200 before the primaries on Au- gust 31. For what was that payment? Mr. Sacket. According to my best recollection that was his salary for services. The Chairman. How much was he to receive? Mr. Sacket. Two hundred dollars. The Chairman. Then on October 16 you paid him another $200. What was that for? You paid him in all $728.92. Mr. Sacket. I remember that he put in a claim for $200 more after the primary was all over, for money that he had expended and not accounted for — not collected before. That last $200, on the 16th of October, was to settle his claim. The Chairman. He was an entertainer, was he not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. A man who spent money entertaining electors? Mr. Sacket. I do not know what he did. The Chairman. Do you know him personally? Mr. Sacket. I knew him at that time ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Where does he reside? Mr. Sacket. At Lancaster, in Grant County, I think. The Chairman. Where is that, from this city? Mr. Sacket. That is south and west of Milwaukee, almost across the State. The Chairman. Was not this money given him to use in enter- taining electors, with a view of creating a friendly feeling for Sen- ator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. That was part of the purpose for which it was given him, I think. The Chairman. What is his occupation? Mr. Sacket. A banker. RODNEY SACKET. 417 The Chairman. He is a man socially inclined, is he not? Mr. Sacket. I could not say. The Chairman. He did not go around and personally talk with people throughout the community in regard to this matter, or in favor of Senator Stephenson, did he? Mr. Sacket. He led me to believe he would do that before I paid him the money. The Chairman. Go around and personally solicit support for Sen- ator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. He was not a man who would go out at night and call town meetings, was he, and address them ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know that he was. He did not tell me he would do that. The Chairman. He would not be apt to do that, would he? Mr. Sacket. I do not think so. The Chairman. You did not expect him to? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. You did not expect Mr. Stevens to do what is generally termed, get right down with the boys and hobnob with them. Mr. Sacket. I do not know of any reason why Mr. Stevens should not be ordinarily sociable with the voters of his district. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge as to his expending any money for any purpose? Mr. Sacket. He reported the items of this amount, $28.92, in writing to me. According to my recollection that $28.92 was the amount of a statement he sent me in writing of his expenditures up to the time that statement was received. The Chairman. After that the payments were in round sums? The time that elapsed before he made further application for money was between August 5 and August 22 ? Mr. Sacket. A great many of these items under August 22 were, as I remember them, for employing teams and workers at the polls. The Chairman. Are you right sure of that? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection. The Chairman. We have Mr. Stevens’s testimony here now. He testifies that his salary was $200, so that that leaves $528.92 to account for, outside of his salary. Mr. Littlefield. On what page of the hearing is that? Senator Pomerene. 4581. The Chairman. He testifies on page 4581 of the so-called State investigation, in response to the inquiry as to whether he got anything for salary, that he received $200, and says that he spent all of the balance in the way that he has indicated. He says he received a little less than $800. We have the exact amount, however. It was $728.92. Mr. Littlefield. I have forgotten what Mr. Sacket said the salary was. Mr. Sacket. $200. Mr. Littlefield. That is your recollection! Mr. Sacket. Yes. 15235 ° — vol 1—11 27 418 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. He says on page 4580 that he thinks the largest sum he gave to any one party was $40, and that he gave it to a man named Howard McNett, at Cuba City. He says : That was organizing or taking care of four towns or parts. It would be equivalent to about four towns. Mr. Sacket, have you any knowledge of that expenditure by this man? Mr. Sacket. None whatever. The Chairman. Did he ever report that to you? Mr. Sacket. He did not. The Chairman. He says he thinks he paid one liveryman about thirty or thirty-five dollars, William Weller, a Lancaster liveryman, and that he paid another one about $20. Did he ever report those facts to you ? Mr. Sacket. No; he did not. The Chairman. Never mentioned that to you. He was examined as follows: Q. Were any of these rigs used for carrying voters to the polls? — A. No. Q. This was before primary day? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Any other large sum of expenditure that you can recall? — A. A fellow by the name of Jansen, F. P. Jansen, of Platteville. I paid him about $25. Did he ever report that fact to you ? Mr. Sacket. Never. The Chairman. He was further asked : Q. What was that paid for? — A. That was for work in Platteville. Q. Anyone else? — A. These, I think, are the large amounts; the others ranged from $2 to $5 and were distributed over the county. Left a trail wherever I went. Did he ever report to you that he was spending money in that way ? Mr. Sacket. Never. Mr. Littlefield. Leaving a trail. The Chairman. You have said you thought that this man rendered an account with you and you left it with the committee ? Mr. Sacket. He rendered an account of the $28.92. The Chairman. And you left that with the committee ; but of these other sums he rendered no account ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any account or explanation made to me. Senator Pomerene. Why did you accept and receive an account for $28.92 and not receive one for over $700? Mr. Sacket. I received this $28.92 account because it was sent to me. I did not receive the other because he did not send it to me. The Chairman. You never made any effort to get it? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. So that you can give no further account about the item to Mr. Stevens. We come now to the item of Kewaunee County on August 5, $75. To whom did you give that money ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. The Chairman. To recur to Mr. Stevens for a moment, was he operating in Grant County or in Iowa County ? Mr. Sacket. He was operating in Grant County, as I remember it. The Chairman. In this record of the State investigation it is Iowa. I had a note that it was Grant. RODNEY SACKET. 419 To return to the Kewaunee County item, you say you know nothing of that item ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it whatever. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds said he knew nothing about it. Who would? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Is there any source from which we can gather information as to whom that $75 was paid? Mr. Sacket. None that I know of. The Chairman. Or what it was used for ? Mr. Sacket. No source that I know of. The Chairman. How did you come to put it in this account? Was it on a card in your card index ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. In whose handwriting was the notation ? Mr. Sacket. I do not recollect that particular notation, but all of the writing was mine, so I presume this must have been mine. The Chairman. You had on a card, presumed to be in your hand- writing, an item of $75, Kewaunee County, as having been paid out of the Stephenson campaign fund? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. And you do not know to whom it was paid, what it was paid for, or what it was intended to be used for ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Take the item of R. J. Shields, August 6, for advertising. Do you know anything of that item ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds knew nothing of that. I have it marked on my notes with a cipher in front of it, which indicates that Mr. Edmonds had no knowledge in regard to it, that it was one of those items which belonged to your department. Do you know any- thing about it, or what do you know about it ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of paying Mr. Shields any money at any time or making any arrangement with him. The Chairman. Do you know him ? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What does he do? Mr. Sacket. I think he is in the real estate and insurance business. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Sacket. At Superior, Wis. The Chairman. You just paid him the one sum? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of paying him that. The Chairman. Then you have no recollection of having any voucher or contract from him? Mr. Sacket. The item here is the only thing that I know about, and it does not refresh my memory to the extent of enabling me to remember any circumstance of the kind. The Chairman. We will go now to the next item of $75 to J. C. Miller. I think we have had that. Mr. Littlefield. I have it checked off on my list as having been gone over in the aggregate with the other items at some time. I think you called attention to that, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Yes; I have it marked here. There were six pay- ments made to J. C. Miller, and he testified in regard to that. 420 RODNEY SACKET. Kewaunee County, $100 on the 7th of August. Mr. Edmonds says he has no knowledge of that payment. Have you any ? Mr. Sacket. I have none. The Chairman. No recollection whatever? Mr. Sacket. No recollection whatever. The Chairman. You do not know to whom it was paid, nor for what purpose? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. The next item is Racine County, $100. Have you any knowledge of that? Mr. Sacket. No absolute knowledge; no, sir. The Chairman. What kind of knowledge have you? Mr. Sacket. I remember the man we employed in Racine County. The Chairman. To whom you paid this money? Mr. Sacket. I should presume the money was paid to him, be- cause it says Racine County. The Chairman. What is the name? Mr. Sacket. J. R. Jones. The Chairman. Did you pay him $100? Mr. Sacket. I paid him money at different times. I presume this is one of the items, but I would not be positive about it. The Chairman. I find that you paid him altogether $783.50. You have a recollection of paying Mr. Jones money, have you? Mr. Sacket. I have a recollection of paying him some money. The Chairman. On August 14, at page 591, we find an item that you paid him of $350. Is that the same J. R. Jones? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you pay him that first $100 for? Mr. Sacket. For expenses in organizing Racine County. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ organizing ” Racine County ? Mr. Sacket. Doing those things which were necessary to secure the largest possible vote for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. In whose judgment was the work to be per- formed — under instructions from you? Mr. Sacket. Under instructions from me and in his judgment generally. The Chairman. What instructions did you give him as to the manner of expending that money? Mr. Sacket. My instructions were to conduct the campaign as decently as possible and to keep within the law under all circum- stances. Senator Pomerene. Why did you use the word “ decently 99 ? Mr. Sacket. I meant to enjoin him not to go into saloons Senator Pomerene. You remember that you used the word “ de- cently 99 ? Mr. Sacket. That was a word that I used to a great many men. Senator Pomerene. Was there some indecent conduct that made you use the word “ decently ” ? Mr. Sacket. Not in the Stephenson campaign, that I know of. The Chairman. Do you know how much of that $100 that you paid him on August 7 was expended for treats, liquors, cigars, or entertainment of any kind to electors? Mr. Sacket. I do not. RODNEY SACKET. 421 The Chairman. Was any part of that for his own use? Mr. Sacket. As I remember, he did not receive any salary. I would not be absolutely positive, but that is my recollection. The Chairman. On August 14 you paid him $350. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. The same purpose, as I remember it. The Chairman. Did he render you an account for that money? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that Mr. Jones ever did. The Chairman. On August 29 you paid him $100. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. The same purpose, I think. The Chairman. On August 31 you paid him $150. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. The same purpose, I think. The Chairman. On September 5 you paid him $183.50. Do you know what you gave him that money for? Mr. Sacket. I have no positive recollection of that particular item, but from the fact that it was on September 5, after the primary, and among other items of the kind, I think it was the final settlement. The Chairman. Did he render you a statement on which settlement was made? Mr. Sacket. I believe he did. The Chairman. Where is that statement? Mr. Sacket. I do not think the statement was itemized, if I re- member correctly, and in that case it was destroyed. The Chairman. You paid him altogether $883.50 between August 7 and September 5. Did he account to you in writing, by items, for any of that money, or the use that he had made of it ? Mr. Sacket. He did not, to the best of my recollection. The Chairman. That is including that first hundred dollars w T hich you say is charged to Racine County; but you say that is Mr. Jones. Who is Mr. Jones? Mr. Sacket. He is Mr. Jones of Racine County. I do not remem- ber what his business was. He is in some business there, employed in some way, lives in the city of Racine and is commonly known as Junior Jones. The Chairman. Did you meet him personally? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When did you meet him? Mr. Sacket. During the campaign. I do not remember the exact date. The Chairman. Was he present at the time this money was paid, or did you pay it to him ? Mr. Sacket. The first hundred dollars you refer to ? The Chairman. Any of these items? Mr. Sacket. I think all the money that was paid him was sent to him by cashier’s check or draft, to Racine, by mail. Senator Pomerene. Why is not the number of the draft here ? The Chairman. On August 14, Racine County, the number is given, 33560. Senator Pomerene. Not the 29th? The Chairman. That item, of $100, Racine, has initials of “E. A. E.” 422 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. That was probably by direction of Mr. Edmonds that that money was sent, and he may have sent it himself. The Chairman. Can you say to the committee how much, if any, of this sum of money, $883.50, given by the campaign committee of Senator Stephenson, out of the moneys of Senator Stephenson, was expended by Mr. J ones for treating, entertaining electors of the State, in order that they might be induced to support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I can not. The Chairman. And so far as you know it may all have been spent in that way. Is that true? Mr. Sacket. So far as I have any absolute knowledge ; yes, sir. The Chairman. Who would know how that money was spent and be able to testify to it at this time ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of anyone, of my own knowledge. The Chairman. Give us a little more information as to Mr. Jones. In what business is he engaged ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. In what business was he engaged at the time you paid him this money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. How did you first come to pay Jones the money? Mr. Sacket. He came to the Milwaukee headquarters and I talked to him. We agreed on the method of conducting the campaign, and I either gave him money at that time or sent it to him afterwards with which to conduct it. The Chairman. Was he a member of the State central committee or of any branch of the political organization of the State ? Mr. Sacket. He was not, to my recollection, at that time. The Chairman. Was he a man in public office? Mr. Sacket. Not that I know of. The Chairman. Was he a lawyer? Mr. Sacket. I think not. The Chairman. Who introduced him to you ? Mr. Sacket. I think Mr. Hambright sent him in. The Chairman. When you say “ sent him in,” what do you mean ? Mr. Sacket. Asked him or requested him to come in to Milwaukee and come to headquarters and see Mr. Edmonds or me. The Chairman. Did he tell you Mr. Hambright had sent him in ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Hambright wrote me about him, I believe, to start with. Senator Pomerene. Is that C. M. Hambright ? Mr. Sacket. Yes ; the man spoken of before. The Chairman. Was Mr. Hambright a member of the legislature? Mr. Sacket. He was not at this time or afterwards ; I think years ago he was. The Chairman. On the strength of Mr. Hambright’s suggestion, you paid him this sum of money ? What position did Mr. Hambright occupy, that his recommendation was good ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Hambright was employed by the Stephenson headquarters to go around the State and make investigations and report to us as to the ability of certain persons whom we might hire or employ or use. The Chairman. Now, we will pass to the item on August 8, under the head of “ General.” What was “ General, $250 ”? RODNEY SOCKET. 423 Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection at all as to that item. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds has no recollection in regard to it. Where are we to get information as to who paid the money and what it was used for? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. We pass next to the item of Mr. Rowe. Mr. Littlefield. What date is that ? If it is the 18th, I have that checked. You having had Mr. Rowe before, I checked it, because I think you called attention to it. The Chairman. I find I have Mr. Rowe checked, too. Mr. Littlefield. Then I am right. The Chairman. Mr. G. Dettmann, $50, on August 8. What do you know about that item? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it at all. Mr. Littlefield. I have that checked to Mr. Edmonds on my list. If the chairman’s list shows a cipher, I will have that looked up. The Chairman. The record shows that on August 8 you paid Dettman $50, and on September 5 paid him $25. Have you any recollection as to either of those items? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any payments to Dettman at all. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified that he had no recollec- tion, and that you would know. You have no recollection? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; I have not. The Chairman. On pages 590 and 595 of the printed report of the joint investigation. Senator Pomerene. September 5, on page 595. Mr. Littlefield. I have both of those checked off to Mr. Ed- monds, but I will look the record up. The Chairman. Now, we have O. L. Gust, $300 on August 8. Mr. Edmonds says he knows nothing of that payment and refers us to you. What do you know of it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think Mr. Gust received $300 on that date. I have it marked in this book showing that he received $25, and the $300 is a misprint. Mr. Littlefield. That is the item you explained. Mr. Sacket. That is one of the items. Mr. Littlefield. That is the only one. Mr. Sacket. That is the only one I have explained so far. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds says that he received $300 on Au- gust 8, $18 on August 28, and $60 on October 16. Mr. Littlefield. If you will look back to Exhibit 47 you will find that item of $25 under date of August 8, Grant County, organizing, and Dane County, organizing, $300 ; but the $25 is left out here. The Chairman. Have you reference to page 477 ? Mr. Littlefield. Page 477. I think that there is evidently an omission there. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. The item of $300 was carried forward from Exhibit 47 into Exhibit 49, and the item of $25 does not appear. Mr. Sacket. And they have the wrong names and the wrong lo- cality. Mr. Littlefield. You explained about that item when you under- took to explain the discrepancies between the two accounts? 424 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. In Exhibit 47, which was the first statement made, the item stands, “ Dane County, organizing, $25.” Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. In the second exhibit, 49, which this witness has testified was in the nature of a correction of the former exhibit, we find on August 8, “ Dane County, O. R. Gust, $300.” Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Do you say that is the same item as the $25 item in the first exhibit? Mr. Sacket. That item should appear Grant County, O. L. Gust, $25, instead of $300. The Chairman. The change was made when you were correcting the other statement? Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, please; I did not get the chair- man’s statement. When did you say the change was made? The Chairman. This witness has testified that he made Exhibit 47 first, and then made Exhibit 49 as a correction or elaboration of 47. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I merely want the record to show that the error was made at the time of the attempted correction of Exhibit 47. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; but I do not understand the witness so to state. I understand the witness to say that there are errors in 49, and this is one of the things that demonstrates the error. The Chairman. That is just what I have stated. Mr. Littlefield. Not that he made an original error when he made his exhibit. The Chairman. I was endeavoring to straighten this out for the witness by reference to the exhibits by numbers. Senator Sutherland. The witness stated this morning that the items of charge to Gust should be $25, and that that should be fol- lowed by an item of $300 to Ames for organizing Dane County. Mr. Littlefield. Yes ; that is right. Senator Sutherland. So that, as I understand the position of the witness, it is that in printing this document the items have been con- fused, and one of them omitted. Mr. Littlefield. I presume it comes to that, yes. The $25 item is omitted altogether. The $25 should be attributed to Gust, but that item appears as $300 instead of $25. That is, instead of attributing $25 to Gust, Exhibit 49 attributes $300 to him. Senator Pomerene. I understand the witness to say that the $25 was paid to Gust? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is the way I understand it. Mr. Sacket. The original statement, which was afterwards marked 44 Exhibit 49,” made by me, showed the payment to Gust of $25 and not $300. The Chairman. The mistake is in Exhibit 47. Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Exhibit 49, from which this printed copy is supposed to have been made, my statement which was marked 44 Exhibit 49,” of which this is supposed to be a copy, had the item in it, 44 Gust $25, and Dane County, Ames, $300.” Senator Sutherland. The items are correctly stated in Exhibit 47 ? RODNEY SACKET. 425 Mr. Sacket. The items are correct in 47, and they were correct in 49, as I submitted it. The Chairman. Let me correct the witness here. Exhibit 47 is the statement of the witness, and so marked, and it was put in while you, Mr. Sacket, were on the witness stand. It is the statement to which you are testifying. That is Exhibit 47. Exhibit 49 came in while Mr. Edmonds was on the stand. So keep these numbers in mind. Your statement 47 is as you say it should be? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds’s statement, Exhibit 49, is not as you say it should be, so the correction is being made in Mr. Edmonds’s exhibit and not in yours. Mr. Littlefield. I am afraid the chairman is liable to get the thing mixed on the record. I do not understand that Mr. Edmonds testified at any time that he made Exhibit 49. Senator Sutherland. No; but the statement was put in in con- nection with his testimony while he was on the witness stand. The Chairman. Yes. Senator Sutherland. The witness does not say that there is any mistake in 49 at all. He says that in copying 49 this was omitted, but the original Exhibit 49 will be found to be correct. Mr. Littlefield. That is as to this item. He has not gone so far as to say that the whole of it is correct. I do not know what he will say about that, but up to date, as to this item, I understand him to say that 47 is correct. The Chairman. We do not need to tarry longer over it, because the question is whether or not that sum of money was expended law- fully. I will ask you, Mr. Sacket, how it was expended ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of the $25 — none at all. The Chairman. Now, I will mark Mr. Gust off. You say the item of $300 to Gust on August 8 is not correct ? Mr. Sacket. It is not correct. The Chairman. And that that should be the $25 item? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How about the item of $18 paid on August 28 to Mr. Gust ? That is correct, is it not, on page 593 ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of its being incorrect. The Chairman. Do you know that you paid him the money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember making any payment to Mr. Gust. The Chairman. It is marked here “ Baraboo, E. A. E., O. L. Gust, $18.” Does that recall the circumstances to your mind? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; it does not. Mr. Littlefield. Which one is this now? The Chairman. August 28. What did you pay Gust $60 for on October 16? You will find that on page 612 at the top of the page. Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that particular item, although I paid all of the items in that schedule, and they were all paid on statements of persons to the effect that they had expended the money and we owed it to them. The Chairman. What did they expend it for? Mr. Sacket. In Mr. Stephenson’s interest. The Chairman. I know, but for what purpose? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember the details. 426 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. So that you are unable to account for that ex- penditure ? Mr. Sacket. I am unable to account for it. The Chairman. This general item on August 8 you say you do not know anything about at all ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it at all. The Chairman. Now we come down to Mr. Rowe, and we have already asked you as to him. We come to another general item of $150. What did you expend that money for ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it whatever. The Chairman. Is there any person who can give any informa- tion in regard to that? Mr. Sacket. None that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman give me that date? The Chairman. That is August 10, the last item, “ general.” Now this item C. D. Smith, Fond du Lac, August 12, $50; we have referred to you for information in regard to that. What did you pay that money for? Mr. Sacket. I remember Mr. Smith in Fond du Lac. He was doing some campaign work for Mr. Stephenson, and I remember giving him some money to cover his expenses. The Chairman. Just expenses? Mr. Sacket. To my best recollection, that is all that he asked for. The Chairman. You seem to have paid him in addition to the $50, which was paid on August 12, the further sum of $112, on Octo- ber 16. What did you pay him $112 for? Mr. Sacket. As I remember it, he claimed that his son had put in considerable time and expended some money in Mr. Stephenson’s interest in the campaign, and that he owed him $112, or whatever the amount was. The Chairman. What did he claim that he had expended the money for? Mr. Sacket. In promoting the interests of Senator Stephenson’s campaign. The Chairman. How did he claim he had expended it to promote his interests? Mr. Sacket. Traveling around in different parts of the county, advocating Mr. Stephenson’s interests, probably railroad fare and team hire. The Chairman. Did you say “ probably”? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of his explanation. The Chairman. Upon what is your recollection based? Is it based upon a conversation with him? Mr. Sacket. A conversation with Mr. Smith. The Chairman. What did he tell you he had spent the money for ? Mr. Sacket. For promoting Senator Stephenson’s campaign. The Chairman. What did he say he had done ? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean for the $112 ? Mr. Littlefield. That is what he is inquiring about. Mr. Sacket. This money was spent by his son in traveling around different parts of the county for the purpose of promoting Senator Stephenson’s interests. The Chairman. He traveled for the purpose, but did he promote his interests? RODNEY SACKET. 427 Mr. Sacket. I do not know. ” The Chairman. You do not know that he did anything for that money ? Mr. Sacket. Only from his statement. The Chairman. His statement, so far as you have given it in gen- eral. Did his statement advise you as to how he had expended the money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any special details that he gave me. The Chairman. Can you say that he did not spend this money in purchasing votes at the primary election? Mr. Sacket. I can not say so. Mr. Littlefield. Did he say anything that would give you that impression ? Mr. Sacket. He did not. Senator Pomerene. You mean by your answer that you have no knowledge either one way or the other ? Mr. Sacket. I mean that I have no knowledge as to what he really did, except what he told me. Mr. Littlefield. Did anything occur in the conversation that led you to believe that he had used money improperly ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing. The Chairman. Did he assure you in that conversation that he had not used the money for the purpose of influencing voters through the means of treats, entertainment, or such things ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any special assurance of that kind. The Chairman. You really have no memory on the question? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any special assurance by him of that kind. Senator Pomerene. Any general assurance then ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember his saying anything about the im- proper use of money. The Chairman. Do you remember asking him about it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Now, we will pass to the item at the top of page 591 of $100, “ W. Batz it is there? Mr. Sacket. B-r-a-t-z is the name as it should be spelled. The Chairman. That is the way it is in my memorandum, “Au- gust 13, W. Bratz, $100.” For what did you pay that money? Mr. Sacket. To cover expenses incurred by Mr. Bratz in organiz- ing Washington County for Mr. Stephenson. Senator Pomerene. Expense or salary ? Mr. Sacket. Expense, I think, the first money was; he received some salary, too ; might have been partly salary. The Chairman. Do you know what he expended it for ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Did you ever know ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember now. I think possibly he may have filed an expense account. He was under salary, if I remember correctly, and the men under salary I did require an account from. The Chairman. Where is the expense account? Mr. Sacket. It was fled with the others, if I received one. The Chairman. Had you a system under which those accounts were all filed? 428 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I put them all in one drawer in my desk. The Chairman. And are they there now? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Where are they? Mr. Sacket. I took them out of that drawer, sent them to Mari- nette ; they were sent from there to me at Washington ; I carried them to Madison and carried them over to the legislative committee, the joint committee. The Chairman. Which committee? Mr. Sacket. The joint committee. The Chairman. On August 14 you paid him $43.80 ; what was that for? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that transaction is that he inserted an advertisement in some paper in his county and rendered a bill from that paper, $43.80, which I paid with a cashier’s check. The Chairman. I think the rest of these items to Bratz were testi- fied to by Edmonds. We have taken up “ Weisman,” I believe. On August 13, “ O. A. Berg, $50 ? ” Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. The Chairman. That is an item of which Mr. Edmonds had no information. You say you have none? Mr. Sacket. I have no present recollection of it. The Chairman. You have no knowledge in regard to that? Mr. Sacket. No knowledge at all. I do not remember Mr. Berg. The Chairman. The item of $25, on page 592, under August 19, to F. P. Lamoreaux ; who made that payment ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it. The Chairman. You know nothing of that payment? Mr. Sacket. I remember nothing about it at all ; no, sir. The Chairman. It is said to be for “ advertising.” Did Mr. Lamo- reaux publish a paper? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember him at all. The Chairman. Do not know him ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. The next item is J. T. Hanson, of Juneau County, $250. I have checked that to Mr. Edmonds. It may be wrong, of course ; I have a cipher before the item of $150 and the $250 item has a cipher before it, which would indicate that Mr. Edmonds did not fully explain it or claim to be able to. I will ask this witness in regard to it. Mr. Littlefield. I have mine checked and I will have the record looked up to see whether it is right or not. The Chairman. Even if he did, it is entirely proper to inquire of this witness. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, certainly. The Chairman. Sometimes the cipher in my notes indicates that Mr. Edmonds’s explanation was not full or sufficient ; sometimes it in- dicates that he had no knowledge. Those two items there, $250 and $150, amounting to $400, on August 19 and August 20, what was that money paid for? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of those items whatever. The Chairman. Who was Mr. Hanson? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember him at all. RODNEY SACKET. 429 The Chairman. There is the item of J. R. Keyes; that we have been over, I think. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Bruderle, $ 60 , for “Advertising,” on August 20. Do you know about that ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; I paid him that for advertising space in a paper published in Fond du Lac; I think it is a German paper. The Chairman. What kind of advertising? Mr. Sacket. Advertising for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Have you seen a copy of the article? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Tell us something about the substance. Mr. Sacket. The article was given to Mr. Bruderle, who, if I re- member correctly, was to translate it into German and publish it as an advertisement in that German paper in Fond du Lac, for which he charged $60, and I paid him. The Chairman. Who wrote the article? Mr. Sacket. It was one of the articles that we had used as a cir- cular or something in the office; I thing I gave him the copy out of some stuff we had of that kind. The Chairman. You do not remember the nature of the article, as to whether or not it held out any promises to persons who voted for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection, it did not. Mr. Littlefield. Did it suggest any corrupt bargains? Mr. Sacket. It did not suggest any corrupt bargain. Mr. Littlefield. What was the purport of it, or do you not re- member ? Mr. Sacket. Simply setting forth Senator Stephenson’s quali- fications and his good qualities. Senator Sutherland. Entirely truthful, without exaggeration ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the Ashland County item, on August 20, $15 ; to whom was that money paid ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. The Chairman. Have you any recollection of the item of “ Peter Deidrich,” on August 21, $50? Mr. Sacket. I have no present recollection of that item. The word “ receipt ” in there would indicate that I had filed with the joint committee at Madison a receipt showing what that was for. The Chairman. The next item is “ General, 227.08.” Do you know anything about that item? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that whatever. The Chairman. You have not had &ny recollection as to any “ general ” item, have you ? Mr. Sacket. Without other explanation the word “ general ” would not refresh my memory so I would remember anything about it. The Chairman. Is there any way by which your memory can be refreshed in regard to these articles under the name “ general ” ? Mr. Sacket. If that is the only thing in the item, there is no way that I know of. The Chairman. “Waukesha County, Harry Bowman”; tell us to whom you paid that money? 430 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of paying it. The Chairman. You know Harry Bowman? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What does he do? Mr. Sacket. I think he is — he was at that time a deputy game warden. The Chairman. You paid him $150 August 21 and $20 August 31. For what did you pay him the money? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of paying him any money at any time. The Chairman. Now, we will go to “August 22, E. J. Rogers, $300.” What did you pay that money to Mr. Rogers for? Mr. Sacket. I think that item was to cover the expense of getting teams and men to work at the polls on election day. The Chairman. Getting what for them? Mr. Sacket. Teams and men, to bring out the vote. The Chairman. On August 5 you paid Rogers $50 ; what did you give him that for? Mr. Sacket. To cover his expenses, and possibly salary, in organiz- ing, I think, Iowa County, for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Can you not remember whether or not he was under salary? Mr. Sacket. I do remember that Mr. Rogers was under salary. The Chairman. How much ; what salary ? Mr. Sacket. Three dollars a day for the time that he worked. The Chairman. What was he employed to do? Mr. Sacket. Organize the county for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Let us be a little more definite. How was he to organize the county? Mr. Sacket. He was to organize the county in an economical, care- ful way, and to keep within the law. Those were my instructions to him. The Chairman. I did not mean the quality of his organization, but the character of it ? Mr. Sacket. He was to distribute such literature and posters as we might send to him, or employ others to do so. . The Chairman. Did he carry literature with him and distribute it? Mr. Sacket. Such as we might send him from time to time. The Chairman. You seem to have sent out a great deal of literature here; the postage account is a large one; did you, in addition to that, send people around to carry the literature and distribute it personally? Mr. Sacket. We sent large numbers of lithographs, posters; we sent buttons, which needed distributing — Stephenson buttons; sent a number of things that might be called literature, under a general term, that our man in the locality was supposed to distribute; put them where they would do the most good ; if he could not do it him- self he was authorized to pay somebody for doing it. The Chairman. How many buttons did you distribute? Mr. Sacket. More than 100,000, I think. Mr. Littlefield. What did they cost, roughly? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. There is a bill from Whithead & Hoag Co., on file there, that shows exactly what they cost. I do not remember exactly. RODNEY SACKET. 431 The Chairman. On August 22 you paid Rogers $300 in addition to the payment referred to heretofore ; what was that for ? Mr. Sacket. August 22, I think, was for hiring teams and men to work at the polls on election day. The Chairman. Did he render a statement of that expenditure ? Mr. Sacket. He did not file a statement, to the best of my knowl- edge. The Chairman. You know him personally, do you not? Mr. Sacket. I knew him during the campaign. The Chairman. Have you seen him recently ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not he expended any part of that $300 for the purpose of inducing people to vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I have no personal knowledge of how he spent it. The Chairman. On October 16 you paid him a further sum of $131.79; what was that for? Mr. Sacket. That was the balance due him for money expended and salary. The Chairman. Was that the last day you were in the office here in the city, October 16? Mr. Sacket. Long before that I left the office that we had used for headquarters. The Chairman. Where were you when you paid him this sum of money on October 16? Mr. Sacket. I think that check was mailed from Berlin, Wis. Mr. Littlefield. Is that your home? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then he must have presented this claim to you in writing; is that a fact? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; I think so. The Chairman. Have you the claim that he presented? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection I filed with the joint committee at Madison all of the bills and statements that I had in regard to these papers on October 16. The Chairman. And it will be found there ? Mr. Sacket. I think it should be. The Chairman. We have accounted for all of Mr. Rowe’s. At the top of page 593 there is a “General ” who seems to have received $300. The “ General ” seems to have been on the regular pay roll. What is that for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item at all. The Chairman. There is an item following, August 24, “ Fond du Lac County, $250; ” to whom was that money paid? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item either. The Chairman. Do you know where we could get any information in regard to that? Mr. Littlefield. I have that checked as having been explained by Edmonds. The Chairman. It is explained, on my notes, with a round mark. That means that while he may have testified in regard to it he did not fully explain it. 432 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, I can not undertake to assert that he made these explanations satisfactorily to the subcommittee, but I do undertake to assert that I will look the record up and show you what explanation he made, if there is any doubt about it. The Chairman. Yes; that will appear. There will not be any difficulty in knowing what Mr. Edmonds testified to, of course. Mr. Littlefield. No; I do not want any confusion. The Chairman. This is not as though a jury were listening to the statements. It is a matter of record. Mr. Littlefield. True; but there are a great many items here and, of course, the chairman appreciates I want to be quite sure and have accounted for everything that can be accounted for, and if I do not agree with the chairman as I go along, of course, I am quite willing and very glad to ascertain what the disagreement is. That is all. The Chairman. I think we will not disagree about it. Mr. Littlefield. No; except I just want to keep track of it. The Chairman. The next item is “ G. L. Miner.” Mr. Littlefield. I also have that checked to Edmonds. The Chairman. On August 25 you paid G. L. Miner $300. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that payment to Mr. Miner. The Chairman. Who ds G. L. Miner? Mr. Sacket. I know Mr. Miner personally, but I couldn’t tell who he is ; I do not remember what his business is. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Sacket. In Richland County; Richland Center, I think. The Chairman. Do you recall his appearance? Mr. Sacket. I think I know Mr. Miner whenever I see him. The Chairman. You say you do not have any recollection of pay- ing him that money? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. You can not say whether it was paid to him or not? Mr. Sacket. I think if I had paid Mr. Miner money I would have remembered it. Mr. Littlefield. May I inquire there — is he any relation of ex- Congressman Miner? Mr. Sacket. I believe not. Mr. Littlefield. Is that ex- Congressman Miner’s county? Mr. Sacket. It is not, sir. Senator Pomerene. You say you have no recollection of paying him any money. Do you know of anyone else paying him any money ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of my own. Senator Pomerene. Have you any record or data of any kind which will enable you to show who paid that money? Mr. Sacket. I have not ; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or whether it was in fact paid, except this record ? Mr. Sacket. This record shows that it was paid. Senator Pomerene. I mean except that, Mr. Sacket. I have not. RODNEY SACKET. 433 The Chairman. The next item is one of August 21, to N. L. James, $300. Did you pay that money? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it. The Chairman. And you can not recollect whether you did or not? Mr. Sacket. I can not recollect it. The Chairman. You may have paid it to him? Mr. Sacket. I probably did not. Mr. Littlefield. I have that checked also to Edmonds. Is that one that the chairman has not checked ? The Chairman. I have it checked. There is an item of $35, Taylor — I suppose that is Taylor County, is it ? There is an interrogation mark after it — to Plivelich ; did you pay that money? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. What for? Mr. Sacket. For expenses incurred by Mr. Plivelich in going around electioneering for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. How did he electioneer? Mr. Sacket. Went among his friends and acquaintances and talked to them in favor of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Was he a man employed because of his nation- ality, and because he could reach a certain nationality? Mr. Sacket. Because he could talk to them in their own language. The Chairman. What was their language? Mr. Sacket. I think he was Polish. The Chairman. You do not know what he said or did or promised to the electors of the Polish nationality in Wisconsin, do you? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge. The Chairman. The next item is one of $400. Mr. Edmonds testi- fied that he did not know all about that item and he referred the committee to you for further information. “August 26. General, E. A. E. ($200, $175, and $25), grouped as one item of $400. Have you any knowledge in regard to those payments? Mr. Sacket. None whatever. The Chairman. You do not know for what they were used or may have been used? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. The next item is for “Advertising.” Can you give us any information as to what advertising that was paid for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. The Chairman. There is Mr. E. V. Hayes, $50. On August 27 you paid him $50; what was that for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item at all. The Chairman. Do you recall Mr. Hayes at all ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. On September 5 you paid him $46 ; what was that for? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that item either. The Chairman. You say you do not know anything of that item? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it. The Chairman. There is August 27, “City of Fond du Lac, K. L. Morse, $250.” What do you know of that item ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. 15235 °— vol 1—11 28 434 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. You do not know anything about Mr. Morse? Mr. Sacket. I had no dealing w T ith Mr. Morse, that I remember, at all. The Chairman. Now, we come to the “ General ” item again, $75; do you know anything about that? Mr. Sacket. Nothing. The Chairman. Do you know the Neillsville item, next to it, of $150, on August 27? Mr. Sacket. Nothing; I do not. The Chairman. Do you know anything about the “ Calumet County, Frank Eklund, $25 ” ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that. The Chairman. The “Waukesha County, $50”? Mr. Sacket. Nor that. The Chairman. The “Advertising, W. B. Raymond, $42 ”? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that. The Chairman. There is “ D. G. Sampson, $100, Ashland ;” do you know anything about that? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that. Mr. Littlefield. Has the chairman got that checked at all to Edmonds ? The Chairman. That is marked as imperfect, unfinished. Where I did not think Mr. Edmonds’s testimony fully covered it I marked it for further inquiry. Mr. Littlefield. So as to lead to inquiry somewhere else. The Chairman. “ City of Ashland, L. F. Johnstad, $100, August 28.” Do you know anything about that item? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any such item or any such man. The Chairman. How about “ J. M. Reese, $100,” next to it? Mr. Sacket. I made no arrangement with Mr. Reese, that I re- member. The Chairman. Have you any recollection as to the payment of the money to him ? Mr. Sacket. I think Mr. Edmonds and I talked of that payment. Mr. Reese, as I remember it, runs a newspaper in the western part of the State somewhere, and certain copy was given him to publish as advertisement in his paper, for which he was to receive $100. The Chairman. Advertisement in regard to what? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson’s candidacy. The Chairman. Favorable to his candidacy? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now we come to the item of “ General, $50,” on August 28 ; do y-ou know anything about that ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. The next item of $150 for “ advertising,” do you know anything about that? Mr. Sacket. Nothing. The Chairman. Is there any source of information that would enable you to testify regarding these items that you are passing over under the head of not remembering them ? Mr. Sacket. I can not think of any. RODNEY SACKET. 435 The Chairman. Now, we come to “ distributing and hanging posters, H. HilsenhofF, $25 who paid that ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it. The Chairman. You say you know nothing about that? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it ; no, sir. The Chairman. The next is “ Clark County, J. H. Frank,” August 28, $100? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. The Chairman. There is a “ Dr. Frank” and a “J. H. Frank”; are they the same man? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember either of them. The Chairman. There is “ Hugo Frank ” with an “ E.,” and “ Dr. J. H. Frank ” in my notes. Now, this item is to J. H. Frank, who is the doctor, evidently. You do not know anything about the payment of $100 to J. H. Frank on August 28? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it whatever. Senator Sutherland. Did not Edmonds testify to that? Mr. Littlefield. I have it so checked. Senator Sutherland. I think that was the last thing he testified to before adjournment. The Chairman. There are two men named Frank; there are four items of this “ Dr. Frank :” On July 27 he was paid $150, on August 20 he Avas paid $140, on August 28 he was paid $100, and on Sep- tember 5 he was paid $225, making in all $515; have you any recol- lection of a man who received $515 through your fund ? Mr. Sacket. I remember the name only. I do not remember the transaction. I do not remember having any talk with the man at all. The Chairman. Do you know what he was to spend this money for? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Or did expend it for? Mr. Sacket. No. The Chairman. Or whether or not he rendered a statement? Mr. Sacket. I never saw a statement from him and I never had any talk with him about it, to the best of my recollection. The Chairman. Edmonds testified as to the item of $150 on July 27 and as to the item on August 20. As to the item on August 28, $100, the record does not indicate that Edmonds testified. Senator Sutherland. He did testify. It was the last thing he testified to when we were on the point of adjournment. I have it here. Mr. Littlefield. I will look it up on the record. The Chairman. There is still another payment to him on Septem- ber 5 of $225. Mr. Littlefield. Does it appear that Edmonds did not testifv to that? The Chairman. It is in this list. But just waive the question whether or not Edmonds did testify and let me ask this witness about it. Do you know anything about these payments to Dr. Frank ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Especially the one of $225? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of it. 436 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. I hope the chairman does not feel that I have the slightest objection to his inquiry of the witness, but I simply want to check up. The Chairman. I understand the situation, but I must be respon- sible for moving along. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, certainly, the greater the speed the quicker the dispatch and, other things being equal, the sooner we get some- where. The Chairman. Counsel will understand that with this witness and Mr. Edmonds these items, if attacked or inquired about at all, must be taken up. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; and I am going to follow up any I think the chairman does not take up. The Chairman. And it would hardly be the proper thing to have some one picking out one item and then charging it was purposely omitted or passed over. Mr. Littlefield. That is true. I do not propose to have any left out myself, if I can help it. The Chairman. The next item there is “ advertising, $100 ” ; do you know what that was for ? Mr. Sachet. I do not. The Chairman. You can give no information in regard to that item ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. That item is not correctly copied into this record. The Chairman. The “ advertising ” item ? Mr. Sacket. The “ advertising ” item. The Chairman. That is hardly a complete statement. In what respect would you criticize it ? Mr. Sacket. It should read “J. T. Hansen, No. 33780, $100.” The Chairman. I find that J. T. Hansen, on August 19, was paid $250. You have testified in regard to that. Also that on August 20 he was paid $150. You have also testified about that. You say in addition to those two payments he received this payment of $100 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you testify that you knew anything about the other payments to Mr. Hansen? Mr. Sacket. I did not. I did not intend to, of course. The Chairman. He received an extra hundred. That makes the amount Hansen received altogether $500. What did he receive that money for? Mr. Sacket. I made no arrangement with Mr. Hansen that I remember. I do not know what he received it for. The Chairman. You do not know what he did with it? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. We come now to J. H. Wells, on August 21. He received $200. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. That was for organizing the city of Portage and the surrounding country in the interests of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What did he do that constituted organization? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge of the manner of ex- penditure of that money by Mr. Wells? RODNEY SACKET. 437 Mr. Sacket. I have not ; no, sir. The Chairman. You do not know whether he expended it for the purchase of votes for Senator Stephenson or for hiring teams to carry voters to the polls? Mr. Sacket. Of my own knowledge, I do not. The Chairman. You neA^er had any statement from him? Mr. Sacket. I remember none. The Chairman. On August 28 you paid him another $200. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. I was looking at the item of August 28 — the second item on the same day. The Chairman. It is the item just after “ advertising ” — ■“ City of Portage, J. TI. Wells, $200.” Mr. Sacket. That is the item that I was looking at. - The Chairman. I supposed that was the item that you were look- ing at before. The other item I refer to was August 21, on page 592. You say you haA r e no knowledge as to either item, of any money paid Mr. Wells. Is that it? Mr. Sacket. I said I had no knowledge as to the manner in which he expended the money. I did talk Avith Mr. Wells at the time he received this money or before, and did help make an arrangement with him. The Chairman. What was the arrangement? Mr. Sacket. The arrangement was that he was to conduct Senator Stephenson’s campaign in that locality, and do so within the law. The Chairman. What is Mr. Wells’s occupation or business? Mr. Sacket. He keeps a hotel in the city of Portage. The Chairman. Hoav large a place is Portage? Mr. Sacket. I should think about 10,000 or 12,000. The Chairman. This hotel has a barroom attached to it, has it? Mr. Sacket. I have been in the hotel, but I do not knoAv whether it has a barroom or not. I never was in the barroom, to my knowl- edge, of that hotel. Senator Pomerene. NeA^er in one, did you say? Mr. Sacket. Of that hotel. The Chairman. Was he receiving a salary? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection he was not. The Chairman. Then he received $400 on local account, to be ex- pended in the interests of Senator Stephenson, and you do not know what manner of expenditure he made? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. The next item is “ Mr. Phlughoefft, $126.” Can you tell us what that gentleman did with that money? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that gentleman, or the item. The Chairman. You do not know about him? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. He seems to have received on August 28, $126 and on September 5, $125. Do you know anything about either of those payments ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of either of them. The Chairman. You do not know who he is? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember him at all. 438 HARRY J. BROWN. The Chairman. Let us take, now, Mr. Wheeler. ITe received $600 on August 28. Do you know anything about that payment to Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Do you know what Mr. Wheeler did with the money ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Sacket. I do. The Chairman. What does he do? Mr. Sacket. He is a lawyer. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Sacket. In Milwaukee. The Chairman. Was he working under your supervision or di- rection here? Mr. Sacket. During this campaign he was not working under my supervision. The Chairman. Did you see him during the campaign and talk with him? Mr. Sacket. I had no talk with him about the campaign that I remember. I may have seen him. The Chairman. You do not know what he did with any part of that money? Mr. Sacket. I do not. The Chairman. You did not pay it to him? Mr. Sacket. I did not; unless it was by order of Mr. Edmonds, of course. The Chairman. Do you know about this item on August 28 , “ Marshfield, $35”? Mr. Sacket. That is another mistake made in copying this Exhibit 49 into the record of the joint investigation. That should read, “ Marshfield, W. B. Raymond, No. 33786, $35.” The Chairman. Well, what of it? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember Mr. Raymond, or the items. Mr. Littlefield. What page is that on? The Chairman. It is on page 594 of Exhibit 49. At this point we will excuse Mr. Sacket temporarily in order that we may take up the examination of Mr. Brown, who desires to get away. TESTIMONY OF HARRY J. BROWN. Harry J. Brown, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows : The Chairman. Mr. Brown, what relation do you bear to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Brown. I am his son-in-law. The Chairman. What business connection have you with him? Mr. Brown. Nothing, except that I am the cashier of the Stephen- son National Bank, of Marinette. The Chairman. Are you the active cashier of that bank ? Mr. Broavn. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay or give to J. A. Van Cleve any moneys to be used in connection with the senatorial campaign of Senator Stephenson in the year 1908? HARRY J. BROWN. 439 Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much did you give him? Mr. Brown. $792.75. The Chairman. Was that the only sum that you gave anyone to be used in that campaign during that year ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The Chairman. From whom did you receive that money? Mr. Brown. I gave Mr. Van Cleve a check drawn against an ac- count in the bank known as the “ I. Stephenson rent account,” of which I have charge as agent. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give Mr. Van Cleve that money ? Mr. Brown. He rendered a bill or a statement of what he had used it for. The Chairman. Have you that statement ? Mr. Brown. No, sir. The Chairman. Where is it ? Mr. Brown. I delivered it to Senator Stephenson’s office. The Chairman. Do you know where it is now ? Mr. Brown. No, sir. The Chairman. Did the statement set forth the items of expendi- ture ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you mention any of them ? Mr. Brown. I do not know that I could, only I know there were livery bills and some printing bills and I think certain amounts to individuals. There were quite a number of items. The Chairman. This was for bills already contracted or expendi- tures made ? Mr. Brown. Oh, yes. This check was given about the 15th of September, I think. The Chairman. It was in settlement of an account, was it ? Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say you never paid out or disbursed any other money in connection with the Stephenson campaign ? Mr. Brown. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you expend or authorize the expenditure of any other moneys in behalf of Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Brown. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you know of any other expenditures which were authorized, in addition to those set forth in the account that has been filed with the secretary of state ? Mr. Brown. No; I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make expenditures on account of the Senator’s campaign, in addition to those that you have already testi- fied to, either individually or as cashier of the Stephenson Bank? Mr. Brown. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And in no other capacity ? Mr. Brown. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. So that, so far as you are concerned, that is the only connection either as an individual or as an official that you had with any disbursements that related to the Senator’s campaign? Mr. Brown. That is all. 440 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any knowledge that the Senator has disbursed any sums in his campaign other than those testified to here before the committee ? Mr. Brown. I have not. Mr. Littlefield. Was any question ever raised or suggestion made that any of the expenditures made by Mr. Van Cleve were improperly made, or for an improper purpose ? Mr. Brown. Not that I ever heard of; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. That will be all, Mr. Brown. Mr. Littlefield. Can Mr. Brown be permanently excused? The Chairman. I think so. Senator Pomerene. I think he ought to hold himself subject to process. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, of course. He is living right here at Mari- nette, not very far from Milwaukee. Mr. Brown. Oh, I can come at any time. Mr. Littlefield. Then unless otherwise called he is permanently excused ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. The Chairman. We find on examination of Mr. Kingsley’s testi- mony in the joint investigation that while it was represented it would be very short, and something to be disposed of in a few minutes, it covers a great many pages in the report of those proceedings before the Wisconsin Legislature. He seems to have been a game warden, and his testimony seems to have provoked a great deal of discussion. Mr. Kingsley asked that he be allowed to testify to-day in order that he might be released, upon the statement that his testimony would be very brief. The committee are of the opinion that his testimony may not be very brief, and for that reason, having examined the testi- mony, we will proceed at this time with the examination of Mr. Sacket, and the chair will ask Mr. Sacket to resume the stand. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Resumed. The Chairman. You say that that Marshfield item of $35 should be charged to W. B. Raymond, No. 33786. What was that money paid for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of paying that money at all. The Chairman. There is an item here, “ Distributing and hanging posters. No. 33783, Humphrey & Williams, $25.” Who paid that money ? Mr. Sacket. I have a faint recollection of paying that for that purpose. The Chairman. That was for putting up posters where? In this city? Mr. Sacket. No; around in other counties and in Milwaukee County. I do not remember what county. The Chairman. There is an item of $50 for Dane County on August 29. Do you know anything about that ? Mr. Sacket. The simple statement, “ Dane County,” would not refresh my memory so that I would be able to make any positive statement about it. RODNEY SACKET. 441 The Chairman. Do you know of an item of $40 paid to J. Plive- lich, on August 31 ? It is the third item from the bottom of page 594. Mr. Sacket. I think I remember paying him that $40. The Chairman. What for? Mr. Sacket. For electioneering for Senator Stephenson among people oi his nationality. The Chairman. Was that strictly within the same class as the others of which you have spoken ? Mr. Sacket. Except that he worked in a foreign language, among people who did not understand English very well. The Chairman. Do you know what he expended the money for? Mr. Sacket. He rendered an account of some kind to me. The Chairman. Was any of it expended for treating or entertain- ing electors, with a view to inducing them to be friendly and vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I could not remember any specific item in his account. The Chairman. How about the item of ; 25 to J. C. Miller, follow- ing it? Mr. Sacket. That was for expenses, as I have previously testi- fied ; J. C. Miller’s expenses in traveling around. The Chairman. Do you know what the nature of the expenses was ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Miller’s expenses were all reported to me in writ- ing from time to time. I do not remember the nature of them now, except in a general way. The Chairman. Eau Claire County, A. Johnstone, $50, on August 21 ; up near the top of page 595. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item at all. The Chairman. The next item is $22, to M. E. Eank. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that either. The Chairman. Here is an item of $200 to L. H. Stevens. He is the banker, is he ? Mr. Sacket. That is the banker at Lancaster. The Chairman. We have already inquired about that. Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Now we come to the period after the primaries, September 5; E. H. McMahon, $300, paid on September 5. What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. That was his salary for services rendered. The Chairman. We have gone into that, and that item is included. The next item is “ Hambright, $300.” What was that? Mr. Sacket. His salary for services rendered. The Chairman. I think I have been fully into the Hambright items. I will ask you again about Wellensgard. On September 5 you paid him $250. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. That was to reimburse him for money expended by him in Green Lake and Waushara Counties in the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s campaign. The Chairman. What was his business? Mr. Sacket. A dealer in farm machinery, the owner of a pickle factory, and the owner of several farms. The Chairman. Was he elected to the legislature? Mr. Sacket. He was. 442 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. He was a member of the legislature that elected Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. He was. The Chairman. x4nd he was then a candidate? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay him that money ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with him at the time you paid it to him ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The Chairman. How did you pay it to him ? Mr. Sacket. In the form of a cashier’s check. The Chairman. Was he present ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; it was mailed to him. The Chairman. Did you have a conversation with Wellensgard during the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At what time? Mr. Sacket. In the very early part of the campaign. I can not give the date. The Chairman. He was then a candidate for the legislature, was he? Mr. Sacket. Yes ; was or was to be. The Chairman. You knew that he was, or was to be? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That was before you gave him the money, was it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You gave him this money on September 5? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That was after the primaries? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you give him the money for? Mr. Sacket. To reimburse him for money which he expended in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. What money had he expended? Mr. Sacket. He had expended $250.80. The Chairman. What had he expended it for? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember the items, but he filed an itemized statement at that time, which was afterwards filed with the joint committee at Madison, and appears, I think, in one of these volumes. The Chairman. Yes, it appears in one of these volumes. It ap- pears at page 911 and following, $250. That is the same item, is it? Mr. Sacket. That I believe to be a copy of the bill that he sent me, for which I sent him a check of $250.80. The Chairman. I will read this into the record, from page 911 of the proceedings before the joint committee: Berlin, Wis., September 3, 1908. Mr. Rodney Sacket, Milwaukee, Wis. Dear Friend: Inclosed please find my bill against Stephenson. I wish you would please see that they get it. I haven’t put in anything for cigars or what little I spent. Please let me hear from you. I beat Hitchcock by 347 majority. Yours, truly, C. C. Wellensgard. RODNEY SACKET. 443 Exhibit G2 received in evidence, and is in words and figures fol- lowing, to wit : Berlin, Wis., September 3, 1908. Stephenson Campaign Committee, Milwaukee, Wis. 1908. July 5. Livery to Princeton $3. 00 6. Livery to Markesan 3. 00 Aug. 20. Livery at Markesan 2. 00 21. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 22. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 23. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 23. Livery at Berlin 2. 50 24. Livery to different parts of county 2. 50 28. Paid out to help G. Burlingame and 4 men 30. 00 28. Paid to C. Rosebrook, town of St. Marie, and 4 men 25. 00 28. Paid Bill Anglem, town of Green Lake 5. 00 28. Paid W. Burdick, town of Green Lake 5. 00 25. Paid C. Schrader and men at Markesan 30. 00 28. Paid W. Malena, town of Seneca 5. 00 Sept. 2. Telephone bill 2. 80 2. Paid Mr. llossa, city of Berlin 4. 00 2. Paid C. Kisnaska, city of Berlin 5. 00 2. Paid Jack Grotta 5. 00 2. Paid H. Wilde, town of Manchester 5.00 2. Paid E. A. Umbreight, town of Manchester 5. 00 2. Paid E. Vaughn, Kiugston, and men 25. 00 2. Paid Wm. Crook, Ripon 5. 00 2. Paid Nels Sorrenson, Mackford 5. 00 2. Paid Herman Ebbentroff, Mackford 5. 00 2. For automobile election day , 15. 00 2. Paid Wilson for help on machine 2. 50 2. Paid postage 4. 00 3. Paid Mr. Resop, city of Berlin 3. 00 3. Paid P. Kresal, city of Berlin 1. 00 3. Paid Aug. Waslinski, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Steve Greager, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Neighbor, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Weir, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Briskie, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid F. Bartow, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Joe Gosh, city of Berlin 5. 00 Total 250. 80 (Indorsed:) Paid, 9/5/08. C. C. Wellensgard. Mr. Sacket. That is the account to which I referred. The Chairman. These items commence on July 5, and the first item is “ livery to Princeton, $3.” Where is Princeton ? Mr. Sacket. Princeton is about 16 miles south of Berlin. The Chairman. Berlin is the place in which Mr. Wellensgard lives, is it? Mr. Sacket. Berlin is the city in which Mr. Wellensgard lives. The Chairman. In what county? Mr. Sacket. Green Lake County. The Chairman. Is his district included in Green Lake County ? Mr. Sacket. Green Lake County was his district. The Chairman. Berlin is in the county in which this candidate resided, is it? Mr. Sacket. Partially within that county and laps over into Wau- shara County. 444 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. On the 28th of August there is an item “ paid out to help George Burlingame and four men, $30.” Do you know what they were helped about ? Mr. Sacket. I do not presume to understand this account of Mr. Wellensgard. Senator Pomerene. This is in your home, is it not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is the town of Manchester in Green Lake County ? Mr. Sacket. I think it is. The Chairman. All the towns mentioned in this itemized account are in that county? Mr. Sacket. Green Lake or Waushara County. Mr. Wellensgard did something in Waushara County. The Chairman. I see “ for automobile on election day, $15.” Did Senator Stephenson carry that county ? Mr. Sacket. I think he did. That is my recollection of it. The Chairman. Do you know by what majority or plurality he carried it? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly, it was a small plurality — one or two hundred ; something of that kind. The Chairman. Was it by as much as 347 majority? Mr. Sacket. As I member it, it was not as much as that. The Chairman. Then the canvasser had a larger majority than the party canvassed for, did he? Mr. Sacket. I believe he did. The Chairman. What services do you think he really performed for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I believe he actually expended the money for the items mentioned in his statement. The Chairman. Then there is an item of $156, which is made up of three items, under the head of “General,” after the Wellensgard item. Do you know what those sums were paid for on September 5 ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of those items. The Sexton item, as I remember it, was a settlement with Mr. Sexton covering the expense account or salary, or both. The Chairman. The Sexton items amount to $523.08, commencing July 20 and running up to and past the primary. Do you know what the money was paid to Sexton for in these items and what he did for it? Mr. Sacket. I know the arrangement that I made with Mr. Sexton. The Chairman. What was the arrangement with Mr. Sexton ? Mr. Sacket. To travel throughout the State in the localities where he thought he could do the most good and to promote Mr. Stephen- son’s interests in any and every way, so long as he kept within the law. The Chairman. Was he to be the judge of what was within the law? Mr. Sacket. As far as I was concerned, yes. The Chairman. You left that to your representative? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Did you talk with him as to what was within the law or what the provisions of the law were ? RODNEY SACKET. 445 Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any such conversation. The Chairman. Who was Mr. Sexton? Mr. Sacket. A man whose home was in Waushara County, my home, a man I had known The Chairman. What was his business? Mr. Sacket. I think at that time he was not in any business. The Chairman. What has he done? Mr. Sacket. If I remember it correctly, his regular line of business was that of a traveling salesman. The Chairman. Now, there is W. J. Fossbinder, $61. Have you knowledge as to what that money was paid for? Mr. Littlefield. Did the chairman omit J. Humphrey, $60.15? The Chairman. That is in the combined item he has just testified about. Mr. Littlefield. Excuse me for the suggestion, but he has not testified about the item of $60.15. The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that you only know as to the Hayes item? Mr. Sacket. I said I did not know as to the Hayes item. The Chairman. But that you did as to the Sexton item? Mr. Sacket. I did know about the Sexton item. The Chairman. How about the Humphrey item? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember about the Humphrey item. The Chairman. The next is the Keyes item. We have been through the account of Mr. Keyes. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; he testified about Keyes. The Chairman. Now we will pass down to Mr. Fossbinder; $61. Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that item is that Mr. Fossbinder did some work in the nature of hanging posters and other campaign work during the campaign for Mr. Stephenson, and sent in his bill at the close of the campaign, which amounted to $61, and I paid it. The Chairman. You do not know what he expended the money for, do you ? Mr. Sacket. I think he rendered a bill at that time. I do not recollect at this time exactly what it was for. The Chairman. But he was employed and paid the money for going out among the electors and canvassing for Senator Stephen- son ; is that right ? Mr. Sacket. I did not employ Mr. Fossbinder. I think I remem- ber paying him, on his statement of what he had done. Mr. Littlefield. Which is just as you have described? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Now the item of $30 for W. B. Jones. What was that money paid for ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. Senator Pomerene. Is there a Picket County? Mr. Sacket. I know of a little station by the name of Picket, on the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Road, between Ripon and Oshkosh. The Chairman. On September 15 you paid O. T. Johnson $57.76. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item. 446 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Now, that completes the examination in regard to each item down to the expenses in Milwaukee County on page 596, and the hour of adjournment having arrived, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o’clock to-morow morning. At 4 o’clock 30 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, October 7, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee , Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present, also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The names of George W. Dart, R. L. Morse, L. W. Thayer, Arthur Wilcox, A. I. Hulbert, and Le Roy E. McGill were called. Mr. Morse, Mr. Wilcox, and Mr. Hulbert responded to their names, and the oath was administered to them by the chairman. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Resumed. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket, on yesterday we had finished exam- ining you upon the items in the account down to the item of “A. M. Jones, $150,” on September 15, which is on page 596 of Exhibit 49. The next heading is, “ Expenses in Milwaukee County as reported by W. R. Knell. Bills paid by check.” Have you that statement before you ? Mr. Sacket. I have; yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you personal knowledge of the payment of each and all of the items contained in that statement, aggregating $2,864.05? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Have you personal knowledge as to the payment of any items in that statement ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. You do not know to whom they were paid, or for what purpose ? Mr. Sacket. Not of my own knowledge; no, sir. The Chairman. Who has knowledge of those payments, and the purpose for which the money was expended ? Mr. Sacket. W. R. Knell, who made the report. The Chairman. Where does he reside ? Mr. Sacket. Milwaukee was the place of his residence the last time I knew. The Chairman. What was his business ? Mr. Sacket. He was sheriff of Milwaukee County at that time. The Chairman. I will ask the secretary to see if we have Mr. Knell’s name down for subpoena. Mr. Littlefield. He is on your list for next week. You have him down here for Tuesday. The Chairman. The secretary reports to me that we have. RODNEY SACKET. 447 On page 597 of Exhibit 49, which you say Mr. Knell can account for, we have items commencing July 1, under the head of “Cash disbursements/’ and going down to the summing up of that class of items on page 599. Have you personal knowledge of the expenditure of those sums of money, or any of them ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Who has ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Knell. The Chairman. Are those part of the Milwaukee expenses — that is, the expenses of the Milwaukee County organization ? Mr. Sacket. They were so reported by Mr. Knell. The Chairman. Commencing under the date of August 1, page 599, with the item of $1,385, and going down to the end of that statement on page 601, have you any knowledge of those disbursements? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Who has ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Knell. The Chairman. Are they a part of the expenses of the organization in Milwaukee County ? Mr. Sacket. They were so reported by him. The Chairman. To you ? Mr. Sacket. To me; yes, sir. The Chairman. Commencing with the item of August 26, on page 601, and going down to the words “Disbursements in excess of receipts/’ on page 602, have you any knowledge of those items? Mr. Sacket. None at all. The Chairman. Or statements ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Who has ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Knell. The Chairman. Were those on account of the Milwaukee County organization ? Mr. Sacket. They were so reported by him. The Chairman. Page 602: Commencing with August 5, and including down to the item of August 26, “cash,” on page 604, state whether you have any personal knowledge of those expenditures, or any of them? Mr. Sacket. I have. The Chairman. Have you any knowledge of the items on page 602, including August 5, and going to the bottom of the page ? Mr. Sacket. I have; yes, sir. The Chairman. We will take up the item on August 5, “Pay of help and office expense from July 1, $1,101.91.” Have you that pay roll ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Did you have a pay roll from which that item is taken ? Mr. Sacket. I made up a pay roll from time to time as these items were paid, but I did not keep those pay rolls. The Chairman. When you put this item in the account, where did you get the figures from ? Mr. Sacket. From a note on my card index. The Chairman. That card index you say you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And it was there and no where else ? 448 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacicet. No where else, to m}^ knowledge. The Chairman. Have you sufficient knowledge to enable you to give the items that make up that aggregate sum of $1,101.91 ? Mr. Sacket. In a general way only. The Chairman. Suppose you give us as much information as you can on that subject. Mr. Sacket. That was the total amount of expenses for conduct- ing the office in the Wells Building, the Stephenson headquarters office, from the time it was opened, about the 1st of July to August 5, including pay of all of our office help. Mr. Littlefield. Of how many did the office help consist ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember how many we had at that time; but we have had as high as 42 girls addressing envelopes and doing clerical work. The Chairman. That was up until after the filing of the petitions ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. From that time on you seem to have made fre- quent entries. For instance, the next item is “Office, $65. 50.” What was the nature of that expense ? Mr. Sacket. From the note here I simply know it was expenditure for conducting the office — regular office expenses of some kind. The Chairman. No money was paid out except for services in the office ? Mr. Sacket. For services in the office and for care of the office. The Chairman. And for supplies ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I notice on August 15, “Pay roll, $362.50. ” Then on August 22 the amount of $387.80 is entered for pay roll, and on August 28, for pay roll, $365.85. That was for actual salaries and compensation paid to people in the office ? Mr. Sacket. And expenses directly chargeable to the management of the office. The Chairman. I notice you have made an additional charge on the 18th of “Office, $146.25, ” and again on the 25th of $159.95 for “Office.” What were those items for? Were they for the office expenses outside of salary ? Mr. Sacket Yes; they were for office expenses, possibly including some salaries. The Chairman. The salaries did not all come due on the same day ? Is that it ? Mr. Sacket. 1 paid the salaries when it was convenient or when the people wanted their money. I had no regular day. The Chairman. That class of items aggregates $4,074.38. It is all within the class that you have described, is it ? Mr. Sacket. It is; yes. sir. The Chairman. We will take the telephone bill on page 603 of your account. I find that from July 1 to September 5 your telephone bill was $256. What was the nature of the services for which you used the telephone? Was that all at the office? Mr. Sacket. It was all charged to the office — long-distance phones and the regular rental of local phones. The Chairman. Does that include the use of the phone by people who were traveling over the State in the interest of Senator Stephen- son? RODNEY SACKET. 449 Mr. Sacket. No, sir; it does not. The Chairman. That is the office ? Mr. Sacket. The office expenses. The Chairman. The next item, telegraph expenses, aggregates $37. State whether or not that was for telegrams sent out from or received at the city office here in Milwaukee. Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection it was. The Chairman. We have next the postage-stamp item, commenc- ing July 1 and going to August 4: “Cash, $1,914.” Who paid out that money ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Where did you purchase these stamps? Mr. Sacket. In the Milwaukee office. The Chairman. For what purpose did you purchase those stamps? Mr. Sacket. For paying postage on the letters and other matter used in relation to the Stephenson campaign. The Chairman. How used ? Mr. Sacket. Sent through the mails. The Chairman. To whom ? Mr. Sacket. To the people of the State of Wisconsin. The Chairman. To electors in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. What class of material was that ? Mr. Sacket. There were letters — personal letters, multigraph let- ters, imitation typewritten letters done on a printing press, circulars of different kinds; and the postage was paid on the lithographs that were sent out. The Chairman. Can you furnish the committee with one of each of the several kinds of literature included within the scope of that bill of expense? Mr. Sacket. I can not. The Chairman. Who can? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. Where did you have this printing done ? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection, most of it was done in Milwaukee. The Chairman. At what office in Milwaukee ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember the name of the office. The Evening Wisconsin did some of it, I remember, and the other names appear later in the statements here, but I can not remember them now. The Chairman. You can not furnish the committee, then, with a copy of any literature that was sent out under this charge of postage ? Mr. Sacket. I have no copy at this time. The Chairman. Were the letters copied in a letterpress book, or were carbon copies made of them ? Mr. Sacket. As I remember, carbon copies were kept of personal letters. The Chairman. Have you those copies ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. The Chairman. Has anyone those copies, within your knowledge ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. The Chairman. What was done with them ? Mr. Sacket. They were probably put with the waste paper when we cleaned up the office. 15235 3 — vol 1—11 29 450 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Why did you save carbon copies, if they were simply waste paper ? Mr. Sacket. For reference during the campaign. The Chairman. Did you copy any of them in a press copy book? Mr. Backet. To the best of my recollection, we had no press copy book. The Chairman. Then of all of this literature that was intended to advise the electors of the character and qualifications of Senator Stephenson and the reasons why they should vote for his reelection, not a trace of it, within your knowledge, is to be obtained at this time ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of any. The Chairman. Not a single copy? Mr. Sacket. Not a single copy. The Chairman. The pride you had in the work that you were doing did not induce you to retain samples of it at all ? Mr. Sacket. I did not retain any samples. The Chairman. Did you dictate the letters that were sent out included in this mail item ? Mr. Sacket. Some of them. The Chairman. What did you say in any of those letters ? Mr. Sacket. It would be very hard for me to remember at this time. The Chairman. They were copied ? Mr. Sacket. Carbon copies were made of some of them. The Chairman. The carbon copies were destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. By whom ? Mr. Sacket. By my direction. The Chairman. This account for postage stamps, commencing on page 603 of the joint committee hearings and extending down to August 26, including the item of July 1, amounts to $9,819. You expended all of that money for postage stamps to be used in the interest of Senator Stephenson's campaign for nomination at the direct primary ; did you ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. I notice that on August 27 you purchased $1,200 worth of postage stamps. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Of what denomination were those stamps ? Mr. Sacket. Assuming this to be a correct copy, of course, of my original statement, to the best of my recollection they were 2-cent stamps, all of them. The Chairman. Did you send out 60,000 documents with 2-cent postage ? Mr. Littlefield. How many thousand ? The Chairman. Sixty thousand 2-cent postage items, sent out on August 27. Mr. Sacket. I could not say as to the date exactly. The Chairman. Do you think it probable that you did that? Mr. Sacket. I have quite a distinct recollection of figuring up at least one day’s business where we did send out 60,000 letters under 2-cent stamps. The Chairman. What were these — dictated letters ? RODNEY SACKET. 451 Mr. Sacket. They were circular letters, printed copies in imitation of typewritten letters — something of that kind. The Chairman. Why did you put 2-cent stamps on those letters ? Mr. Sacket. Because they were supposed to be personal letters and we wanted them read and considered as personal letters. The Chairman. You think you sent out 60,000 of them in one day ? Mr. Sacket. I have quite a distinct recollection of figuring up as high as 60,000 in one day. The Chairman. How many clerks did you have directing letters at that time ? Mr. Sacket. Forty- two, if I remember correctly. The Chairman. That would be 1,500 letters for each person directing them on that day ? Mr. Sacket. I do not mean to say that they were written and inclosed and directed all in one day. They were all sent out in one day, but it might have taken a week to get them ready. fine Chairman. You had been running $600 and $800 a day before that for stamps. The day before that was $805; the day before that was $600; the day before that was $800. Do you think those stamps were used up on that day — on August 27 ? Mr. Sacket. I could not be as exact as that. The Chairman. I notice that on August 28 you paid $200 more for stamps. On the day before you had expended $700 for stamps. In other words, on the 22d, the 24th, the 25th, the 26th, the 27th, and the 28th you expended $3,700 for stamps — and how many girls did you have working ? Mr. Sacket. Forty-two, if I remember correctly. The Chairman. Just addressing envelopes ? Mr. Sacket. Addressing envelopes, inclosing them, sealing them, putting stamps on them, and doing that sort of work. The Chairman. That accounts for that item of $9,819 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now we come to the newspaper advertising — the items on page 604 of the account, commencing with August 1. The first item there is “E. B. Usher, $205.55.” That is “ sundry advertising.” What advertising was that? Mr. Sacket. From my recollection of it, it was advertising sent out to the different papers in the State. The letter “R” in this statement Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman will excuse me, I will ask Mr. Sacket why he does not explain who Mr. Usher is and what connec- tion he had with Mr. Sacket’s office. That may, perhaps, facilitate matters. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Usher was employed to look after the newspaper advertising — the publicity end of it. The Chairman. He was, then, your publicity man, was he ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. There are six items that Mr. Usher seems to be charged with. There are more later, but on that page there are six items. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of August 1 ? The Chairman. Under date of August 1, all of them. They are all designated as “sundry advertising.” What is the letter “R” for? 452 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. That indicates that I had on file a receipt or a receipted bill from Mr. Usher covering that item. The Chairman. Have you any copy of the matter covered in this advertising, so that we may find out the character of it ? Mr. Sacket. I have no copies. The Chairman. Can you procure some item of this advertising for which Usher was paid some five or six hundred dollars ? Mr. Sacket. 1 do not think I could. Possibly if I had time I might get Mr. Usher to find some for me. The Chairman. Where is Mr. Usher ? Mr. Sacket. I saw him in Milwaukee last night. The Chairman. There is an item, “Minneapolis Tidende” Mr. Littlefield. May I inquire, if the chairman please (so that I may not have to go back over this) if what you have said about Mr. Usher relates to these six items under date of August 1 ? Mr. Sacket. I find six items for which, except the last two items, I do not know that I have a receipt. The cashier’s check number given there shows that the money was paid. Senator Pomerene. Why were you so particular to note on this account the fact that you had a receipt in these particular few instances when in most of the cases there is no reference at all to a receipt ? Mr. Sacket. The bills in the schedules that have been taken up to-day were the business bills. They were bilk for regular services with regular business men and business houses. Senator Pomerene. Were not the others business bills? Mr. Sacket. The others were campaign bills. Senator Pomerene. How do you distinguish between the two ? Mr. Sacket. I should be a little more exact and careful and feel a little more at liberty to demand that strict business rules be lived up to in doing business with a business house than I would with a friend of mine who was campaigning for me. Senator Pomerene. The business houses would ordinarily have books by which you could trace these things, while the average politician probably would not have books or does not seem to have had them ? Mr. Littlefield. Assuming that we are the average. Senator Pomerene. I will not make any comments. The Chairman. Where are the bills that are referred to here ? Mr. Sacket. I think they were left with the joint committee, and I think they appear later in the record here — copies of some of them, at least. Mr. Black. I might say to the subcommittee that I made an effort to reach the superintendent of public property at Madison, who I suppose has the custody of all that matter that was produced there before the committee. I do not know that it is there, but I assume that it is; and I think perhaps the subcommittee should call upon the proper authorities there to send that matter here if it is desired. The Chairman. It is the intention of the subcommittee to make all possible efforts to secure the papers. Senator Pomerene. Did I understand you to say you did reach him, Mr. Black, or that you simply tried to reach him ? RODNEY SACKET. 453 Mr. Black. I did not succeed in reaching him. He had not come to the office. I assume the papers are in Madison. That is what I wanted to ask him about. The Chairman. The subcommittee have assumed that those papers are obtainable; and at the proper time, in the judgment of the subcommittee, all proper efforts will be made to bring those papers before us. First we will have sifted his knowledge to deter- mine what may be desirable, what may be necessary, and then we will take up the matter for consideration. I should like to ask counsel a question. You appeared before the committee in these examinations, did you not ? Mr. Black. I was before the committee practically all the time. The Chairman. Into the hands of what immediate person did these papers pass ? Who marked the exhibits ? Mr. Black. They were marked as exhibits by the reporter, and then they were kept in the custody of some clerk of the committee. There was quite an accumulation of them, and I think they were put in boxes and everything was retained by the committee except the checks I spoke to the chairman about the other day — Mr. Stephen- son’s checks. Mr. Littlefield. If it is agreeable to the subcommittee, I should like to have the subcommittee make a request on the superintendent of public property to submit these papers to the subcommittee at his earliest convenience. We should be very glad to use them our- selves in connection with our examination. Our fear is that they would hardly be likely to transmit them to us as representing Senator Stephenson or any private party. Of course we assume that the subcommittee, sitting here in a public capacity, have the right to make the request ; and we assume that undoubtedly the superintend- ent will comply with the request. Senator Pomerene. This class of exhibits is a little out of the ordi- nary. Are you sure they would be in the custody of the superin- tendent of public property ? Mr. Black. I will say that that was my purpose in calling him up. I do not assume they are in his legal custody. The Chairman. Beginning on page 4650, in the last volume of the proceedings before the joint committee, and running down to page 4667, we find what may be presumed to be a complete list of all of the exhibits and papers that were used before the committee ; and it is the intention of the subcommittee to find those. The presumption is they are all in the hands of some person. Some of those have been copied into the testimony, and some have not. Mr. Black. The committee had some chests into which they put all those things from time to time. The Chairman. That committee has passed out of existence with the legislature, and some difficulty is being experienced in locating those papers; but we shall doubtless be able to locate them. Mr. Littlefield. That is the list that begins on page 4650 and ends on page 4667. vSenator Pomerene. When was the legislature elected that memo- rialized the United States Senate? Mr. Black. In the fall of 1910. Senator Pomerene. And they sat at what time ? 454 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Black. They met the second Monday in January, 1911, and continued from that time. The Chairman. They had nothing to do with this examination of exhibits or witnesses, had they ? Mr. Black. Nothing whatever. The Chairman. It was the previous legislature? Mr. Black. The previous legislature. This investigation began, as I recollect, either the 15th or 16th of February, 1909, and con- tinued through until the end of the session, which was about June of that year. Senator Sutherland. The first investigation ? Mr. Black. Yes. The first investigation began in February and continued until about the 1st of April, and then the senate members continued from that time till June. The Chairman. It is my intention that between to-day and Monday these exhibits shall be arranged in such order that we can turn to them readily, and if possible procure them; but that is a matter yet to be determined. It is not convenient to hunt out each of these items now; so for that reason I am asking this witness, for the purpose of seeing if he can give any information. Who employed Mr. Usher? Mr. Sacket. I made the arrangement with him. The Chairman. When did you make it ? Mr. Sacket. In the early part of the campaign. The Chairman. Was it in writing? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; it was not. The Chairman. What was the arrangement ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Usher was to receive certain compensation for looking after the publicity end of the campaign. The Chairman. There were just two words in that answer that I did not get. He was to receive certain compensation for what ? Mr. Sacket. For taking charge. The Chairman. For taking charge of what? Mr. Sacket. Of the publicity end of the campaign. The Chairman. Was there a specific agreement as to what he was to do ? Mr. Sacket. The agreement was more general than specific. He was to look after the advertising, to keep us advised. He was a man of considerable experience in that line of work. The Chairman. What do you mean by “looking after the advertising?” Mr. Sacket. To make contracts for advertising, submit them to me for approval, and then see that the contract was carried out. The Chairman. Was he to prepare the advertising matter? Mr. Sacket. In some cases; yes. The Chairman. Was it agreed in what cases he was to prepare the matter? Mr. Sacket. I do not think there was any special agreement as to the cases. I remember that he did help prepare some. The Chairman. Was there an agreement as to the class of cases in which he was to prepare the matter ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you see any of the advertising matter that he did prepare? RODNEY SACKET. 455 Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For which these accounts were paid? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you describe or recall any such items ? Mr. Sacket. I would rather not attempt to at this time. The Chairman. That is hardly a proper answer — that you would “rather not attempt it.” Can you do it? Mr. Sacket. I am afraid I can not; no, sir. The Chairman. Will you try? You seem not to be quite sure that you can not do it. Mr. Sacket. Only in a general way. I only have a general recol- lection of it. The advertisements were written, setting forth the reasons why Senator Stephenson should be voted for and elected. That is about as far as I can remember. The Chairman. What reasons were given ? Mr. Sacket. His eminent business qualifications; his long service to the Republican Party in the State. The Chairman. Were those statements printed as advertising matter, or as editorials? Mr. Sacket. As advertising matter — that was my understanding — every time. The Chairman. That is, were they starred, after the usual custom of newspapers, to indicate matter that was paid for ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And so that the public knew that it was adver- tising matter ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you during the session to-day produce some one or more copies of papers containing such advertising as you have referred to ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know where I could find any. I shall be very glad to try. The Chairman. Doubtless there are files of the papers here in the city. Mr. Sacket. I will try. I shall be very glad to try. The Chairman. The committee are interested to know the nature of these advertisements — whether they were general advertisements, or specific ones. On August 1, under the head of “Newspaper Advertising,” you paid H. Rasmussen $333.33. What was that for? Mr. Sacket. That was for running an advertisement in Mr. Ras- mussen’s paper. The Chairman. What is the name of the paper? Mr. Sacket. I have forgotten the name of the paper. I think his bill will show. The Chairman. Where is it published ? Mr. Sacket. In the northern part of the State, or over the line in Minnesota; I am not sure which. The Chairman. Did you make that arrangement ? Mr. Sacket. I made it, or ratified it. The Chairman. What was the nature of the advertisement, its purpose and its object? Mr. Sacket. The nature of it 1 do not remember. The purpose was to set forth Senator Stephenson’s qualifications for the position of United States Senator, and the object was to obtain votes for him. The Chairman. To obtain votes where ? 456 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. In Wisconsin, for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. At what election ? Mr. Sacket. At the primary election. The Chairman. Which primary ? Mr. Sacket. The primary election held about the first of Septem- ber, 1908. The Chairman. That was marked “paid advertising,” was it, in the paper? That is, it was indicated; was it? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection it was run as a paid advertisement. I can not recollect whether they starred each one, because I do not know that I saw each one. The Chairman. You did not finish as to the “Minneapolis Tidende, $563.79.” Where is that paper published? • Mr. Sacket. In Minneapolis, Minn. The Chairman. You paid $563.79 for advertising in that paper? Mr. Sacket. Yes. sir. The Chairman. What was your purpose in advertising in a Minne- apolis paper ? Mr. Sacket. I was informed that that paper had a very large cir- culation through the northern and western part of Wisconsin ; and we supposed that we should reach the voters through that paper better than through a small local paper in Wisconsin. The Chairman. Who prepared the advertising matter for that paper ? Mr. Sacket. I have no distinct recollection at this time as to who prepared it. 3 ’he Chairman. Did you pay someone for preparing it, in addition to this sum of $563.79 for printing it? Mr Sacket. Mr. Usher received a salary for helping in those matters. The Chairman. His name does not appear in connection with this item. Mr. Sacket. It does not; no, sir. The Chairman. Did you say he would prepare that advertising material ? Mr. Sacket. He did in some cases prepare advertisements, or assist in their preparation, and I presume he did in a great many cases. The Chairman. I should like to know whether he did in this case. Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection as to this particular item. The Chairman. How much was paid for preparing the advertise- ments for which the newspaper’s charge is $563.79? I want to get at the gross expense. Mr. Littlefield. That is, you want to get at the literary work, if any? The Chairman. Yes; I want to get at the gross expense. This is only one item. Mr. Sacket. I believe Mr. Usher’s salary is included under this heading of “Newspaper Advertising;” so that the sum on page 605 of the printed hearings before the joint committee would be the total for that sort of work. The Chairman. You mean the account aggregating $12,696.76 would include his services as well as his disbursements? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. Is Mr. Usher a newspaper writer? RODNEY SACKET. 457 Mr. Sacket. He is. The Chairman. For what paper does he write ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think he writes for any particular paper. He writes for numerous papers. The Chairman. Name one of them. Mr. Sacket. I have seen his articles in the Berlin Journal, of Berlin, Wis. The Chairman. On what subject was the article written that you recall ? Mr. Sacket. The articles that I recall in the Berlin Journal are under the heading “Our Milwaukee Letter,” and treat of subjects generally — matters of general information. The Chairman. Is that a special letter, or is it a regular serial? Mr. Sacket. I am not familiar enough with the business to say positively. The Chairman. Now proceed as to Mr. Rasmussen. Mr.* Littlefield. Before you leave the Tidende may I ask whether that is printed in English or not ? Mr. Sacket. It is a Scandinavian paper, and I believe it is printed in Scandinavian. Mr. Littlefield. And appealing particularly to that class of people ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have here “Sunday advertising, August 1, R., E. B. Usher.” You have already explained that he is the man who prepared material; and all of these amounts paid Usher were for preparing material for advertisements, were they ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Except where you have a receipt, where the letter “R” indicates that it was a business transaction? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Just make that plain. Mr. Sacket. The letter “R” simply indicates that there was a receipt, an itemized and receipted bill, filed for that item. The two other items on August 1 indicate that there was a cashier’s check, with Mr. Usher’s indorsement upon it, produced before the commit- tee, but whether there was an itemized bill or not I could not say positively. My recollection is that there was. The Chairman. I want you to be a little more specific in regard to the item on August 1 — “H. Rasmussen, cash, $333.33.” What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. Advertising. The Chairman. That is not for preparing an article, but for the publishing of it, is it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think we paid anyone except Mr. Usher for preparing articles, and he was paid a regular salary. The Chairman. On August 8 you paid the same Mr. Rasmussen, or the Rasmussen Publishing Co., $333.33, and on August 18 you again paid $333.34, making $1,000? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You paid $1,000 to the Rasmussen Publishing Co. in cash ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what was the $1,000 paid to that company? 458 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. For advertising. Mr. Littlefield. In what paper were the advertisements run ? Mr. Sacket. I have forgotten the name of the paper. It will prob- ably appear on the bills that are on file. Mr. Littlefield. Did it involve anything for subscriptions as well as advertising? The Chairman. I was about to bring up that question. Mr. Littlefield. Excuse me. I was breaking in on some of these items because it might save me the necessity of picking them up again and going over the same ground. The Chairman. That seems to be explained on page 916, wheue the bills of the Rasmussen Publishing Co. are marked “Exhibit 73.” We will try to get those exhibits. Mr. Littlefield. If we can get them; yes. The Chairman. I am testing this witness, as to the knowledge he may have of them, in anticipation of the production of the bills. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. There is no objection to that. The Chairman. The bills seem not to have been copied in the place where ordinarily they would have been copied in the taking of testi- mony. I notice that in a number of similar instances documents are copied into the record, but in some cases they are not. Mr. Littlefield. There does not seem to have been any uniform practice in that regard. Mr. Black. No; there was not. The Chairman. I notice that on August 19 you paid the Tidende $1,000. For what was that paid? Mr. Sacket. For advertising. The Chairman. I notice on page 917 that there was produced a bill of the Minneapolis Tidende for $540, and that there were several bills rendered by that publishing company, and that Mr. Usher paid those bills. Mr. Littlefield. Is the chairman referring to the Minneapolis Tidende now? The Chairman. Yes. That was the $1,000 item. Mr. Black. Mr. Usher simply O. K’d those bills. The Chairman. I am calling attention to the page of the printed record of the joint committee investigation (p. 917), where that was introduced as an exhibit, merely for the purpose of identification. Mr. Black. Mr. Usher merely O. K’d the bill; did he not? It shows that he did so. The Chairman. I am identifying the reference for the convenience of the committee when we have the bills here. Now, we will pass on from that $1,000 item, and we come to the Koch Advertising Agency, to which you paid $3,000 on August 26. What did you pay $3,000 to that corporation for? Mr. Sacket. For advertising. The Chairman. Is that the statement which we find on pages 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, and 883? Mr. Sacket. I find a statement from the Koch Advertising Agency on page 863 and another statement on page 874. The Chairman. Yes; I have both of those. Mr. Sacket. And I think, if I remember correctly, there should be another one somewhere. RODNEY SACKET. 459 The Chairman. Those are the items that make up that charge. There is Exhibit 63, on page 862, and Exhibit 64 following on page 872. That is a total bill of $3,304.17, paid by two checks. Exhibit 63 amounts to $4,764.10. That is the first bill here, as I find it, and a second bill contained in this statement is $826.97; and in connec- tion with that are items amounting to $1,800.69 in the aggregate. Then, following that, is Exhibit 64, amounting to $3,304.17. Mr. Littlefield. Exhibit 64, if the chairman will notice, takes care of the item “August 25, $302.91.” The Chairman. It takes care of a statement of items that make up the aggregate sum which is contained in that? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Who would know as to the character of the items — that is, items contained in the “advertisements”? For instance, “Racine News, $46.58,” “Racine Times, $43.47.” What did the Racine News and the Racine Times do in the way of advertising? Mr. Sacket. I have no exact knowledge about it. The Chairman. Did you ever have any knowledge ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection. The Chairman. Here is the “Milwaukee Revnost” — is that correct ? Mr. Sacket. I do not recall any such name. What page is it ? The Chairman. Page 882; and the amount is $18. Mr. Sacket. Revnost ? I do not recall any such paper as that. It may be a misprint. The Chairman. Milwaukee Farmers’ Record; I suppose you know about that paper? Milwaukee Columbia, Milwaukee W. Germania, Milwaukee Excelsior, Milwaukee Catholic Citizen, Milwaukee Domac- nost — you know all those papers, do you ? Mr. Sacket. I have heard of all of them. The Chairman. Those are weekly papers. “Ten inches, 3 times”: That means 10 inches of space, does it? We will have to hunt up some of those papers. The newspaper advertising amounted to $12,696.76. All of that expense was contracted by you, was it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And paid for out of the campaign fund furnished by Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. It was. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Sacket. For the purpose of advertising. The Chairman. Advertising to whom ? Mr. Sacket. To the voters of the State of Wisconsin. The Chairman. Advertising what ? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson’s candidacy and his qualifications. The Chairman. What was the purpose in advertising these things to the voters of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. So that they might know the qualifications of Senator Stephenson, and exercise their judgment in voting. The Chairman. Was it to induce them to vote for Senator Stephen- son ? Mr. Sacket. I believed that if they knew him as well as I did they would all vote for him. 460 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. No; the question is about the inserting of these advertisements. You inserted them? You made the contracts? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was it your purpose to get the electors of the State of Wisconsin, through the means of this advertising, to vote for Senator Stephenson for United States Senator ? Mr. Sacket. It was. The Chairman. At the direct primary ? Mr. Sacket. It was. The Chairman. Now, we go to the “sundry” items on page 605. Did you make those payments ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. “Wisconsin Agriculturist, R”: What does the “R” mean? Mr. Sacket. A receipted bill is indicated by that letter. The Chairman. You paid them $760.25, and then you again paid the same people, in the next item, $362.42, for what purpose? Mr. Sacket. I could not say as to that particular item, positively; but I think that was for the use of a list of names that they had. The Chairman. The two items together amounting to something over $1,100. Mr. Littlefield. There is another one on the other page, if your honor please, of $338.52 — page 606. I suggest that so that we can group them all together. The Chairman. Altogether about $1,400 or $1,500. What did you pay them that money for ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of the arrangement with this news- paper publishing company was that they were to furnish us a list of names of farmers throughout the State — their mailing list; and we were to pay them 1 cent for each name for the first use of those names. I think that $760.25 represents that. We were to pay them half a cent for each subsequent use of that name. One of the other items, I think, covers that. We also paid them for addressing the en- velopes, for the envelopes themselves, and for trouble in mailing them. The Chairman. They had an addressing machine, did they? Mr. Sacket. They had the list in their office in Racine. The Chairman. And they used the mailing machine ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know what their machinery was. They had the list in their office, and they gave us the list in the form of ad- dressed envelopes. We paid them for the addressing. Mr. Littlefield. So that you had the envelopes all ready to fill in your material, put on the stamps, and send them out ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. So that you had something more than the list ? Mr. Sacket. We had the list and the envelopes. The cent and a half did not include those envelopes, or the work of addressing them. Mr. Littlefield. You paid for the envelopes? Mr. Sacket. I paid for the envelopes, and the work of addressing them, and everything that they did in connection with that work. Senator Sutherland. Then you paid the newspaper for the work of addressing the envelopes ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 461 Senator Sutherland. You did not pay them for the privilege of using the names ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; both. Senator Sutherland. I should like to understand that. Upon what theory did the newspaper charge you for the privilege of using the names? Mr. Sacket. We used their names, their list, to send our circulars to — our circular letters and literature. We paid them for the use of those names, about 70,000 names, 1 cent for the first using and half a cent for the subsequent using. Senator Sutherland. Were these the names of their subscribers? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Tell me, if you can, upon what theory they charged you for the use of the names. Mr. Sacket. They had the list; we wanted the list, and the pub- lisher offered to sell us the use of the list. Mr. Littlefield. You could not get it without their permission, could you ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. They furnished you the list of names ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. The list of their subscribers. The Chairman. The newspapers have a system of transferring those names by machinery to envelopes, or to the mailing package, or whatever it is. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; they have mailing machines. I do not know whether this paper had one or not; but there are such machines. Senator Sutherland. That was for the list itself, and not for the privilege of using the names? In other words, you could have ob- tained the names from some other source ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; the payment was for the use of their list. When I said “names” I meant “list,” of course. Mr. Littlefield. Let me ask right here: Did the cent that you paid them for the first use include the right to use their list and their services in putting the names of the subscribers on the envelopes furnished by you ? Mr. Sacket. It did not. Mr. Littlefield. You paid them in addition to that? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How much ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. By footing up these items it would show. Mr. Littlefield. These disbursements to them included not only the cent a name for the use of the list, but the services performed by the company in putting the names on the envelopes furnished by you ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; and the envelopes, too. They bought and charged me for the envelopes, in some cases. Mr. Littlefield. You paid them for the envelopes? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. They furnished the envelopes, put on the ad- dress, and put in these bills, and you paid them for both envelopes and addressing ? Mr. Sacket. In some cases ; yes, sir. 462 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. Let me ask you further: I suppose in fur- nishing you the list they had somebody write it ? Mr. Sacket. On our envelopes. Senator Sutherland. How was the list furnished you — in writing, or was it printed, or what ? Mr. Sacket. It was furnished us on envelopes. Mr. Littlefield. They did not have it separately from the envelopes. Senator Sutherland. You had no separate list ? Mr. Littlefield. Practically, they agreed to address the envelopes. The Chairman. They did for you just exactly what they do for themselves at the time of every issue: They prepared the wrapper (whether it was an envelope or a paper wrapper) with the name of the subscriber on it and handed it to you; did they not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And that, of course, gave them the opportunity to reach every subscriber that paper had. The Chairman. Newspapers generally charge for the use of their subscription lists, do they not — that is, you can not go to a newspaper and get a subscription list without a consideration ? Mr. Sacket. I should not expect to get anything without a con- sideration. The Chairman. You paid a price for that in order that you might use it in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s nomination for United States Senator at the direct primary. You paid them this money in order that you might have the use of their subscription list on his behalf. Is that right ? Mr. Sacket. I did; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. The Wisconsin Agriculturist is a Republican newspaper, is it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know that it is especially political in any way. It is an agricultural paper. I do not know what its political policy is. Senator Sutherland. What I want to get at is the purpose of your getting this particular list. Were these people supposed to be Republicans ? Mr. Sacket. I had no knowledge of their political affiliations. Senator Sutherland. They were supposed to be farmers, and you wanted to reach that class ? Mr. Sacket. I wanted to reach the farmers on their subscription list. Senator Sutherland. Then it was for that particular object ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Most of their subscribers would naturally be farmers ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. It was to enable you to reach that class ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have personal knowledge of the items under “ Sundry bills” on pages 605 and 606, have you — of their payment and purpose of payment ? Mr. Sacket. I have; yes, sir. The Chairman. Were they paid out for services or substance to be used in the interest of Senator Stephenson, to procure votes for him at the primary election for the nomination of a United States Senator ? RODNEY SACKET. 463 Mr. Sacket. I do not think there is anything in that schedule for services such as organizing; in fact, I am quite certain there is not. If you mean by “service” the printing of envelopes or anything of that kind there was. The Chairman. The printing of advertisements ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. For instance, take page 606: “Van de Kamp & Lorberter, $290.” What was that item for? Mr. Sacket. I am certain I knew all about it at the time it was paid; but I have forgotten the business in which that firm was engaged. The Chairman. How about “Whitehead & Hoag, $502.25,” at the bottom of page 605 ? Mr. Sacket. That was for campaign buttons. The Chairman. Wliere did you purchase those buttons ? Mr. Sacket. The order was given to the agent of this company, who had an office in the Wells Building. I think he came into our headquarters office and took the order. The Chairman. WTiat were these buttons ? Describe them. Mr. Sacket. Small buttons to be worn in the lapel of the coat, having, as I remember it, a picture of Senator Stephenson, and in letters “For U. S. Senator, Isaac Stephenson.” The Chairman. What did you do with those buttons after you had purchased them ? Mr. Sacket. We sent them to our organizers and friends throughout the State, for distribution to the voters. The Chairman. Did they distribute them ? Mr. Sacket. I have no personal knowledge that they did. The Chairman. They reported that they distributed them ? Mr. Sacket. They did; yes, sir. The Chairman. The distribution of those buttons was one of the items of service for which you paid salaries to these organizers, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. Some of them; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever see them being worn by electors in the State of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. I did; yes, sir. The Chairman. In quantities ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know that I ever kept track of the number; but I saw them quite frequently on men’s coats. The Chairman. Did you wear one ? Mr. Sacket. I did. The Chairman. Where did you get it ? Mr. Sacket. Out of the box of them that we had in the office. The Chairman. On page 606 there is an item of $660 paid to L. Breithaupt. What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. I can not be absolutely positive; but if I remember correctly, that was for printing of some kind. The Chairman. Where does he print? Mr. Sacket. In Milwaukee. The Chairman. Has he a printing establishment here ? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of it. The Chairman. Can you tell us where it is ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know, I am sure. I have forgotten. 464 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Or what the printing consisted of? Mr. Sacket. Not that item; no, sir. The Chairman. Who can tell us ? Mr. Sacket. I think his bill is on file in the papers that we are waiting for; and that should show. The Chairman. Go below to the “Mandel Engraving Co., $ 278 . 35 .” For what work was that ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that item is that it was for the large lithographs of Senator Stephenson that we sent over the State. The Chairman. Lithographs that were generally distributed over the State ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You seem to have paid Whitehead & Hoag another sum of $110.10, at the top of page 607, and $356.97 on September 5. Were those items for buttons ? Mr. Sacket. All for buttons; yes, sir. The Chairman. Referring to the Van de Kamp & Lorberter item of $290 near the top of page 606, and the item of $775.50 near the bottom, and $641.15 on the next page: Can you tell what those items were for ? Mr. Sacket. I have no distinct recollection. The Chairman. What business were they in ? Mr. Sacket. I think they were printers. The Chairman. There is an item of $210.62 on page 608, the last item of that class. What was that paid for? It says here “ Sun- dries, Wells Co.” Mr. Sacket. $3.26 of that was paid to the Wells Co. in check No. 33963. The Chairman. What was the other portion of it for ? Mr. Sacket. The other, as I remember it, consisted of a lot of small bills. The Chairman. You have undertaken to classify the other items under August 8, page 608, as “Circulating nomination papers.” Have you included in the list all the people who were employed specially for that purpose ? Mr. Sacket. I have not; no, sir. The Chairman. Those items seem to have been paid shortly after the expiration of the time in which those papers should be filed. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Will you explain those items, and how you came to include them in a separate statement ? Mr. Sacket. Those are persons who circulated nomination papers, not on any special contract with our office, but from the fact that they received a blank which we sent out broadcast over the State, with a circular letter requesting Senator Stephenson’s friends The Chairman. How much a name did you pay for getting signa- tures to the nomination papers ? Mr. Sacket. I did not calculate to pay anything for the circulating of the nomination papers that were circulated in that way. The Chairman. You did pay, however. What was the basis of payment ? The sums seem to be in odd figures. Mr. Sacket. I paid these men what they claimed, you know. The Chairman. How would a man arrive at the conclusion that he ought to have $3.55 ? Why not $3.60, or $4 ? RODNEY SACKET. 465 Mr. Sacket. I do not know how they arrived at the conclusion; but they demanded those sums. The Chairman. Or the next one, $7.56 ? Do you not think you had a basis of so much a name ? « Mr. Sacket. I had no such basis; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Just explain fully how you happened to make those payments. Mr. Sacket. They were made in compliance with the letters, the demands of these persons for payment for those services, for the service of circulating papers. I paid them what they asked in each case. The Chairman. “S. A. Holdridge, .25,” marked “Not cashed.” Mr. Sacket. I remember that item. The Chairman. Did you send him a lesser amount than he de- manded, and did he refuse to receive it ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. His letter I remember, because of the fact that it was so small. He wanted 25 cents for paying the officer who swore him to the correctness of that list. I sent him just what he asked for. Senator Pomerene. You remember that because it was so small? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. The others you forget because they were so large ? Mr. Sacket. No; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Those were common occurrences. This was an uncommon occurrence, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. Very uncommon. Mr. Littlefield. What about its not being cashed ? Just explain that, if there is any explanation of it. Mr. Sacket. These check numbers I obtained by going through the cashier’s checks in Marshall & Ilsley’s bank. I found on their stub book this No. 33480; and we were unable to find among the paid and canceled checks the check that came from that stub. So I con- cluded at the time I made this list that the check had not been cashed. Mr. Littlefield. That simply indicates that it was outstanding, and had not been returned for collection ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We will pass over the “Express” account you paid. Evidently there is a voucher for the express items of $235.87. That was for sending your campaign material about from place to place ; was it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We will pass now to the “Sundries, small,” com- mencing with July 7, on page 609. I notice that on the day after you opened this account you spent $10.75 for cigars. Where were those cigars purchased ? Mr. Sacket. On July 8 ? The Chairman. Yes; page 609. Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that particular item. The Chairman. Do you know who purchased them ? Mr. Sacket. I have no positive recollection. The Chairman. In those “Sundries, small” accounts there are a large number of items, under the head of “Sundries,” running up sometimes to considerable amounts. Are we to take it that those 15235 °— VOL 1—11 30 466 RODNEY SACKET. items were money, cash paid out for treats by you or others working under your direction ? Mr. Sacket. That is not what is intended by the word 1 ‘sundries. ” They may have included something of that kind. Senator Pomerene. What is the fact about it — not what was intended ? What is the fact about it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not intend to cover up an item of drinks and cigars by using the word “ sundries .’ ’ I know that in some of those items there were charged drinks and cigars. Mr. Littlefield. What were the items made up of? Explain it while you are going along. Under what circumstances did you make an entry of “Sundries,” if you remember? State it in detail. Mr. Sacket. When my card showed a number of entries, cash payments, and the card footed up $50, or whatever it was, I entered it as an item here from that card. Senator Pomerene. There are a number of places here where you have used the word “Cigars.” Why did you not enter that as “Sundries” ? Why did you distinguish between them? Mr. Sacket. Because that was one payment for cigars entirely — all cigars; a bill for boxes of cigars. The Chairman. On page 610 there is also nearly $100 for “Suns dries.” Can you give any approximate statement as to the item- making up that charge for sundries ? Mr. Sacket. You would like to have me give examples of what I have in those items ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is what they are trying to find out and have been for live minutes. Mr. Sacket. In the time that we were busy we kept those 42 girls working into the night, sometimes as late as 10 or 11 o’clock, to get out our literature. In one instance when we kept them in that way I gave the lady in charge of them money to take them ali out and buy their dinner. They did not have time to go home and back again. It is such items as that. The “Sundries” in there covered my own personal expenses. Senator Sutherland. Ice cream and candies ? Mr. Sacket. Not for myself; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. For the girls, I mean. Mr. Sacket. I do not know; probably. Mr. Littlefield. What other items does it include, if you remem- ber any others? Give them all, so that we will not have to keep going over that every 15 or 20 minutes. Mr. Sacket. It would include any expense, any little payment of money made by anyone in the office, probably for hiring an express wagon to carry our mail to the post office, and The Chairman. Take an item of $20 in one day, September 5. You would not spend $20 in one day for furnishing refreshments for your help or for wagons, would you ? Mr. Sacket. I guess the dinners cost as much as $20 when the whole 40 of them went out. But the fact that $20 is entered on one day does not mean that it was expended on one day. The Chairman. There was $33.65 on the same day for “Sundries;” and again, on the same day, $12.70 — about $78 expended for sun- dries on one day. RODNEY SACKET. 467 Mr. Sacket. They were simply entered on one day. That does not indicate that they were expended on one day. The Chairman. That is the best, explanation you can give of it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have no recollection? Mr. Sacket. I have no definite recollection. The Chairman. You are merely speculating on what it might have been ? Mr. Sacket. I have stated instances in which I do have definite recollection; otherwise, I have not. Mr. Littlefield. You say that a payment of “ Sundries” might represent items that had been accumulating for several days on a card. Is that what you say ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; that is certain. I remember making the account; and the date on which it was charged would not indicate that it was disbursed on that day. The Chairman. Where you made four entries in a day, you would not carry it up piecemeal, would you? Suppose you made four entries of “ Sundries,” as you did on September 5, one on September 6, one on September 8, one on a later date, and so on. Here is “ Sun- dry expenses’ 7 in one item, $250 ■ Mr. Littlefield. There are three on September 5. The Chairman. There are five right together on the account. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; five in three days. The Chairman. There is $250 on the 15th marked “ Sundries.” What is that for ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of the component parts of that item. That is as I took it off my cards. The Chairman. That was on these cards that you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. All of these items ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. All of the items in this account entitled “ Sun- dries, small,” on pages 609 and 610, were on your cards in the card- index system ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And those cards are the ones that you destroyed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now we have the bills commencing on page 611 Mr. Littlefield. Before you pass from that question of “Sun- dries,” September 5 — because I think I shall probably forget it — will you be kind enough to let him explain what this entry of “Sundries, No. 33944 (Lambeck) 33.65” means — that is, if it has any different signification from the other entries ? I do not know what it may be, but I should like him to do that. Mr. Sacket. That means that a cashier’s check No. 33944 was given to Arthur Lambeck, who was assisting in the management of the office, to reimburse him for incidental expenses that he had paid out. The Chairman. Now, we will pass to the next list of items on pages 611 and 612. Quite a number of those items, such as “Rogers,” and “Telephones,” and “Wisconsin Agriculturist,” you have already explained. The “Sexton” item you have explained. I only desire 468 RODNEY SACKET. to ask you why you put these “ Marinette Advertiser” items on that page, and not over with the newspaper advertising? Mr. Sacket. The accounts under date of October 16 are of bills which were presented long after the campaign, and were not consid- ered in the schedules before. The Chairman. Were these items on your card-index system ? Mr. Sacket. Those of October 16, to the best of my recollection, were not. The Chairman. Where were they noted ? Mr. Sacket. I kept track of these on a sheet of paper, if I remember correctly. The Chairman. I notice you have “L. H. Stevens,” the banker, “$200,” in the next to the last item? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I thought you had made a complete settlement with him, according to the statement in connection with that item to Stevens— the items that we went over yesterday. Mr. Littlefield. He discussed this same item, if the chairman please, in connection with that. The Chairman. Yes; I find we had this item in the statement yesterday. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I have it checked. That is, he made all the explanation he could make about that. The Chairman. These items were paid out by you to the various persons set forth in the statement for the purpose of securing their services in creating a sentiment in favor of the election of Senator Stephenson for United States Senator during the direct-primary campaign, were they ? Mr. Sacket. Not exactly. The payments were made long after the campaign had closed. The Chairman. For services rendered during it ? Mr. Sacket. They were made in response to their demand for money which they claimed we owed them for services rendered. The Chairman. During the primary campaign ? Mr. Sacket. During the primary campaign; yes, sir. The Chairman. And for services rendered by them on behalf of Senator Stephenson to secure his nomination at that direct primary ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean altogether services, or services and disbursements ? Mr. Sacket. Services; and goods, wares, and merchandise come in here, too, I presume. Mr. Littlefield. And disbursements ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Things of value furnished to them — that is, of value, in your judgment, to the extent that you paid for them? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Furnished to them to secure the nomination of Senator Stephenson at the direct primary ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What “goods, wares, and merchandise” do you have in mind ? Mr. Sacket. Cigars. Senator Pomerene. Is that all? RODNEY SACKET. 469 Mr. Sacket. Stationery and office supplies. The Chairman. Some of these items were for liquors as well as cigars, were they ? Mr. Sacket. I have n® knowledge of any such item on the 16th. Senator Pomerene. Do not limit it to the 16th. During the campaign, what was the fact ? Mr. Sacket. There was money spent for liquors and cigars, to my certain knowledge. The Chairman. On the 24th day of August, the first item, “Hotel Meyer, Janesville, $17. 50,” was for entertainment of electors in behalf of Senator Stephenson, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember exactly what that item is. The Chairman. I think if you would put your mind to work on that, you would remember that item. Then, on the same day, “Cigars, $4.” They were bought for the purpose of treating electors of the State of Wisconsin with a view of securing their vote for Senator Stephenson, were they not ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of that particular item. The Chairman. That item was on your card index ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you destroyed that card ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That card probably would have enabled you to remember it, would it not ? Mr. Sacket. It would not, any better than this. The Chairman. On the same day there is “Sundries, $12.25.” That included liquors as well as cigars, did it not? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge; I do not know. The Chairman. Are you willing to swear that it did not ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. On the same day there is another item of “Cigars, $2.” Those were purchased by the men that you had employed to represent Senator Stephenson, for the purpose of treating electors, were they not ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that particular item. The Chairman. And the next item of “Sundries, $16,” on the same day, was a part of the same transaction, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say; no, sir; I do not know. The Chairman. That day, the 24th of August, was the day that you were making arrangements with the various men who had teams to take electors to the polls, was it not ? When you come to items on those days, August 22 and 24, there are quite a number of them as to men with whom you had made contracts to haul people to the polls ? Mr. Sacket. The arrangement for the work at the polls was made before this day, August 22. The Chairman. It was made August 22, I think you have stated. Mr. Sacket. It was made before August 22. On about August 22, my recollection is, we sent the men their money to do this work — the men up through the State. That is why I charge those amounts to teams and poll workers, because my recollection is it was on about the 22d of August that we concluded to supply them with the money to get ready. 470 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. The items on the 22d and 24th seem to be fairly numerous expenditures for those purposes. About that time quite a number of men came down to Milwaukee to get supplies and make arrangements for spending money, did they not? I have not figured up the sums that you paid between the beginning of the 22d and the beginning of the 25th; but I think I am safe in suggesting to you that the items of money that you paid were very large. Was there not what you might call a political round-up about that time — a large number of people coming into Milwaukee, to your headquarters, for the purpose of getting money? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that there was a particularly large number at that time; no, sir. The Chairman. You paid out nearly $5,000 in those two days, did you not? Mr. Sacket. I have made no computation. I could not say. The Chairman. It seems from the statement to have been a sort of a financial climax. Mr. Sacket. It is my recollection that about that time we supplied the men with money for work at the polls, to be done later. Mr. Littlefield. I do not suppose the subcommittee really expect Mr. Sacket to undertake to remember independently of dates the amount he paid out, even though there were a cataclysm impending. The Chairman. I am merely refreshing the witness’s mind. I have the figures before me. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, I know; but it is impossible, as it seems to me, if the chairman please, for Mr. Sacket to undertake to locate expenditures on particular days, without his memorandum before him. The Chairman. He has a book before him. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. If you give him time to look it up, of course, he will do those things. The Chairman. There is no controversy about the amount. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no. The Chairman. I was reading from the book. You prepared this summary statement found on page 612, which shows that you disbursed $98,083.72; did you? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you prepared that from the data we have been going over with you ? Mr. Sacket. And the data contained in this same account. The Chairman. The classification of items in that summary is correct, is it, or approximately so ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So nearly so that you do not desire to make any corrections now, after having gone over it as we have ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. What do you know about the expenditures made in Milwaukee County? Mr. Sacket. Nothing at all. The Chairman. Have you any personal knowledge about them ? Mr. Sacket. Not the least. RODNEY SACKET. 471 The Chairman. Mr. Knell made the expenditures in Milwaukee County; did he? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you furnish him the money that he expended ? Mr. Sacket. I gave Mr. Puelicher a receipt for the money. The Chairman. For instance, let us take the item of the 15th of July, where he paid $50 for “one man to attend colored picnic.” Did you authorize the payment of that $50 ? Mr. Littlefield. Where does that item appear? The Chairman. Under date of July 15, on page 484 of the joint committee investigation. Mr. Littlefield. In Milwaukee ? The Chairman. Yes. It is the account of Mr. Knell, page 484, and is the sixth item from the top of the page — the item under date of July 15. It reads, “Exp. one man to attend colored picnic, $50.” Did you authorize a payment of that kind ? Mr. Sacket. I do not find the item here as stated, but I authorized no such payment. The Chairman. You will find it as I read it on page 484. Mr. Littlefield. Is it suggested that that was m an effort to paint the town red ? The Chairman. I will not make any suggestion in respect to it. Mr. Littlefield. Or is the hue of a different color ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge whatever of that item. The Chairman. You went over his accounts, I think you said, and approved them ? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. The Chairman. You do not know any more than is stated on the face of that item ? Mr. Sacket. I know nothing about Mr. Knell's expenditures, but I will say in regard to this item that I think the same item appears in Exhibit 49 of the State investigation (this that you refer to being in Exhibit 47 of the State investigation), and that it appears there as $5 instead of $50, and is on page 597. Mr. Littlefield. It seems as though the printing press has con- spired against us in connection with this investigation. Where do you get that item? Mr. Sacket. Near the bottom of the page. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; July 15, “expense of one man to attend colored picnic, $5.” Senator Sutherland. Perhaps it was another man. The Chairman. No; this is the expense of “one man to attend colored picnic, $50.” Which is correct ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. This is the first time that I have heard of it. Senator Sutherland. Was it the same man? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. If I were going to paint anything red, I should probably put in the charge at $50, I know, instead of $5. The Chairman. We shall have to inquire of Mr. Knell about that. Then there is the item, “One man to Allis-Clialmers picnic at Wau- kesha, $10.” Do you know anything about that? Mr. Sacket. Absolutely nothing. 472 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Then, here is an item, “One man to picnic of colored church, $5.” Is that the $5 item? Mr. Sacket. That is not the item of $5 that I was calling atten- tion to. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose we ought to find out whether that went into the contribution box. This man might have put in a suspender button instead of the $5. The Chairman. On the 30th of July we find the charge, “Exp. checking poll list of city of Milwaukee, $130.” That was for office expenses, I suppose ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge whatever of that expense. The Chairman. Here is a charge of “One man at Welsh picnic, $5.” That is only half as much as you paid the man to attend the Allis-Chalmers picnic. Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of any of these items, and made none of these payments. Mr. Littlefield. There may be an automobile in the Allis- Chalmers picnic. I know there is an automobile of that name. The Chairman. I do not desire to pick out any items merely for the purpose of levity, but I do want to direct the attention of the witness to the serious side of this question. Under date of August 23 I find “Exp. trip through Ghetto (three men), $35.” What is the Ghetto ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of the Ghetto, or of that item. The Chairman. You do not know to what it refers ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of that item. I did not make the payment. The Chairman. What is the meaning of the item on the 25th, “Touch by two old soldiers,” and the item “Touch by two ‘heelers,’” Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of either of those items. The Chairman. Do you think those are legitimate campaign . Sacket. I am not absolutely certain of what the money was expended for. The Chairman. Did you not realize that you were in a position of responsibility, where you should be certain as to whether expendi- tures were legitimate? The ordinary citizen not interested may be innocent, but the responsible man must not be innocent. I merely make that suggestion in order that your mind may get to work on items of that kind. Mr. Sacket. I had absolutely nothing to do with those items. The Chairman. You paid them? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. The Chairman. When this man presented his account to you, you paid it? Mr. Sacket. I paid it as a whole. The Chairman. You must realize that it was your duty, in paying out a sum of $9,239.16 in an account, to see that the account did not contain any unlawful expenditures. Did you not look it over to see whether it did or not ? Mr. Sacket. I did not examine it by items; no, sir. each $2 ? ex ises ? RODNEY SACKET. 473 The Chairman. You will doubtless concede that such items as that are improper charges — “ touch by two ‘heelers/” and “touch by two old soldiers.” Mr. Littlefield. I wish we had some law that rendered us all immune from touches. The Chairman. I would not ask that question of any other witness except one who was responsible for the expenditure, and who testi- fies he did pay this money. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is true. The Chairman. Here is an item, “Expense to ward and town managers, including conveyances, primary day workers, etc., $5,833.” There is attached to that item a note at the bottom to this effect: “This sum was not expended in one day, but was gradually paid out to the various ward managers as the work progressed.” Do you know anything personally about that? Mr. Sacket. Absolutely nothing. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask Mr. Sacket here this question: Did Mr. Knell have money on deposit against which he checked himself ? Mr. Sacket. That was my understanding of the arrangement; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You paid no part of this? Mr. Sacket. I paid no part of it, except to give Mr. Puelicher a receipt for the whole amount. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Puelicher disbursed it, and in the adjust- ment you gave Mr. Puelicher a receipt ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That was between yourselves as a matter of arranging the account? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And no part of the expenditure was paid by you, as I understand it? Mr. Sacket. Not a cent of it. The Chairman. I asked this witness because of his statement of the official position which he held. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. The law of Wisconsin recognizes the managers of a campaign .as officials under the law, because the law provides for them; it designates them. That is, it provides for a man having managers or representatives, giving them a semiofficial character at least. Mr. Littlefield. What does the chairman mean ? The Chairman. I do not care to argue the matter; but this wit- ness having paid this money in that capacity Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand the chairman as having found something in the Wisconsin law that creates the office of manager? The Chairman. I do not think it is a proper question for counsel to ask whether the chairman has found something in the law. Mr. Littlefield. I wanted it for my own information, in order that I might look it up. The Chairman. The Chair will stand ready to explain at any time. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to have the chairman at his con- venience give me the reference. 474 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Yes; I shall be very glad to do so at my conven- ience. On pages 489 and 490 there are items under the general head ‘‘Postage stamps ,” which aggregate the sum of $9,819, in connection with the Milwaukee campaign. Is that in addition to your postage account ? Mr. Sacket. On what page is that ? The Chairman. It commences on page 489, and runs over onto page 490. Is that in addition to your stamp account ? Mr. Sacket. That is the account that we went through just a little while ago. That is my account. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand the chairman to say that he has found an item of over $9,000 for postage? The Chairman. I did not say that I had found an item. I asked Mr. Sacket if this item for postage stamps on pages 489 and 490 is an item in addition to what he has already testified to. Mr. Sacket. It is pot. It is the same item. The Chairman. That is a sufficient answer. Mr. Sacket, as before stated, the committee will take what steps it may to procure these receipts and vouchers; and when they are procured, if they are, we shall desire to recall you for the purpose of explaining some of them. So you will remain in attendance. Mr. Black. I may say right in that connection, for the information of the committee, that Mr. Essman, the superintendent of public property, reports this morning that he believes he knows where those boxes of exhibits are; that he is the custodian of them, and will pro- duce them on subpoena. The Chairman. I will ask the secretary to make a note of that. Mr. Littlefield. What is Mr. Essman’ s full name ? Mr. Black. Mr. William Essman, of Madison. Senator Sutherland. When were you first spoken to by anybody with reference to your engagement in this work ? Mr. Sacket. On one of the last days of June. I do not remember the exact date. Senator Sutherland. Here in Milwaukee ? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson called me up by telephone at Berlin. Senator Sutherland. That is, you were at Berlin ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. He was at Marinette. Senator Sutherland. And he asked you to come and see him ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Which you did ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Who else was present when you called on him ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher. Senator Sutherland. Anybody else ? Mr. Sacket. Nobody else* that I remember. Senator Sutherland. And you three talked over the matter ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. The suggestion of your employment came from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. At that time, yes. Senator Sutherland. Did you suggest it yourself ? RODNEY SACKET. 475 Mr. Sacket. Long before that time I volunteered my services to Senator Stephenson in case he should become a candidate. Senator Sutherland. In what way ? Mr. Sacket. I simply told him that in case he should be a candidate for reelection it would give me great pleasure to do anything I could to help him. Senator Sutherland. That was simply to volunteer general assist- ance? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Not to become manager, or to take charge of office work ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing specific. It was general. Senator Sutherland. The suggestion to do specific work came from him ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think he was specific. He simply told me to go ahead and do what I could for him, and keep within the law. That is the substance of all he said. Senator Sutherland. When did you first talk over opening the headquarters and your taking charge of the office here ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher and I went into details on the train coming down from Marinette, as I remember it. Senator Sutherland. Did you then determine to open the office ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Did you communicate that fact to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I think I wrote him or called him up as soon as the office was opened. Senator Sutherland. It was understood that you would have charge of the office work ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know that there was any special understand- ing to that effect. I simply took charge — went ahead. Senator Sutherland. You simply went ahead and took charge ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Did you not tell Senator Stephenson that you were doing that ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember telling him specifically what I was doing at any time. Senator Sutherland. Did you ever talk with him in advance about the expenditures that it would be necessary to make ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any such conversation. Senator Sutherland. As I understand, the money that was used in the campaign was not paid over to you by Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. It was not, except $5,000. Senator Sutherland. He gave you $5,000 when? Mr. Sacket. In the latter part of August; I think the 27th. I am not certain about the date, however. Senator Sutherland. What was that to be expended for? Mr. Sacket. I was not to expend that, exactly. As I understood it, I took that check just as a messenger, and carried it down to the bank, and left it with the other funds. Senator Sutherland. It went into the general fund ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. There was no separate fund in your hands ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. 476 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. At no time? Mr. Sacket. At no time. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any agreement with the Senator as to payment for your services ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you receive any payment for your services ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Senator Sutherland. None whatever ? Mr. Sacket. None whatever. Senator Sutherland. What you did was entirely gratuitous? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. How long altogether were you employed ? Mr. Sacket. From about the 1st of July until after October 16. Senator Sutherland. When you first began the office work did you make any estimate in your own mind, and communicate it to others, as to what the total expense of the campaign would be ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember communicating an estimate to others, but I did have an idea in my own mind. Senator Sutherland. At that time, what did you estimate the entire expense would be ? Mr. Sacket. I estimated that to organize thoroughly down to the smallest unit would cost, according to my notion, practically between $150,000 and $200,000. Senator Sutherland. Did you advise the Senator to pay that ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Senator Sutherland. Was the matter of making as detailed an organization as that talked over by you ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I talked to anyone about it, unless possibly to Mr. Edmonds. Senator Sutherland. Then you made up your mind that it would not be necessary or advisable to organize the precincts ? Mr. Sacket. I did; yes. sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you make up your mind how far your organization should extend under all the circumstances? Mr. Sacket. I was not in charge of the State organization generally. If I made up my mind, it was simply something that was in my own mind, in my own thoughts, in respect to the matter. Senator Sutherland. Did you make up your mind about that ? Mr. Sacket. I had some thought as to how far we ought to go; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was that to organize the counties, as you did finally do it ? Mr. Sacket. Not exactly; no, sir. It was to organize larger dis- tricts and counties, and do it in a more systematic manner than we did. Senator Sutherland. What did you estimate would be the expense of such an organization as you deemed advisable ? Mr. Sacket. I thought we could get out of it for $50,000 or $60,000. Senator Sutherland. Did you do more than you anticipated at that time ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Senator Sutherland. Did others ? Mr. Sacket. More was done; yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 477 Senator Sutherland. So that the expense went beyond what you originally expected ? Mr. Sacket. Oh, yes. Senator Sutherland. Did you, when you began, think of the neces- sity of keeping accounts of your expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. I did. Senator Sutherland. Keeping permanent accounts ? I mean for preservation. Mr. Sacket. No; I did not consider that necessary. Senator Sutherland. You knew that the law required that detailed statements of expenditures should be filed ? Mr. Sacket. By the candidate; yes. Senator Sutherland. And that that law required that the items of expenditures should be filed ? Mr. Sacket. As far as they came to his knowledge; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You knew that that meant the particular items of expenditure, and did not mean the grouping of a number of items together under one designation; did you not? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir; and I do not now. Senator Sutherland. What did you understand by the expression in the law that the account should show each item exceeding $5 ? Mr. Sacket. Disbursed by the candidate or for him, to the best of his knowledge, as reported to him. The law, as I understand it, does not require anyone but the candidate to make this report. Senator Sutherland. I want to call your attention specifically to the language of the statute. The law provides that the candidate shall make the statement in writing — Setting forth in detail each item in excess of $5 in money or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him, and, to the best of his knowledge and belief, by any other person or persons for him or in his behalf, wholly or in part, in endeavoring to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination or election to such office or place or in connection with the election of any other person at said election, the dates when, and the persons to whom, and the purpose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or promised, and the total aggregate sum paid, expended, or promised by such candidate in any sum or sums whatever. Did you not understand that the law contemplated that the can- didate should in his statement make an exhibit of every item ex- ceeding $5, together with the name of the person to whom it was dis- bursed, and the purpose for which it was disbursed ? Mr. Littlefield. And the date when it was disbursed. Senator Sutherland. And the date when it was disbursed? Mr. Sacket. That the candidate should make the statement was my understanding. Senator Sutherland. That it was his duty under the statute to do that? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. To the best of his knowledge and informa- tion ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And you knew that in order to do that he would be obliged to rely upon the statements of his disbursing agents; did you not ? Mr. Sacket. Not necessarily; no, sir. 478 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. How else could he get the information $ Mr. Sacket. The statement that was filed, in my opinion, complied with the law in the matter exactly. Senator Sutherland. I have not asked you that. How did you expect Senator Stephenson to get whatever information it was neces- sary for him to have? From his disbursing agents? Mr. Sacket. From his own books of the sums expended and dis- bursed by him. Senator Sutherland. Do you understand that if Senator Stephen- son had handed over $107,000 to you, and said, “Expend this in my behalf,” it would have been sufficient for him to have merely made the statement that he had furnished $107,000 to be expended in his behalf ? Mr. Sacket. I think he would have complied with the law if he had done so. Senator Sutherland. You think that would have been enough? Mr. Sacket. Provided that I had not furnished him with any items. Senator Sutherland. Then what do you make of this provision of the law that the candidate was to state, to the best of his knowl- edge and belief, the disbursements made by any other person or per- sons for him or in his behalf? Is it not perfectly clear to you that that does not mean that he was to simply state the amount that he furnished to any particular person, but that he was to make a state- ment of the amounts expended by that person, and the items? Mr. Sacket. As reported to him. If it was not reported to him, he was not responsible. Senator Sutherland. Then he had to rely upon that person ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And the law contemplates that some effort shall be made to secure information as to those various details, does it not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know how far the law contemplates going in that matter. I know that it simply says “the candidate. ” ft might be reasonable to presume that it meant the next man to him; but where would you stop ? I do not think I would construe that law as meaning anything but just what it says — the candidate, and so far as he knows. Senator Sutherland. Let us illustrate it. You have an item here of “Sundries, $250.” That aggregate sum is evidently made up of a number of items. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Some of them exceeding $5. Is not that true ? Mr. Sacket. Not necessarily. They might all be smaller than $5. Senator Sutherland. As a matter of fact, there are in these aggre- gate sums many items exceeding $5, are there not ? Mr. Sacket. I should think there were some items; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you take any pains to preserve a mem- orandum of those items which exceeded $5 ? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did the necessity of keeping a book of accounts occur to you at all ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 479 Senator Sutherland. You simply kept a memorandum of these expenditures upon slips of paper, which you afterwards transferred to your cards ? That was the way it was done ? Mr. Sacket. I kept them on cards and slips of paper in the card- index box. I afterwards transferred it to typewriting on a sheet of paper. Senator Sutherland. And then destroyed it and the sheet of paper ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And destroyed your cards ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And the original memorandum and the slips as well, if you had any slips ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. When you made these entries upon the slips of paper and upon the cards, did you know the facts ? Mr. Sacket. I might have known the facts, but do not know that I knew all in every case. Senator Sutherland. In the case of each entry which you made, did you at the time you made it know that it was an expenditure, and that you had to set it down correctly on the cards ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; I knew practically all about it at the time I set it down. Senator Sutherland. And you did set it down on all these cards ? Mr. Sacket. I set it down as it appears in my statement now. Senator Sutherland. I say, you did set down the item of expendi- ture, as to the person to whom it was paid and the amount, in accord- ance with the facts ? Mr. Sacket. The amount was always in accordance with the facts, but not always as to the person to whom paid. Senator Sutherland. What do you mean by that ? Mr. Sacket. I did not make an entry showing the person to whom the amount was paid in all cases. Senator Sutherland. When you did state the name of the person, was it stated truly ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. As far as you did state the facts upon your memoranda, the statement was true ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And you knew it to be true at the time ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Although the circumstances have since escaped your recollection ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Then, are you able to say that this statement of account which Senator Heyburn has been going over is a truthful statement of expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. Assuming the copy is a true copy of the statement that I filed, it is correct as to the figures. Senator Sutherland. The statement you filed was a true state- ment ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. 480 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. In these items of expenditure which you have set down, what sort of items were included under the designation “General” ? Mr. Sacket. The item was to be expended, to the best of my recol- lection, for organizing, campaigning, and work of that kind through- out the State, or a territory larger than one county. I should have put the county down if it had been just in one county, but “general” meant more than one county. Senator Sutherland. Was it an expenditure for hiring teams, or something else ? • Mr. Sacket. It would include the hiring of teams and all of the component parts of the work of organizing. Senator Sutherland. Can you not give me a little more in detail what that means ? Mr. Sacket. That is, distributing campaign literature, buttons, hanging up lithographs, the traveling expenses of the local manager in going from place to place, the hiring of livery teams and of automo- biles, the hiring ©f halls and bands, the distributing of nomination papers, and all of the little things that go to make up a campaign. Senator Sutherland. Let me ask you whether or not, in keeping this account as you did and putting the expenditure of so many sums of money under the general head of “Sundries” and “General expen- ditures,” it was any part of your purpose that Senator Stephenson should not be able to know what the various items of expenditure were ? Mr. Sacket. It was not. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any purpose in keeping your account in that way ? Mr. Sacket. I omitted the name of the person to whom the money was given in some instances because I felt that he did not want his name to be known. Senator Sutherland. Why ? Mr. Sacket. Simply because the man did not want it to be known. Senator Sutherland. But why did the man not want it to be known ? What was the point of that ? Mr. Sacket. I presume he did not want it to be known because the newspapers might say things about him — that is, the newspapers that opposed Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean that he did not want it to be known because he felt he was doing anything that was improper or wrong ? Mr. Sacket. Not that he was doing anything wrong or that he was ashamed of, but that he did not want to get into public notice. He did not want to be talked about in the newspapers. He did not want to be accused by the opposing newspapers of doing wrong. Senator Sutherland. Do you call to mind any of these persons now ? Mr. Littlefield. I do not understand that he states they so stated to him, but this is his reasoning. Mr. Sacket. I can recall persons who asked that their names be not used. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I did not understand. Senator Sutherland. To whom money was paid? Mr. Sacket. Yes. RODNEY SACKET. 481 Senator Sutherland. What reason did they give ? Mr. Sacket. “I do not wank to appear in the matter.” Senator Sutherland. “I do not want my name connected with it?” Mr. Sacket. “I do not want to be published in connection with this.” Senator Sutherland. Have those names since been added to the account ? Mr. Sacket. Where I was able, after the joint committee de- manded them, I furnished them in every case; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you recall anybody who made that request, whose name has not been added to it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. That would not apply to the item of “ Sun- dries”? The persons from whom you made purchases of cigars or meals or liquors would not make any such request as that. Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That would apply to items under the head of “ General expenses”? Mr. Sacket. Under the head “ General expenses” they made such a request. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any purpose other than you state in lumping these various items under the head of “ Sundries”? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. You can give no other reason than you have already given for doing it in that way ? Mr. Sacket. The “ sundry” items were simply for my own con- venience. They related to comparatively small expenditures. I think $250 is the largest item of “Sundries” that appears. I simply bunched those in order to save bookkeeping. On my card I figured “sundries,” “sundries,” “sundries,” and I simply added them up and put them in a bunch for convenience. In the “general” items I left out the names, when I did so, purposely and because of the fact that I thought the men did not want their names to appear. Senator Sutherland. You have said that a portion of the money which is represented in this account was expended for liquors ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. In what way was that expenditure made ? Did you purchase liquor in bulk to give to people, or did you treat them, or how was it expended ? Mr. Sacket. The expenditures for liquors and cigars that I know of I made myself in several instances. I do not remember particu- larly. I would take men who were our friends, from out around the State, to meals. I bought them, possibly, a cocktail before their dinner and some beer with the dinner, or some wine and some cigars after dinner. Senator Sutherland. Men with whom you were doing business in your office ? Mr. Sacket. Men with whom I was doing business in the office; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You would take them out and buy them drinks ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 15235 °— vol 1—11 31 482 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. How large an amount did you spend in that way ? Mr. Sacket. I kept no particular track of it, but it certainly was not very large, because I was very busy and had very little time, and was in the office most of the time. I did not have time to do those things much. Senator Sutherland. Do you go into any of the saloons and call up people generally to drink with you ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. To spend money with you? Mr. Sacket. In no instance; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you authorize anybody else to do that ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. On the contrary, did you not instruct them not to do it ? Mr. Sacket. I did. Senator Sutherland. Whom did you so instruct ? Mr. Sacket. Practically all of the men who were working on a salary. Senator Sutherland. What did you say to them ? Mr. Sacket. I said, “Ido not want you to conduct a saloon campaign. I do not want you to go into barrooms and say, ‘Come on, every- body, and have a drink.’ I do not mean that you can not go in and buy a drink for yourself if you want to; but do not run a saloon campaign.” Senator Sutherland. Can you give me any approximate estimate of the aggregate sum that was spent for liquors and cigars during the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. It would have to be a guess. I never made any computation as to that item. If you would like my opinion— — Senator Sutherland. I should like to have you give your estimate. Mr. Sacket. I do not think $500 was spent for liquor and cigars in the whole campaign. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean $500 that you know about ? Mr. Sacket. There was nothing like that sum that I know about. Senator Sutherland. How much do you know about ? Put it at the outside figures. Mr. Sacket. I only know of my own expenditures, and I do not think they would amount to $20. Senator Sutherland. Not more than $20? Mr. Sacket. They would not amount to $20; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. That would leave $480 outside. Do you mean $500 would be the outside sum ? Mr. Sacket. Clear outside; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You think under no circumstances could it have exceeded $500 ? Mr. Sacket. I am simply guessing. Senator Sutherland. I understand. Mr. Sacket. My opinion is that it is rather less than over $500. Senator Sutherland. Have you any basis for that opinion ? Mr. Sacket. The examination of the accounts that these men sent to me, the itemized expense accounts. My recollection of that is that I looked for items that would indicate a thing of that kind, because I did not want men traveling around the State for me who were in RODNEY SACKET. 483 the habit of spending their time and money in barrooms. I examined the expense accounts with a special idea of that kind, and I only found one man whose account indicated anything of that kind. Senator Sutherland. Then your estimate of $500 is an estimate, and not a mere guess ? Mr. Sacket. It is an estimate; yes. Mr. Littlefield. Will you allow me, please, to ask him to state what he did in connection with this one man ? Senator Sutherland. Very well. Mr. Littlefield. Who was this man, and what were the circum- stances ? Mr. Sacket. There was only one man. Do you insist on my using his name ? I would rather not, if it makes no difference. Mr. Littlefield. State what you told him. I do not care whether you use his name or not. Mr. Sacket. The man was sent to a distant part of the State to do organizing work for Senator Stephenson. He was given $50, if I remember correctly, with which to pay his railroad fare and expenses. His railroad fare to this point in the State would amount, I think, io less than $10. Within 12 hours or 24 hours of the time he left here he telegraphed for $25 more. I sent him his railroad fare to come home, with instructions to come right back. I paid him off and discharged him. Senator Sutherland. Did you ascertain how he had been spending the $50 ? Mr. Sacket. I was reasonably certain at that time that he had spent it in drinking. Senator Sutherland. What made you reasonably certain ? Mr. Sacket. The man himself had been drinking when he talked to me and he seemed like that sort of a man, and he offered no reason- able excuse for spending $50 in 24 hours. Senator Sutherland. You say “when he talked with you.” Do you mean after he came back ? Mr. Sacket. I made the arrangements with him one day. He came in for his expense money at a subsequent time and when he came in for his expense money I did not have time to bother with him very much, but his appearance was against him at that time, when I gave him the money. I should not have done it, but I got rid of him. I had to. I was busy. Senator Sutherland. And you discharged him ? Mr. Sacket. I discharged him when he came back. Senator Sutherland. Did you know of instances of that kind in connection with anybody else ? Mr. Sacket. I only have that one instance in mind now. Senator Sutherland. The investigating committee of the Wiscon- sin Legislature, in a report that I have already called Mr. Edmonds’s attention to, report that, in their opinion (that is, taking the testimony which was before them), $30,000 was misappropriated and spent for treating to beer, liquors, and cigars in saloons and elsewhere. Mr. Littlefield. I beg pardon. The report said “misappropri- ated” and spent for those things. Senator Sutherland. That is what I said. You knew the per- sonnel of that committee, did you ? Mr. Sacket. I did; yes, sir. 484 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. And do you agree with Mr. Edmonds that they were not unfriendly to Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. It is my opinion that the assembly members of that committee were not unfriendly to him. Senator Sutherland. This report seems to have been made by the assembly members. Mr. Sacket. I so understand it. Senator Sutherland. And not concurred in by the senate members. Mr. Sacket. I so understand it. Senator Sutherland. Then would you say that the members of the committee reporting were not unfriendly to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I would; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Has your attention ever been called to that statement before ? Mr. Sacket. I heard it read here. Senator Sutherland. Prior to the time I called Mr. Edmonds’s attention to it ? Mr. Sacket. I do not recollect ever having heard of it before. Senator Sutherland. You never heard of that statement before ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Can you account for such a statement ? Mr. Sacket. Of course, I do not know why they made it, or what was in their minds; but I should take this language “ misappropri- ated and spent for liquors and cigars” and ask them to divide the statement and say how much was misappropriated and how much of the $30,000 was spent for liquors and cigars. Senator Sutherland. Have you any way of accounting for the statement that such a sum of money, $30,000, found its way in one way or another into an investment in liquors and cigars ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think that statement is correct. Senator Pomerene. Or any other misappropriation? Senator Sutherland. Or any other misappropriation ? Mr. Sacket. I would not want to say that the misappropriation of money was small, but I do not think the money expended for liquors and cigars amounted to anything like $30,000 or $1,000. Senator Sutherland. You understand the language to mean that the $30,000 is to be divided into two classes, first, a portion of it misappropriated Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Not spent for liquors and cigars, and another portion spent for beer, liquors, and cigars ? Mr. Sacket. That is the only solution that I can see of the state- ment made there. Senator Sutherland. I have read it as though it meant that $30,000 was misappropriated, and that that whole sum of $30,000, being misappropriated, was spent for cigars, liquors, and beer. Mr. Sacket. I should not understand it that way. Senator Sutherland. At any rate, you never heard of any such expenditure as that for that purpose ? Mr. Sacket. I do not at this time believe there was any such expenditure. Senator Sutherland. Did you get any word from any source dur- ing the progress of the campaign that any of your agents were spending money for liquors and cigars ? RODNEY SACKET. 485 Mr. Sacket. I had reports from time to time, oral or written (I have forgotten which) , which indicated that they did in some instances buy liquor and cigars in the way of treating. Senator Sutherland. Were those reports in the nature of com- plaints ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The men themselves told me that they had expended part of the money for that. Senator Sutherland. Did you get anything in the way of com- plaints of that nature from any of these counties ? Mr. Sacket. I remember nothing of that kind. Senator Sutherland. Did you hear anything in the way of rumors that they were spending money extravagantly for that ? Mr. Sacket. I heard nothing of that kind. Senator Sutherland. Or any suggestions of anything of that kind during the progress of the campaign — that anything of that sort was going on? Mr. Sacket. None. Senator Sutherland. Now, I want to ask you about another subject for a moment. You say $250 was paid to Mr. Bancroft, who was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. But, as I understand you, you did not talk with Mr. Bancroft yourself about it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. When did you first know of the payment to him ? Mr. Sacket. I think it was the day following the date on which the payment was made. Senator Sutherland. Did you make the payment ? Mr. Sacket. I did not ; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. How did you come to know about it? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher told me that he had made the pay- ment, and I gave him a receipt for it. Senator Sutherland. Did you learn by whose authority the pay- ment was made? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. By whose authority ? Mr. Sacket. I asked Mr. Puelicher to talk with Mr Bancroft and make arrangements with him. Senator Sutherland. You asked him? Mr. Sacket. I asked Mr. Puelicher to do so; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. So that the arrangement was made by your authority? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. When you came to make the arrangement, did you know that Mr. Bancroft was a candidate for the legislature ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did it occur to you that there was any impropriety in making an arrangement of that sort with a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Sacket. I talked that matter over with Mr. Puelicher, and it was our opinion that so long as we gave Mr. Bancroft no money, nothing for himself or to aid in his own campaign, there was nothing unlawful or improper about it. 486 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. Do you see how it would be possible for Mr. Bancroft to expend $250 for the benefit of Mr. Stephenson without at the same time deriving some benefit from it himself? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. When he was a candidate at the same primary ? Mr. Sacket. I can see how it would be possible for him to expend that money without deriving any benefit from it himself, and I can see how it would be possible to spend that money to his own detriment. Senator Sutherland. I wish you would explain just how that could be done. Mr. Sacket. There were several candidates for United States Senator on the Republican ticket. Mr. Bancroft was a candidate for the nomination as a member of the assembly. His openly taking the side of Senator Stephenson might result in the friends of the other three candidates opposing Mr. Bancroft. He could not spend this $250 in Mr. Stephenson’s interest without people knowing it, and knowing that he was for Mr. Stephenson. That would cost him the support of the supporters of the other candidates. Senator Sutherland. On the other hand, to the extent that the use of this $250 induced electors to support Senator Stephenson, would it not to that same extent induce the same electors to support Mr. Bancroft? Mr. Sacket. If Mr. Bancroft employed persons to do work jointly for him and Mr. Stephenson it would, but it was understood with him, according to Mr. Puelicher, that he was not to do that. Senator Sutherland. But the voter would understand that in order for Mr. Stephenson to be elected it might be quite important that the member of the legislature nominated should be friendly to Mr. Stephenson, would he not ? Mr. Sacket. It might have that effect. Senator Sutherland. Then, if the voter was desirous of advancing the political fortunes of Mr. Stephenson, would it not be quite natural for him not only to vote for Mr. Stephenson as the nominee for United States Senator, but also to vote for the candidate for the legislature who was friendly to him ? Mr. Sacket. I think it would be perfectly natural for the voter to be friendly to both men in a case of that kind. I do not think the money paid him for Mr. Stephenson would influence him for Ban- croft. In working for Mr. Stephenson he would probably be in favor of Mr. Bancroft, too, in any case, whether he got any money or not. Senator Sutherland. In other words, to give you a concrete illustration — though I do not mean to suggest that it is anything that has occurred in this case — suppose Mr. Bancroft had used the money to purchase votes outright for Mr. Stephenson; it would have been quite natural that that same vote should have gone for him, would it not ? Mr. Littlefield. If that was a part of the understanding. Mr. Sacket. I do not think that would follow; no, sir. (At 12 o’clock and 32 minutes p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) RODNEY SACKET. 487 AFTER RECESS. The recess having expired, the subcommittee reassembled. The names of George W. Dart, L. W. Thayer, and Le Roy E. McGill were called by the secretary. Mr. Thayer responded, and was duly sworn by the chairman. Mr. Littlefield. If it is agreeable to the committee, I think Mr. Thayer desires to be excused until Monday. Am I right about that, Mr. Thayer? Mr. Thayer. I live so close to Milwaukee that I presume I might be called when the subcommittee desires my presence. The Chairman. The witness may be excused until Monday. DEATH OF JUDGE QUARLES. The Chairman The members of the subcommittee have just learned with deep regret of the death of Judge Quarles, the United States district j u dge who presided over the court sitting in this building. The members of the subcommittee served with the deceased when he was a member of the United States Senate and entertained for him a very high regard as a man and as a public officer. They feel that it is due, as a tribute to the high esteem in which Judge Quarles was held during his life- time, and as an evidence of respect to his memory and consideration to those he leaves behind him, that the subcommittee adjourn. Mr. Littlefield. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the honor of being a member of the lower House during quite a portion of Judge Quarles's service in the Senate; and I desire to concur most heartily with the suggestions made bv the chairman with reference to Judge Quarles and his character and position. The Chairman. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until Monday at 10 o'clock. (At 2 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, October 9, 1911, at 10 o'clock a. m. MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee, Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Hey bum (chairman), Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The names of George W. Dart, Thomas Reynolds, and Edward McMahon were called. Thomas Reynolds responded to his name, and the oath was ad- ministered to him by the chairman. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Resumed. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Sacket, at the time of the adjournment on Saturday I was asking you about this payment of money to Mr. Bancroft. Did you have a talk with Senator Stephenson about that expenditure ? Mr. Sacket. I did not: no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you inform him that it was being made ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. 488 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. Did he say anything to you about it at all? Mr. Sacket. Not to my recollection, at all. Senator Sutherland. Do you know whether he knew of it ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge that he knew of it. Senator Sutherland. Do you know whether any money was paid into the hands of any other candidate for the legislature? Mr. Sacket. Yes; Mr. C. E. Wellensgard. Senator Sutherland. Where did he live ? Mr. Sacket. In Berlin. Senator Sutherland. How much money was furnished him? Mr. Sacket. If I remember correctly, $258. Mr. Littlefield. I have the exact amount here. It was $250.80. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Sacket: Mr. Wellensgard lived in your home town ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. How did that arrangement happen to be made with him ? Mr. Sacket. I asked Mr Wellensgard over the telephone to come up into Senator Stephenson’s headquarters and see me the next time he was in Milwaukee. He came up, and I asked him if he would look after Senator Stephenson’s interests in Green Lake County, and he agreed to do it. The substance of the conversation was that he was to look after Senator Stephenson’s interests and keep track of the money he expended in Senator Stephenson’s interest. He was not to charge any money that he expended for his own campaign, and he was to render me a statement of it after it was over with, which he did, and which amount I paid. Senator Sutherland. You say it was stated that he was not to use any money in his own campaign ? Mr. Sacket. That is, none of the money that I was to furnish him. Senator Sutherland. He was a candidate at the same primary? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And to be voted for at the same time ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did he render you an itemized statement? Mr. Sacket. He did. Senator Sutherland. Is that on file here ? Mr. Sacket. It is. Mr. Littlefield. On file where? Mr. Sacket. In the record of the proceedings before the joint com- mittee. That is, there is a copy of it. Senator Sutherland. In a general way, what was the nature of his expenses ? Mr. Sacket. Hiring teams, distributing posters and literature, the employment of workers at the polls, and expenses for traveling around the county in Senator Stephenson’s interest in some cases, I think. Mr. Black. That statement will be found on page 911 of the pro- ceedings before the joint committee. Senator Sutherland. Traveling about the county in the interest of Senator Stephenson would give him a very good opportunity to travel about the county in his own interest, would it not ? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection, he filed a sworn state- ment of his own expenditures, according to law; and when he traveled in his own interest he paid his own expenses. RODNEY SACKET. 489 Senator Sutherland. Did it occur to you that it would be difficult to separate the two ? By traveling about the county “in the interest of Senator Stephenson/ 7 I suppose you mean advocating his nomina- tion at the primary ? Mr. Sacket. I do not understand that Mr. Wellensgard did any electioneering, as I would call it, for Senator Stephenson. He simply employed people to look after Senator Stephenson 7 s interests at the polls, to circulate his nomination papers, to hang lithographs, and to distribute literature generally. Mr. Littlefield. Is there any objection to having inserted in the record here this exhibit which has been referred to in the joint com- mittee’s investigation, while you are examining upon it? Senator Sutherland. I think not. Mr. Littlefield. Then the reporter may insert at the present place Exhibit 62, beginning on page 911 and covering page 912 of the proceedings before the joint committee. That will put the subject matter right together. Senator Sutherland. There is no objection to that. (The exhibit referred to is as follows:) Exhibit 62. Berlin, Wis., September 3, 1908. Mr. Rodney Sacket, Milwaukee , Wis. Dear Friend: Inclosed please find my bill against Stephenson. I wish you would please see that they get it. I haven’t put in anything for cigars or what little I spent. Please let me hear from you. I beat Hitchcock by 347 majority. Yours, truly, C. C. Wellensgard. [Exhibit 62 received in evidence and is in words and figures following, to wit:] Berlin, Wis., September 3 , 1908. Stephenson Campaign Committee, Milwaukee , Wis. 1908. July 5. Livery to Princeton $3. 00 6. Livery to Markesan 3. 00 Aug. 20. Livery at Markesan 2. 00 21. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 22. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 23. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 23. Livery at Berlin 2. 50 24. Livery to different parts of county 2. 50 28. Paid out to help G. Burlingame and 4 men 30. 00 28. Paid to C. Rosebrook, town of St. Marie, and 4 men 25. 00 28. Paid Bill Anglem, town of Green Lake 5. 00 28. Paid W. Burdick, town of Green Lake 5. 00 28. Paid C. Schrader and men at Markesan 30. 00 28. Paid W. Malena, town of Seneca 5. 00 Sept. 3. Paid M. Resop, city of Berlin 3. 00 3. Paid P. Kresal, city of Berlin 1. 00 3. Paid Aug. Waslinski, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Steve Greager, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Neighbor, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Weir, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Briskie, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid F. Bartow, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Joe Gosh, city of Berlin 5. 00 2. Telephone bill 2. SO 2. Paid Mr. Rossa, city of Berlin 4. 00 2. Paid C. Kisnaska, city of Berlin 5. 00 2. Paid Jack Grotta 5. 00 490 RODNEY SACKET. 1908. Sept. 2. Paid H. Wilde, town of Manchester $5. 00 2. Paid E. A. Umbreight, town of Manchester 5. 00 2. Paid E. Vaughn, Kingston, and men ... 25. 00 2. Paid William Crook, Ripon 5. 00 2. Paid Nels Sorrenson, Mackford 5. 00 2. Paid Herman Ebbentroff, Mackford 5. 00 2. For automobile election day 15. 00 2. Paid Wilson for help on machine 2. 50 2. Paid postage 4. 00 Total 250.80 (Indorsed:) Paid, October 5, 1908. C. C. Wellensgard. Senator Sutherland. With whom did you talk over the matter ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember having talked of it with anyone. Senator Sutherland. What you did you did entirely of your own motion ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Had Mr. Wellensgard announced his can- didacy at that time ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know whether he had announced it formally or not. I understood he was to be a candidate. Senator Sutherland. And he was a candidate ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What other candidate for the legislature did you employ in the same way? Mr. Sacket. There was no other candidate that I made the arrange- ment with, or ratified the arrangement with. Senator Sutherland. Was there any other candidate to whom money was paid that you know of ? Mr. Sacket. I think a Mr. Shauers was employed by Mr. Edmonds. Senator Sutherland. That has been gone over. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Anybody else ? Mr. Sacket. There was no money paid to anyone else out of our office that I know of. Senator Sutherland. That is, to anyone else who was a candidate for the legislature ? Mr. Sacket. Oh, I beg your pardon. There is one instance — a man named Kempf. I think he was a candidate for the legislature. He sent in a bill for posting bills for Senator Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Posting bills ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. It was a regular business bill, and had nothing else to do with the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Was he a bill-poster? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. There is no other candidate for the legisla- ture whom you now recall who received money in any way whatever ? Mr. Sacket. None that I recall; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Were any accounts that do not appear in the books rendered to you by these different employees ? Mr. Sacket. I have looked through the books very carefully, and I fail to find the expense accounts of the following — may I use this memorandum ? Senator Sutherland. Certainly. RODNEY SACKET. 491 Mr. Sacket. Mr. McMahon, Mr. Larson, Mr. Remold, and Mr. Rowe. Senator Sutherland. Have you the amounts of their bills ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Would you like them to go in as he states them ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I think I can give them to you. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Sacket, you mean by what you have said that these men whose names you are now about to give us ren- dered itemized statements of expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; at least in part. Mr. Littlefield. The McMahon account was for $500. I have here an alphabetical list of all the men who were employed as subman- agers or representatives. It is not yet quite complete. Senator Sutherland. Perhaps that had better go in the record. Mr. Littlefield. I would rather not have this particular one go in now, because later on I will have it a little more complete. Senator Sutherland. You gave the name of Mr. McMahon ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And the next is Mr. Larson ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Larson. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Larson’s account aggregates $524.80. What was the next? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Reinold. Senator Sutherland. $161.05. The next? Mr. Sacket. And Mr. Rowe. Mr. Littlefield. Over $400. Senator Sutherland. $499.34. What is the next ? Mr. Sacket. Keyes. Senator Sutherland. That is not totaled right. Mr. Littlefield. That is nearly $300. Senator Sutherland. That is J. R. Keyes? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is $276.20. What is the next? Mr. Sacket. Ames. Senator Sutherland. A. R. Ames? Mr. Sacket. A. R. Ames; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Give those full names, if you have them. Mr. Sacket. I have not them here. We only have one Keyes and only one Ames. The Chairman. We have the names and dates. Senator Sutherland. A. R. Ames, $450. What is the next? Mr. Sacket. J. T. Sexton. Senator Sutherland. Is it J. P. Sexton? Mr. Sacket. J. T. Sexton, according to my recollection of it. I only have “Sexton” here. Mr. Littlefield. I have it as “T. J. Sexton.” Senator Sutherland. We have “T. J.” here. Mr. Sacket. That is right; T. J Sexton. * Senator Sutherland. T. J. Sexton, $523.98. What is the next? Mr. Sacket. L. H. Stevens Senator Sutherland. L. H. Stevens you say ? 492 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of the initials. I fust have “ Stevens” here. Senator Sutherland. That seems to he $728.92. The next? Mr. Sacket. That is all, except those which appear as exhibits in the testimony before the joint committee. Senator Sutherland. The names that you have given me are those of men who rendered itemized accounts, but which accounts do not appear here in the record of the legislative investigating com- mittee ? Mr. Sacket. I would not want to say positively that they did not appear. I looked for them, and could not find them. Senator Pomerene. Are these footings which you are giving us here your own ? Senator Sutherland. No; I gave them. Mr. Littlefield. No; the footings were given by the Senator. Senator Sutherland. They are shown by the record. Senator Pomerene. Yes; I understand. Senator Sutherland. What became of these accounts ? Mr. Sacket. My best recollection is that they were among the papers left with the joint committee at Madison. Senator Sutherland. And they should be among those papers now ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. In addition to the accounts, what other papers bearing upon this matter did you leave with the joint com- mittee ? Mr. Sacket. Bills and accounts and receipts are all that I remember. Senator Sutherland. Bills and accounts and receipts ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you any way of telling us which of these payments were made without itemized statements ? Mr. Sacket. I would not be able to identify the payments to these men. Mr. Littlefield Does the Senator mean which of the individual payments to these various men were made in that way ? Senator Sutherland. Yes; which of the payments to your employees and workers out in the field were made without having itemized statements from them ? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean the general lot, or this special lot ? Senator Sutherland. All of them. Mr. Sacket. All of them? I should say that the exhibits that appear in the testimony, and this list of names that I have given, are all that I have a distinct recollection of as having filed expense accounts. Senator Sutherland. Then are we to understand that all other payments were made without itemized statements ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say th.at. I have a distinet recollection that these were. There may have been a great many others that 1 do not remember. Senator Sutherland. You have no recollection of any others? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is as much as you are able to say about them now ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 493 Senator Sutherland. Have you any idea how much money you paid out without itemized statements ? Mr. Sacket. I have made no figures as to that. Senator Sutherland. Will it be possible for you to do that by running over your accounts ? Mr. Sacket. I think I could do it; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Please give us approximately the amount of money which was paid out by you during this campaign without having itemized statements. Do you understand what I want ? Mr. Littlefield. From the parties that received the money ? Senator Sutherland. Yes; from the parties that received the money. Mr. Sacket. I think I can do that, but it would take some time — perhaps two or three hours. Senator Sutherland. You can come on at a later time and present the information. Mr. Sacket. Let me see if I understand what you want. You would like to have me give the amounts of money paid, the items paid people, regardless of whether I authorized the payment, or paid them on Mr. Edmonds’s order — the whole account ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. What I want you to do, Mr. Sacket, is to divide this expenditure of $107,000 into two classes: First, the amount that was paid out upon itemized statements showing what the expenditures were made for; second, the amount that was paid out without having any such statements. Mr. Sacket. You see, the persons with whom I made arrangements Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment. I think the scope of the Sena- tor’s question is broader than you had in your mind. You have been testifying about disbursements to the managers. The Senator, as I understand it, would like to have a stetement covering the whole $98,000. Senator Sutherland. Covering the entire sum. Mr. Littlefield. The entire $98,000. That is what Exhibit 49 of the joint committee investigation takes care of. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You would like to have him give you a state- ment showing how much of all of that sum was paid out and predi- cated upon itemized statements rendered? The balance, of course, would be what was paid out without itemized statements. Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Do you understand, Mr. Sacket? That would apply to the whole $98,000; not your managers alone, but every- thing else. Am I right, Senator? Senator Sutherland. Yes; that is right; but I will add to that that I wish you would separate the one item which I think you call for “ organization work.” In the summary of your account there is an item, li General expenses in organizing State, $46,052.29.” When you come to give us the figures that I have asked for, please separate that particular class, so as to be able to state to us how much of that forty-six-odd thousand dollars was paid out upon item- ized statements and how much of it was paid out without any such statements. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. 494 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. You would like to have him go right down through the summary in the same way, as I understand ? Senator Sutherland. Yes; I should like to have him take the various items and give us the information in that way. Mr. Sacket. I should like to offer this explanation of my ability to do that: I can probably remember every case in which I made arrangements. Mr. Edmonds may have made arrangements in a great many cases and received itemized statements that I would know nothing of. Senator Sutherland. You can give us the approximate data. Mr. Littlefield. You can exhaust your recollection, and Mr. Edmonds will be here later and the committee can take up that matter further with him. Senator Sutherland. That is all I wish to ask. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Sacket, what was your business prior to your assuming the duties of your present position? Mr. Sacket. I was in the hardware business. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever study law? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You have been actively engaged politically for a good many years here in Wisconsin, have you ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. For how long a time have you been? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I ever took any personal active part in any campaign except the Stephenson campaign which is now being investigated. Senator Pomerene. Just the one? You were familiar with politi- cal conditions here in the State, were you not ? Mr. Sacket. I had watched them with interest for years. Senator Pomerene. And you knew that for a good many years there was a good deal of complaint about the amount of money that was expended in the various campaigns ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I noticed any particular complaint. Senator Pomerene. You remember when this statute was passed requiring the filing of expense accounts, do you ? Mr. Sacket. I remember having read the statute. I think it was passed in 1905. Senator Pomerene. Prior to that time there was a good deal of complaint in this State, was there not, about the amount of money that was expended in a number of the campaigns ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I ever noticed any particular com- plaint. Senator Pomerene. You understood, of course, as you have testi- fied, that each candidate was required to file a special account showing the persons to whom money was paid, the amount paid, and the purpose for which it was paid ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You were acting in this matter as the agent of Senator Stephenson, were you not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You knew that the law required him to file this account ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 495 Senator Pomerene. And good faith on your part toward him required that you should keep this account in such shape as to enable him to comply with that statute, did it not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you do it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How do you expect him to file an account complying with that statute when a number of your items show simply that a given amount was paid out tor organizing ? Mr. Sacket. The statute, as I understand it, required him to file an account of the money expended by him, and the money expended by others that he had knowledge of. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to say that good faith on his part toward the people of Wisconsin would be met by such a condition as you speak of ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you not understand that when a man does a thing through his agent he is practically doing it himself? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And did you not understand that when he said to you that you should keep within the law, that must have meant that you should keep such accounts as would enable him to comply with the law ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why did you not do it ? Mr. Sacket. 1 think J did. Senator Pomerene. You have referred here to a number oi items in which you have simply given the purpose as being “organizing,” without stating to whom, the amounts were paid. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How could he comply with the law under a statement of account like that ? Mr. Sacket. By filing a statement of the items that he expended, and, to the best of his knowledge, that were expended for him. Senator Pomerene. Why, he expended all of these items, in fact Mr. Sacket. Does the Senator want me to give my construction of the law ? Senator Pomerene. I am asking you whether i, is not a fact. He furnished this money, did he not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. It was his money ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And it was expended by you as his agent ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Then why did not you, in keeping your account, give the names of the persons to whom this money was given, and the purposes for which it was given ? Mr. Sacket. Because my understanding of the law was that it did not require me to give them. Senator Pomerene. Then why did you do it in a number of instances ? Mr. Sacket. Because it was convenient to do it, and I had time. Senator Pomerene. So that you simply consulted your con- venience ? 496 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. In a great many cases; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by saying that you did this when you “had time” ? Mr. Sacket. I mean that I was very busy, and that I made the account, my original account that I kept, as full as I felt I had time to make it. Senator Pomerene. Why, Mr. Sacket, you had 42 girls here to send out literature and letters. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Could you no, have gotten another girl to have assisted you in keeping proper accounts ? Mr. Sacket. I preferred to keep them myself. Senator Pomerene. Then why did you not take the time to keep them properly ? Mr. Sacket. I did not have the time. I had other things to do. Senator Pomerene. Let me see if I understand your rule of con- duct in this matter. It is your judgment that the statute would only hold Senator Stephenson responsible, in the filing of his account, for such knowledge as he had ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And that he would not be held responsible for such acts as you did, though you were acting as his agent ? Mr. Sacket. In the keeping of the account — no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you think that was exercising proper faith with the people of the State of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you think this law was made to be evaded in that kind of a way ? Mr. Sacket. I did not think it was evaded. Senator Pomerene. Suppose a man by the name of John Jones, who had no direct connection whatever with Senator Stephenson’s campaign, had seen fit, of his own free will, to expend $5,000 in behalf of Senator Stephenson, and Senator Stephenson had no control whatsoever over him, and therefore could not compel him to furnish him with a detailed statement of the expenses, do you not think that would be such a case as might be within the meaning of this statute when it says that he must file an account according to his best belief when the money is expended by others ? Mr. Sacket. I think that case would be. Senator Pomerene. And is not that to be differentiated from your expending his money, furnished by him, for his purposes as his manager ? Mr. Sacket. There is nothing in the statute to indicate the dif- ference. Senator Pomerene. You received these various accounts from time to time during the campaign from your submanagers, I take it ; did you not ? Mr. Sacket. You refer to the itemized accounts ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you noticed that some of these accounts would give in detail the amount expended and the specific purpose for which it was expended; as, for instance, for a team, or railroad fare, or hotel bills, and the like. Did not that suggest to you the RODNEY SACKET. 497 necessity of keeping a detailed account of all of these men who were handling the money of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. It did. Senator Pomerene. Then why did you not require it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not have authority to require it in all cases. Senator Pomerene. From whom did you expect authority — from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I had no general authority over those employed by others. Senator Pomerene. This money was placed in your hands, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or under your control ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You issued orders from time to time for it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. To that extent it was within your control ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by telling us that you did not have authority to require a detailed statement from each of the men to whom you were giving this money ? Mr. Sacket. When Mr. Edmonds made an arrangement with a man, I did not consider that I had authority to give directions to that man. I left that with Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. Do I understand that there was a shifting of this authority from you to Mr. Edmonds, or from Mr. Edmonds to you ? Mr. Sacket. There was no intent on the part of either of us to shift anything. Mr. Edmonds did the engaging of people in some cases. In those cases I did not consider that I had a right to butt in. Senator Pomerene. Who was the manager in fact ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. Did he ever examine your accounts to see whether they were correct ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever submit them to him and ask him to go over them ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did you ever submit those accounts to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did he ever ask you as to what you were doing with this money ? Mr. Sacket, No, sir. Senator Pomerene. At no time? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You heard him complaining of the amount which it was costing, did you not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did not that suggest to you the necessity of keeping a detailed expense account of all of these items ? Mr. Sacket. That suggested to me that I should keep an account that would satisfy him as to the expenditure of his money. 15235°— vol 1—11 32 498 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. How did you expect to satisfy him in this matter ? By simply saying, for instance, that $250 was expended for organization ? Mr. Sacket. I did not think Mr. Stephenson would question that account at all. Senator Pomerene. So you relied upon the fact that he would not question it ? Mr. Sacket. I thought he would know that it was all right if I presented it to him. Senator Pomerene. Let me see if I understand you. You say that he was required to file a detailed account, as the statute provides ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to tell us that he would not question the manner in which you had expended this money ? Mr. Sacket. The items in his statement as filed were submitted to him. The account that has been examined here was not. Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by “the items” ? Mr. Sacket. The items that appear in the account that he filed, under the law, with the Secretary of State. Senator Pomerene. That is, that short resume of the expenditures? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. That was examined; but he never examined this account. Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. He left that entirely to you ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you, when he complained about the amount of money the thing was costing, that there might be room for further complaints later on by Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean in the nature of a question as to whether his agents had expended the money, or kept it themselves ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I have no such idea. Senator Pomerene. He had the faith that removes mountains, had he? In your testimony here the other day you testified to certain amounts which you had expended by way of refreshments. When it came to cigars, you sometimes gave the items. When it came to liquid refreshments, you did not say anything about it. Why was that ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think I tried to cover up the expenditure for liquid items in any instance. My account shows cigars bought in boxes, for which in a number of cases regular bills were rendered and checks sent. Those bills, I presume, were placed on file with the joint committee. The cigars that were bought over the counter went m as sundries, just the same as the liquid refreshments. Senator Pomerene. You testified the other day that there were a number of men to whom you had given money whose names you purposely kept off your records. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How many of them were there? Mr. Sacket. I could not give the number. There were quite a number, though. Senator Pomerene. About how many ? Mr. Sacket. I think there were 15 or 20, anyway; possibly more. RODNEY SACKET. 499 Senator Pomerene. How much did you turn over to those 15 or 20 men to expend ? Mr. Sacket. I made no compilation of that class of accounts. Senator Pomerene. Can you not give us some idea? Mr. Sacket. I should think it amounted to several thousand dollars. Senator Pomerene. Four or five thousand? Mr. Sacket. As much as that, I should think. Senator Pomerene. Six or seven? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Eight or nine? Mr. Sacket. I should think so. Senator Pomerene. Ten thousand ? Mr. Sacket. I should not think any more than that. Senator Pomerene. Is it fair to have the record here show that you expended or paid out $10,000 to 15 or 20 persons without making any record of the names of the persons to whom this money was given ? Mr. Sacket. With the understanding that the amount is simply a guess on my part. Senator Pomerene. Yes; I understand that. Mr. Sacket. I give no exact figures. With that understanding, I will say “yes.” Senator Pomerene. Did you make any memorandum of the pur- pose for which this money was given to these gentlemen ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were those men who were directly interested for Senator Stephenson ? Mr Sacket. Men who were interested in Senator Stephenson’s campaign; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was any of this money, given to any of these men, to be used in behalf of other candidates for the United States Senate ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; not a cent. Senator Pomerene. You did not try to split up the vote of those who might be opposed to Senator Stephenson in order to improve the Senator’s chances ? Mr. Sacket. There was no such deal as that, to my knowledge. Senator Pomerene. Had you heard of any such deal as that? Mr. Sacket. It seems to me I heard a rumor of that kind; but we were charged with everything. Senator Pomerene. Was that during the campaign? Mr. Sacket. I did not hear of it during the campaign. It was afterwards. Senator Pomerene. You say you were charged with everything? For instance, what? Mr. Sacket. Corruption, bribery, and almost everything that some of our newspaper friends could think of. Senator Pomerene. For how long a time were you charged with corruption, bribery, etc. ? Mr. Sacket. Most of it was after the campaign. Senator Pomerene. Was any of it before the campaign? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember seeing anything that I took seriously before, or very seriously afterwards. 500 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Was it before these charges were made that you destroyed your books and card system and memoranda which you had ? Mr. Sacket. It was before. Senator Pomerene. That is, you heard these charges before? Mr. Sacket. No; I destroyed my cards before. Senator Pomerene. What was your real reason for destroying these cards and records ? Mr. Sacket. To make my account better, and simpler and easier to get at. I could not carry the cards in my pocket. I could carry on slips of paper in my pocket the copy of the data on those cards. I had no regular office in Wisconsin Senator Pomerene. You had some card system, had you not? Mr. Sacket. During the time that I had an office here; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You did not suppose for one moment that anybody would expect you to carry all those cards in your pocket? Mr. Sacket. I did not. I could not have done so if they had expected me to. Senator Pomerene. Are there not some safe deposit boxes here in the city of Milwaukee ? Mr. Sacket. I presume so. I have none, though, of my own. Senator Pomerene. How is that? Mr. Sacket. I have none that I rent, that belong to me. Senator Pomerene. You knew that in a strenuous fight of this kind it was possible, if not probable, that some question might be raised as to the legitimacy of these expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. I had no idea that any question would be raised, to amount to anything. Senator Pomerene. When Senator Stephenson was complaining about the amount of this expense, did it not occur to you that some of his friends might question the genuineness of these expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. And did it not occur to you that you ought to be in a position where you could defend yourself by your record against any charge of this kind ? Mr. Sacket. The record that I filed was fully as complete as that kept on the cards. Mr. Littlefield. Was it copied from the cards? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Giving the names and all? Mr. Sacket. Giving all that appeared on the cards. The names did not always appear on the cards. Senator Pomerene. Did you also transfer the names from the cards to the account? Mr. Sacket. Always, when the name appeared on the card; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you always transfer to the account the purpose for which the expenditure was made ? Mr. Sacket. When it appeared on the card; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. On any of these cards did you have a memo- randum, for instance, with one who was to receive compensation, showing how much he was to receive for compensation and how much for other expenditures ? RODNEY SACKET. 501 Mr. Sacket. I had a memorandum somewhere, in case of those who were employed at a salary, showing the salary that they were to receive. But I did not consider that memorandum of any value after I had settled with them. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds from time to time would report to you that he had made an arrangement with one of these lieutenants by which he was to receive so much salary and so much for expendi- tures, would he not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any particular instance where he reported the amount of salary. Senator Pomerene. Did he not report approximately 35 men with whom he had special arrangements ? Mr. Sacket. For salary? No, sir; I do not think he did. Senator Pomerene. Did he not report from a dozen to fifteen ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember any instance where he reported to me himself. Senator Pomerene. You heard him testify the other day that he had special arrangements with representatives in perhaps about one- half of the counties of the State and that when he made arrangements at that time, which was in the first instance, he reported that fact to you. You heard him testify to that, did you not, in substance? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that he testified exactly that way; but if he did I do not remember it that way. Senator Pomerene. And did you not hear him later on testify with respect to a statement that he furnished to me, showing some 12 or 14 names, with the amounts which his memory told him he was to pay to these men ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember his testimony in regard to the salary in any instance. Senator Pomerene. When you were keeping this account, and when you were furnishing a transcript of it for the purpose of filing, you had in mind then that information that Senator Stephenson did not have would not hurt him any ? Mr. Littlefield. I should like to hear that question repeated. (The reporter read the question as follows:) Senator Pomerene. When you were keeping this account, and when you were furnishing a transcript of it for the purpose of filing, you had in mind then that infor- mation that Senator Stephenson did not have would not hurt him any? Mr. Sacket. I had no idea of concealing any information because I thought it might hurt him. Senator Pomerene. Then why did you not give him the names of the persons to whom you furnished this money ? Mr. Sacket. I did not have the names at that time. Senator Pomerene. Why did you not furnish those names to him from time to time? Mr. Sacket. I did not want to bother him with them. Senator Pomerene. And you did not want him to bother the public with having a detailed statement of this account? Is that it? Mr. Sacket. No; there was no intent to hide anything that was improper in any way. I did not intend that the names of our friends who did not want publicity should come out unless we were obliged to give them. 502 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Did you not understand that this statute really obliged you to give those names to Senator Stephenson, so that they could be put in the account? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did you not understand that he was depending upon you to keep that account correctly, and in conformity with the statute ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why did you not do it ? Mr. Sacket. I did. Senator Pomerene. How can you say that, when you have just told us that you did not even keep a memorandum of the names of persons to whom you had given approximately $10,000 ? Mr. Sacket. I did not understand the law to require me to keep such an account. Senator Pomerene. You knew, did you not, that if he did not file an account which complied with the provisions of that statute, he was amenable to a fine for not doing it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And did you not understand as a matter of law that if you were keeping these accounts in such a way that he could not file that account, you likewise would be amenable as an aider and abettor under the law? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You have a statute on that subject, I take it; have you not, Mr. Black? Mr. Black. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. Punishing aiders and abettors ? Mr. Black. I do not know of its application to this. Senator. Pomerene. You have a general statute, have you not? Mr. Black. Oh, yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is, on the general theory of the criminal law that whoever participates in an offense is guilty? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Nearly all the codes provide that whoever aids or abets in the furtherance of any offense shall be punish- able as a principal, and I assume that there is some such statute as that here. Mr. Littlefield. As to that I do not know. I suppose Brother Black understands about that. Senator Pomerene. Did you later furnish the names of the men to whom this money was paid, and whose names you did not keep on your memoranda? Mr. Sacket. To the joint committee of the legislature; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Sacket. In Exhibit 49. Senator Pomerene. Were they included in that exhibit? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; all of them that I can furnish. Senator Pomerene. Were they included in the account furnished by you to Senator Stephenson for filing ? Mr. Sacket. They were not. Mr. Littlefield. Just one moment — there may be a misappre- hension. My recollection is that he did not furnish any detailed account at all to Senator Stephenson. I would not have the record appear inconsistent with that. What is the fact about that ? RODNEY SAGKET. 503 Senator Pomerene. Possibly I misunderstood. I am glad you called my attention to it. Mr. Littlefield. I am not certain what the fact is about that. We had better have the facts as they are. Senator Pomerene. Certainly. Mr. Sacket. The statement that Senator Stephenson filed, as I remember the circumstances, was made up by Mr. Edmonds with data which I gave him; and the statement that Mr. Stephenson filed is the only statement that was submitted to him at any time. Senator Pomerene. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You had first a system of cards in your office ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And then you made a transcript of what those cards contained, as your account ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And is that the one that you gave to Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir, I gave him data from that account. I helped him to group it as Senator Stephenson filed it with the secretary of state. Senator Pomerene. Then this account, Exhibit 49, is a more de- tailed statement of the account known as Exhibit 47 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Can you furnish us with a list of the names of the persons to whom this money was paid ? Mr. Littlefield. You mean Senator Pomerene. I mean the 15 or 20 persons to whom you say you furnished about $10,000 of money, and kept no memo- randum of their names. As I understand you to say, you furnished such a statement to the legislative committee. Mr. Sacket. I furnished no statement to the legislative committee except what appears in that book, the printed copy of the testimony if that is a correct copy of my statement. I mean the printed testi- mony before the joint committee. Senator Pomerene. Are those names in Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Sacket. I think most of them are. Senator Pomerene. Can you glean the names from Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Sacket. It would be very hard for me to select from memory the 15 or 20 names that I referred to. When I say 15 or 20 persons objected to having their names appear, I am estimating. I might name a few. Senator Pomerene. Furnish us with such names as you can, then. I notice on page 601 of the printed proceedings of the joint com- mittee an item, seemingly under date of August 30, “Expense of ward and town managers, including conveyances, primary day workers, etc., $5, 833.” Is that it? Mr. Sacket. There is a statement of that nature on that page; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. There seems to be a footnote here with refer- ence to that item : This sum was not expended in one day, but was gradually paid out to the various ward managers as the work progressed. 504 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. That was in Milwaukee ? Senator Pomerene. That is in the Knell account. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Sacket would not understand about that. That was Mr. Knell. That is right; is it not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. If these items are in this account known as Exhibit 49, how did you insert them? Was it according to the date of the expenditures ? Mr. Sacket. Do you mean how did I insert the names ? Senator Pomerene. In the account. Mr. Sacket. The names, or the items ? Senator Pomerene. Were they all put in in one group? In other words, were they put in chronologically ? Mr. Littlefield. Or did you allocate them to the items to which they belonged ? That is what the Senator means. Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Sacket. You would like to know how I obtained the names and put them in here ? Senator Pomerene. Yes; I would like to know how they were put in, and in what order they were put in. Mr. Sacket. The account in Exhibit 47 was all that I had up to the time when the legislative committee sent for me. I was informed that tl i 1 • • ' ‘ ring names in every instance that Bank, was supoenaed to appear before the committee and bring the cashier’s checks from his account. Mr. Puelicher and I took this account and those cashier’s checks, and went over them, and hooked up the checks with the items in Exhibit 47 as nearly as possible. That supplied the names. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask a question right there, please? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Are we to understand that the cashier’s checks were drawn to the order of the various people to whom the money was paid ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, and had their indorsement. Mr. Littlefield. So that the records in the bank showed the distribution of the money to the various men who received it? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you confer with anyone else with refer- ence to the matter of keeping these names out of your accounts? Mr. Sacket. I remember no special instance of a conference. Senator Pomerene. Can you give us any general instance ? Mr. Sacket. No; I have no distinct recollection of conferring with anyone. Senator Pomerene. Would you take upon yourself the responsi- bility of keeping your account in that way without conferring with the general manager, Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And without conferring on the subject with the beneficiary, Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Notwithstanding the advice of Senator Stephenson to keep strictly within the law ? Mr. Sacket. I tried to keep within the law, and I think I did. I was cashier of the Marshall & Ilsley RODNEY SACKET. 505 Mr. Littlefield. I should like to ask the Senator if he will ask the witness to explain fully — I do not know what the facts may be — what he understands the law to be, and what he understood the law to require him to do. Whether he has an adequate conception of it or not, I do not know. Senator Pomerene. I think we have gone into that matter pretty fully, Mr. Littlefield; but if you desire to go into it further you shall have the opportunity. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. Senator Pomerene. In preparing this account which you furnished to Mr. Edmonds, or which Mr. Edmonds later prepared, did either of you take counsel with any attorneys on the subject? Mr. Sacket. I did not. The account that Senator Stephenson filed — is that the account you mean ? Senator Pomerene. No. I am referring to the one that you pre- pared and gave to Mr. Edmonds, and to the one which Mr. Edmonds prepared from the data you gave him. Mr. Sacket. I do not believe I understand just what account you mean. Do you mean Exhibit 47, or Exhibit 49 ? Senator Pomerene. You testified this morning that you made a transcript from your cards. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. In the form of an account. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And that you gave that to Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Sacket. I did not mean to testify that I gave my transcript to Mr. Edmonds; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. What was the fact, then ? That is the way I understood you. Mr. Sacket. I kept my account. I gave Mr. Edmonds data from that account with which to make the account that Senator Stephenson filed with the Secretary of State. Senator Pomerene. You gave to him certain data? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Written memoranda. Mr. Sacket. I think we were together and made notes. I do not know whether he wrote or whether I wrote. Senator Pomerene. Where was this ? Mr. Sacket. This was in the room that we were using in the offices of Cary, Upham & Black, a law firm, in the Wells Building. Senator Pomerene. They are the counsel who in part represent the Senator here at the trial table, are they ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was anyone present during the time that you were giving this data to Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of anyone being present at that time. Senator Pomerene. Were any of the attorneys there advising with either of you ? Mr. Sacket. Not with me; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were either of you inquiring of the attorneys with respect to how this should be done? Mr. Sacket. I was not. 506 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Tell us more particularly what this memoran- dum was which you gave to Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Littlefield. If the Senator please, it was hardly a memoran- dum; it was data. That is what I understood him to say. Senator Pomerene. He was not certain as to what it was. I will change the word. That is right; that is fair. Mr. Sacket. The memorandum that was made by Mr. Edmonds and me at that time— or by Mr. Edmonds with my assistance, rather — was, in substance, the account filed with the secretary of state by Senator Stephenson, which appears in the testimony. Senator Pomerene. Oh. So that you were trying to group these things and file the account in such a way that it would not show the persons to whom the managers had given money? Mr. Sacket. Would you like to have me tell you what Mr. Edmonds told me — the reasons for his having Senator Pomerene. Yes; let us have it all. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds went to Madison and examined the account filed by the only lawyer who was a candidate for the Senate at that time — a man who is a good lawyer and has a good reputation as a lawyer Mr. Littlefield. What is his name ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. McGovern, now governor of the State. Mr. Littlefield. The present governor ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. He has been elected since that time ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Edmonds examined that account with the idea of having Senator Stephenson’s account as nearly like that as possible. He believed that Mr. McGovern’s account would be within the iaw and right. Senator Pomerene. Why, Mr. Sacket, you and Mr. Edmonds were doing this work in the office of one of the ablest law firms of this city. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. It was not necessary to go to the capitol to find someone’s else account; was it? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds seemed to think so. Senator Pomerene. Did either of you suggest to the other that perhaps you ought to insert in this account the names of all of the persons who received the money ? Mr. Sacket. I made no such suggestion, and I do not remember that he made any such suggestion to me. Senator Pomerene. Did not that dawn upon your mind — that it was necessary ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; and it does not now. Senator Pomerene. So this statute does not mean what it seems to say ? Mr. Sacket. I think it means just what it says. Senator Pomerene. I thought so. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. State to the committee your understanding of the statute — what it required you to do, and what you were under an obligation to do in order to comply with it. Explain as fully as you can just exactly what you understood the statute to require. Mr. Sacket. The statute required the candidate to file an account, describing it (the nature of the account) with the secretary of state; that is, of items disbursed by him; and to file an account of all items RODNEY SACKET. 507 disbursed by others so far as they came to his knowledge. The idea that every person who handled any of that money should comply with that law seemed absurd to me, because the money might pass through 40 hands before it ended. It seemed to me that the law said “the candidate” purposely so it would not run down into all that detail. If every person through whose hands the money passed had to file an itemized account, there probably would not be room in the secretary of state’s office to keep the papers ; and I supposed that when a candi- date (as the statute said) filed an account of moneys expended by him and as reported to him, the law was fully complied with. Mr. Littlefield. I notice that the statute expressly requires the attorney general to prosecute all candidates who have not filed any returns ; and I also remember that the Wisconsin Legislature that sub- mitted this vast record to the Senate of the United States in turn re- quired the various prosecuting officers to prosecute for all violations of the law. Have there been any prosecutions against Senator Stephenson or anybody connected with him in this campaign for any failure to file a proper return ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. Have there been any prosecutions of any other gentlemen connected with that campaign for any failure to file returns ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. Have there been any prosecutions by any" public officers of the State of Wisconsin for any alleged offenses committed in connection with either the primary campaign or the senatorial cam- paign in which Mr. Stephenson was a candidate in the primary, and in which later on he was elected to the United States Senate by a Legis- lature of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. None to my knowledge. Senator Sutherland. Will you read that last question ? (The reporter read as directed.) Mr. Littlefield. Did the subcommittee turn the witness over to me for cross-examination? I broke in, perhaps, a little bit pre- maturely ? The Chairman. I wanted to ask the witness a question. Mr. Littlefield. Excuse me, if I started too early. The Chairman. It is not very material as to that. I wanted to ask it as a foundation for the examination of the witness which will follow. Mr. Stone, the State game warden, before the joint committee of the legislature, being interrogated as to the receipt by him of $2,500, testified, at page 1620, that you paid him this money in cash. Was that correct ? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of it now; yes, sir. The Chairman. He says that you went out after the money — not having it in your possession — procured it, brought it to him, and paid it to him in cash. Mr. Sacket. I remember distinctly going and getting money in currency. The Chairman. Where did you go to get the money ? Mr. Sacket. The Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. Why did you get it in currency ? Mr. Sacket. Because Mr. Edmonds asked me to. 508 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. He did not want to take a check or certified cashier’s certificate or anything ? Mr. Sacket. I think that was the reason; yes, sir. The Chairman. And demanded that the money be paid him in cash ? Mr. Sacket. That was my understanding. The Chairman. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. You were inquired of in relation to a Mr. Dart, who it seems was employed by Mr. McMahon; and you were asked with reference to whether Mr. Dart had any communication with you in connection therewith over the telephone; and a question and answer were read from the record relating to that subject matter and that point of time. In order that the original record may appear with its full significance I will read the question and answer put to you, and also the succeeding testimony, as bearing upon the question of whether or not you had any conversation with him over the tele- phone. The question and answer read to you, page 3912, were: Q. Mr. Dart had? — A. Yes; advising that something be done. I saw Mr. Dart and talked over things; spent the night with him, and figured on what would be necessary to put into Marquette County. As I remember it, it was $500 — $500 or $600. Then comes the question and answer that I wish to call your attention to: Q. And it was arranged that he should receive that, was it? — A. Yes. That is, I told Mr. Edmonds over the telephone, as I did in most cases, the things I found there — the situation — and told what would be necessary t© send there. State whether or not that agrees with your recollection of that transaction, as to the conversation ? Mr. Sacket. That transaction was not with me. Mr. Littlefield. The witness so states. I am asking you whether or not that agrees with your recollection ? Mr. Sacket. I had no dealing with Mr. Dart at all. Mr. Littlefield. I have a memorandum on my notes to read an extract from the testimony of Mr. Stevens, found on page 4581. I am not quite certain just exactly how much of the context was in, so I will read the portion, so far as my recollection goes, that relates to it, as tending to explain Senator Pomerene. That is, you are reading from the legislative investigation ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; from which one of the Senators read during the course of the examination of Mr. Sacket. Q. Did you use any of this money to influence the voters’ opinion with reference to any of the senatorial candidates? — A. No. Q. Did you first ascertain whether a voter would be favorable to Senator Stephenson before giving him any money to spend in his behalf? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that in all cases, did you? — A. Why, if a man was not favorable to Stephen- son and he wouldn’t talk that way at all, I didn’t bother him very much. Q. What I want to know is: If you found a person who was not favorable, did you tell him you would give him $20, $25, or $30 if he would talk favorably for him and do some work for him? — A. No, sir. Q. Didn’t spend any of the money that way? — A. No, sir. Q. You first ascertained if he was favorable before you gave him money. Is that the way you want to be understood? — A. Yes, sir. That, I think, was the context I had in mind. RODNEY SACKET. 509 Referring to the item of $250 paid to Mr. Bancroft, as I understand you, you have explained fully the conversation you had with Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Sacket. I have tried to; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not, in your conversation with Mr. Puelicher, it was developed as to how this money was to be expended by Bancroft — that is, with reference to Bancroft’s interest or Stephenson’s interest. Mr. Sacket. The substance of the conversation between Mr. Pue- licher and me was that Mr. Bancroft was to keep the money entirely separate from his own money; that he was to expend the money received from Stephenson headquarters for Mr. Stephenson entirely, and to use none of it for himself in any way. Mr. Littlefield. Did you know whether or not, about that time and prior to that time, Mr. Bancroft had been a supporter of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. It was my understanding very distinctly that he was a very strong supporter of Senator Stephenson before that time. Mr. Littlefield. And had been for how long ? Mr. Sacket. Always. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether you knew that he voted for the Senator in 1907, when the Senator was first elected? Mr. Sacket. I think he did; I am quite certain he did. Mr. Littlefield. Upon that point I wish to ask you in relation to Mr. Wellensgard. Mr. Wellensgard lives in your town ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you have known him how long ? Mr. Sacket. All my life. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether, prior to the arrangement you made with Mr. Wellensgard (who was then a candidate, or about to be a candidate, for the assembly), Mr. Wellensgard was or was not a friend and supporter of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Sacket. I was very certain that he was. Mr. Littlefield. How long had he been ? Mr. Sacket. He voted for Mr. Stephenson in his first election. Mr. Littlefield. In 1907? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether or not he continued to be a supporter of the Senator’s from that time down to the time when you made the arrangement with him ? Mr. Sacket. I was quite certain that he was a very ardent sup- porter of Senator Stephenson all of the time. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know what the facts are with reference to Mr. Reynolds, as to his being a supporter of the Senator’s prior to the arrangement made with him ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of the Reynolds matter at all. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Kempf, to whom some mone}^ was paid, was a billposter by trade, was he ? Mr. Sacket. His billhead would indicate that he was. Mr. Littlefield. That is the business in which he was engaged ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And the money that was paid to him was paid for what ? 510 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. For posting bills, in his regular line of business. Mr. Littlefield. Was he then a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Sacket. At the time the bill was paid I knew nothing about it. I learned afterwards that he was. Mr. Littlefield. In any event, he was not elected, was he ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. Do not know whether he was or not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think he Was. Mr. Littlefield. The list shows that he was not elected. In one of your answers in relation to organizing you stated that you intended it to be “any act that would induce men to vote.” What do you mean by -that general term ? Please state what sorts of acts you understood to be included in it. Mr. Sacket. The circulating of literature, the hiring of bands, the engaging and renting of halls for meetings, the hanging of posters, and all such things as that, which are generally done in a campaign to bring the candidate before the public and show them his good qualities. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose that an act that would induce a man to vote might be the purchase of his vote ? Mr. Sacket. I did not mean anything of that kind. Mr. Littlefield. You did not intend to be understood as covering every act that might induce a man to vote, legitimate or otherwise ? Mr. Sacket. Oh, no Mr. Littlefield. You were inquired of as to whether or not the managers for Senator Stephenson, at the outset of his campaign, made any canvass for the purpose of ascertaining the Republicans, and also the Republicans who were friendly to Senator Stephenson; as a basis of the subsequent campaign. I understood you to say that they did not. Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. There are 2,200 voting precincts in the State, are there ? Mr. Sacket. As I remember it, about that number. Mr. Littlefield. Why was it, if it was intended to organize an effective, thorough, and efficient campaign, that you did not take this fundamental step of arranging to get poll lists and make a canvass in each of these 2,200 districts ? Mr. Sacket. My understanding of the reason is that we did not expect to spend money enough to run that kind of a campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Do you understand whether or not that would be a legitimate thing to do ? Mr. Sacket. To get poll lists ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; and to have a personal canvass made of the 2,200 precincts and the 250,000 or 300,000 or 400,000 Republican voters in tne State ? How many are there ? Something like 400,000, are there not ? Mr. Sacket. A little less than 400,000, I think. Mr. Littlefield. The total voting population, if I remember cor- rectly, is something like 700,000. I do not know that you know about that. Mr. Sacket. I have not the figures. Senator Pomerene. What is that ? RODNEY SACKET. 511 Mr. Littlefield. It was stated to me the other day that the total voting population is something like 700,000. Senator Pomerene. Someone made the statement here the other day that there were about 400,000 votes. Mr. Littlefield. I think that must include the Republicans. Senator Pomerene. It is not very important; only it seems, if we are using figures, that we ought to use them correctly. Mr. Littlefield. Well, roughly speaking, do you know what the fact is in that regard ? Mr. Sacket. I think there are nearly 400,000 Republican voters in the State. Mr. Littlefield. What do you understand to be the aggregate voting population ? Of course we can get that, but I should like to take it as we go along here. Something like 700,000? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that there was a little less than that the last time I had occasion to look it up. Mr. Littlefield. So far as your knowledge goes, could there be any accurate information in the possession of Senator Stephenson’s managers as to how many Republican voters there were, in the first place, and, in the next place, how many of those Republican voters could be relied upon to support the Senator in the first instance without making any campaign, without having an accurate canvass of the 2,200 precincts and 400,000 Republicans by men employed by Senator Stephenson for that purpose ? Do you know of any way in which that could be done ? Mr. Sacket. I know of no other way. Mr. Littlefield. As I understand you, the reason why you did not engage in that fundamental act was because you did not feel that you had the means to carry on a campaign of that character ? Mr. Sacket That was the reason; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have, at any time in the Senator’s cam- paign, anything like an accurate poll list of even the Republicans of the State of Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make efforts to get that? Of course you did not have this personal canvass, for the reasons that you have given. Mr. Sacket. Not in a systematic way. In places where we could get poll lists we did so._ Mr. Littlefield. Is the fact that you did not want to engage in the campaign on that expensive scale the only reason why you did not make this fundamental canvass to ascertain the number of Republi- cans, and the portion of those Republicans who would support the Senator ? Mr. Sacket. I should have been in favor of starting the canvass and continuing it on those lines if I had felt that we could get the money and do it. Mr. Littlefield. In the absence of that, you relied upon such lists of names of voters in the State as you were able to get, did you not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you testify about the Wisconsin Agricul- turist lists ? I have forgotten. Mr. Sacket. I did, sir. 512 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean that newspaper list ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Did you have what would be called a mailing list other than lists that you were able to get from two news- papers, except names that were sent in to you by your various managers ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. We made a list of all of those who signed the petition. Mr. Littlefield. Nomination papers ? Mr. Sacket. Nomination papers; and we got lists in every possible way. Mr. Littlefield. Did you find in the record before the Wisconsin Legislature any literature that was used by you in the campaign or by Senator Stephenson’s managers ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State what you did find. Mr. Sacket. On page 3653 of the hearings before the joint com- mittee, there is what we call the Hoard letter; and on page 3655 there is the letter, if I remember correctly, that we sent out with the nomination papers, to start with. Mr. Littlefield. Would the subcommittee like to have those read into the record ? I will not stop to read them; but if you would like to have them I will have the reporters insert them. Those are the only two samples we have been able to find, if you think they would be of any use. The Chairman. On what pages are they to be found ? Mr. Littlefield. Pages 3653 and 3655. Mr. Littlefield. Were these two circular letters which you used for mailing ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. About how many of those were sent out, so far as you can recollect ? Mr. Sacket. The letter accompanying the nomination papers? I think we sent about 15,000 or 20,000 of those. Mr. Littlefield. How about the Hoard letter ? Mr. Sacket. The Hoard letter we sent later in the campaign, as I remember it, to everyone on all of our lists; and I should think we sent possibly 150,000 of them. Mr. Littlefield. Are we to understand, then, that of the whole 400,000 or more Republicans the best you were able to do, with the means at your command, was to get a list of practically 150,000? Mr. Sacket. That is about the number that we had; yes. Mr. Littlefield. So that there were something like 250,000 Repub- licans in the State of Wisconsin that, with the organization that you were able to create during that short period of six weeks, you were not able to get the names of y so as to circularize them? Mr. Sacket. We did not get into touch with them at all. Mr. Littlefield. Have you made any estimate of what it would cost to have created an organization sufficient to have furnished you with that material and to have made this personal canvass to which I have just called your attention? Mr. Sacket. My personal estimate of the amount would be from $150,000 to $200,000. Mr. Littlefield. That is, for the whole campaign, or just for the purpose of laying that foundation ? RODNEY SACKET. 513 Mr. Sacket. For carrying the campaign through on that basis. Mr. Littlefield. Starting in on a canvass of the 400,000 Repub- licans ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And then a canvass for the purpose of ascertain- ing how many were in favor of the Senator ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. To carry the campaign through, on that basis, your estiihate would be that it would cost how much ? Mr. Sacket. $150,000 to $200,000. Senator Pomerene. Do you base that on former experience here in the State as to the expenses of campaigns ? Mr. Sacket. I think I stated that it was just my own estimate, and I think, in answer to Senator Sutherland’s question Saturday, I made a similar statement — that it was purely in my own mind. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not your judgment is predicated upon the practical experience in that campaign and what it cost you to extend your organization so far as it did extend ? Mr. Sacket. The estimate that I made, in my own mind, was made before the completion of this campaign; but the result of this cam- paign practically verified the correctness of it. Senator Pomerene. So that you think a man who wanted to make a pretty vigorous campaign for the United States Senate in the State of Wisconsin ought to be prepared to expend from $150,000 to $ 200 , 000 ? Mr. Sacket. If he wanted to make a systematic campaign and get the best possible results, I should think it would cost him that; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. To get a salary of $7,500 a year? Mr. Littlefield. That would be considerably more than the salary. Mr. Sacket. I do not suppose that the gentlemen who draw those salaries are there simply for the purpose of drawing their salaries. Mr. Littlefield. How many cases do you suppose there are of men sitting now in the various legislative bodies to which you might refer, if the test were made, where the expense of reaching a seat in the body was more than the salary? If that test were made, how many do you suppose would remain in their seats? I am afraid it would make the legislative assemblies pretty thin, in some instances. Senator Sutherland. The members of the British Parliament serve without any pay at all. Mr. Littlefield. I know they do; or they did heretofore. They have now just adopted a scheme over there, I believe, that is going to furnish the patriots with compensation to a certain extent. I want to get a little more detailed information from you with reference to this question of treating, that you refer to, with either liquors or cigars. Will you be kind enough to state whether or not you consider the purchase of a man’s vote with a glass of liquor or a meal a legitimate proceeding ? Mr. Sacket. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Or a cigar? Mr. Sacket. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. What do you mean by the treating that was done, so far as you know, by people representing the Senator ? Are 15235 °— vol 1—11 33 514 RODNEY SACKET. we to understand that in any instance a treat of either liquor or cigars was furnished by anyone representing the Senator as a con- sideration for the vote of the gentleman who received the treat ? Mr. Sagket. I am quite certain that no one furnished anything of that kind in consideration for a vote. Mr. Littlefield. Did anyone, to your knowledge? Mr. Sacket. No one, to my knowledge or belief. Mr. Littlefield. Did you furnish any such treats? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Mr. LiTTLEFiELD. I would like to have you explain to the com- mittee a little bit more fully the circumstances under which such treating as was done, so far as you know, took place. Mr. Sacket. A man was asked to participate in the treat in the usual course of events. He would have been asked had there been no campaign on, as far as I know, if I were talking to him and the occasion arose. The idea of asking him to take a drink or a cigar or a meal was simply incidental, and a matter of courtesy, and not cal- culated in any instance to buy his vote. It was not a consideration for anything. It was simply a mere matter of politeness and courtesy. Mr. Littlefield. Did any treating that was done in this campaign in connection with Senator Stephenson, so far as you know, go any further than this definition that you have now given ? Mr. Sacket. It did not. Mr. Littlefield. Or the circumstances that you have now de- scribed ? Mr. Sacket. It did not. Mr. Littlefield. In connection with that, and the statement of this committee of the Wisconsin Legislature that $30,000 was mis- appropriated and spent for treating with liquor and cigars, I would like tc have you state to the committee whether or not you have gone over all the accounts that appear in this printed record before the Wisconsin Legislature, for the purpose of ascertaining what they show with reference to treating by cigars, or with reference to the purchase of cigars? Mr. Sacket. I went over all of them that I could find, and I think I covered them all. I might have skipped one, but I do not think so. Mr. Littlefield. Have you a statement that gives the result of your investigation? Mr. Sacket. I believe you have it in your hand now. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state the items, in detail, and then give your summary? Senator Pomerene. I think I missed one question. What is this calling for ? Mr. Littlefield. It is a collection of items of these accounts, so far as they are published, showing what was expended for cigars during the whole campaign. I will ask you this, Mr. Sacket: Whether the items you are now about to read are the result of your examination of all of the accounts that are to be comprehended as having been returned to you by the various managers, and your own accounts ? Mr. Sacket. Every account that I could find in the books of evidence. The Chairman. You mean ever3 T account that is itemized ? RODNEY SACKET. 515 Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. That does not include the general account ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. No, sir. I am going right through this in a moment. It does not include the general organizing. Senator Pomerene. It simply includes those items which specifi- cally state they are for cigars. Is that it? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. There are items there that are not specifically stated. There are items that he knows were for cigars that do not appear specifically so stated in the account. I am having hi n give them all. Senator Pomerene. I see. Mr. Sacket. Headed: Items showing expenditures for cigars and liquors. Expended from headquarters: July 8, cigars, $10.75. August 19, L. M. Lederer, check No. 33642, page 606, $12.55. I. M. Lederer — The same thing, but a misprint — Check No. 33916, page 607, $7.50. Hotel Pfister, cigars, No. 33922, page 607, $70.70. Pfister, cigars, page 610, $4.40. August 24, cigars, page 610, $4. Same date, cigars, page 610, $2. September 15, Wright Drug Co., No. 30406, page 610, $5. Expended from Milwaukee County headquarters, check No. 10, Knell, Prengel & Steltz Co., cigars, page 596, $29.50. Check No. 37, the same company, cigars, page 596, $29.50. Check No. 633, the same firm, cigars, page 597, $13. Expended by J. C. Miller, account page 2024, July 6, cigars, $ 1 . July 8, cigars, $4. August 19, cigars, $1. Expended by C. H. Russell, page 2179, cigars, drinks, hotel bills, and livery — I do not know how nuch of that was for cigars and drinks — Twelve dollars. Mr. Littlefield. You put the whole item down — $12? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is, you put it in as it appears in the ac- count — $12 for the three items? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Montello, cigars, etc., $8. Expended by C. C. Wayland, page 2749, cigars, $38.25; $14, $14, $7, 70 cents, 25 cents, 25 cents, $20, 15 cents. Senator Sutherland. All by one man ? Mr. Sacket. All by one man, yes, sir; on one page in the report. Another item : Headaches (treats) Senator Pomerene. What is that ? Mr. Sacket. Treats. Mr. Littlefield. That is a very natural conclusion. 516 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket (continuing). $17.15. This is carried out in the account printed as $95.95. My footing shows it as $111.75 — a slight mistake in the footing. Expended by C. M. Hambright, July 25, cigars, $1.50. I have made a summary here : State headquarters, $116.90; Milwaukee County, $72; J. C. Miller, $6; C. H. Russell, $20; C. C. Wayland, $111.75; C. M. Hambright, $i.50; total, $328.15. Mr. Littlefield. This is all that the accounts, so far as they are itemized, show, is it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know of any other expenditures for cigars ? Mr. Sacket. I know of no others; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. The only information you have is what you get from your accounts ? Senator Sutherland. Most of those items read seem to have been for cigars ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. There are only two instances where anything else is brought in. Senator Sutherland. I suppose they were the ordinary brand of campaign cigars ? Mr. Sacket. I bought some of them myself, and they were very good cigars that I bough*.. Mr. Littlefield. They are what is known as “upper- vest-pocket ” cigars, which the candidate himself smokes, so I have been advised. I do not smoke, myself. Senator Pomerene. I was going to ask whether you had any personal experience in the matter. Mr. Littlefield. I have none. But I have known of some dis- tinguished gentlemen who carried two kinds of cigars — what I would call “side-pocket’’ cigars and “upper-vest-pocket” cigars — the side-pocket cigars being for the “peeps” and the others being for the candidate’s own use. I may say that when the details were developed they did not aid the candidate in his campaign. I notice, Mr. Sacket, that this veracious assembly committee, in the paragraph quoted from by Senator Sutherland in his investiga- tion as to the $30,000 misappropriated and spent for treating to beer and liquors and cigars in saloons and elsewhere, reached this conclusion : Your committee found it specially difficult to arrive at how some of this money was spent, because more than $12,000 is accounted for in no other way, either by state- ment being filed or by testimony given, except as “general campaign expense.” Exhibit 49 was before this intelligent committee when it made this report, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; it was. Mr. Littlefield. It had been printed about two years before the committee made its report, had it not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know about that. Mr. Littlefield. As far as you know. It had been printed about 15 months before the committee made its report, as a matter of fact. Just give the committee the number of items that appear in Ex- RODNEY SACKET. 517 hibit 49, which was before this committee when it reached the con- clusion that $12,000 was only accounted for as “ general campaign expense/’ Read the items that are marked “general organizing,” “organizing,” and “general expense, organizing.” Let us see how much that committee knows. Read the itejns and give the aggre- gate. Mr. Sacket. “July 6, general expense, organizing, $100; July 18, general organizing, Edmonds check, $150; July 21, general organ- izing, $250; July 23, general organizing, E. A. E., $200.” Senator Pomerene. Let me see if 1 understand. You are using, now, those items — Mr. Littlefield. Exhibit 49. Senator Pomerene (continuing). You are using, now, those items that are designated as “general organizing” in contradistinction to “organizing.” Is that it ? Mr. Littlefield. No; anything that is general — “organizing” or “general expense, organizing,” or “general organizing.” Senator Pomerene. There are a number of different designations here, and I wanted to see that I understood your question. For in- stance, there is the item in the account: “E. II. Mahon, organizing, $50.” Mr. Littlefield. We are not using that. Senator Pomerene. I am trying to find out what your question comprehended. Simply where the terms “ general, organizing” or “organizing” or “general expense, organizing” are used. Mr. Littlefield. That and that alone, so as to make a parallel with the finding of this committee under the head of general cam- paign expense. Senator Sutherland. Where the expenditure is not otherwise carried ? Mr. Littlefield. Precisely. That is exactly what they say. Mr. Sacket (continuing): August 8, general, $250; August 8, general, $150; August 10, general, $150; August 19, general (E. A. E.) $200; extended, $300. Senator Sutherland. I notice that you give the item on August 14: “General, E. A. E.” Mr. Sacket. I believe that the note on the book from which I took this showed that it had been explained. The Chairman. You are only giving those that you think have not been explained, then? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. My instructions to you were to give all that were marked “general expense.” If you have not done that, I will suspend here and let you complete it later. Senator Pomerene. Let me suggest this, in that connection: The committee seem to use the phrase there “general campaigning.” Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Pomerene. The phrase in Exhibit 49 is “general organ- izing.” In your question you are assuming, I take it, that the two phrases are one and the same thing. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. That is an advantage to the committee, because 518 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Pomerene. Just so that we understand your purpose. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Literally speaking, there is not an item in the account that would sustain the finding of the committee; but I assume they intended to cover general organizing and general expense; and farther down they have got “general expense.” The Chairman. My ‘interruption was to test the witness as to whether or not he was excepting the items that are designated “gen- eral” because they may have been explained. Mr. Littlefield. I want to give the full benefit of the whole thing. I will leave this here, now, and have him go over it further. I want him to put in every item that is marked “General,” so that I can simply test the finding. If he has left out some of those, I will re- sume later on that. I want to be sure to get it all in. You misun- derstood my suggestion on that, Mr. Sacket, but that is all right. I will have the list completed later. While I am on this, I have one other compilation here that I would like to have you put in, and that is this: Have you examined these various accounts for the purpose of getting the items marked “Sun- dries?” And if you have, just state what the result of that is, in detail. You have a list here marked “Sundries?” Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Are those all included ? The Chairman. Let that be identified. Mr. Littlefield. I will have him read it right in, Mr. Chairman. Are these items all taken from the account filed by you ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Are there items of sundries in other accounts ? Mr. Sacket. I have gone through Exhibit 49 and selected all of the items charged to sundries. The Chairman. Including the Milwaukee account ? Mr. Sacket.. Yes, sir; I do not find any in that. Mr. Littlefield. Do you find any in any account, except the accounts submitted by you ? Mr. Sacket. I think there are in some of the expense accounts submitted by the men who traveled around the State. Mr. Littlefield. Are those items included in this ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You can give here, then, the items of sundries that appear in your account, grouped together, and then give the aggregate. Just read those right off, so that the stenographer can get them. Mr. Sacket. It is headed “Sundries.”. July 7, sundries, $1.50; July 8, sundries, $4.30. Senator Sutherland. You will find that under the heading “Sun- dries, small,” most of it. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket (continuing) : July 8, sundries, $8.25; July 8, sundries, $2.50; July 8, $1; July 10, $9.20; July 20, $6.30; July 24, $4.30; July 24, $33; July 25, $7.01; July 25, $0.15; August 1, $11.45; August 1, $18.95; August 1, $1.30; August 5, $4.20; August 6, $11.25; August 18, $8.40; August 18, $1.50; August 19, $9.30; August 24, $12.25; August 24, $16; September 5, $20; September 5, $12.70; September 6, $5.40; September 8, $8; September 15, $250. RODNEY SACKET. 519 The Chairman. You passed over August 30, the item of $5,833. Mi*. Littlefield. That is in Milwaukee. The Chairman. That is the reason I asked the question — to ascer- tain whether he was going to include Milwaukee. Mr. Littlefield. No. The Chairman. That would come under “Sundries”? Mr. Sacket. I think not. He tells there what it was for. The Chairman. He says it was “expenses to ward and town man- agers, including conveyances, primary day workers, etc.” Mr. Littlefield. I am asking him to give the items marked “Sundries” in the account. The Chairman. I merely called attention to this in passing. Mr. Sacket. That was not marked “sundries.” That is why I did not read it. Mr. Littlefield. My instructions to him were to take the items marked “sundries.” That, of course, gives us a key to this table that lie is giving now, or this compilation. Mr. Sacket (continuing): October 16, $203.27; total, $671.48. Mr. Littlefield While I think you have, to a certain extent, explained these items, I would like to have you explain right here — because these all app*ear in your account Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield (continuing). I would like to have you state to the committee, concisely, in this connection, just exactly what these sundry items were made up of, so far as you can remember. In the first place, state how you kept them from day to day. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Lambecfc, who was assisting us in the office, paid out money from time to time for hire of express wagons, for meals for himself, personal expenses for himself, and for meals for clerks. I made similar expenditures. My own personal expenditures were included in “sundries.” Mr. Littlefield. You say “your own personal expenses.” What do you mean by that — your board at the hotel ? Mr. Sacket. My board and meals and incidental expenses. Mr. Littlefield. Whatever you spent from time to time as you went along? Mr. Sacket. Yes; that was charged as sundries, as incidentals. Mr. Littlefield. How were those items kept account of upon these cards ? Mr. Sacket. They were written down on the cards. Mr. Littlefield. And taken off on to the sheet of paper later ? The Chairman. I would make this suggestion both to counsel and to the witness: There may, at some stage of this proceeding, here- after, be raised the question as to whether or not this witness, having made a memorandum at the time, and having destroyed it, may testify from his recollection as to the items, and as to how closely he must remember. I merely suggest that here, as the rule is doubt- less apparent to counsel. Mr. Littlefield. You appreciate our embarrassment, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. It does not arise here. 520 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. I understand; but that is one reason I want to go into this right here now. I want to have the witness explain, as far as he can, just exactly what was done, and then the succeeding events. I will ask the reporter to read the last question and answer. (The reporter read as follows:) Mr. Littlefield. How were those items kept account of upon these cards? Mr. Sacket. They were written down on the cards. Mr. Littlefield. And taken off on to the sheet of paper later? The Chairman. Then the question, of course, may arise as to whether or not he may be permitted to explain, having destroyed the memorandum. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, surely. The only thing I can do is to lay the best possible foundation, and give the committee the benefit of all possible information. How were these items kept account of on these cards ? Were they written down on the cards and taken off on a sheet of paper later ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean by that, that each individual item would be taken off on the sheet of paper, or that the aggregate of the items that were thus entered on the cards would be taken off ? Mr. Sacket. They were copied on to the sheets of paper as fully in the way of explanation as they appeared on the cards, in all instances. Probably a number of small items of a few cents were grouped into one item, provided all the explanations were “ sundries” or u inci- dentals, ’’ which would be the same thing. Mr. Littlefield. What about these large items of $250 and $203.27 ? Give the committee the best explanation you can of the items aggregating $250, for instance. Take that item, and, so far as you have any recollection, give the committee the best information you can as to what constituted that item, and as to how the items constituting it were kept. Mr. Sacket. That was the aggregate of smaller items on the card for which the explanation was “ sundries ” or “ incidentals/’ in every instance. There was nothing put into that item of $250 for sundries that had any fuller explanation on the cards. The Chairman. You said it was made up of items of ‘‘sundries” or “incidentals.” Mr. Sacket. I would consider sundries as incidentals, and inci- dentals as sundries. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have any recollection now as to the character of the items which in the aggregate made up the item of $250 ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say as to that particular item. I can say generally. Mr. Littlefield. As to that particular item and as to the item of $203.27 — what about that? Mr. Sacket. The $203.27 item was at the final settlement. That includes small amounts and bills paid on or before October 16, which I hadn’t kept track of in detail. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, the committee will perceive that my examination is somewhat leading, but I want to make as much progress as I can. If the committee feels that it is too much so, I RODNEY SACKET. 521 shall be glad to have any member of the committee suggest that I change it. Mr. Sacket, do I understand the course of proceeding to have been this: that you had this card index, upon which you kept a notation of expenditures of all kinds from time to time, on the various cards ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you, in connection with that card index, have a card upon which original entries were made of the items which were afterwards aggregated under the head of “ sundries” ? Did you have cards of that sort from time to time ? Mr. Sacket. No item was taken to this account as “ sundries” that did not appear on the card as “ sundries’’ or “ incidentals.” Does that answer the question ? Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean by that, that the only thing that was on the card you speak of in relation to the $250 item was simply “ sundries, $250,” or were there .various items on that card which, added up, made $250 ? Do I make myself clear ? Mr. Sacket. There were a large number of items, but all of the items were “sundries” or “incidentals,” and the total was $250. Mr. Littlefield. So, if I understand correctly, upon this par- ticular card, your recollection is that there were a number of entries which would be indicated as sundries, incidentals, etc. ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And that the aggregate of those items thus men- tioned as “sundries” or “incidentals” on the cards amounted to $250, which was carried on to your transcript as “sundries?” Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And that the original card, if you had it here, would only show the various items marked “sundries” or “inci- dentals.” Is that right? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. I would like to have the witness’s understanding of each of those two terms. They are not synonymous at all. Do you use the terms “sundries” and “incidentals” indiscriminately as to the same class of items, or did you discriminate and put those that were properly incidentals under that head and those that were prop- erly sundries under that head ? Mr. Sacket. I used them with the understanding — possibly a wrong understanding — that they were synonymous and meant the same thing. Mr. Littlefield. Take, for instance, one of the items of “sun- dries” which, with the other items, made the aggregate of $250. (I use this for illustration.) Do I understand that an item of 1 1 sundries ” was entered upon this card, which item of itself included small expend- itures, which in the aggregate amounted to the. sum. marked “sun- dries” under that item? Do I make myself clear? For instance, if a man expended five or six dollars in sums of ten, fifteen, twenty cents, two or three dollars, as the case may be, when it was put on your card was it put down “Five dollars, sundries,” or did you put down the various items and add them up and call the items “sundries?” Mr. Sacket. When Mr. Lambeck would report to me that he had spent five or fifteen dollars, I would give him the money and enter “sundries,” five or fifteen dollars, as the case might be. 522 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. How about yourself in the case of disbursements ? Did you put down each individual disbursement ? Mr. Sacket. I did not. Mr. Littlefield. Or would you add your disbursements and make an item of “sundries,” so much? Mr. Sacket. I would. That would be the idea. Mr. Littlefield. See if I am correct about this. We will take the card representing $250. Do I understand that the $250 was the aggregate of these various items of “sundries” that had been put down on your card from time to time ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And the aggregate made, and then carried forward on to your account ? Mr. Sacket. Exactly; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In the case of a card like that, do you mean to be understood that the account which you transcribed from the cards is a duplicate of everything that appeared on the card ? Those items do not appear, do they, in that aggregate of $250 ? Mr. Sacket. As far as the purpose of the expenditure and account- ing for it is concerned, the one item of “sundries” accounts for it just as well as several items would if they all appeared. Mr. Littlefield. I understand; but it can not be true that the transcript you made of the card under those conditions contains all the details that appeared on the card. That is, if you took off that item of $250 as an aggregate and did not take off anything else, of course you left out the details of the sundries ? Mr. Sacket. I left out the details as far as the component parts of that $250 were concerned. Mr. Littlefield. With that exception, was that true of all of your items of “sundries?” Mr. Sacket. Generally true ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. With the exception of the item of “sundries,” do I understand that when you made this transcript it was a copy of the cards as they appeared, showing these various items ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. I think the witness misunderstands the question. He has made up an item of $250, which is an aggregate of a great many cards. Mr. Littlefield. No; not a great many cards, but the aggregate of quite a number of items on one card. Mr. Sacket. It is more than one card. I would not be certain that the $250 was all on one card. That amount may have appeared on more than one card. Mr. Littlefield. I see; but in any event in a case like that all you have is the aggregate “sundries” ? Mr. Sacket. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. As to the items making up the aggregate, you say they were “sundry” items also? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. With the exception of the item marked “ sun- dries,” are you certain that the transcript in other respects is a copy of the cards that were destroyed, as you have explained ? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection — that I copied those cards on- to the sheets of paper exactly. RODNEY SACKET. 523 Mr. Littlefield. That would except the names of these men who did not want their names attached to disbursements? Mr. Sacket. Their names did not appear on the card. I will say that in some instances in copying the cards, which I did from time fco time, I put on the account more than appeared on the card, because f remembered the item at that time. The account, if there is a dif- ference, explains better and more fully than the cards would if they were here now. The Chairman. Are we to understand that if a card called for an expenditure of, say, $7, and you remembered that $3 more had been expended, you would put it on that card, or add it to that amount? Mr. Sacket. No. The Chairman. And that you trusted your memory for part of it and a card for part of it ? Mr. Sacket. I would supply the information as to the purpose of the expenditure if I happened to remember it, if I had not put it on the card. I think I remember, in one or two instances, looking at a charge and remembering just what was done with that money when it did not state fully on the card; and when I transferred the data from that card to the sheet of paper I supplied the various items whenever I remembered them. Mr. Littlefield. You supplied what might be lacking on the card ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Sutherland. That is, by stating the purpose, but not changing the amount? Mr. Sacket. Oh, no; I did not change the amount at all. The cards were correct. Mr. Littlefield. Please state right in that connection the pur- pose you had in doing your business in this way. You have been over the occasion for the destruction of the cards; but I would like to have it stated right in this connection. Mr. Sacket. The cards were cumbersome. I wanted a record that was as clear and convenient in every way as possible. I considered a copy of the cards on sheets of paper to be more convenient. I could produce it at any time it might be called for and get at it better than I could the cards. The cards were more convenient for enter- ing, but not as convenient for reference as the sheets would be. The Chairman. How many cards were there ? Mr. Sacket. I would have to estimate that. I should think the box in which I kept them was 12 inches long. I should think there would be about 2 inches to the hundred cards. I think there were 600 cards in that box. The Chairman. And how many boxes were there ? Mr. Sacket. I think I had only one box at a time. The Chairman. Is that what you talk about as being “cumber- some” — one box? Mr. Sacket. I had one box at a time. The Chairman. How many times ? Mr. Sacket. I cleaned out that box from time to time, and trans- ferred the record to each paper. Possibly, if I had kept , he entire account on cards I would have had five or six boxes. 524 RODNEY SAGKET. Mr. Littlefield. So that the destruction of the cards was made from time to time as you renewed the box and transferred the con- tents of the cards to your memoranda ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You did not wait until the campaign was all over? Mr. Sacket. Oh, no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How many different periods were there during which you destroyed the cards ? Could you say, roughly speaking ? Mr. Sacket. Roughly speaking, I should say in the two months, probably, six times. The Chairman. At what time did the last destruction of the cards take place with reference to the close of the primary campaign ? Mr. Sacket. I think I could give the date better by looking at the last date in the account. I should think the last batch of cards was destroyed about September 15. Mr. Littlefield. At the time you destroyed the first batch, were there any charges of corruption or fraud or crime in connection with this campaign ? Mr. Sacket. None that I know of; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any brought to your notice during any period of the primary campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing that I paid attention to; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did the fact that such charges or intimations were made in any way induce the destruction of the cards ? Mr. Sacket. Not in the least. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any purpose of any kind to conceal anything by their destruction ? Mr. Sacket. There was not. Mr. Littlefield. If the transcripts that you have furnished are copies, substantially, of the cards, how could the presence of the originals be of any use or service in aiding you in defending against any charge, or in throwing any light upon the transactions ? Mr. Sacket. It would be of no use at all in throwing any more light on the transactions. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money disbursed, in currency, to any persons during the campaign as managers, for use in the campaign, outside of Mr. Stone, whose names were not entered upon the cards or did not afterwards appear upon your account ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any other instance. Mr. Littlefield. Then, would all the other disbursements for use in the campaign appear on these cashier’s checks, according to your recollection ? Mr. Sacket. They should if they were not paid in cash. I did not state positively that they would, but I recollect no other instance, and I would if it were a large amount, probably. Mr. Littlefield. You have stated that your cards did not con- tain the names of some of the men to whom money was paid for use in the campaign. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the names of those men appear in Exhibit 49. Mr. Sacket. As far as I was able to remember or find them, they do. RODNEY SACKET. 525 Mr. Littlefield. Did you put into Exhibit 49, at the time you prepared it, back in the early part of 1909, the names of all of the men to whom you had thus disbursed money that you could then remember ? Mr. Sacket. To. the best of my ability I did. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able now to remember the names of any men to whom you disbursed money whose names do not appear in Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Sacket. I remember none; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I am coming a little later to Exhibit 49. Ex- hibit 49 was made by you in response to a request from the Wis- consin investigating committee ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was it or not made after you had submitted Exhibit 47 ? Mr. Sacket. After I had submitted Exhibit 47. Mr. Littlefield. An inspection of Exhibit 47 shows that it did not give the names of practically any of the men to whom the money had been paid. That is correct, is it not? Mr. Sacket. There were a large number of names omitted from Exhibit 47. Mr. Littlefield. And the committee desired a statement of the men to whom the money had been paid ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you take Exhibit 47 and the cashier’s checks and make a thorough investigation for the purpose of being able to state the names of the men to whom the money was paid ? Mr. Sacket. I did. Let me explain one thing. You asked me if the statement in Exhibit 49 had been made before or after Exhibit 47 was presented. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Presented to whom ? Mr. Sacket. Presented to the joint committee, I presume. I had Exhibit 49 in my possession at the time I presented Exhibit 47, but I did not present it until afterwards and did not intend to present it unless they demanded it. Senator Pomerene. Right there let me ask where you got these names ? You have said that you got some of them from cashier’s checks. Did you get them all from cashier’s checks or not ? Mr. Sacket. Practically all of them. It is possible that I remem- bered one or two; but, generally speaking, I got them from the cashier’s checks. Senator Pomerene. You say “It is possible.” Do you remember now that you did ? Mr. Sacket. I think of one now — one item where I remembered the name; but I think I afterwards found the cashier’s check. Mr. Littlefield. I want to ask you a question in relation to the items marked “general” ; and then I am going to begin on the items in the account that you have not already explained, and ask you to go through them. On page 36 of volume 5, in relation to an item marked “General expense, July 6, $100,” you were asked: “Did you pay it to some one?” Your answer was: “I could not say.” 526 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. What was the date of the item? Mr. Littlefield. The item is: “July 6, $100.” On page 35 of volume 5 you will find the following: The Chairman. Whom did you pay that money to? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge. I do not know. Of course I will not stop to read the whole examination. The Chairman. Did you pay it to some one? Mr. Sacket. I could not say. What I want to know, Mr. Sacket, is whether or not that $100, and all of the other items marked “General,” were or were not paid out to some one ? Mr. Sacket. They were in every instance paid out to some one. Mr. Littlefield. What did you mean by this answer, then ? Mr. Sacket. The question asked whether I paid it out? I could not be positive whether I did or whether I turned it over to Mr. Edmonds to be paid out. Mr. Littlefield. Oh! You understood it was an inquiry as to whether you made the specific payment ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I want to ask you, now, this general question as to the items marked “General” or “General organizing” which are not attributed to any particular individual. What do you say is the fact in relation to those items? Were they or were they not actually disbursed by you in connection with the campaign? Mr. Sacket. They were actually disbursed by me or by Mr. Edmonds during the campaign; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You are not able to state the persons to whom they were disbursed where they have no distinguishing marks indi- cating the persons to whom they were paid? Mr. Sacket. I am not; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able to state the purposes for which such disbursements were made other than the general description that is found in the account— “ Organizing ” or “General organizing” ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing about the purpose, except that the word “general” means more than one county. It covers more than one county. Mr. Littlefield. You prepared the account? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it was intended by you to indicate that it was money disbursed for organization purposes. Mr. Sacket. That was the intent; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And where it was described as “general,” it simply applied to more counties than one? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was that your purpose in using the word “general” ? Mr. Sacket. To indicate a larger territory than one county; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why did you use the word “general,” rather than “State,” or something of that character? Mr. Sacket. The word “State” would have meant the entire State, and I did not mean that in all cases. I simply used the word RODNEY SACKET. 527 “general” to distinguish between the payments for larger terri- tories than a county and those for a county. Mr. Littlefield. I want to call your attention to one item which we have on our notes. Do you remember Mr. Stephenson testifying about the trip that he made" with Mr. Puelicher through some six or seven counties ? Mr. Sacket. Senator Stephenson? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know who paid the Senator’s personal expenses on that trip ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of the matter is that Mr. Puelicher paid them, and that I afterwards gave him a receipt for them. Mr. Littlefield. In the adjustment of the account ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. To refresh my memory, let me ask whether the Senator did not say that when he went out he paid his own expenses ? Mr. Littlefield. I understood the Senator to so state; yes. Mr. Black. He so testified; yes. Mr. Littlefield. He did so testify; but when we came to examine the matter, we found that the fact was that Mr. Puelicher had them in his account. Senator Pomerene. I just wondered whether my memory was the same as yours or not. Mr. Littlefield. It is. Your memory is correct. You stated, Mr. Sacket, that you presumed Senator Stephenson authorized Mr. Knell to make the disbursements in Milwaukee County. Do you know whether or not the Senator had any arrangement or conversa- tion at all with Mr. Knell ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of any conversation. Mr. Littlefield. You know nothing about that, then? Mr. Sacket. Nothing except that Senator Stephenson gave me to understand that Knell was to have charge of Milwaukee County. Mr. Littlefield. Calling your attention now to Exhibit 49, I wish to go over the items that my notes show have not been explained. Of course, I may be in error, but I want to be as sure as I can that I have everything cleaned up. Look at the item under date of July 18, i“Dane County, organizing, $200,” and state to the Committee what, if anything, you know about that? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that item is that it was paid to Mr. Ames — A. K. Ames, I think his name is. Mr. Littlefield. Under what circumstances and for what pur- pose ? Mr. Sacket. For the purpose of organizing in Dane County, for the purpose of promoting Senator Stephenson’s campaign there. The Chairman. What is the number of that exhibit? Mr. Littlefield. Exhibit 49, page 588, under date of July 18. I am beginning at the beginning of the account and going through and picking out the items that my notes show have not been explained. Who paid that to him — you ? Mr. Sacket. According to my recollection I did ; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether or not that was a check ? 528 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. From the fact that no check number appears after it. I believe it was in cash. Senator Pomerene. That is to say, you have no memory about it; you are simply reasoning about it ? Mr. Sacket. I have a recollection of paying Mr. Ames $200. I have not any recollection of the fact of the payment in cash or check. I do • reason that the check number not appearing there, it was in cash. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make the arrangement with Mr. Ames ? Mr. Sacket. I did. Mr. Littlefield. State what the arrangement was, and what Mr. Ames was to do. Just state it in substance. Of course, I do not expect you to give the specific language. Mr. Sacket. He was to conduct Senator Stephenson’s campaign in Dane County, doing all of the things that we have enumerated as the component parts of organizing. He was to keep within the law, and render an account of his expenses. Mr. Littlefield. Did he render such an account ? Mr. Sacket. I think he did, once or twice. Mr. Littlefield. What has become of that account ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that it was left with the joint committee at Madison. Senator Pomerene. Is it contained in the printed reports ? Mr. Sacket. I was unable to find it as an exhibit. The Chairman. How would it appear, umler what name ? Mr. Sacket. A. R. Ames. The Chairman. The only exhibit in the records from Ames is Ames’s list of receipts from poll workers, Exhibit No. 110, at page 2092 of the record. Is that it ? Mr. Sacket. I did not file that with the committee, to the best of my recollection. Mr. Littlefield. Of course in many of these instances, if the com- mittee please, we do not know whether the papers filed were marked as exhibits or not. The witness is doing the best he can to give his recollection. The Chairman. I have a list of the things Mr. Sacket filed here now, also. I have just completed this index. Senator Pomerene. Before inquiring specifically from this witness about those exhibits, would it not expedite matters somewhat if the exhibits were examined ? Mr. Littlefield. I should think so; yes. Of course we have not them. Have they been sent down ? Senator Pomerene. It must be quite apparent that there is a great deal of dependence here upon vague memories, etc. ; and if we can avoid anything of that kina, I should like the exact facts. Mr. Littlefield. Of course it is too obvious for discussion that the witness can not undertake to remember all those details with accu- racy. What I should like to do is this, then: If the papers have arrived or will arrive, I will not go into that branch of the examina- tion of Mr. Sacket yet. I will let him look over the exhibits and take up the matter with him later. The Chairman. The State officer who is the custodian of the papers is subpoenaed to be here on Wednesday with the papers. RODNEY SACKET. 529 Mr. Littlefield. Then I will not follow the question of returns and exhibits with Mr. Sacket, with the understanding that I can have him look them over and take them up later, and see what he can do. That is, I will simply omit that phase of it. The Chairman. The hour of recess has arrived, and the committee will be in recess until 2 o’clock. (At 12 o’clock and 30 minutes p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) after recess. The recess having expired, the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET— Continued. The Chairman. I would suggest to counsel that Mr. Sacket was instructed to bring in copies of newspapers in which advertisements were run. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Counsel may just as well ask him about that now. Mr. Littlefield. V ery well. Mr. Sacket, have you any newspapers that you can present to the committee showing sample advertising that was done during the cam- paign ? Mr. Sacket. I have a number of copies of the same paper. I -was only able to get one. Mi*. Littlefield. Is this the only copy that you have, the Milwau- kee Free Press, Tuesday morning, September 1, 1908? Air. Sacket. That is all that I was able to get. There are several days’ papers there, and that appears in several of the papers. Mr. Littlefield. This is about half a page ad. ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Do you want that to go into the record, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. I would like to ask a question or two about it. Is this advertisement similar as to space and substance to the advertisement that was run in other daily papers in Milwaukee ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that all of the large daily papers in Milwaukee ran that ad at the same time that it was run m this paper. Senator Pomerene. You mean, the same copy? Mr. Sacket. Yes; the same ad; the same copy; the same thing. The Chairman. How long was it run in the paper ? Mr. Sacket. I think there were three insertions, on the three days preceding the election day. The Chairman. Is that the service for which the total sum paid to these papers was paid? Mr. Sacket. There was other advertising in the same papers, at other times. The Chairman. Those bills will appear, I suppose, when we get the originals from Madison ? Mr. Sacket. I think I remember distinctly of a bill for that adver- tising being found among those left at Madison. 15235 °— VOL 1—11 34 530 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. Do the newspaper bills generally state on their face the character of service rendered ? Mr. Sacket. The large amounts to the Koch Advertising Agency and to Usher are printed in the testimony before the joint com- mittee. I presume they are exact copies of the bills themselves. There may be other bills which are not printed. Mr. Littlefield. If the committee desire, we will, of course, do our best to get all these printing bills. The Chairman. You need not go to that trouble until after the time expires in which they are to be produced. Before proceeding further with this witness, I will ask that J. J. Blaine, George W. Dart, and Edward McMahon be called as witnesses. (The marshal called the names just mentioned by the chairman. Mr. Dart and Mr. McMahon responded and the oath was administered to them by the chairman. The marshal reported that Mr. Blaine had not yet arrived.) Senator Sutherland. Do you wish to have that particular adver- tisement read, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. It is rather difficult to consider it in that way. I suppose it might be read. I think perhaps it would be well to read the text of that advertisement. Senator Sutherland. It might be well to state in the record what its character is; that it is what is called a display advertisement. That is so, is it not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. If it is a matter of sufficient consequence so that the committee desires it, why not take it right out and put it in the record ? The Chairman. And then every time this record is printed it will be necessary to lithograph that picture. Mr. Littlefield. Whatever your honors wish about that. The Chairman. It may be inserted in the record, too. Senator Sutherland. Put in one or two samples. Mr. Littlefield. Is this from a file, Mr. Sacket ? Mr. Sacket. That belongs to the Free Press, and I promised to return it. Mr- Littlefield. Would you like to have the witness read it ? Senator Sutherland. Let him state, generally, the character of it. Mr. Littlefield. Just describe it, Mr. Sacket, or may I describe it for the witness ? Senator Pomerene. Counsel has great descriptive powers. Mr. Littlefield. Thank you. This is an ad that occupies about one-half of a page of the Milwau- kee Free Press, and is inserted upon the upper half of the page. The words “At the primary election to-day” and “vote for” and “Wisconsin’s Grand Old Man” are in black-face display type. The balance of the advertisement is in large type, and in the center of it is the picture of Senator Stephenson; and the last line of the adver- tisement is in large display type, reading as follows: “Vote for Uncle Ike.” The balance of the advertisement reads as follows. Senator Sutherland. I suppose that last line would appeal to the emotions of the voters ? RODNEY SACKET. 531 Mr. Littlefield. The advertisement is preceded by the words “ Political advertisements / ’ repeated six times, at the head of the page, in a ruled space. The balance of the advertisement reads as follows. Mr. Sacket (reading) : At the primary election to-day vote for Wisconsin’s Grand Old Man. United States Senator Isaac Stephenson is a candidate to succeed himself in the Senate. Every Wisconsin Republican should recognize the usefulness and great value of a man of Senator Stephenson’s great experience in public life and his large stake in the State of Wisconsin, which has been his home for more than 60 years. Senator Stephenson is a life-long Republican, always faithful to the party, and always in sympathy with its progressive spirit. All his votes in the Senate were in line with the Roosevelt idea. The Roosevelt policies must be carried to a final success by the election of Mr. Taft. As Governor Hoard put it, “Never swap horses in the middle of a stream. ” We are in the middle of the stream. The Republicans of Wisconsin must do their share, and they can best serve their interests, and those of their party, by send- ing back to the Senate Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette. Vote for Uncle Ike. Senator Sutherland. Is that similar to other advertisements inserted in other papers throughout the State ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. This advertisement w'as inserted in several of them. The Chairman. Mr. Blaine has arrived, and we will desist long enough to swear him. (The marshal called the name of Mr. J. J. Blaine as a witness. He responded, and was duly sworn by the chairman.) Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that this is the advertisement, substantially, that appeared in the daily papers, or do you mean that that is the advertisement that appeared in the various weekly papers, large numbers of which are mentioned in the account ? Mr. Sacket. We did run this advertisement in several papers besides the daily papers, and we ran similar advertisements in other papers. This particular one, according to my recollection, was run for the last three issues preceding the primary election, by all of the large daily papers in Milwaukee. Mr. Littlefield. How about the daily papers outside of Milwaukee? Mr. Sacket. I could not say positively as to when it was run in them. I think that it was run in some of them at some time. Mr. Littlefield. Is that all your honors want for the present on that ? The Chairman. I think that is sufficient for the purpose. Mr. Littlefield. Just notify me about the matter of the bills, if you think they are needed. I would not want to be in the position of failing to furnish them if any member of the committee feels that they should be furnished. The Chairman. It will not be necessary to take any steps to procure evidence that we already have. When the exhibits that were left with the committee come before us we shall be able then to see what is missing. Mr. Littlefield. We do not wish to encumber the record with things that the committee may feel are unnecessary. Now, Mr. Sacket, had you finished such explanation as you desired to make about the item of July 18 , Dane County, organizing, $ 200 ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember just exactly where I stopped. 532 RODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. The last thing you stated about it was that you thought it was paid in cash and not by a check, as I remember. Mr. Sacket. Yes; in answer to Senator Pomerene’s question. Senator Pomerene. Paid to A. R. Ames. Mr. Sacket. The amount, to the best of my recollection, was paid to Mr. Ames; but I did not state positively whether it was by cash or check. The account would indicate, however, that it was paid in cash. Mr. Littlefield. Take the next item under that, “General organ- izing, Edmonds, check, $150,” and state whether or not you can make any explanation of that item; and if so, what? Mr. Sacket. I know nothing of that item. I recollect nothing of it. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not sums were advanced, from time to time, to Mr. Edmonds on account of his expenses and dis- bursements that were made by him. Mr. Sacket. I did give several receipts to cover money paid to Mr. Edmonds, to be used in his own expenses, and possibly otherwise. Mr. Littlefield. In what manner are such advancements indi- cated in Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Sacket. The words “Edmonds” or “Edmonds check,” or “E. A. E.” would indicate that the money was given to Mr. Edmonds for some purpose. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know for what purpose Mr. Edmonds used the sums thus advanced to him from time to time, or paid to him, as the case may be ? Mr. Sacket. Only from what he has said. Mr. Littlefield. Did you know at the time for what purpose he was using the sums thus either advanced or paid to him ? Mr. Sacket. At the time I made this entry? Mr. Littlefield. No. I mean, now, at the time when the advance- ments were made or when the repayments were made. Were they in all cases advancements, or were they part of the time advance- ments and the balance of the time repayments? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that they were paid to him in both ways — sometimes one way and sometimes the other. Mr. Littlefield. My question is whether or not you knew, at the time the advancements or repayments were being made, the pur- poses for which Mr. Edmonds was using the money thus advanced or thus repaid ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that Mr. Edmonds indicated to me the fact of its being for general organizing, or for a certain county or certain district or certain person, in which case I noted it on the card and copied it into this record. Mr. Littlefield. How were Mr. Edmonds’s personal expenses paid during this period, if you know? Mr. Sacket. My understanding is that they were paid out of the money that Senator Stephenson gave him, $5,000, I think, most of them. Mr. Littlefield. That his personal expenses were paid out of the $5,000 ? Mr. Sacket. I think be paid most of them out of that ; and I have a recollection of giving receipts for amounts of money, I think, RODNEY SACKET. 533 before he got this $5,000, that were advanced to him for his per- sonal expenses — either advanced, or he was reimbursed. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Edmonds was receiving any compensation for his services as manager of this campaign for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge except his word. Mr. Littlefield. At the time did you have any knowledge as to whether or not he was receiving compensation for his services, as distinguished from his expenses and disbursements? Mr. Sacket. I do not think anything was said to me about that at the time, one way or the other. Mr. Littlefield. You have already testified, I believe, that you received no compensation ? Mr. Sacket. I have; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether or not Mr. Puelicher received any compensation for his services ? Of course, I am calling now for your personal knowledge. Mr. Sacket. I have no personal knowledge. •Senator Sutherland. What does the witness mean by saying he gave receipts for this money paid to Edmonds? Mr. Littlefield. Just expialn to the Senator the course of busi- ness — the circumstances under which you passed a receipt to Mr. Puelicher, and why you passed to him a receipt such as you have described. That covers your ground; does it not, Senator? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Sacket. In several instances Mr. Puelicher gave Mr. Edmonds money, and I think he opened an account with Mr. Edmonds in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank at one time, and told me that he had done so in order that Mr. Edmonds might pay his personal expenses by per- sonal check. He told me the amount, and in order to balance our books I gave him a receipt for that amount. Senator Sutherland. You mean a receipt signed by you? Mr. Sacket. A receipt signed by me; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Why not a receipt signed by Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Puelicher asked me for it, and I gave it. Mr. Littlefield. Edmonds had no custody of the fund ? Senator Sutherland. Money was turned over to him finally ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know why it was not signed by Mr. Edmonds, except that Mr. Puelicher asked me. The Chairman. Where did the money come from that opened that account ? Mr. Sacket. It came out of the money that Senator Stephen- son — The Chairman. Out of the campaign fund? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then part of the campaign fund which Stephenson had placed in the hands of Puelicher was transferred to private credit in an account opened for Edmonds at the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, was it? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection. The Chairman. What was the amount of that deposit ? Mr. Sacket. I could not give the figures; but my recollection is that it was comparatively small. The Chairman. Comparative figures vary according to times. 534 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I should estimate it at about S500. The Chairman. How was that used ? Mr. Sacket. I do not know. The Chairman. How was that fund drawn ? Mr. Sacket. By check signed Edmonds. The Chairman. That was reported to you as part of the account- ing for this fund, was it ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was Edmonds charged with receiving $500 when that money was taken from the general fund and placed to his credit in a special account ? Mr. Sacket. The money was charged in this account in some place. I have no recollection of exactly where. The Chairman. Charged how ? Mr. Sacket. The money was charged in this account in Exhibit 49 in some place. I do not recollect just where. The Chairman. Can you not pick out that item in the account that you made ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of it is that it was not in one item; it was in several items. In going over the account I have found items that I believe Mr. Edmonds said he knew nothing about and I cer- tainly knew nothing about. For instance, on July 18, “General, organizing, Edmonds’s check,” $150. That might have been part of that account. The Chairman. That is, that might have been a check drawn to Mr. Edmonds’s order and deposited to his credit in this private account in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank ? Mr. Sacket. It is possible that I meant, by “Edmonds’s check,” Edmonds’s check account. Possibly I did not write it fully.* The Chairman. That is, the account subject to Edmonds’s check? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you give us the total of that deposit during the campaign? Mr. Sacket. Only by estimate. The Chairman. Can you not pick out the figures, or, rather, the items in the account that make it up ? Mr. Sacket. I could not be positive as to the items; no, sir. The Chairman. Who could do that ? Mr. Sacket. I beg pardon ? The Chairman. The Marshall & Ilsley Bank would have that ac- count; would it not? Mr. Sacket. It would; yes, sir. The Chairman. Was that ever accounted for to you — the expendi- ture of the money placed to Edmonds’s credit ? Mr. Sacket. I do not think the expenditure by Edmonds was ever accounted for. The Chairman. Edmonds never filed any itemized account of his expenses, did he? Mr. Sacket. Nothing to me that I ever remember; no, sir. The Chairman. Then you think Edmonds received that sum, whatever it was — $500, or more or less — out of the general fund for his own personal expenditure, without accounting to the fund? Is that true ? RODNEY SACKET. 535 Mr. Sacket. I do not think it was put in his account for the pur- pose of evading his accounting for it. As I understood it The Chairman. I was rather endeavoring to get the facts. Mr. Sacket. May I state ? Mr. Littlefield. The question is whether the $500 is in the item in Exhibit 49. I take it that is it; is it not ? The Chairman. It would be more than that. Mr. Littlefield. Whatever it is, then. The Chairman. I want the fact from the witness’s recollection. It passed through his hands. I want the fact. We can draw deductions from it at another time. Mr. Sagket. All of the amounts taken out of the fund in the Mar- shall & Ilsley Bank do appear in Exhibit 49. The Chairman. Yes; but you can not identify them. Mr. Sacket. I can not identify those particular items; no, sir. The Chairman. Was Edmonds ever charged back with those sums that were placed to his credit, which he had drawn on his own check ? Mr. Sacket. I do not just exactly understand that. The Chairman. If you advance a man $500 out of a general fund of which you are the custodian, or of which you have the accounting, and he pays it back, you credit it. If he does not pay it back, you charge him with it. How does that account stand ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds expended the money in one way or another, I am informed; and he certainly never put it back into the general fund. The Chairman. Your statement that he expended it is based upon your general impression, is it not ? You say you can not identify the items in the account ? Mr. Sacket. It is based upon information received from Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. What was the information ? When was it given ? Mr. Sacket. The information was that this money was to be placed to the credit of Mr. Edmonds; and Mr. Edmonds did use it for his personal The Chairman. How do you know that ? Mr. Sacket. My knowledge is based on information received from him. The Chairman. When did he tell you that ? Mr. Sacket. At some time during the campaign. The Chairman. What did he say he had expended it for ? Mr. Sacket. In part for his personal expenses, and The Chairman. What item of personal expenses ? Mr. Sacket. His board at the hotel. The Chairman. Did he tell you that he had paid his board at the hotel out of this sum of money placed to his credit in Marshall & Ilsley’s Bank ? Mr. Sacket. That is my recollection of it. The Chairman. He told you that; did he? Mr. Sacket. t do not mean all of his board, but some of it. The Chairman. How did he come to tell you that ? Mr. Sacket. In talking over the accounts. I think the occasion was that at one time his account in the bank was very low; and I deposited some cashier’s checks to the credit of that account in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. 536 RODNEY SACKET, The Chairman. That personal account ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; Mr. Edmonds’s personal account. The Chairman. Where did you draw that money from ? Mr. Sacket. The money was drawn from the general fund. The Chairman. By whom ? Mr. Sacket. By me. The Chairman. How did you draw it ? Mr. Sacket. By receipt. The Chairman. To whom ? Mr. Sacket. To Mr. Puelicher, or whoever was in charge of it at the bank. The Chairman. Did it amount to more than a transfer of accounts ? Was the money actually drawn and handed over? Mr. Sacket. In the case of the cashier’s checks that I deposited, the money was actually drawn out in the form of cashier’s checks and put back in Mr. Edmonds’s account. The Chairman. You say “ drawn out in the form of cashier’s checks” ? Unless the cashier’s checks were deposited it would not be drawing the money; it would be merely transferring the credit. Mr. Sacket. The cashier’s checks were deposited to Mr. Edmonds’s credit. The Chairman. Then the money was not drawn on them. The depositing of a cashier’s check would not be the drawing of money on it. It would be the transfer of credits. Did you draw the money or did you just transfer the credits? Mr. Sacket. I transferred the credit. The Chairman. And you did not draw any money out of the bank on those cashier’s checks at all ? Mr. Sacket. No. The Chairman. They were drawn to whose order? Mr. Sacket. I think in several cases they were drawn to the orders of people that Mr. Edmonds had employed about the State. The Chairman. I am speaking now of money that was deposited to his private account. Mr. Sacket. That is the thing that I am speaking about. The checks were drawn out of the bank by me on receipts, and is was found that we did not need to send that money out at that time; and in order to get it back into the bank Mr. Edmonds asked me to take those checks over to the bank and have them credited to his personal account, which I did. The Chairman. Let us see about that. You went to the bank and purchased cashier’s checks or certificates of deposit — whatever form they may have been in — to the order of someone out in the State ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And instead of sending them to the persons in whose names or for whose use you had bought them, you handed them over to Mr. Edmonds; did you? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And Mr. Edmonds handed them back to you and told you to deposit them to his credit. Was that the transaction? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At what period were they indorsed by the payee? Mr. Sacket. Never. RODNEY SACKET. 537 The Chairman. To whose order was the cashier’s check drawn? Mr. Sacket. To the person for whom it was purchased. The Chairman. That is just what I asked you. It was drawn to the order of the person for whom it was purchased ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did they go back into the bank without being indorsed by that person ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Edmonds indorsed them. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds indorsed the name of the person to whose credit they were drawn? Mr. Sacket. I have forgotten the exact manner of his indorse- ment; but he put his name on the back of it, with some explanation, and I carried it to the bank, and they did transfer the credit. The Chairman. Then you mean to say that they never were in- dorsed by the party to whose order they were drawn, but that instead of having them so indorsed they were indorsed by Mr. Edmonds, and the bank accepted that in lieu of the indorsement of the party to whose order they were drawn ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What bank did that? Mr. Sacket. The Marshall & Ilsley Bank. The Chairman. Those cashier’s checks were brought away from the bank, were they ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Or was the transaction all in the bank ? Mr. Sacket. They were brought over to our office. The Chairman. They were taken across the street to your office? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. They were payable to the order of some one out in the body of the State ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And never sent to such party ? Mr. Sacket. Never. The Chairman. They were retained by you, Mr. Edmonds’s name was written on them, and the bank upon that kind of indorsement placed them to the credit of this private account of Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what amount were those checks drawn ? Just select some one in your mind, and name the amount. Mr. Sacket. One check I remember distinctly was to C. C. Wellens- gard for $250. The Chairman. That you did not send to him at all ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Who is this ? Mr. Sacket. C. C. Wellensgard. Mr. Littlefield. It never was delivered to him ? Mr. Sacket. That check was not; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. It was never delivered to Wellensgard ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was the cash given to him? Mr. Sacket. Another check was given to Mr. Wellensgard later. The first check that I remember was not. Senator Pomerene. What was the object of that ? 538 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. We had the checks on hand; it was not necessary to send them out to the people in whose favor they were drawn ; Mr Edmonds thought he needed more money in his personal account. Senator Pomerene. As 1 understand you, this check was originally drawn to Wellensgard as payee? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Then that was indorsed by somebody in your office? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And another check for that amount given by Mr. Edmonds on his individual account to Mr. Wellensgard ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Possibly I misunderstood you. The Chairman. It never reached Wellensgard, as I understand ? Mr. Sacket. That identical check never did reach Wellensgard. I think you will find them mentioned in his testimony. The Chairman. Whose name did Mr. Edmonds write on that check ? Did he write Wellensgard’ s name on it ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of it is that he wrote the name of the payee, “By E. A. Edmonds.” The Chairman. And the bank accepted that ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What date was that ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. The Chairman. Fix it by association, or in some way. Mr. Sacket. I should think it was in the latter part of August. The Chairman. Was it not just after the primary? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Are you sure ? Mr. Sacket. I am quite certain that I did not have any deal of that kind after the primaries. The Chairman. Did you, or to your knowledge did Mr. Edmonds, introduce that check before the joint committee when this matter was being inquired into ? Mr. Sacket. I heard some testimony before the joint committee in regard to this particular deal, and I think Mr. Puelicher explained why the bank accepted those checks. The Chairman. Then you gave Mr. Wellensgard a check on Sep- tember 5 for $250. Did he ever get that check ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Does it bear his own indorsement ? Mr. Sacket. It does. The Chairman. In what other case did you proceed in the same manner — by having a cashier’s check made to the credit of some person as payee and not sending it to him ? Mr. Sacket. I can not give any other instance from memory. The Chairman. There were others; were there not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. There were several at that time, but I do not remember any of them now. The Chairman. Do you remember the amounts? Mr. Sacket. I do not; no, sir. The Chairman. One of them was for $500, was it not ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. RODNEY SACKET. 539 The Chairman. I will leave that transaction for counsel later to take up. Senator Sutherland. Let me ask you why were you doing the business in that way ? Mr. Sacket. The part I took in that transaction was by direction of Mr. Edmonds. Senator Sutherland. Do you know why it was so done ? Mr. Sacket. The only knowledge I have is what he told me and what I have heard him tell about afterwards. Senator Sutherland. What was it ? Let us find out about it. Mr. Sacket. The idea was that he wanted to get a large amount of money into his private account, so that he would be sure to be able to settle with the men that he had made arrangements with. Senator Sutherland. Not the men to whom the checks were drawn, but others ? Mr. Sacket. The account was getting low at that time, as I remem- ber it, and we had these checks on hand for the purpose of sending them out. Mr. Edmonds asked me to get them originally for the pur- pose of sending them to the men named in them as payees. The Chairman. That was the last week in August ? Mr. Sagket. It was m the latter part of August. Senator Sutherland. You say he got the checks originally for the purpose of sending them to the payees of the checks ? Mr. Sacket. That was my understanding; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Then afterwards he concluded to deposit them to his own account ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. It was not, then, the original idea to have these checks made out to other persons and indorsed by Edmonds? Mr. Sacket. That was not my idea; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Was that his, so far as you know ? • Mr. Sacket. Not as far as I know. Mr. Black. If the subcommittee desire a reference to the testimony on that subject — I do not know that you do — at pages 799-800 you will find the list of those checks. The Chairman. Yes; we have the list of them. Senator Sutherland. Does the testimony state why the business was conducted in that way ? Mr. Black. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What was the purpose of it ? Mr. Black. As I understand it, and as Mr. Edmonds there testified, these checks had been made out in the name of a certain person. He, as the purchaser of those checks, before ever sending them out, returned them to the bank, the same as any purchaser of a check can do, and then tlrny were placed to the credit of Edmonds’s account. At the top of page 800 you will find a list of those checks, amounting to $4,900. Trie date of the Wellensgard check, which was asked a moment ago, was August 27 ; but it does not appear here. The dates of the others can be ascertained from the checks themselves, which can be produced here. Senator Sutherland. That is, the checks were not purchased originally with the view of passing them back to Mr. Edmonds’s credit ? Mr. Black. I did not understand that they were. 540 EODNEY SACKET. Senator Sutherland. I was asking about the testimony. Mr. Black. I do not think the testimony shows. But that was the fact as to the way the checks got out of the bank and got back in and were placed to the credit of Edmonds’s account. The Chairman. There is just a little missing link there. I under- stood that these checks were procured by Mr. Sacket from Mr. Pue- licher, and that Mr. Edmonds was not a party to the procuring of the checks, and that there was nothing on them or about them or about entries made in connection with them that connects Mr. Edmonds with the transaction. The question in my mind is, Can a bank, pro- ceeding regularly, credit those checks to any other account than that of the person who purchased them and paid for them ? Must not the transaction go back to its source ? Can a bank place them to the credit of a new account, in the name of a person who has not been a party to the transaction ? Mr. Black. If you go to a bank and buy a cashier’s check payable to my order, but before delivering it to me you take it back to the bank and ask that it be placed to the credit of another account, you can do so. The Chairman. Yes, you can; but can another person? Mr. Black. I say, you can. You are the one who buys the check; and if before delivering it to me, to whose order it is made, you take it back, you may have it placed to the credit of your account in the bank. The Chairman. There is no doubt about that; it is a familiar transaction. But there is still one link missing. Mr. Sacket pur- chased these drafts of Mr. Puelicher, I understand. Is that right? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Sacket could return them to Puelicher and receive either the cash or its equivalent and have them placed to his credit. But how did Mr. Edmonds get authority to place them to the credit of a new account ? That is loose banking. Mr. Littlefield. I think we all agree about that. Senator Suther- land wanted to know what explanation we made at the time. I will read a couple of answers here, which are as full as anything I find here. It is, I think, the examination of Mr. Edmonds: A. As I explained, Senator, the last few days of the campaign Mr. Puelicher was away and these checks were deposited because certain other sums had to be paid at that time — I felt that they had to, at least — and I didn’t have to my credit a sufficient amount to pay them, and so deposited these, making the explanation to Puelicher when he returned. Q. Well, why did you indorse some of these, like the Wellensgard ones, and not others, like the C. M. Johnson one? — A. Well, possibly if that is one of these of which Mr. Sacket made a notation, he took it back. Q. From whom? — A. From me. Q. From you? — A. Oh, yes; they never left the office, any of these checks, I understand. Q. They were left in your office? — A. No; except to go to the bank. They were never sent out to the persons to whom they were made payable. I think, Senator, as a banking proposition that may be — is irregular. I took the position, however, that since I had asked for drafts or cashier’s checks on the bank, that it was all right, and they never had been used, that it was all right for me to indorse them and put them into the fund again; and I consulted Mr. Puelicher at the time or a little later, and while there seemed to be a little question about its being exactly regular, my authority for signing anyone else’s name by myself, he thought that was a proper explanation — at least I did — or a sufficient explanation. RODNEY SACKET. 541 Q. When you turned these back to the bank how did you get credit for them at the bank? — A. I put them in my personal account. Q. And did you have a book in which the credit was entered — a bank book? — A. No, sir. The only way it would appear would be on the stub of a check book or on the back of the stub showing the deposit. I think you will see on the back of the stub where that was deposited. Senator Sutherland. I do not think it is necessary to read further. Mr. Littlefield. No; I think that covers about every thing there is. Senator Sutherland. I think I understand the situation now in reference to that. The Chairman. I would like to have the next paragraph read in connection with that. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I will read right along, if the chairman wishes, the next question and answer: Q. During all this transaction in which you paid out personally The Chairman. No ; I would like counsel to just complete reading. The counsel had not finished. Mr. Littlefield (reading) : I see $1,300 at one time and $900 at another. Now, shall I read right on? The Chairman. Yes; the next paragraph. Mr. Littlefield (reading) : During all this transaction in which you paid out personally, aside from this cam- paign fund, something over $10,000 — something over $11,000 — you didn’t have any bank book at all? — A. No, sir; I didn’t have a bank book. Q. And only kept track of it by what you entered on the stubs of your checks? — A. Yes. That was reasonable in that instance, too, because in the National Exchange Bank I had but the one deposit. They asked me if I wanted a book. I told them that would be the only deposit, and didn’t take any. In the case of the Marshall & Ilsley Bank, it wasn’t supposed, either by me or anyone else, that I would have to exceed a thousand dollars, and that would be two deposits, and only, as I explained to you, did it happen that there was more than that deposited. Q. These vouchers that I have just been asking you about, which you say were not used, were deposited in Marshall & Ilsley’s Bank to your credit? The Chairman. Unless counsel desires to read further, it will not be necessary. Mr. Littlefield. I will just read that answer if the chairman please : A. Yes, sir, either to my credit, or possibly those that Mr. Sacket signed, possibly they went back to the general fund; I am not sure. The Chairman. It appears on page 803 that there was a balance of $11,000 in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank. That was to this unexpected account, too ; was it not ? Mr. Sacket. To the The Chairman. You expected to have only $1,000 there — that is, not to exceed $1,000 — but it ran up to $11,000; did it not? Mr. Sacket. I had no expectation of having $1,000. That was not my testimony. The Chairman. According to the testimony of Mr. Edmonds, on page 803. Mr. Littlefield. The question is : And the balance of the $11,000 was in the Marshall & Ilsley Bank? — A. Yes. Q. I don’t remember your explanation, etc. 542 RODNEY SACKET. The Chairman. I understand that that was no part of what may be known as the campaign fund which was to the credit of Mr. Puelicher; that Mr. Puelicher did not carry it as a bank account, but carried it as a personal banker would carry it. Mr. Sacket. I understand that the Edmonds account was carried as a regular bank account, and checks drawn against it. The Chairman. Yes; it seems to have gone up as high as $11,000. Mr. Sacket. I do not dispute the testimony. I did not recollect it that way, though. The Chairman. I just called attention to the fact. Mr. Littlefield. We will examine into that and find out what the fact is. The Chairman. I see it is a fact, nevertheless, that that account, instead of keeping within the expected $1,000 margin, ran up to $11,000. The reasons were given; but then the fact is the point I was referring to. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Just exactly what the detailed facts are about that, I do not know. As a matter of fact, this is the first time my attention has been called to it. Mr. Black. My recollection is that the $11,000 included the $5,000 that he had at the National Exchange. From reading this testimony right here I do not recall distinctly in regard to that; but my recol- lection is that the $4,900 of checks represented the greatest amount that was in Edmonds’s personal account. The Chairman. He says the $5,000 referred to was in the National Exchange Bank. Mr. Littlefield. We can get that bank account, I suppose, with- out any trouble. Of course that will absolutely demonstrate it. The Chairman. Yes. It only goes to the question of the manner of doing business. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. The Chairman. The question as to the recovery of the money is not being initialed. We are only interested in it as showing the manner in which these accounts were kept — as to whether they were kept openly and candidly, or whether or not surreptitious accounts were kept. I say that without any suggestion of personal belief in the matter. Mr. Littlefield. We will give the subcommittee all the informa- tion that is at our disposal upon that branch of the case; and I will have that account looked up, and see just what there is to it. In a matter like that I suppose all you care about is, for instance, a tran- script of the account? You would not want me to bring the books of the bank in here. What I will do is this: In matters like that I will submit the transcript, and if you think you want to look at the original it can be produced. The Chairman. I think the committee, in the ordinary course of this investigation, will reach a part where it will cause testimony on this subject to be produced. Mr. Littlefield. That will be agreeable to us. Is that all for the present, gentlemen of the committee ? Senator Pomerene. I have a little matter that is not quite clear in my own mind. I should like to pursue it a little further. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. RODNEY SACKET. 543 Senator Pomerene. As I understand you, these checks were drawn, for instance, to Mr. Wellensgard as payee ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And then indorsed by Mr. Edmonds and then the check was deposited to Mr. Edmonds’s credit ? Mr. Sacket. By me; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. By you ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. In his individual account? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Then another check would be drawn on his individual account ? Mr. Sacket. He was at liberty to draw a check on his individual account and from his report he did. The Chairman. Were checks drawn by him upon his individual account for the same amounts and to the same payees named in the checks or receipts which you drew ? Mr. Sacket. In the only instance that I have a distinct recol- lection of there were not. Senator Pomerene. That is, they were drawn to a different payee ? Mr. Sacket. If you will permit me to state as to the Wellensgard item I remember distinctly buying that check for Mr. Edmonds and I remember its being deposited in the bank and credited to Mr. Edmonds’s account. Then I remember distinctly later getting another cashier’s check out of the general fund and sending it to Mr. Wellensgard. So that I am positively certain that Mr. Edmonds did not in all instances draw his personal checks for the same items that were covered by the cashier’s checks that were deposited to his credit. Senator Pomerene. Then what was the object in drawing that check to Wellensgard as payee ? Mr. Sacket. The original object, as I understand it, was that Mr. Edmonds thought that Mr. Wellensgard ’s account against us would be about $250 and he got the check ready to send to him. Senator Pomerene. In other words, he got $250 for Wellensgard? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Which $250 was deposited to his own indi- vidual account and was not sent to Wellensgard ? Mr. Sacket. Was not sent to Wellensgard. Senator Pomerene. But it was used for some other purpose? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. • Mr. Littlefield. Why was the check not sent to Wellensgard, but deposited in Mr. Edmonds’s account, if you know? That is what the Senator wants to know. Mr. Sacket. Because Mr. Wellensgard was not clamoring for the money. Mr. Wellensgard could wait until we got more money just as well as not, and the check was sent back and put where the money could be drawn and sent to some one who needed it immediately. Senator Pomerene. What was pressing at that time ? Mr. Sacket. A lot of matters; a lot of people. Senator Pomerene. That is indefinite. Name some things that were pressing. Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of any specific thing. Senator Pomerene. What is that date? 544 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. I think the testimony said August 27. Senator Pomerene. Do you know whether he had a balance to his credit in his individual account at that time? Mr. Sacket. My understanding of it was that it was very small, if any. Senator Pomerene. Why was not that drawn payable to him individually as payee, and deposited in his own account? Mr. Sacket. I ordered it drawn to Mr. Wellensgard, because I was informed by Mr. Edmonds that he wanted it for the purpose of sending it to Wellensgard. Senator Pomerene. Why did you not tear that up, and draw another one to Mr. Edmonds personally? Mr. Littlefield. That would not do, because the bank had a record of the check. Mr. Sacket. I would have lost $250 if I had torn it up. Senator Pomerene. It was not presented yet. Mr. Sacket. But I had given a receipt for it. Mr. Littlefield. That was a cashier’s check. The bank had a record of it. Senator Pomerene. I did not understand that. Mr. Littlefield. No; they had to account for it at the bank. They would have been shy $250. Senator Pomerene. Certainly, if that were true. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Pomerene. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Sacket, I call your attention to the item of July 20, “T. J. Sexton, organizing, C. D. No. 93677, $50.” I will ask you to state to the committee what, if anything, you know about that item ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that is that it was money advanced to T. J. Sexton to cover his expenses in traveling over the State in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Who employed Mr. Sexton ? Mr. Sacket. I made the arrangement with him, partially, at least. Mr. Littlefield. As a result of the arrangement made by you with Sexton, what was the character of the services to be rendered by him ? Mr. Sacket. He was to travel in different parts of the State, report conditions, talk favorably of Senator Stephenson, and interest people in his campaign to the best of his ability. Mr. Littlefield. What compensation was he to receive for it? and state whether or not he was to receive payments for his expenses* while engaged in performing the service? State in the first place, if you remember, what compensation he was to receive. Mr. Sacket. He was to receive some compensation. I have forgotten the amount. I think it was about $150 a month. Mr. Littlefield. What, if anything, was he to receive on account of his expenses ? Mr. Sacket. All of his expenses. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose was this $50 paid him? Was it on account of the contract made between him and yourself in relation to his services and expenses? Mr. Sacket. Yes. RODNEY SACKET. 545 Mr. Littlefield. As I understand, you have no specific knowledge of the item “General organizing, July 21 ” ? Mr. Sacket. None whatever. Mr. Littlefield. Are you prepared to state to the committee whether or not that sum was actually disbursed ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. But you are not able to state as to whom ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is that one of the items where you did not care to disclose the name of the party receiving it, or is it a disbursement made generally that you can not remember the details about ? Mr. Sacket. I think that was an item given to some person whose name I did not want to put on the card. Mr. Littlefield. When you made up this account, did you do your best to refresh your recollection for the purpose of ascertaining the name of the party to whom it was paid ? Mr. Sapket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were you able to do so? Mr. Sacket. I was not. Mr. Littlefield. And have you been able to do so since? Mr. Sacket. I have not. Mr. Littlefield. Now, take the item of July 22, “J. W. Wyps- zinski, organizing, $50.” State to the committee what, if anything, you know about that item. Mr. Sacket. That was $50 advanced to him to cover his expenses. He was authorized to travel through the State in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Who employed him? Mr. Sacket. I made the arrangement — at least, partially. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that was to cover services or expenses, or both. Mr. Sacket. My recollection of it is that it was to cover expenses. I would not be positive that that identical item might not include something else. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the arrangement with him involved payment to him for services and expenses, or both. Mr. Sacket. The arrangement involved the payment of a salary and expenses. Mr. Littlefield. We also have down, under the date of July 24, “J. Wypszinski, organizing, $25.” State whether or not that item is of the same character. Mr. Sacket. It is; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Paid for the same purpose and under the same arrangement ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. We have down here, under date of July 28, “ T . J. Sexton, organizing, C. D. No. 93750, $50.” Be kind enough to state to the committee whether or not that was contracted for and paid under the same circumstances and for the same purposes as the previous item that you have described in relation to Mr. Sexton. Mr. Sacket. It was. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of July 30, “Ozaukee County, organ- izing, No. 33356, C. O. Larson, $25.” Be kind enough to state to the committee what, if anything, you know about that item. 15235 °— vol 1—11 35 546 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. Mr Larson was the manager in Ozaukee County; and if I remember correctly that $25 item was advanced to him for expense money. Mr. Littlefield. “July 31, J. R. Keyes, No. 33373, $25.30.” The Chairman. Are these the minor items concerning which the witness was not inquired of ? Mr. Littlefield. According to my check. Of course I may be wrong, but I want to be quite sure to get them all in. Is that the same J. R. Keyes who is mentioned under date of July 21 — “organizing, $50?” The Chairman. I will say to counsel that the J. R. Keyes account was fully gone into with this witness as to each item. Mr. Littlefield. I checked them up. Of course I may have failed to check this. I do not want to take any chances. The Chairman. It was done as to both Keyes and Sexton. Mr. Littlefield. According to my checking, the first item of Keyes was gone into and the second item was not gone into. I do not want to take any chances about it. Senator Sutherland. The chairman, after he had taken up one of those items with reference to Mr. Keyes, followed on through the account and took up all other items with Keyes. Mr. Littlefield. 1 thought he did. The Chairman. I took each one of those names and followed it down through the items in the account, running them over. Mr. Littlefield. I have all the others checked, but I did not have this checked. I do not want to take any chances on an omission. It will take only a moment. I want to see that they are all in. Is that governed by the same considerations as the previous item of J. R. Keyes, under date of July 21 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I have T. J. Sexton down here under date of August 4. The Chairman. Sexton's account is on page 2 of this typewritten memorandum, and the witness was inquired of regarding each item in Sexton’s account. Mr. Littlefield. I did not succeed in getting it checked. It will take only a moment. I do not suppose the committee have any objection to my being sure about this, have they ? The Chairman. No ; if there is some reason. Mr. Littlefield. This is the only reason: I do not undertake to be infallible about it, but I do not want to take any chances about it. Senator Pomerene. Would a comparison of your memorandum with the list we have here shorten the inquiry ? Mr. Littlefield. It will not take me five minutes to go right along through with it. These items have been referred to, and I hope the committee appreciate the significance of this. I have the responsi- bility of looking out for these items; and I do not want to have it said later on that they were not all covered. The Chairman. There is no disposition on the part of the com- mittee to cut it off at all. I simply called attention to what I said, as a matter of fact. Mr. Littlefield. “T. J. Sexton,” under date of August 4, “C. D. No. 93824, $50.” Was that paid out under the same circumstances RODNEY SACKET. 547 and governed by the same considerations as the previous T. J. Sexton item ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. “August 8, Dane County, No. 33486, A. R. Ames, $350.” You have already explained about an item for Dane County under date of July 18. Will you be kind enough to state whether the same explanation applies to this item ? Mr. Sacket. To the best of my recollection it does. Mr. Littlefield. “August 10. Columbia & Adams Co., No. 33506, C. H. Russell, $200” — partially explained by Mr. Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state to the committee what you know about that item ? Mr. Sacket. Mr. Russell was an old acquaintance of mine. He came into our office, and I asked him to help us in the Stephenson campaign, and I agreed to furnish him money to cover his expenses in giving us that help. Mr. Russell was to receive no salary, as I remember it. I may be wrong about that. He was to cover the counties mentioned here, and I think one or two other counties, and he was at different times paid different sums of money, according to that agreement. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of August 12 we have another item; “T. J. Sexton, No. 33513, $50.” Is that governed by the same con- siderations as the other Sexton items ?” Mr. Sacket. The same considerations. Mr. Littlefield. August 14, Dane Co., No. 33554, A. R. Ames, $50. State whether or not that is of the same character as the origi- nal Dane County item, and the services rendered by Mr. Ames in connection therewith. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were the disbursements made for the same purposes ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. On August 14 is another T. J. Sexton item which I did not ha' e checked. That is the same as the other Sexton items; is it not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Under the same date, “Ozaukee Co., No. 33601, C. O. Larsen, $50,” partially explained by Mr. Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state what you know about that item ? Mr. Sacket. I made arrangements with Mr. Larsen to look after Ozaukee County, in part at least; and that $50 was to cover his expenses, and possibly his salary. He received a salary. Mr. Littlefield. “August 19, Columbia, Marquette & Adams Cos., No. 33638, C. H. Russell, $550.” Is that the same gentleman about whom you have testified ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And was the money disbursed under the same circumstances ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of August 20, “Advertising, No. 33720, F. W. Dangers, $50.” State to the committee what you know about that item. 548 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. My recollection of Mr. Dangers was that he had a moving-picture snow, and was to put in slides advertising Senator Stephenson’s candidacy, for which he received that $50. Mr. Littlefield. “August 21, advertising, No. 33696, W. C. Bratz, $21.66.” Is that the same gentleman of whom you have heretofore spoken? Mr. Sacket. That would be the same explanation. Mr. Littlefield. “August 27, Green Lake, Dunn & Fond du Lac, No. 33805, L. W. Thayer, $600.” Mr. Sacket. I did not make that arrangement; but I talked to Mr. Thayer, and I think I understand the arrangement that was made. Mr. Littlefield. I find it on your memorandum here, but I do not find it on the printed page under date of August 27. Mr. Sacket. It is the fourth item above the footing, on page 593 of the printed record of the joint committee. Mr. Littlefield. “August 28, Dane Co., E. A. E., A. B. Ames, $50.” State whether or not that is the same Ames about whom you have already testified, and whether or not the same explanation applies to that item. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; and the same explanation does apply. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of August 28, “Ozaukee Co., No. 33825, C. O. Larson, $50,” partly explained by Mr. Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state to the committee what you know about that item ? Mr. Sacket. The same explanation that I gave of the preceding Larson item. Mr. Littlefield. Relating to Larson ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. We have an item here under September 5, “General, No. 33955, W. E. Powell, $44,” partially explained by Mr. Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state what you know about that? Mr. Sacket. My recollection of that item is that Mr. Powell — a man whom I have known for some time — came into the office after the primary and stated that he had expended that money in the interest of Senator Stephenson, and I gave him a check for $44. Mr. Littlefield. The next item is “Ozaukee, No. 33969, C. O. Larson, $254.80,” partially explained by Mr. Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state what you know about Mr. Larson; or have you already explained it ? Mr. Sacket. I think that item was the final settlement with Mr. Larson, paying all his salary and expenses in the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. There is an item under date or September 5, reading as follows: “General, No. 33953, E. A. Hamalrath, $13.75.” Please state to the committee what you know about that. Mr. Sacket. Mr. Hamalrath lived, I think, in Antigo. He came into the Milwaukee office and introduced himself. It seemed that we had a number of mutual friends; and he sent me a bill for money that he had expended in the interest of Senator Stephenson, and received a check of that number to reimburse him. Mr. Littlefield. September 15, on page 596, “Advertising, No. 33047, Sup. Tidende, $150,” which was partially gone into by Mr. RODNEY SACKET. 549 Edmonds. Will you be kind enough to state to the committee what you know about that item ? Mr. Sacket. I have no particular recollection of that special item, but I remember that we did run advertisements in the Superior Tidende, and they were sent a cashier’s check; and I think I remem- ber that we had their itemized bill for it. Mr. Littlefield. It was a newspaper? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Published in English or in the Norwegian tongue ? Mr. Sacket. In the Scandinavian. Mr. Littlefield. At the end of the list aggregating $46,052.29 there is an item of “A. M. Jones, $150.” State what, if anything, you know about that item. Mr. Sacket. There was a Mr. Jones in Waukesha County who had something to do with the campaign. I did not make the arrange- ment with him, but I remember that there was a Mr. Jones in that vicinity who helped us and probably spent some money. Mr. Littlefield. Did you see him during the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. If this is the Mr. Jones, I saw him and know him. I do not know him by his initials, though. Mr. Littlefield. What sort of services did he render ? Mr. Sacket. If this is the Mr. Jones — and I think it is — it was to reimburse him for money to be expended for Mr. Stephenson; not for services to him. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any other manager in that county ? Mr. Sacket. I think there were several who were doing work in that county. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any other manager in Waukesha? Mr. Sacket. I think there were several in Waukesha and in Waukesha County. Mr. Littlefield. Now turn over to page 602, following the items showing the expenses in Milwaukee County. I want to call your attention to the items beginning with the date August 5, “Pay of help and office expense from July 1 , $1,101.91.” Under date of September 5 is an item, “Office, $130.35.” There are other items, and they aggregate $4,074.38. You were inquired of as to some of those items. Will you be kind enough to state generally what those items are all for, and whether or not they were disbursed ? Mr. Sacket. The money was all paid out. The items were for the expense of running and maintaining the office, the pay of help, and expenses of the office. Mr. Littlefield. I notice you have here “Pay roll” represented at intervals about a week apart. Are we to infer from that that that was for sums paid for services during the week ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; that was at those dates. Mr. Littlefield. What do you include in that item “office”? For instance, August 10, “Office, $132;” August 14, “Office, $161.15.” Please explain, as well as you are able to, the character of the expenses or items included in that charge. Mr. Sacket. I think in a great many cases the word “ office” would include the pay of employees. Employees were hired from time to time, and when the necessity for any of them ceased they were paid 550 RODNEY SACKET. off and discharged; and the word “pay roll” there, according to my recollection, was the regular weekly pay roll. The word “office” would include, probably, pay of employees and any other expense. Mr. Littlefield. Just explain as well as you can recollect what- ever expense would be included in that term “office.” Mr. Sacket. The renting of furniture, the renting of typewriters, office supplies, the bill for water — and I will say that is all we had to drink in the office. Mr. Littlefield. You have explained about the telephone and telegraph expenses. I want to call your attention now to the item headed “Postage stamps,” aggregating $9,819. I will ask you whether or not the Government furnishes any bill for sums paid under those circumstances, or whether it is a cash transaction, involv- ing the delivery of the money and the receipt of the stamps, or the receipt of the money and the delivery of the stamps ? Mr. Sacket. In those cases it was a cash transaction in every instance. Mr. Littlefield. Were any bills ever rendered by the postal authorities for these payments ? Mr. Sacket. None. Mr. Littlefield. Either at the time of the payment or after- wards ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. So that there never were any bills for these payments ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You took the actual cash to the office? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And you never took a check or an order upon a bank ? Mr. Sacket. Always cash. Mr. Littlefield. You took the cash and went out and brought back the stamps ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Were those items you have spoken of here entered upon these cards of which you have spoken or any other memoranda in the office ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The first item, from July 1 to August 4, con- sists of a number of entries of smaller amounts. The items fol- lowing that, according to my best recollection, are exactly as they appear on the cards. Mr. Littlefield. That shows the condition of the mail work of the headquarters from the time when you began ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Beginning with nothing prepared of any kind ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Starting entirely new all the way around ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You were obliged to accumulate all the infor- mation you had occasion to use and start with an entirely fresh campaign ? Mr. Sacket. We had nothing whatever to start with. Mr. Littlefield. Were there lists or any information? Mr. Sacket. No lists; nothing. RODNEY SACKET. 551 Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that everything you had along that line to which it became necessary for you to refer during the campaign by way of addresses had to be accumulated after that time ? Mr. Sacket. After the 1st of July. Mr. Littlefield. You explained a number of items under the head of “ newspaper advertising.” So that there can not be any question about it, I wish you would take each one of those items that you have not already explained and explain it. Have you them checked here ? Mr. Sacket. They are checked on the book that you have, but not on this one that I have. Mr. Littlefield. Just make a brief explanation, so that the record will show what the expenditure was for. August 7, “Neills- ville Times, No. 33461, $50,” was for what? Mr. Sacket. That was for advertising in the Neillsville Times, for which a regular itemized bill was rendered, according to my recollec- tion. Mr. Littlefield. August 13, “Rustone, No. 33548, $25.” What was that for ? Mr. Sacket. As I remember Mr. Rustone, he ran a Scandinavian newspaper in Milwaukee, and printed advertisements for us from time to time. In fact, we had space in the paper for a stated time. I believe he received several payments. Mr. Littlefield. August 15, “ Ranger, No. 33580, $50.” Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of Ranger; but the check number there will show. Mr. Littlefield. You do not know what that was for? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection about it. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know who would know? Mr. Sacket. The cashier’s check would show the indorsement of the person. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; but do you know of anyone who could give you any information as to the character of the advertisement? Mr. Sacket. I do not think anyone would recollect that. Mr. Littlefield. August 15, “Smith, Oconto Falls, No. 33581, $ 100 .” Mr. Sacket. I have no specific recollection of that. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether it was a Mr. Smith who was the proprietor of a newspaper? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember Mr. Smith at all. Mr. Littlefield. “Bailey,” August 18, “$200.” Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that either. Mr. Littlefield. “Wisconsin Agriculturist,” August 19, “$63.” Mr. Sacket. We ran some advertisements in the Wisconsin Agriculturist, and received itemized bills which I think have been filed with the joint committee. Mr. Littlefield. “Superior Tidende.” Is that the same paper that you have already referred to under the items aggregating $46,000 ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Is this a duplicate of that item or an additional item ? Mr. Sacket. It is an additional item. 552 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. Explain what you know about it. Mr. Sacket. I know we had run advertisements in the Superior Tidende. I could not tell which advertisement was run under this particular item. My recollection is that an itemized bill was fur- nished. Mr. Littlefield. “ Minneapolis Tidende.’' What about that? That is for $1,000 and is on August 19. Mr. Sacket. We had an arrangement with them for a certain amount of space that was used for advertising purposes for some time during the campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Wdiat was that thousand dollars paid for ? Mr. Sacket. Advertising. Mr. Littlefield. This Koch Advertising Agency is the same as the other items which appear on this account opposite the name of that agency, is it? Mr. Sackett. There are two items. Senator Pomerene. That was for advertising in sundry papers, as I recollect. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. There are two bills here, I think, of that adver- tising firm. Mr. Sacket. One of them is spelled C-o-c-h and the other is spelled K-o-c-h. It is the same firm. Mr. Littlefield. August 31, “Narden Tribune, $20.” Mr. Sacket. I could not place that paper. Mr. Littlefield. Take the “Daily Jewish Courier, $150.” Mr. Sacket. I remember an arrangement made with that paper. It is a Chicago paper, and has a large circulation among the Jewish people of Wisconsin. There was an advertisement running in that paper, and that $150 was to pay for it. Mr. Littlefield. September 5, “The Kuryer Publishing Co., $250. ” Mr. Sacket. As I remember that, that was a Milwaukee paper of some prominence. Mr. Littlefield. WRat was that ? Mr. Sacket. That was money paid them for advertising space. Mr. Littlefield. The “Wisconsin Agriculturist” comes next, and you have already referred to it. Then there is the “Minneapolis Tidende, $24.” Is that the same item? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. The “Richland Rustic” is the next item. Mr. Sacket. I have no particular recollection of that paper. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether there is such a paper pub- lished ? Mr. Sacket. I could not be positive about that; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. The Marshfield Times ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that item, either. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether there is such a paper published ? Mr. Sacket. I could not be positive. Mr. Littlefield. Then there is the “River Falls Times,” Sep- tember 5, “$14.70.” Mr. Sacket. I do not remember that, either. Mr. Littlefield. “Minneapolis Journal,” September 14, “$100.” EODNEY SACKET. 553 Mr. Sacket. I remember the arrangement we had with the Minne- apolis Journal for advertising space. Mr. Littlefield. How did it happen that you were advertising in the Minneapolis Journal about a campaign that was being conducted for Senator Stephenson in Wisconsin? Is that paper circulated in Wisconsin ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; throughout the northwestern part of the State of Wisconsin the people take the Minneapolis papers instead of the Milwaukee papers, because they get them earlier in the morning. Mr. Littlefield. So, in order to reach the people up there, you were obliged to advertise in them ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. “ Minneapolis Tidende, $540.” That is of the same character ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Then we have an item for “ Sundry advertising, Usher/’ There are three items of that character — $5, $100, and $4. What about those ? Mr. Sacket. I know that Usher did present bills for sundry adver- tising on several occasions. The bills, as I remember them, were itemized; and in two of these instances he received a check, and in another instance, as I remember it, he received cash, and gave a receipt for it. Mr. Littlefield. September 14. “Sundry advertising, $156.40/’ Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection, but the check will show. Mr. Littlefield. You say the check will show ? Mr. Sacket. The check will show some indorsement that will throw some light on the matter, or should. Mr. Littlefield. The next item is, “Sundry newspapers, $270.” What is that item ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember what items are included in that item. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember whether that is advertising or subscriptions ? Mr. Sacket. Advertising. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able to state that it is for advertising? If you have no recollection, say so. Mr. Sacket. It is put under the head of advertising. Mr. Littlefield. When you made out the account you put it under the head of advertising. Do you remember now what infor- mation you had upon the basis of which you included the item under the head of advertising ? Mr. Sacket. It would have been under the heading of advertising in the cards if it went into this item under the head of advertising. Of course, it is possible that I made mistakes, but that is my recol- lection. Mr. Littlefield. You have no recollection as to the character of that disbursement ? Mr. Sacket. No. Mr. Littlefield. You have no recollection as to whether it was for advertising or subscriptions or extra copies of the paper ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of that particular item. Mr. Littlefield. Did you purchase extra copies of papers during the campaign ? 554 BODNEY SACKET. Mr. Sacket. We did. Mr. Littlefield. To circulate. Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you do so to any extent ? If so, state about it in a general way. Mr. Sacket. I think we paid one of the Minneapolis papers for sending out extra copies in large numbers. I think in the case of the Wisconsin Agriculturist we paid for sending out large numbers of extra papers; and my recollection is that in a number of other instances we paid money for that same purpose. Mr. Littlefield. By whom were the papers sent out under such circumstances ? Mr. Sacket. By the newspaper offices. Mr. Littlefield. On the basis of lists furnished by you ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir; from their own lists. M*r. Littlefield. Did they mail a copy of the paper to a subscriber, and then an extra copy of the same paper to the same subscriber ? Mr. Sacket. No; to people who were not subscribers. Mr. Littlefield. How did they get the list when they were not subscribers ? Mr. Sacket. That was their affair. I do not know how they got the list. Mr. Littlefield. You left it to them to make the selection of the individuals to whom they would be sent — individuals who were not on their regular subscription lists ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You have “Sundry bills” here. I should like to have you take that list and go right straight through and explain, so far as you can, what those bills are for. The Wisconsin Agricul- turist item you have been already over. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Just take each item and make as concise an explanation as you can. Mr. Sacket. Evening Wisconsin, No. 33255, $419.50. My recol- lection of that is that it was for stationery, printed by the Evening Wisconsin Co. They run a job office in connection with their paper, or did at that time. Kreul Co., No. 33256, $140.49. We rented ourfurni- ture, typewriters, and bought a great many office supplies of the Kreul Co. A bill covering that item is, I think, on file. Underwood Typewriter Co., No. 33257, $4, was for rent of typewriter. C. C. Patterson, No. 33258, $46.50, was for circular letters and imitation typewriting. I am giving my recollection of these matters, and I may make a mistake. Mr. Littlefield. Do the best you can. Mr. Sacket. Fowler Manufacturing Co., No. 33259, $6, is the next item. As I remember that, it was for a supply of towels and soap to the office. Mr. Littlefield. Toilet articles. Mr. Sacket. Yes. Saxe Sign Co., $1.50, I do not remember. Capital Reliance S. & S. Co., No. 33261, $3.85, was the Capital Reliance Stamp & Seal Co. I have no recollection of that item. Wells Power Co., No. 33262, 88 cents, I think was for electric lights. Wells Building Co., 33263, $90.88, was for rent. Mr. Littlefield. They were the owners of the building ? RODNEY SACKET. 555 Mr. Sacket. Yes. Telephone company, 33264, $35, was for tele- phone service. Standard Paper Co., No. 33265, $93.75, was for stationery. Sickert & Baum, 33266, $5.40, I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know what business they are in ? Mr. Sacket. I do not remember. That would be a matter of general knowledge here. West Co., No. 33267, $4.50, I do not remem- ber. Austin, $6.85, 1 have no recollection of. Whitehead & Hoag Mr. Littlefield. You have already been over that. Mr. Sacket. Yes. C. C. Patterson, 33399, $31.25, was for imita- tion typewritten letters. Mr. Littlefield. You have been over that. Mr. Sacket. A. A. Brown, No. 33398, $3.75, was for typewriting and multigraph work. Telephone company, No. 33397, $1, was for telephone service. Hammersmith, No. 33396, $5.75, I have no recollection of. Mr. Littlefield. You do not remember what Hammersmith’s business is ? Mr. Sacket. It seems to me that he is an engraver. Mr. Littlefield. That is what he is. Mr. Sacket. If he is, it was for some plates for advertising. Sulli- van Printing Co., No. 33395, $4, was for printing. Smith Premier Co., No. 33394, $6.40, was for rent of typewriters and typewriter supplies. Standard Paper Co., No. 33393, $16.85, was for stationery. Van de Kamp & Lorberter, No. 33392, $290, my recollection is was for printing. My recollection is they are a printing concern, and they did a lot of printing for our headquarters and they fur- nished us with an itemized bill. Kreul Co., No. 33391, $27.30, is for the same as was previously explained. Siekert & Baum, No. 33390, $20, I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. They are stationers here in Milwaukee ; are they not ? Mr. Sacket. It was for stationery, if they are, and they gave us an itemized bill in every instance. Wisconsin Agriculturist has been explained before. T. H. Goldner, 33494, $14, I have no recollection of at all. Mr. Littlefield. You do not remember what business he is en- gaged in? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. If I were to see the itemized bills it would refresh my memoiy. Mr. Littlefield. You are doing the best you can. Mr. Sacket. August 15, Johnson, $24.50, I have no way of telling what that was for at this time. August 18, E. F. Smith, No. 33621, $28; I have no recollection of that. August 19, H. M. Allen, No. 33641, $12.55, I do not remember. L. M. Lederer, No. 33642, $42. Mr. Lederer was in the cigar business, and I think that was for cigars. Mr. Littlefield. Did you put it down as such in your itemized statement ? Mr. Sacket. I think I did. L. Breithaupt, No. 33643, $660, I have already explained. Nee Ska Ra, $7.25, was for water. Yahr & Lange, No. 33647, $4.75, I do not remember. H. J. Paas, No. 33648, $10. We had a Harry Paas employed in the office, and I think that $10 was paid to him for his services. L. A. Meyer, No. 33649, $9, I do not remember that. Milwaukee Drug Co., No. 33650, $3.83, I do not remember. A. A. Brown, No. 33651, $28, was 556 RODNEY SACKET. for typewriting or multigraph work. H. H. West Co., No. 33652, $20.80, 1 do not remember. Mr. Black. They are stationers here ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I should like to ask a question: Are you giving the number of the bank cashier’s checks ? Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. What did you give the bank upon which to procure the cashier’s check ? Mr. Sacket. A receipt for the check and a list of the names and amounts to whom the checks were issued, as I remember it. The Chairman. Did you fill out a blank, as is customary when you want a cashier’s check, stating the amount and the date ? Mr. Sacket. I did not fill a formal blank. In a great many instances I did not. When I wanted a large number of checks, I wrote the name of the payee and the amount. The Chairman. You made a list ? Mr. Sacket. Yes; and then gave a receipt on a separate piece of paper. The Chairman. So that there is no stub upon which there is any- thing to indicate the purpose for which that was paid ? Mr. Sacket. The nature of the goods purchased would indicate the purpose, I should think. The Chairman. Where does the nature of the goods purchased appear, except in your testimony ? Mr. Sacket. It would appear in the evidence as to the business of the person to whom the money was given. The Chairman. Where is that evidence? Mr. Sacket. The itemized bills, some of which I am sure are on file, would show. The Chairman. Is this particular itemized bill on file ? Mr. Sacket. I could not say. It was my intention to save all those bills. I may have carelessly lost this particular one, but those I did save I produced at Madison. The Chairman. Then why not produce the bills, instead of having the witness’s imperfect recollection, Mr. Littlefield ? Mr. Littlefild. If the committee desires it, we will do the best we can to get duplicate bills. I do not know where the originals are. The Chairman. The reason I interpose at this lime is that I notice in the majority of the cases under this class the witness says that he knows nothing about them. That is merely taking up time. If he could indicate the ones that he does know about, we could get righ, to those items. There are several pages of these items yet to be gone over. I make the suggestion only to facilitate things. Mr. Littlefield. That is agreeable. Run right along through, and leave out the items you do not know anything about, Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. He can just say that he does not know anything about the items, and name them, and then go to the items that he does know about. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. The Chairman. Let him make an affirmative statement that he does not know anything about the item, and go right along. RODNEY SACKET. 557 Mr. Littlefield. Adopt the suggestion made by the chairman, Mr. Sacket, and cut it just as short as you can. Just give us the items. Mr. Sacket. The last item I read was “H. H. West Co., $20.80.” I will make this statement. The following items I have no recollection of and simply mention them. Will that do ? The Chairman. Yes; there is no need of entering into a conversa- tion about those you do not remember anything about. Mr. Sacket. John V. Deum, No. 33653, $5. The Chairman. Is that one about which you do not know any- thing l Mr. Sacket. Yes. The Chairman. I think it is hardly necessary to take up the time of the committee in reading the figures of the cashier’s check numbers. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; leave out the number. Mr. Sacket. Bowron & Murray Co., $22.40. That is next to the last item. Mr. Littlefield. Is that the next one you do not know anything about ? Mr. Sacket. No. I thought I would take up one class and finish it. The Chairman. You do not need to do that. Mr. Littlefield. When you strike items about which you do not know anything, just state that you do not recollect; and as to those you do recollect, make an explanation. Mr. Sacket. Fowler Manufacturing Co., towel supplies, $1.50. Free Press, 45 cents; that was for subscription. C. C. Patterson, $14.75, imitation typewritten letters. Keystone Printing Co., $53, printing and stationery. Mandel Engraving Co., $278.35, lithographs of Senator Stephenson. Standard Paper Co., $3.55, stationery. Meyers News Bureau, $49.40, newspaper clippings. Wells Building Co., $105, rent. Underwood Typewriter Co., $4, typewriter rent. Gimbel Bros., 45 cents, material for curtains at the office windows. G. Y. Bush, $12, photographs of Senator Stephenson from which we made engravings or woodcuts. Van de Kamp & Larberter, print- ing, $775.50. Kreul Co., $118.25, office furniture, supplies, and stationery. Mr. Littlefield. You have no recollection of the Bowron & Murray Co. item ? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection of them. Whitehead & Hoag, $110.10, campaign buttons. Siekert & Baum, $35.32, stationery. L. S. Jackson, $1; no recollection. Anderson Printing Co., $147, printing. Stauffacher, $9.50; no recollection. Courier Printing Co., $30, printing circulars and the like. Herald Printing Co., $17.50, the same. N. Jeray, $11; no recollection. H. M. Allen, $11.75; no recollection. A. A. Brown,* $44.50, typewriting and multigraph work. Cream City Bill Posting Co., $351, posting large posters of Senator Stephenson all over the State. Dever Bros., $95.73, envel- opes. Fowler Manufacturing Co., 75 cents, toilet supplies. T. J. A. Griffiths, $60; no recollection. A. A. Hume, $11.10; no recollec- tion. C. B. Henschel, $200. I think that was for printing or litho- graphing, or something of that kind. Keystone Printing Co., $278, printing. Kreul Co., $7.50, office fixtures and supplies. I. N. 558 RODNEY SAOKET. Lederer, $18.75, cigars. Whitehead & Hoag, $356.97, campaign buttons. L. A. Meyer Co., 75 cents; I do not remember. Mandel Engraving Co., $65.70, lithographs. Meyers News Service Co., $6.60, newspaper clippings. Nee Ska Ra, $8, water. Parsons Printing Co., $42.50, printing. Hotel Pfister, cigars, $70.70. Siekert & Baum, $14.55, printing and stationery. S. E. Tate Printing Co., $43.25, printing. Underwood Typewriter Co., $4, rent of typewriter. Union R. & C. Co., $3; no recollection. Van de Kamp & Larberter, $641.15 Mr. Littlefield. You have already been over that. Mr. Sacket. Wells Building Co., $12.80, rent. Wells Power Co., $16.34, light. West Side Printing Co., $3.50, printing. C. A. East- man, $7.50; no recollection. S. E. Tate Printing Co., $6.50, print- ing. Kewaunee Printing Co., $15, printing. Fond du Lac County names, H. T. Sackett, $60, a list of names of the voters in Fond du Lac County. Sundry advertising— The Chairman. To whom was that item paid ? Mr. Sacket. That was paid to a man by the name of H. T. Sackett, In Fond du Lac, not related to me in any way. The Chairman. I did not ask it merely as a matter of mirth. Mr. Sacket. I did not mean anything except to give information. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along with the next item. Mr. Sacket. Sundry advertising, cash, $16.75; no recollection. P. B. Haver Printing Co., $72, printing. Smith Premier Co., $6.50, rent of typewriter and typewriter supplies. Sundries, $210.62. Three dollars and twenty-six cents of that was paid to the Wells Co. for electric light, I think. The rest of it I have no recollection of. Mr. Littlefield. What do you say about these items you have just gone over here, as to which you have no recollection, with refer- ence to whether or not the money was disbursed? What are you prepared to say about that? Mr. Sacket. It was disbursed in every instance. Mr. Littlefield. While you are not able to remember the details, you are prepared to testify that the money was actually paid out? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you, inasmuch as the purpose is not indicated, whether you are able to say that expenditures of that sort were or were not for legitimate purposes ? Mr. Sacket. In every instance they were. Senator Pomerene. That is asking for a conclusion. Mr. Littlefield. To your knowledge, were any of these sums paid for improper purposes ? Mr. Sacket. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Or for unlawful purposes? Mr. Sacket. Nor for unlawful purposes. Mr. Littlefield. Or were any of them paid for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters ? Mr. Sacket. None of them. Mr. Littlefield. Now take the items headed “ Sundries, small,” and go through those rapidly, and explain, so far as you can, what those items were for, beginning on page 609. Mr. Sacket. July 7, traveling expenses, $22.63. It was the cus- tom in our office when we asked a man or a number of men to come KODNEY SACKET. 559 into the city and see us to pay their expenses. I think that in most cases these items cover an expense of that kind. Mr. Littlefield. Then do I understand that it is your recollec- tion that the items included under this heading of “ Sundries, small/’ as traveling expenses, were sums paid by you to men who came in on your invitation to consult with you in connection with the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Does that characterize all of the items marked “ traveling expenses,” in your judgment, so far as you can recollect? Mr. Sacket. I have no distinct recollection of each particular item. I know that we did pay that, and I think that these items do cover them. But these items would also cover traveling expenses paid to any of our employees if they should happen to get into this schedule. Mr. Littlefield. Whom do you mean by your employees ? Mr. Sacket. Men who were traveling around the State in the inter- est of Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Would that be in addition to the sums that are indicated in the total of $46,000 ? Mr. Sacket. If any of the money was expended in that way, it would. Mr. Littlefield. What is your recollection about it? Mr. Sacket. I do not recollect any instance where I put traveling expenses of that nature into this schedule. I am simply saying that because of the fact that I might have gotten the account into the wrong schedule. Mr. Littlefield. I do not wish to go over those items in detail; but I notice that they vary considerably in amount. We start in here with $22.63, and over on page 610 we have an item of $50 for traveling expenses, another item of $42.45, and another of $31.40. Without goin^ further, how does it happen that they vary in amount ? Explain the situation and the circumstances. Mr. Sacket. In some cases one man would come in from a short distance; his traveling expenses would be small. In other instances, three or four men would come in from a long distance ; their traveling expenses would be large. Mr. Littlefield. That, you say, accounts for the variation in the items ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along, now. I think you have already explained this, but just make an explanation right here. There are quite a number of items of “sundries” ; and I should like to have you, if you can, make an explanation as to “sundries” that will cover all these items of “sundries.” Mr. Sacket. “Sundries ” were any incidental expenses, such as Mr. Littlefield. Is this the same schedule from which you took the item of “sundries” this morning? Mr. Sacket. I believe it is. Mr. Littlefield. Then we have been all over that. Mr. Sacket. I do not think I have “sundries” in any other schedule. Mr. Littlefield. Then, leaving out “traveling expenses” and “sundries,” take the other items as they appear, in their order, and stete what you know about them — leaving out also “cigars.” I see there are one or two items of “cigars”; but leave out “traveling 560 RODNEY SACKET. expenses,” 1 ‘sundries, ” and “cigars,” and take the other items in their order, and tell the committee all you know about them. Mr. Sacket. July 7, Miller, $6.75; I do not know about that. July 8, Rowe, $3.50; as I remember that, that was his railroad fare to Milwaukee and back to Waupaca. Senator Sutherland. What is the meaning of the fraction, “J,” there. Mr. Sacket. I do not think I put that in there. I think that is a misprint. I do not know what that is there for. July 10, Kenosha, $9.50; I have no recollection of that. July 21, Beach, $6.15; I have no recollection of that. July 23, Johnson, $12.50; no recollection. July 24, Reilly, $15; no recollection. July 25, Madison, $26.76; I have no recollection of that item. August 6, Ashland, $27.75; I have no distinct recollection of that item. August 10, Meyer, $3; I have no recollection of that. August 13, Eklund, $1 ; I do not re- member that. August 14, Coblentz, $10; no recollection. The Chairman. When you say that, you mean that you do not know what the money was paid for ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; I have no recollection of that item. August 17, F. R. Huth, $5; no recollection. Howe, $2; no recollection. August 18, livery, $2; I have no particular recollection of that. Northup, $25; no recollection. August 20, Langemark, $5; no recol- lection. Bradley, $5; no recollection. O’Brien, $15; no recollection. McDonald, $2.50; none. Hotel Meyer, Janesville; my recollection of that item is that it was the money that Mr. Puelicher paid for hotel expenses in Janesville when he and Senator Stephenson and others took their trip around through that part of the State. The railway fare following it was in the same item. Thompson, $7 ; no recollection. Johnson, $1.25; none. September 5, Berlin A. & I. Association, $150. That was paid for stock in the Agricultural and Industrial Associa- tion — a sort of a donation, but actual stock was received for the $150. The Chairman. Was it a good investment? Mr. Sacket. Not very. Malone, $3 ; no knowledge. Senator Sutherland. What sort of an association was that? Mr. Sacket. A county fair. The Chairman. Who made that deal? Did you make that? Mr. Sacket. I ratified it. It was made by some one from Oshkosh — a man by the name of Edwards, I believe. The Chairman. Did you ratify it at the time it was made ? Mr. Sacket. After he had agreed to pay the $150, I sent them a check. The Chairman. You say it was a county fair? Mr. Sacket. A county fair; yes, sir. Waters, $2 Mr. Littlefield. What do you say about Malone ? Mr. Sacket. Nothing. I have no recollection of the $3 paid to Malone. The Chairman. By the way, was any public announcement made of the fact that Senator Stephenson had invested that $150 in the stock of the fair ? Mr. Sacket. It was very well known in and around the locality where that fair was held. The Chairman. A good bit of publicity was given to it; was it not ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. RODNEY SACKET. 561 The Chairman. It made him quite a popular character ? Mr. Sacket. It was not a good stock investment, but I think not a bad advertising investment. Senator Sutherland. You invested for the sake of the publicity rather than for the dividends ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You would not have made the investment except for the existing candidacy of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Sacket. No, sir., I would have had no authority to do so otherwise. Senator Pomerene. It was a political investment? Mr. Sacket. A political investment. Mr. Littlefield. It was not considered an evidence of the Sena- tor’s business capacity? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. It showed a very commendable spirit. Mr. Sacket. If it had been a business investment, I should not have entered it here. Waters, $2; no knowledge. 11:11, $25; none. O’Neill, $22.50; none. Wright Drug Co.,JD5, cigars. That is all of that schedule. Mr. Littlefield. How was that schedule made up originally, and when ? Mr. Sacket. That was made up from time to time from data on the cards that I kept. Mr. Littlefield. Do you wdsh to be understood by the committee as testifying that this memorandum is a duplicate of the memorandum that you took from the cards ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And that this account that you have been going over is a transcript of entries made upon these cards that were destroyed from time to time, as you have explained ? Mr. Sacket. It is. Mr. Littlefield. What are you prepared to say as to wdiether or not the items that appear in this schedule were or were not actually disbursed by you ? Mr. Sacket. They wrere actually disbursed, all of them. Mr. Littlefield. In connection with the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. In connection with the campaign; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Are you prepared to state wdiether or not any of these items were disbursed for improper purposes ? Mr. Sacket. None of them, to my knowledge, were so disbursed. Mr. Littlefield. You disbursed them; did you not? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Can you state whether or not they were dis- bursed for any improper purposes ? Mr. Sacket. I made no such disbursements. They w r ere not; no, sir. The Chairman. That is, they were not so disbursed by you ? Mr. Sacket. By me. The Chairman. But you do not know what the man to whom you paid them did ? Mr. Sacket. I have no knowledge of that. There was not enough in any one amount to do much damage. 15235 °— vol 1—11 36 562 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. Did these include any sums that were paid to people who were expected to in turn disburse the sums thus paid to them ? Mr. Sacket. I think not in any instance. Mr. Littlefield. These were not sums paid to workers or man- agers ? Mr. Sacket. No, sir. The Chairman. Whose traveling expenses are included in that last item of “traveling expenses” ? Mr. Sacket. That might have been a number of items put together; it probably was. The Chairman. It amounts to $113.14. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is the largest item. Mr. Sacket. That was not for any one trip. Mr. Littlefield. Your recollection is that the items for traveling expenses were for the expenses of people who came into the office and whom you reimbursed for the sums that they had paid out in making their trips to the office ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir; except in the instance that I have explained here, under the date of the 24th — railway fare, $11.20. That was for Senator Stephenson and the party. Mr. Littlefield. That does not appear under the head of “travel- ing expenses.” Mr. Sacket. Yes; that is right. Mr. Littlefield. Now take the items beginning under date of October 16, on page 611, and ending with the item of “sundries, $203.27,” included in the aggregate of $3,188.65. Omit the check numbers, and go through those as rapidly as you can, and explain what they were for, so far as you know. Mr. Sacket. Hotel bills, $10.70; I do not know. J. B. Beach, $150; a claim by him that we owed him that much money as a final settlement of his account. Mr. Littlefield. What was he ? Mr. Sacket. He was, as I remember, one of our men who worked in a county or locality in the State. Senator Pomerene. Where ? Mr. Sacket. In some county or locality in the State. Mr. Littlefield. Doing what ? Mr. Sacket. Organizing. Mr. Littlefield. Why was not he put in the other list? Mr. Sacket. Because his bill did not come in until after we had made up the other list. This list was made later than any of the others. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I see. This list includes sums that were disbursed on October 16, or about that time? Mr. Sacket. About that time. Republican Farmer, $10.25, a newspaper claim for advertising. The Chairman. I should like to ask a question there as a basis of consideration of these items. This was during the general campaign, between the nomination and the election. Is it not a fact that Mr. Beach worked for the election of members of the legislature in the interest of Senator Stephenson, and that that is what this sum was paid for? RODNEY SACKET. 563 Mr. Sacket. This money was not paid him for that purpose. I have a distinct recollection of all of this whole bunch of items. They were all claims for services rendered during the primary campaign. The Chairman. You say that no part of this $3,188.65 was for the activity of those to whom it was paid during the campaign ? Mr. Sacket. Not a cent of it. I paid all of these. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman means in the succeeding general campaign. The Chairman. I mean in the real campaign — after nomination and before election. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Sacket. I paid all of these bills myself; and if there had been anything of that nature I certainly should have remembered it. There was nothing of that nature. Mr. Littlefield. This was, in a sense, cleaning up the aftermath of the primary campaign ? Mr. Sacket. The bills that came in later. Mr. Littlefield. Now, go right along with the items, and explain them so far as you remember about them. Mr. Sacket. Republican Farmer, $10.25, advertising. L. E. Evans, $79.75; no recollection. Platteville Journal, $1.50, adver- tising. Republican Observer, $3.25, advertising. Remington Co., $4, rent of typewriter. Wells Power Co., 35 cents, electric light. Sentinel Co., $1.05, subscription to the paper. Wisconsin Telephone Co., $105.39, telephone services. J. R. Grey, $52.75; I do not know. E. H. Hamelrath, $13; that is the same Hamelrath to whom I paid some money earlier in the account, and he sent in a statement that we owed him $13 more, and it was paid. W. Wilson, $70 ; no recollection. Evening Wisconsin, 50 cents, subscription. E. J. Rogers, $131.79; E. J. Rogers had charge of a county in the southwestern part of the State. Mr. Littlefield. You have already explained about him. Mr. Sacket. This was the final settlement with him. E. J. Kempf, $42.75; that was for bill posting. W. E. Powell, $50; I explained about Mr. Powell earlier in the account, and this was a final settlement with him. T. J. Sexton, $171.10; the same explanation. Register and Friend, $2.80, advertising. J. B. Marshall, $65; no recollection. Marion Advertiser, $25, advertising. Randolph Advance, $2.38, advertising. R. Rowe, $48.34, in full settlement. Explanation has been previously made as to the arrangement with him. Sun Republic, $20, advertising. J. Smith, $112.50; no recollection. A Hudson, $6.50; no recollection. M. Northup, $20; no recollection. Tate Printing Co., $6.50; that was for printing or stationery that we failed to pay for earlier. F. R. Huth, $60; no recollection. G. Arnett, $30; no recollection. Kewaunee Printing Co., $76.20; that was for adver- tising. Wisconsin Agriculturist, $420.21; that was the final settle- ment of our account with them for the services heretofore explained. Nee Ska Ra, $6, water. Wells Power Co., $17.05, electric lights. Anderson Publishing Co., $266.20, advertising. Wayne Smith, $75; Wayne Smith lived in Fond du Lac, and claimed to have expended that money in Senator Stephenson’s interest, and was reimbursed. F. Parsons, $6; no recollection. L. Barney, $2; no recollection. C. D. Smith, $112. I think that is Wayne Smith’s father. He also 564 RODNEY SACKET. lives in Fond du Lac. J. Ratz, $1.50; no recollection. O. L. Gust, $60; no recollection. Lew Ryerson, $5; Lew Ryerson lives, I think, in Waushara County, and sent in a claim for $5 which he said he had expended, and I paid it. American Citizen, cash, $5; newspaper advertising. W. R. Knell, $286.61; Mr. Knell's account shows that he disbursed that amount in excess of what ke received, and that was given to him to square accounts. Cary, Upham & Black, a receipt for $57.39; I do not remember what that was for. Senator Pomerene. I presume that covered the legal services in this investigation. Mr. Black. I do not think it did. Mr. Sacket. I am quite sure there were no legal services. Mr. Littlefield. It would not seem to be even a refresher. Mr. Sacket. F. H. Bulger, $25; no recollection. Catholic Sentinel, $10, advertising. Mr. Littlefield. What did you say about Bulger? Mr. Sacket. I have no recollection about that item. L. Barney, $3 ; no recollection. Western Union, $10.57, telegrams. Sacket, $42, personal expenses. Mr. Littlefield. Is that for your own personal expenses ? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. L. H. Stevens, $200 Mr. Littlefield. You have already explained that. Mr. Sacket. That was on final settlement. Sundries, $203.27; that I have no recollection of. Mr. Littlefield. From what memoranda or data was this state- ment beginning with October 16 made out, and when did you make it out ? Mr. Sacket. It was made on or about the 16th of October, from the bills or letters of these people claiming the amounts paid them. Mr. Littlefield. There are quite a number of items here as to which you now have no recollection. What I want to know is whether, at the time you made up this account or drew off this statement, you then did have a recollection of the amounts that appear here to have been disbursed, and the purposes for which they were disbursed ? Mr. Sacket. I had in every case a recollection and knowledge of these items at the time they were paid. The only reason I do not know now is that I have forgotten in three years. Mr. Littlefield. Are you prepared to say that this list that you have just gone over is a list that you made in accordance with your actual disbursements on or about £he date of October 16? Mr. Sacket. This is a copy of the list I made. Mr. Littlefield. I say, are you prepared to say that the list which you have just gone over is a list of disbursements that you did actually make on or about October 16? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not any of the disbursements included in that list were made for any improper purpose. Mr. Sacket. They were not. Mr. Littlefield. Were any of the sums that you disbursed on the 16th, to your knowledge, disbursed tro reimburse anyone who had expended money for an unlawful or improper purpose ? Mr. Sacket. There were none to my knowledge. RODNEY SACKET. 565 Mr. Littlefield. Or in thfe bribing or corrupting of voters in the primary ? Mr. Sacket. Not a cent of it. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know whether you have fully explained about this item of “Sundries, $203.27.” As I understand you, you have no present recollection of how you reached that sum of $203.27 ? Mr. Sacket. I have not; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any recollection as to whether or not it was the result of items that you had disbursed; or is your mind a complete blank as to how you reached that result ? Mr. Sacket. The item is made up of small items disbursed at that time. Mr. Littlefield. Is it now your recollection that at that time you made the item of “Sundries, $203.27” as the result of the aggregate of other small items ? Mr. Sacket. Of other small items. The Chairman. I suggest that you identify that item, so that the record will show what it is. Mr. Littlefield. On page 612, “Sundries, $203.27,” in the list of items that aggregate $3,188.65. As I understand it, you have no present recollection of the items that made up that aggregate ? Mr. Sacket. I have not. Mr. Littlefield. But do I understand that it is your recollection that at the time you reached the result of $203.27 as the aggregate of small items ? Mr. Sacket. I did; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And that is all that you can remember about it? Mr. Sacket. That is all I remember at this time. Mr. Littlefield. Are you prepared to say that that amount was correct, on the basis of your then computation? Mr. Sacket. It was. Senator Pomerene. Have not any of those bills or memoranda from which that was Mr. Littlefield. I was just going to ask what became of those bills. What became of the bills, or memoranda, or whatever you had as the basis of these disbursements on or about October 1 6 ? Mr. Sacket. My recollection is that they were put into the box that was left with the joint committee at Madison. If they were not destroyed, that is where they went; and I am quite certain all of them were not destroyed, if any. Senator Pomerene. How is that? Mr. Sacket. If they were not destroyed, that is where they went; and I am quite certain all of them were not destroyed, if any. Senator Pomerene. Why did you destroy all the rest and save these ? Mr. Sacket. These were October 16; and I did not destroy bills as a rule — itemized bills. Senator Pomerene. Was it not pretty inconvenient to keep all those bills and cards ? Mr. Littlefield. I was just goin£ to ask if any of these items were entered on cards? Mr, Sacket. No, sir. 566 RODNEY SACKET. Mr. Littlefield. You had got through with the accounts that you were keeping on the cards? Mr. Sacket. I had no office, and I had to enter these items on a piece of paper in my pocket. Senator Sutherland. What was the date of the primary? Mr. Sacket. September 1. Senator Sutherland. I notice a great many of these items bear date as having been paid out after that date. Were any of the bills for services rendered after September 1 ? Mr. Sacket. None of them, unless it was the services of three young men that I employed in the office. I may have kept them for a few days, to straighten up the office— a stenographer or two. Senator Sutherland. For any service or anything done in connec- tion with the general election, as distinguished from the primary ? Mr. Sacket. No services of that nature after the primary, at all. Senator Sutherland. None whatever? Mr. Sacket. None whatever. Senator Sutherland. Not a dollar ? Mr. Sackett. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I have an item here to inquire about the em- ployment of Mr. Usher. Who employed Usher? State what you know about that. Mr. Sacket. I made the arrangement with Mr. Usher, originally. Mr. Littlefield. State what that arrangement was. Mr. Sacket. He was to look after the publicity part of the cam- paign. He was to receive compensation, the amount of which I do not recall at this time, and was to help us generally in the advertising end of it. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ascertain who the organizer of Juneau County was ? I think the committee wanted to know that. Mr. Sacket. I do not remember now. If my attention could be called to the item, it is possible that I might remember. Mr. Black. You were asked a day or two ago who that was. Do you remember now ? Mr. Sacket. No; I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman give me that reference to the Wisconsin statute in relation to managers ? The Chairman. I have not my copy at hand at this moment. Mr. Littlefield. I mean the reference to the Wisconsin statute which referred to managers, rather indicating that they are officials recognized by the law. I think your honor had it. The Chairman. If counsel will just pass that by until I have my marked copy, I will refer to it. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. I had it on my notes here. Now, Mr. Sacket, have you revised the list of the items appearing in Exhibit 49, making up the aggregate of $46,052.29 which appear under the head of either “ General expense, organizing,” or “ General, organizing, ” or 11 General ”? Mr. Sacket. Yes, sir. This is it, here. Mr. Littlefield. Just give those items, please. I wish you to include all of the items that appear under that heading, even though they may have printed by their side the initials “E. A. E The Chairman. Will counsel indicate just what feature of the account it is now proposed to open up, stating the page ? RODNEY SACKET. 567 Mr. Littlefield. It is a grouping, if your honor please, beginning on page 588, of items like “General organizing/’ The first item is “General expense, organizing, $100”; “General organizing” The Chairman. Is it the purpose of counsel to go over each of the items in that account again with this witness ? Mr. Littlefield. No; just to give the items and put them in an aggregate, so that we can have it in the record. Senator Pomerene. Have you tabulated those items, now? Mr. Littlefield. He has the tabulation right here. The Chairman. Then that paper can go into the record without taking the time to go over it m detail now. Mr. Littlefield. You have prepared a revised list of the items appearing in Exhibit 49, which appear under the heading of either “General expense, organizing,” or “ Organizing,” or “General”? Mr. Sacket. I have. It is as follows: July 6. General expense, organizing $100. 00 18. General expense, Edmonds’s check 150. 00 21. General expense 250.00 23. General expense, E. A. E 200. 00 Aug. 8. General 250. 00 8. General 150. 00 10. General 150. 00 14. General, E. A. E 25.00 18. General, E. A. E 100. 00 19. General (E. A. E., $200) 300. 00 21. General 227. 08 22. General 300. 00 26. General, E. A. E. ($200, $175, and $25) 400. 00 27. General 75. 00 28. General (E. A. E., $15 and $20) 50. 00 21. General (E. A. E., $200, and H. Bowman $20) 220. 00 2, 947. 08 Mr. Littlefield. They are the only items, are they not, in Exhibit 49, that was before the House committee, that would answer to the designation of general campaign expenses or “general” ? Mr. Sacket. Without other explanation, yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. They are the only items in the account that would answer to that designation? Mr. Sacket. Yes; without giving the names of the persons to whom the money was paid. Mr. Littlefield. The others give the names of the persons? Mr. Sacket. Yes; and the numbers of the checks. Mr. Littlefield. They state in their report here that the amount was $12,000; and it turned out to be a little less than $3,000. They were only $9,000 out of the way. I think that is all we have to ask Mr. Sacket. The Chairman. The witness may be excused for the present, and will remain here in attendance. We will now call Mr. Kingsley. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Van Cleve, if your honor please, is here again, in response to the call of the committee. I do not know how much more you have to ask him, and I do not know whether you are in a position to finish with him and let him go. He is anxious to get back, if you can excuse him. He has the book here that you inquired about. The Chairman. If Mr. Van Cleve has the book here, we vill permit him to come forward. 568 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. VAN CLEVE— Resumed. The Chairman. What memorandum book is that ? Mr. Van Cleve. The memorandum book that I used during the campaign in Marinette County. The Chairman. Does it contain your expenses during the cam- paign ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. $792 ? Mr. Van Cleve. $792.75; and also a list of those checks that I sent to Mr. Puelicher, aggregating $52,500. The Chairman. Let the committee have that book. [The book referred to was handed to the chairman.] I find here quite a large number of payments of $5 to men by name, without any indication of the purpose of the payment. For instance, J. L. Gray, the 29th of August, what did you pay him $5 for ? Mr. Van Cleve. That was for services on election day, or on primary day. The Chairman. What were the services ? Mr. Van Cleve. I think, if you will just let me show you on the book, that this is all explained here — in the different precincts, for instance. This memorandum book here shows the men that were employed in the different precincts in Marinette County. Here is Amberg, first precinct. In that first precinct I employed John Wood. The Chairman. What did you employ him to do ? Mr. Van Cleve. I employed him to get three or four teams on primary day, to have a man at the polls on primary day with the poll list, and to get out the vote. The Chairman. I desire to turn back now, in this book: “F. E. Noyes.” For what purpose did you pay him $200 ? Mr. Van Cleve. That $200 was paid to him for editorial work on the Marinette Eagle. The Chairman. I would like to know, going back to the item of $5, to which I called your attention, the purpose for wliich you paid $5 to these men on August 29. Mr. Van Cleve. They were all employed for assisting in getting out the vote on primary day. The Chairman. On September 2 — that was election day, was it not ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I notice you paid on that day six men; five of them you paid $5 each and one of them $8.50. What was that for? Mr. Van Cleve. The $8.50, as I recollect it, was paid to Ralph Skidmore. I think that is explained under the township of Lake, right in the first part of the book there. He paid $5 to his ste- nographer for some work that he had done in his office during the campaign, and $3.50 for a team. The Chairman. Let us pay some attention to the five men to whom you paid $5 each on election day. For what purpose was that ? JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. 569 Mr. Van Cleve. It was all paid for the same purpose. That is, either for running teams, or for assisting at the polls with the poll list, or something like that. The Chairman. You have here, 1908, checks received from Isaac Stephenson and forwarded to J. H. Puelicher, June 28, Stephenson’s National, $2,000; July 6, $10,000; August 20, $15,000; August 24, $10,000; August 31, $2,000; September 3, $13,000; making $52,500 which you sent to Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. The Chairman. Did you send that to Mr. Puelicher that he might use it on Senator Stephenson’s behalf, for the purpose of promoting his nomination as United States Senator on the direct primary? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Had you ever talked with Mr. Puelicher before you sent any of that money, as to whether or not he intended to support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir; that is what the money was sent to him for. The Chairman. This book will remain in evidence. Senator Sutherland. The entire expenditure that you made in Marinette County was $792, was it? Mr. Van Cleve. It was $792.75. Senator Sutherland. That covered the entire county ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir; the entire county of Marinette; 23 pre- cincts. Senator Sutherland. I was going to ask you how many precincts it included. Mr. Van Cleve. Twenty-three. Senator Sutherland. About what was the entire vote of the county ? Mr. Van Cleve. The entire vote was about 4,200, of which Mr. Stephenson got about 3,000. Senator Sutherland. Did you employ a man in each precinct on that day? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. More than one man? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, &ir. Senator Sutherland. How many men in a precinct on the day of the primary election? Mr. Van Cleve. The exact number is given in the list there. I think it was between 50 and 60 in the county. Senator Sutherland. Between 50 and 60 employed on the day? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. That would be an average of two or three men to a precinct ? Mr. Van Cleve. Of course a good many of those precincts are larger; that is, some of them took in three or four congressional town- ships, and we had to have teams and men to get out the vote. In some of them we had three or four teams ; and men at the polls with the poll list, and all that kind of thing. 570 JOHN A. VAN CLEVE. Senator Sutherland. Was any money paid for any other purpose than for teams and men to look over the poll list, and men to bring in the votes? Mr. Van Cleve. That is all. There was about $340 that was paid for newspaper service, of which $200 was that item that Senator Hey- burn referred to paid to the Eagle Press. The balance of it, $792.75, less the $340, was nearly all of it expended for that purpose on pri- mary day. There was a few dollars listed there for postage, you will see, and smaller items. The bulk of it was spent on primary day to get out the vote, and it was spent for no other purpose. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. How about the newspaper to which you gave the $200 ? That was to Mr. Noyes ? Mr. Van Cleve. That was to Mr. Noyes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the paper was friendly to Mr. Stephenson before you gave him the money. Mr. Van Cleve. Oh, yes. Mr. Littlefield. It had been supporting him before? Mr. Van Cleve. Oh, yes; right along. Mr. Littlefield. Were the men that you employed on election day men that were friendly to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Van Cleve. All of them; every one of them. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you ascertained what the fact was in that regard before you made any arrangement with them about their employment. Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You said that Mr. Puelicher supported Senator Stephenson, and then you stated: “That is what the money was sent to him for.” What do you wish to be understood by that ? Mr. Van Cleve. I hardly know why that question was asked; but, of course, Mr. Puelicher for years had been very friendly to Senator Stephenson. I knew that it would not be otherwise. The Chairman. Do you desire this witness released to-night ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a word or two more. Mr. Puelicher managed Senator Stephenson’s campaign in 1907, when the Senator was elected, did he not ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You did not wish to be understood that any of the sums paid to him were paid in consideration of his supporting Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Van Cleve. No, sir; none whatever. Mr. Littlefield. I think this witness would like to be excused, if your honor please. The Chairman. The book will remain in evidence. (The book referred to was received in evidence and marked “Ex- hibit Van Cleve, No. 2, October 9, 1911.”) Senator Pomerene. Was there any other money expended in your county — Marinette County, is it ? Mr. Van Cleve. Yes. Senator Pomerene (continuing) . By anyone else in behalf of Sen- ator Stephenson ? Mr. Van Cleve. Not that I know of. The Senator put the man- agement of the Marinette County campaign in my hands. There was no other money expended in the county except $792.75. G. L. KINGSLEY. 571 Mr. Littlefield. I think I asked this general question before, but if not, I would like to do it with all witnesses like Mr. Van Cleve. Was any money expended in this county, to your knowledge, for the purpose of bribing or corrupting any voters in the primary election ? Mr. Van Cleve. Not a dollar. The Chairman. The witness that will be called to the stand in the morning will be G. L. Kingsley, and following Mr. Kingsley will be Mr. Blaine. Mr. Littlefield. Does the committee excuse Mr. Van Cleve? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. He will be where you can call him again if you have occasion to do so. The Chairman. Yes. (Whereupon, at 4.35 o’clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday, October 10, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m.) TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee, Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present : Senators Heyburn (chairman) , Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The names of C. C. Wellensgard, W. K. Knell, C. S. French, and R. J. Shields were called. Mr. Wellensgard, Mr. Knell, and Mr. French responded to their names, and the oath was administered to them by the chairman. TESTIMONY OF G. I. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley, having been heretofore duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Kingsley. Albert Lea, Minn. The Chairman. What is your occupation ? Mr. Kingsley. I am the manager of a branch of the John Glenn Brewing Co. The Chairman. How long have you been so engaged ? Mr. Kingsley. About a year and eight months. The Chairman. During the year 1908, from June until January of the following year, in what business were you engaged ? Mr. Kingsley. I was employed by the State as a deputy game warden. The Chairman. What was the nature of your appointment? W ere you under salary or on a per diem ? Mr. Kingsley. On a per diem. The Chairman. With expenses in addition to the per diem ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Will the chairman please ask him whether his actual expenses were paid, or if there was an allowance for expenses ? The Chairman. That will be developed by the inquiry. Where did you five at that time? Mr. Kingsley. At La Crosse, Wis. 572 G. L. KINGSLEY. The Chairman. Tha£ is in what county? Mr. Kingsley. La Crosse County. The Chairman. During that period — that is, from June 1, 1908, until the 1st of January, 1909 — were you at any time engaged to do political work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive any money during that time for political services rendered or to be rendered in behalf of Senator Stephenson’s candidacy for the United States Senate ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. I find from the testimony of Mr. Stone, the State game warden, that he claims to have paid you a sum of money for political services to be rendered on behalf of Senator Stephenson. Is that true ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Did Mr. Stone at any time give you any money ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. For any purpose during that time? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Did he authorize anyone else to give you any money which you received ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. There is a statement that was made by Mr. Stone in his examination before the joint committee of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin that he paid you money, or that you received money, being part of a fund or sum of $2,500 which he had received for political work. Is that so ? Mr. Kingsley. No; it is not. The Chairman. Is there any foundation whatever for it? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Were you present at any meeting where it was proposed to make up a statement of political expenditures to account for $2,500 which was alleged to have been paid Mr. Stone? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Just one moment. Is it necessary to go into that, Mr. Chairman ? That is an incident for which Senator Stephen- son was in no sense responsible. The Chairman. I feel it necessary to go into it. It goes to the question of the disbursement — whether a fund of $2,500 paid to Mr. Stone was disbursed. Mr. Littlefield. As far as my knowledge of the record goes it went simply to the credibility of Mr. Stone. The Chairman. It goes to the question of whether or not Mr. Stone received that money and whether he disbursed it. The witness will answer the question. State what occurred. Mr. Kingsley. What occurred at the meeting ? The Chairman. Yes. First, where was the meeting? Mr. Kingsley. The meeting was held at Mr. Stone’s house, some- where around about midnight. I could not tell the exact time. The Chairman. Could you tell the date ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not. The Chairman. Can you give it by reference to other events? Mr. Kingsley. No; it is so long ago that I could not tell. G. L. KINGSLEY. 573 The Chairman. Was it during the examination of Mr. Stone before the joint committee of the legislature? Mr. Kingsley. I do not remember whether Mr. Stone had been called at that time or not. I do not recall that to mind. The Chairman . It was during the investigation ? Mr. Kingsley. It was during the investigation. I think the investigation had just started at that time. The Chairman. State what happened. Mr. Kingsley. I was the last one to come to the house, and I think there were seven there. The Chairman. Can you give their names ? Mr. Kingsley. There was Mr. Stone, myself, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Richtman, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tuttle, and Mr. Thomas. Mr. Littlefield. What is Mr. Thomas’s given name ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say that. The Chairman. Were any of these men members of the legislature, or had they been ? Mr. Kingsley. Mr. Thomas was an assemblyman. The Chairman. Any other one? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Was Mr. Stone there? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. The Chairman. State what occurred there on that occasion. Mr. Kingsley. The talk was about the fact that he had to account for a sum of money, and he wanted me to assume $200 or $250 and Mr. Johnson the same amount, and Mr. Richtman about $150, with the understanding that we would never be called on the witness stand to testify. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ wanted you to assume” ? Mr. Kingsley. He wanted to testify that he had given it to us, but the understanding was that we would not be put on the stand to testify to that fact. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I submit that if the witness is to go into conversations he had better state the conversations and not his conclusions. The Chairman. We are here to inquire Mr. Littlefield. But are we not to inquire on legal lines ? The Chairman. We are inquiring on very liberal lines. We are seeking information in the nature of an investigation as a basis for another body to act upon certain charges. Mr. Littlefield. That is true; but I submit that the testimony that may be elicited at this hearing should be elicited on a familiar legal basis. I can not conceive that testimony that is drawn out not in accordance with well-recognized legal rules can afterwards be considered by even the Senate; but I submit that entirely to the chairman. The Chairman. This witness will be subject to cross-examina- tion. If the responses of the witness in reply to interrogatories submitted by the committee are not satisfactory to counsel, he can cross-examine and test the testimony of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. But I know, and the chairman, as a lawyer, knows, that a conclusion that a witness undertakes to state as the result of a conversation would not be admitted anywhere as a legal 574 G. L. KINGSLEY. proposition. I shall not spend any time in cross-examining a wit- ness who simply states conclusions. From my point of view that testimony would not be competent or admissible. The Chairman. Does counsel present this in the nature of a motion to strike out this testimony? Mr. Littlefield. I present it in the nature of an objection to the witness being allowed to go on and state conclusions. The Chairman. But the witness has already made the statement. Mr. Littlefield. And I move to strike out the statement of the witness as a conclusion. I object to the witness being allowed to state his conclusions or inferences. The Chairman. The committee can not know what the witness is going to say. The witness having said it, it may be attacked on a motion to strike out, but the committee can not take notice of any admonishment that the witness be not allowed to state a thing. Mr. Littlefield. I will raise the question by a formal motion to strike out everything that the witness has said in relation to his con- clusions or inferences from any conversation that he had with Mr. Stone. The Chairman. And that motion will be noted. I was about to ask the witness to state the conversation. Senator Sutherland. Let me understand about this. You object, Mr. Littlefield, to the witness stating that Mr. Stone wanted him to do certain things, rather than stating what was said ? I think you are right about that. I think the witness ought to be compelled to state the conversation. The Chairman. Just one moment. The Chair will make its posi- tion plain and adhere to it. The witness stated, without any request on the part of the chairman, a certain thing. Counsel has moved to strike that out, and the motion has been noted. The chairman was proceeding to ask this witness for the conversation. No objection lies to any question asked by any member of this committee. The objection will be noted; but any member of this committee is entitled to ask any question in any manner that may seem proper to the mem- ber of the committee. The chairman was about to ask this witness for the conversation. Mr. Littlefield. There is no objection to my stating my position? The Chairman. Oh, none whatever. Mr. Littlefield. I will state it in this way : I concede, if the com- mittee please, that the committee has the power to ask any question it sees fit in connection with this investigation. I do not concede, as a matter of law, that the committee has a right to propound any ques- tion that does not come within some reasonably well-recognized legal rule. I think the committee has the power to introduce hearsay testi- mony, but I do not think it has the legal right to do it. I concede the committee has the power. I concede the committee has the power to put questions that may draw out inferences and conclusions. I do not concede the committee has the legal right to do that. I wish to be on record merely representing Senator Stephenson as saying that, and I do not think this record ought to be filled with what we would all agree is legally incompetent testimony. Of course I understand and well recognize that the committee is not going to be confined to strict legal rules. But when it comes to my proposition, it seems to me that the committee ought to have no objection to my stating my objection G. L. KINGSLEY. 575 to testimony of that character and getting that objection upon the record. I do not want to sit here and allow testimony to come in that I feel morally certain could not be properly considered, without making some protest on the record. I concede the committee has the power you say you have and that you propose to exercise. But when it comes to a question of whether or not it is legally admissible, that is a question where the rights of Senator Stephenson are involved, and I respectfully want to place my position on the record from time to time as I may have occasion to do so. I understand that is not disagree- able to the committee ? The Chairman. Counsel will have that opportunity. There has been no suggestion that it be denied him. The Chair should be permitted to finish his statement, however, before being inter- rupted by counsel. It would be intolerable that the members of the committee should sit here in this place and argue out differences as to the manner of procedure. Whenever the members of the committee differ they will retire and consider their differences; and when they return they will announce the decision of the committee, according to the rule which they themselves adopt. Mr. Littlefield. Of course we must all realize, I suppose, that we are all quite likely, as we go along in a matter of this sort, to unwittingly, perhaps, go beyond the rule. I hope no member of the committee will feel that I am doing anything improper if at such times I call the attention of the committee to it The Chairman. That is entirely permissible. Mr. Littlefield. And request them to keep, so far as they can, within what we all know are well-recognized legal principles. The Chairman. The rules governing an examination of this kind are these: No objection made by counsel to a question asked by a member of the committee is to be passed upon. No objection will be made by any member of the committee to a question asked by another member of the committee. That would result in disorder and would accomplish no good purpose. Whenever any member of the committee desires to retire for consultation, the committee will retire; and when it returns to this room it will announce its conclu- sion, according to the rule of the majority. Senator Sutherland. I do not understand that Mr. Littlefield is objecting to a question asked by the chairman. What he is objecting to is an answer of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. Certainly. The Chairman. And the objection has been noted. Mr. Littlefield. My objection is submitted. Of course we are going along in a fairly free and easy manner and I do not mean by that to characterize the proceedings of the committee as improper. I am not insisting upon strict legal rules, and the committee is not, so far as my examination is concerned. I appreciate that. But I feel we are reaching a stage here, perhaps, when if this witness goes on and undertakes to detail conversations that seem to be important we should insist upon his stating the conversation and not his conclusion. I do not quite see how this can affect Senator Stephenson in anyway, but if it is to be admitted at all, I think the witnesses themselves should appreciate the fact that they should state the conversation and not their conclusion. I do not mean to intimate for a moment that the wit- 576 G. L. KINGSLEY. nesses are not acting in good faith; but I say they should appreciate the fact that they must confine themselves within some reasonable rules, and not state conclusions, not state inferences, not state opin- ions. If they are going to state conversations, they should state conversations, in substance, as they remember -them, and stop there. The Chairman. The chairman is in entire sympathy with the sug- gestion; but it is too late to take back an answer that has been given. Mr. Littlefield. That is very true. Of course the only remedy I have in this case is to move to strike it out, which I have done. The Chairman. We shall not p/iss upon motions to strike out. We will note the objection. “ Striking out” would only leave it in the record, with a motion to strike out. Mr. Littlefield. Of course the chairman perceives that that is all I can do. The Chairman. Yes; that is all the committee can do. State what conversation occurred between you and Mr. Stone in regard to your being charged with a portion of this money. State what he said, and what you said, as nearly as you can remember it. Mr. Littlefield. Perhaps I should make this further suggestion: It seems to me that is clearly hearsay, if the chairman please. Mr. Stone is not a party to these proceedings. The Chairman. That kind of hearsay will be admitted, if that is hearsay; because, according to the testimony of Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Stone received $2,500 for this purpose, or for some purpose. That is already a part of the case. It is in the record. Mr. Littlefield. That is true. The Chairman. We are accounting for that money now. Go ahead and state the conversation. Mr. Kingsley. He wanted us to assume that amount of money. The Chairman. What did he say ? Mr. Kingsley. He said he had to account for a certain part of the money — I do not remember how much money — and he wanted us to assume either $200 or $250, and the third party $150. The Chairman. Can you give us the language in which he stated it ? Mr. Kingsley. I can not. I can not remember the conversation after that length of time. The Chairman. You say he wanted you to do it. Did he make any statement in regard to wanting you to do it ? If so, what state- ment? You can give the substance of the statement. Mr. Kingsley. I think he said, though I am not positive in regard to that, that he had to testify to what he had done with this money. The Chairman. That is, he told you that ? Mr. Kingsley. He had to make an accounting of it. The Chairman. What did you say to Mr. Stone in response to that statement on his part? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say exactly. The Chairman. Did you tell him you would do it ? Mr. Kingsley. I think we agreed to do it, with the understanding that we would not be put on the stand to testify to it. The Chairman. Did you receive any part of this $2,500 ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. Did you write or give or sign a receipt to Mr. Stone for any sum of money ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. G. L. KINGSLEY. 577 The Chairman. What Mr. Stone was this ? There seems to be a J. A. Stone and a J. W. Stone. Mr. Kingsley. J. W. Stone. The Chairman. In the testimony taken before the joint investi- gating committee on March 11, 1909, at Madison, Wis., Mr. Stone testifies as follows : Q. Now, Mr. Stone, give me another name there on that list. Mr. Stone had already stated that he had in his hand a list of the persons to whom he paid portions of the $2,500. A. George L. Kingsley. Q. Where does he live? — A. At La Crosse. Q. What county? — A. La Crosse County. Q. And how long has he been on the force? — A. Well, now, really I couldn’t say. He has been on some time. Q. How much did you give him? Mr. Littlefield. What page is the chairman reading from ? The Chairman. I am reading from page 1770: Q. How much did you give him? — A. I can’t tell you the exact amount. Q. As near as you can remember. — A. Well, something over $200. Is that true? Did he give you something over $200. Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; he did not. The Chairman. Did he give you any money at all ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; he did not. The Chairman (reading) : Q. Have you ever asked him how much it was? — A. No Q. He would know, wouldn’t he? — A. I think so. Q. You paid him in Madison, did you? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Cash? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Out of this same money? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you anything more definite as to the time when you paid him and the amount you paid him than you have with reference to Sholts? — A. No, sir. Q. Now, you say about 200. What is your impression, whether it was more or less than 200 that you gave him?— A. Why, I think it was over 200. Q. You can’t tell how much more? — A. No, sir. Q. You made an entry of it in your book? — A. Yes; I did at that time. Q. And he was to do the same work that the other wardens did? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In that district?— A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know whether he did the work or not? — A. I do not. Q. Nor whether he spent the money or not? — A. No, sir. Q. You never asked him — A. No, sir. By Senator Husting: Q. You say “ over 200. ” Do you mean about 300 or 225? — -A. Well, I can’t tell you the exact amount. Q. Well, do you mean approximately 200? — A. Yes, sir, something like that. Q. It couldn’t have been very much over 200? — A. Why, I don’t think so. Senator Morris. I would like to ask you a question. Is Mr. Kingsley one of the men to whom you sent that circular letter? — A. No, sir; I don’t think so. I have read you the testimony of Mr. Stone — not that leading up to this question, but from the time the question was reached as to his paying you money. Is the statement made by Mr. Stone, as I have read it to you, true? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Is any part of it true? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive any money, at any time during that campaign, from Mr. Stone for any purpose ? 15235°— vol 1—11 37 578 G. L. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you work for Mr. Stephenson for the United States Senate, or the nomination for Senator ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. Did you help to raise any money to create a fund to promote the election of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Littlefield. One moment, if the chairman pleases, I very seriously and very earnestly object to that question. The Chairman. Counsel will state the grounds of objection. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I will. In the first place, there is no charge here that relates to ex-Gov. Davidson. Mr. Black. The question relates to Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I beg pardon. I thought it was ex-Gov. Davidson. The Chairman. No ; Senator Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. That is all right. I have no objection. The Chairman. Did you participate in raising such a fund ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not quite understand the question. The Chairman. Did you participate in raising or contribute to a fund being raised for the purpose of assisting or promoting the nomi- nation of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. The Chairman. The Senator was referring to an item of $50 paid to Frank Brown. Did you pay Frank Brown $50 ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose ? Mr. Kingsley. That was for a campaign fund for Gov. Davidson. The Chairman. So that it was not for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; it was not. Mr. Littlefield. That was the subject I was going to object to going into. The Chairman. I have that before me here. That is all I have to ask. Senator Sutherland. Do I understand you to say, Mr. Kingsley, that at this meeting at Mr. Stone’s house you did agree to assume the $200, or whatever it was ? Mr. Kingsley. If I remember right, we agreed to assume that, with the understanding that we would not be put on the stand. That is my recollection. Senator Sutherland. That is, you agreed that Mr. Stone might state to the investigating committee that he had paid you $200 ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not understand your question. (The reporter read aloud the pending question.) Mr. Kingsley. I do not know that I can remember that now. I think we agreed to assume that, with that understanding. That is as near as my memory Senator Sutherland. With what understanding? Mr. Kingsley. With the understanding that we would not be put on the stand. Senator Sutherland. How was your agreeing to assume it to in any manner serve Mr. Stone’s purpose ? Mr. Kingsley. He had to account for some money. Senator Sutherland. He had to account where? Mr. Kingsley. I suppose to the committee. G. L. KINGSLEY. 579 Senator Sutherland. To the investigating committee ? Mr. Kingsley. I think so. Senator Sutherland. That is, he had to state to the investigating committee that he had paid out this $2,500 to you and to others ? Mr. Kingsley. There was a certain part of it; I do not know whether it was $2,500 or not. I do not know how much he had to account for. Senator Sutherland. He had to state that a part of it had been paid to you ? Mr. Kingsley. There was a certain amount of it that he had to account for. Senator Sutherland. And he had to state that a part of it had been paid to you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you agree that he might state that ? Mr. Kingsley. No more than what I have said in regard to assum- ing that. Senator Sutherland. Did you understand that he was going to state it ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say whether I understood that or not. Senator Sutherland. What use did you understand he was going to make of that assumption upon your part ? Mr. Kingsley. I think that was the understanding — that we were to assume that. Whether he was Senator Sutherland. How was that to help Stone ? Mr. Kingsley. Why, to account for this amount of money. Senator Sutherland. To account to whom ? Mr. Kingsley. I suppose to the committee. Senator Sutherland. Then he was going to state to the committee that he had paid you $200 out of it ? Mr. Kingsley. I think so ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And you understood that ? Mr. Kingsley. Why Senator Sutherland. Did you or did you not understand that ? Mr. Kingsley. I think we did. Senator Sutherland. Did you understand it ? Mr. Kingsley. I think I did. Senator Sutherland. Can you not state any more clearly than that ? Do you not know whether you did or not ? Mr. Kingsley. Well, just now, the exact conversation that occurred at that time — it is so long ago that I can not. Senator Sutherland. I am not asking you for the conversation. What did you understand about it ? Mr. Kingsley. Just what I stated — that he wanted us to assume this amount of money. Senator Sutherland. And did you or did you not understand that he intended to state to the legislative investigating committee that he had paid you the $200 ? Mr. Kingsley. I think we understood that. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Kingsley, just answer my question. Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you understand that he intended to make that statement to the legislative investigating committee ? 580 G. L. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley. Well, I do not know that I could state definitely now whether I understood that he was to testify to that fact before that committee or that he had to account for this money, and we agreed to assume that amount. Senator Sutherland. Let us go back again: You knew that he had some purpose in having you assume the $200 payment? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What was that purpose, as you understood it ? Mr. Kingsley. The way I understood it, just as I said, was that he had to account for a certain amount of money. I do not know how much it was ; but he had to account for that ; and he wanted us to assume that, with the understanding that we would not be put on the stand. Senator Sutherland. You understood that he had to account to this joint investigating committee for that amount of money? Mr. Kingsley. I think it was to the committee that he had to account. If I remember right, they were in session at the time. Senator Sutherland. And you understood that, in making the account, he would have to make a statement ? Mr. Kingsley. Now, I [The witness hesitated.] Senator Sutherland. You know whether you did or not? Mr. Kingsley. I think I understood that he was going to testify to that fact. Senator Sutherland. Before the investigating committee? Mr. Kingsley. I think so. Senator Sutherland. And you knew that he was going to make a false statement of fact about it, then? Mr. Kingsley. I can not exactly remember the conversation as it occurred there, just word for word. Senator Sutherland. No, no. You knew he was going to make the statement before the investigating committee, that he had paid you $200, did you not? Mr. Kingsley. I think I did. Senator Sutherland. And you knew that the statement was false ? Mr. Kingsley. I certainly did. Senator Sutherland. And you were willing to agree that he should make a false statement, provided you were not called upon to sub- stantiate it. Is that correct? Mr. Kingsley. No; I do not know whether that was the exact agreement on our part or not. Senator Sutherland. Were you present when he tesified? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I was not. Senator Sutherland. Did you hear about his testimony before the committee? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not pay any attention to it. Senator Sutherland. When did you first learn that he had said before the investigating committee that he had paid you $200? Mr. Kingsley. I do not now remember what day it was. I saw in the newspaper, that he had testified that he gave me that money. Senator Sutherland. Did you do anything about it? Mr. Kingsley. I went before the committee when they sub- poenaed me, and testified that he did not. Senator Sutherland. You did not go before the committee until you were subpoenaed ? G. L. KINGSLEY. 581 Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. You were content to let that false statement stand before the committee Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not intend to let it stand. Senator Sutherland. I did not finish my question. You were content to let the false statement stand before the committee until they compelled you to come before them ? Is not that true ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think it was. The subpoena was issued right away afterward. Senator Sutherland. You did not volunteer to go before them? Mr. Kingsley. Did I volunteer? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not. Senator Sutherland. Then, until the subpoena was served upon you, you were content to let the statement stand, were you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know just how you mean. Senator Sutherland. You were willing to let it stand ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know whether — I do not know how to answer that question. Senator Sutherland. Would you voluntarily ever have gone before the committee? Mr. Kingsley. If I had not been subpoenaed ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Kingsley. I think I would. Senator Sutherland. Why ? Mr. Kingsley. Because I would not want anybody to state that he gave me that money when he did not. Senator Sutherland. But you had agreed, in advance, that he might state it, had you not ? Mr. Kingsley. That happened so long ago that I can not remember the exact facts. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Senator Pomerene. This meeting was in Madison, was it ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Senator Pomerene. With Mr. Stone, the game warden, and these other gentlemen ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And the legislative committee was in session at that time, was it ? Mr. Kinjgsley. My impression is that it was, at that time. Senator Pomerene. Was it the joint committee, or the committee from the Senate ? Mr. Kingsley. I think it was the joint committee. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. The Chairman. Just a moment. I want these dates to appear in the record at this point. The record will show that Mr. Stone was testifying on April 2, and this witness testified on April 10. Mr. Littlefield. That is the chronology of the events. The Chairman. I make the statement merely to show the lapse of time. Mr. Littlefield. Eight days intervened. Senator Pomerene. That was in 1909. 582 G. L. KINGSLEY. The Chairman. Yes. April 2 and April 10; and, in the meantime, a number of other witnesses, Bowman and Lowe, other game wardens, and Wheeler and Stone himself were on the stand. Senator Pomerene. How much time had intervened between the date of your conference with Stone and the date when you were called to testify before the committee ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not tell that. Senator Pomerene. About how long ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not give you any time at all. I do not remember. Senator Pomerene. You have stated that you saw in the news- papers that he had testified to the fact of his giving you from $200 to $250, or thereabouts — I do not name the exact amount. How soon did you see that after you had had this conference ? Mfr*. Kingsley. I could not testify to that from my knowledge. Senator Pomerene. Was it a matter of several days? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say as to that. I do not remember. The Chairman. It was less than a week, was it, or about a week? Mr. Kingsley. I could not state definitely. I do not remember. The Chairman. Those things can all be gathered from the record — the date of the testimony, and the date of the adjournment at the request of Mr. Stone, during which adjournment this meeting was held; they are all matters of record. You may take the witness, gentlemen. Mr. Littlefield. You knew that this statement that Mr. Stone was to make before this joint investigating committee was to be a statement on oath, did you not? Or do you not know enough about it to know whether you did or not? Mr. Kingsley. Why, I did not — in fact, I don’t know whether I did or not at that time. Mr. Littlefield. Did he not say that he expected he would have to testify before the committee ? Have you not already sworn to that, right here on the stand ? Mr. Kingsley. I think he did say that. Mr. Littlefield. What do you understand to be the meaning of the word “ testify”? To make a statement on oath or otherwise? What do you say about that ? Mr. Kingsley. That word was not mentioned, I think. Mr. Littlefield. You have mentioned it here. Mr. Kingsley. You mean “ testify” ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. You have already stated here that Mr. Stone said that he expected he would have to testify. Do you want to withdraw that ? Mr. Kingsley. He said he might be called on to account for this money. Mr. Littlefield. Have you not, in substance, already stated, right here on the stand, that Mr. Stone told you, at that time, that he expected to be called as a witness ? Have you not said that ? Mr. Kingsley. I think I did. Mr. Littlefield. Do you withdraw it? Now. think it over. Do you withdraw it ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not understand just what you mean. Mr. Littlefield. I have asked if you have not already stated here that Stone told you that he expected he would have to testify. You G. L. KINGSLEY. 583 say you have stated that. You do not withdraw the statement, do you ? Mr. Kingsley. I think Mr. Stone said that he had to account for it. Mr. Littlefield. He did not say that he had to testify, did he ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think he did. Mr. Littlefield. Do you withdraw the statement that you just made before the committee that he did say that he had to testify, or did you quite know what you were talking about when you said that ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know that I understood that part of it. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know what the word “ testify ” means ? Mr. Kingsley. I think I do. Mr. Littlefield. What does it mean ? Mr. Kingsley. That a man has to testify to the truth. Mr. Littlefield. On what ? On oath ? Mr. Kingsley. On oath. Mr. Littlefield. Do you testify now, before the committee, that you do not know that Mr. Stone was arranging for his testimony before that joint committee? Do you swear to that? [The witness hesi- tated.] The question is whether you do not know that at that time Mr. Stone was arranging for his testimony before the joint committee ? What do you say ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know whether Mr. Stone had been sub- poenaed at that time. Mr. Littlefield. But I ask you again if you do not know that at that time, when you had this conference in Mr. Stone’s house, to which you have testified here, Mr. Stone was arranging for his testimony before the joint committee. Do you not know that, or do you say that you do not ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think I know that to be a fact. Mr. Littlefield. You do not? Mr. Kingsley. It might be that was what he was arranging for; but to say that, I do not think I know. Mr. Littlefield. How does it happen, then, that when you agreed with him that you would assume responsibility for the receipt of $200, as you have stated here, you made the agreement with the under- standing that you would not be called on to testify, if you did not know that Mr. Stone was arranging for his testimony ? How did you happen to make that statement providing that you would not be called on to testify ? Mr. Kingsley. I understand now what you mean. Mr. Littlefield. Do you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Then answer my question. Mr. Kingsley. I think that is what he was arranging for. Mr. Littlefield. You do not have any doubt about it, do you, sitting right where you are now ? Mr. Kingsley. I think that is what he was arranging for. Mr. Littlefield. You know it, do you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. It is not a question of thinking. You know it, do you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. With that knowledge, you were conspiring with Mr. Stone to enable him to give false testimony, were you not? Do you not know that? Or does not your intelligence go that far? 584 G. L. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley. I do not Mr. Littlefield (interrupting). You do not know whether you were conspiring with Mr. Stone, to enable Mr. Stone to give false testimony ? Mr. Kingsley. The agreement was that we would assume that money, with the understanding that we would not be put on the stand. Mr. Littlefield. Do you understand the question that I am ask- ing you? Do you know what “ conspire” means? Mr. Kingsley. I think I do. Mr. Littlefield. Do you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I ask whether, with knowledge that Mr. Stone was to testify, you were not, on that occasion, conspiring with him to enable him to testify falsely? Do you understand the question? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Then answer it. Mr. Kingsley. I suppose that is what you would call it. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. You were conspiring with him to enable him to commit perjury, were you ? Mr. Kingsley. How ? Mr. Littlefield. Answer that question. Mr. Kingsley. He asked us to assume that. Mr. Littlefield. Answer that question: Were you conspiring with Mr. Stone to enable him to commit perjury ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not think that I was conspiring with him to make him commit perj ury . Mr. Littlefield. You thought you were conspiring with him to enable him to testify falsely, did you not? Mr. Kingsley. That might be. Mr. Littlefield. Might be? You did, did you not? Do you not know that ? Do you sit there and say you do not know that ? What do you say ? Mr. Kingsley. That might be true. Mr. Littlefield. Do you not know it ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think I thought of that for the time being. Mr. Littlefield. You did not? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think so. Mr. Littlefield. It did not occur to you that you were con- spiring to enable him to testify falsely? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I do not think it did. Mr. Littlefield. But it did occur to you to put in a stipulation that you would not be required to testify, did it? Mr. Kingsley. How is that ? Mr. Littlefield. When you made your agreement that you would assume $200 or $225, or whatever the amount was, it did occur to you to put in a stipulation that you would not be required to testify? It did occur to you to do that? Mr. Kingsley. I did not do it. That was the understanding. Mr. Littlefield. You say that you did not put in that stipula- tion, do you ? Mr. Kingsley. That I put in the stipulation that I would not be put on the stand ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes, sir. G. L. KINGSLEY. 585 Mr. Kingsley. The remark was made right there that we would not have to go on the stand. Mr. Littlefield. Do you say that you did not make it a condition, when you agreed with Mr. Stone to assume the $200 or $225, that you would not be called on to testify ? Did you not make that a condition ? Mr. Kingsley. I guess it would be a condition. Mr. Littlefield. Why did you make that condition? Was it not because you knew that if you did testify to that fact, you would com- mit perjury ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not intend to testify to that fact. Mr. Littlefield. No; but is it not because you knew that, if you did testify to that fact, you would commit perjury? Mr. Kingsley. That if I did testify ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. You knew that, did you not? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And then you knew that if Mr. Stone testified to it, as you expected he would, he would commit perjury, did you not? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Exactly. And having made these admissions, do you now say that you did not conspire with Mr. Stone to enable him to commit perjury? What do you say to that, Mr. Kingsley? Mr. Kingsley. I suppose that is so. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I guess it is so. You say here, this morn- ing, in answer to the chairman’s question when he read from the record, that the statements that he read from Mr. Stone’s testimony were all false ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You do say that? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Are you quite certain you noticed the signifi- cance of that question when you answered it ? Mr. Kingsley. That he gave me that money ? Mr. Littlefield. No ; but the record that was read to you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You said it was all false; that all of his state- ments were false ? Mr. Kingsley. That he gave me that money ? It is false. Mr. Littlefield. No. Here is the statement that the chairman read to you, and I want to ask if that is false. Senator Pomerene. What is the page to which you are about to refer, Mr. Littlefield, so that I can follow it ? Mr. Littlefield. Page 1771 (reading): Senator Morris. I would like to ask you a question: Is Mr. Kingsley one of the men to whom you sent that circular letter? — A. No, sir; I don’t think so. Is that false ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know what circular letter he has refer- ence to. Mr. Littlefield. You do not know whether it is true or false, do you ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know anything about that circular letter. Mr. Littlefield. I ask you that question. He says, in answer to that, that you were not one of the men to whom he sent the cir- cular letter. Is that true or false ? 586 G. L. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley. I could not say. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. You do not know anything about that? Mr. Kingsley. About that circular letter ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. When you answered the Senator that all of Mr. Stone’s statements were false, you answered inadvertently, I take it, because it was in the question that was asked you. Is that right? Mr. Kingsley. I do not understand that question. Mr. Littlefield. When you answered that every statement that was read to you by the Senator from the record was false, this was included in it; and when you said that it was all false, I suppose it was an inadvertence, and you did not notice the statement to which I have just called your attention? Mr. Kingsley. What I meant by that was in regard to the money. I did not notice that about the circular letter. Mr. Littlefield. You did not intend to include anything else? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Sutherland. Did you know that you were to be sub- poenaed before the subpoena was served upon you to appear before the legislative committee ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say as to that, Senator. I do not remember. Senator Sutherland. Had you heard that you were going to be subpoenaed ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes; I think I had heard that the subpoena was going to be issued. Senator Sutherland. How long before the subpoena was served had you heard that ? Mr. Kingsley. It must have been a day or two, or something like that, maybe. Senator Sutherland. From whom did you hear it ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not remember now whom I heard it from; in a roundabout way, somewhere. Senator Sutherland. Did you hear it from any person that you now recall ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Had there been any talk about this state- ment of Mr. Stone’s that he had paid you $200 or $250, or whatever it was ? Mr. Kingsley. Had there been any talk? Senator Sutherland. Had there been any talk about it — any gossip about it anywhere ? Mr. Kingsley. Oh, yes; it was talked about. You could hear it on the streets everywhere. Senator Sutherland. The matter was being talked about ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Gossip came to your ears, did it ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you make any statement about it when you heard this gossip ? Mr. Kingsley. I can not call that to mind now, Senator. Senator Sutherland. Did different people tell you that this statement had been made ? G. L. KINGSLEY. 587 Mr. Kingsley. Oh, yes. I was approached by people who asked that — friends of mine. Senator Sutherland. They came to you and told you that Stone had made this statement, about the payment of $200 to you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. What did you say to them? Mr. Kingsley. I told them that I did not get it. Senator Sutherland. You told them that you did not get it? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you tell them anything about this agreement ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. You just simply said that you did not get it ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you remember anybody in particular to whom you talked about it ? Mr. Kingsley. That I talked to ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Kingsley. No, I do not. Senator Sutherland. Did you go to anybody in connection with the investigation ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir, I did not. Senator Sutherland. Did you go to any member of the legis- lature ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you suggest to anybody that you should be called as a witness? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think so. I have no recollection of it. The Chairman. You heard about Mr. Stone’s testimony either the day he gave it or the next day, did you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I could not state exactly about it. It may have been the next day or it may have been two days after. The Chairman. When you heard about it, you denounced the statement as untrue? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And denounced it to a number of your friends ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know how many, but parties that talked to me about it. The Chairman. Your statements were responsible for the matter being further investigated, were they not ? In other words, you put your friends in possession of the knowledge that the statements that Stone made were not true, did you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I told some of my friends that it was not true, when they asked me the question. The Chairman. That is all. Senator Sutherland. What reason did you have for doing that, Mr. Kingsley? Mr. Kingsley. What reason ? Senator Sutherland. Yes; why did you state to your friends that the statement that Stone had made was not true ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not get the money, and there was no use in saying I did get it, when I did not. Senator Sutherland. But why did you state to them that you did not ? 588 G. L. KINGSLEY. Mr. Kingsley. I wanted them to know the truth. Senator Sutherland. You evidently agreed with Stone that he might make the statement. You understood that he was going to make the statement. Why did you not object before? Mr. Littlefield. That is, why did you not repent earlier ? Mr. Kingsley. That is something I do not know. Senator Sutherland. Why did you not tell Mr. Stone that you would not stand for such a thing as that ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not think I fully realized at that time just what it meant, until after it was over with. Senator Pomerene. Did you tell anybody, before you went on the stand, about this talk with Stone ? Mr. Kingsley. Did I tell anybody ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Kingsley. Do you mean in regard to what occurred there ? Senator Pomerene. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley. No, sir; I did not. Senator Pomerene. You told no member of the committee ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. No official ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. No friend or assistant ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. I mean, assistant in the investigation. Mr. Kingsley. That is, anything of what I heard there ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. You have testified that there was a meeting at which four or five of you met Mr. Stone ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And some arrangement was made to aid him in accounting for this money that he received. Before you testified on the stand, did you talk with anyone about what had occurred at that meeting ? Mr. Kingsley. Not any more than to say I did not get the money. Mr. Littlefield. That is to say, you did not disclose to anybody, E rior to your becoming a witness on oath yourself, that there had een what is known as the “frame up.’’ You know what I mean by that ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You did not disclose to anybody, before you testified on the stand, that there was what is known as the “frameup” in Stone’s house, before Stone testified ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not — any more than to say that I did not get the two hundred Mr. Littlefield. That does not relate to it. That does not refer to the “frame up” at all, does it? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know that it does. Mr. Littlefield. You know it does not ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Why do you say you did not, any more than to say that you did not get the money? You know that that does not refer to the “frame up.” Senator Pomerene. What does counsel mean by the “frame up ?” Mr. Littlefield. That is what is alluded to in a “scare head” by the joint committee, in connection with this arrangement made in G. L. KINGSLEY. 589 Mr. Stone’s house. It is designated by the committee as a ‘ frame up.” Making no reflection upon the committee, I think every citi- zen of Wisconsin who is familiar with the public history of the times knows it as the “ frame up.” That is why I referred to it in that way. Senator Pomerene. I was wondering whether the witness under- stood exactly what you meant. Mr. Littlefield. The witness knows. [To the witness:] You know what I mean, when I refer to the “frame up” ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. So that, so far as you and I are concerned, our language is perfectly intelligible as between us when I refer to the “frame up”? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose you read the report of this investi- gation in the newspapers, did you not ? Mr. Kingsley. I probably read a little of it; not very much. I did not read it all. Mr. Littlefield. Did you read the testimony of Mr. Stone in the newspapers ? Mr. Kingsley. I might have read some parts of it. I did not read it all. Mr. Littlefield. Did you read the part that related to a man named Kingsley and an alleged $200 that one Kingsley was supposed to receive ? Did you read that in the newspapers ? Mr. Kingsley. I think I did. Mr. Littlefield. Did you read it the morning when it was pub- lished, or did you just get a file of newspapers somewhere, that drifted into your hands, incidentally ? Mr. Kingsley. I probably read it the next day. Mr. Littlefield. Do you not know that you did? Mr. Kingsley. I can not say positively. I do not know that I was home the next day after he testified. Mr. Littlefield. Do you not read the newspapers when you are away from home ? Mr. Kingsley. Generally I do, when I can get them. Mr. Littlefield. You ordinarily have the price of a newspaper with you, have you not? Mr. Kingsley. I fihink so. Mr. Littlefield. Newspapers circulate in almost all parts of Wisconsin, do they not ? Mr. Kingsley. But I might have been out somewhere in the bot- toms, where I would not have a chance to see the newspapers. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I see. The morning when this newspaper came out you might have been out in the bottoms somewhere engaged in this game-warden service ? Mr. Kingsley. I was at that time. Mr. Littlefield. On a per diem ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Your expenses being paid? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. So that you might have been out in the bottoms and not have gotten the paper ? Mr. Kingsley. I might have been home. I do not remember. 590 G. L». KINGSLEY. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any doubt that you read that state- ment of Mr. Stone’s, so far as it related to you, when it came out in the newspaper, the first time it came out? Mr. Kingsley. Have I any doubt whether I read it? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Kingsley. No ; I have not. Mr. Littlefield. Do you not know that you read it the morning it came out? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say exactly whether I did or did not. I might have read it that day or the next day. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any doubt about it, Mr. Kingsley? Mr. Kingsley. I read about it. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any doubt you read it the first day it came out? Mr. Kingsley. I could not say when I read it. Mr. Littlefield. You could not say? Mr. Kingsley. No. Mr. Littlefield. And the effort you made to rehabilitate your- self was to simply tell your friends that you did not get the money? That was all, was it not — that is, if what you said is true, that the only effort you made to rehabilitate yourself was to tell your friends that you did not get the money ? Mr. Kingsley. I told them that. Mr. Littlefield. That is all you did tell them? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You did not make any reference to the “ frame up,” you say? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you wish the committee to understand that you were very earnest and insistent that these facts connected with the “ frame up” should be disclosed before the joint investigating committee ? Do you wish them to understand that ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not understand your question. Mr. Littlefield. Do you wish the committee to understand that you were anxious to have the information in relation to that ‘ ‘ frame up ’ ’ conveyed to the joint investigating committee of the Wisconsin Legis- lature ? Mr. Kingsley. I was ready to testify to that fact. Mr. Littlefield. Do you understand the question I asked you? Mr. Kingsley. I think I do. Mr. Littlefield. If you do, please be kind enough to answer it. I ask if you were anxious. Do you know what that word means ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I ask you, now, if you were anxious that the Wisconsin legislative committee should have the knowledge in rela- tion to that “ frame up” ? Were you or were you not; or do you not know? Mr. Kingsley. Yes; I was. Mr. Littlefield. Then, if you were, why did you not tell some- body about it ? Mr. Kingsley. It had already been told. Mr. Littlefield. It had already been developed ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. G. L. KINGSLEY. 591 Mr. Littlefield. In testimony ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not know whether it was in testimony. I understand that one of the Senators had the information. Mr. Littlefield. You were anxious to give the information, and the reason you did not carry out that anxiety was because they had already been told. Is that it ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. When did you first learn that they had been told? Was it before you testified? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Who told you ? Mr. Kingsley. I was told by Senator Morris. Mr. Littlefield. He told you that they knew all about it ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you tell him that you knew all about it ? Mr. Kingsley. I did not say one way or the other. He told me that the committee knew all about the meeting and the whole busi- ness. Mr. Littlefield. That is, before you testified ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did he ask you if you knew anything about the meeting ? Mr. Kingsley. All I said was, “Is that so?” Mr. Littlefield. He did not ask if you knew anything about that ? Senator Pomerene. Who was this, who said he knew all about it? Mr. Littlefield. Senator Morris, one of the members of the inves- tigating committee; a member on the part of the senate. Senator Marsh, Senator Morris, and Senator Husting were the three senate members. Senator Pomerene. Thank you. I missed that in your question. Mr. Littlefield. I want to ask you one more question. This tes- timony that you gave and these acts that you performed in connec- tion with the “frameup” were all in the city of Madison? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Have you ever been prosecuted for conspiring to commit perjury? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Mr. LrrTLEFiELD. Have any of the other distinguished gentlemen who were present on the occasion of that “frame up” been prosecuted for conspiring to commit perjury? Mr. Kingsley. Not that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know the name of the district attorney of that county in January and February, 1909 ? Mr. Kingsley. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. You do not know who it was ? Mr. Kingsley. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether he lives in the city of Madison? Mr. Kingsley. That I could not say. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Kingsley, do you remember testifying before the legislative committee ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. 592 JOHN J. BLAINE. Senator Sutherland. Do you remember giving this testimony: By Mr. Bray: Q. I suppose after this meeting it was understood that nothing was to be said about that meeting at Stone’s house, wasn’t it? — A. Yes, sir. You testified to that, did you ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And it was true ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland (reading): Q. When did you first hear about it after that? — A. Well, in what way do you mean, Mr. Bray? Q. How did the story get out? — A. Why, I was subpoenaed, and told to come to Madison; and I came here on a Thursday night, if I remember right. I reported to the chairman of the committee, and I met Senator Morris on the stairway. I shook hands with him, and walked up in his office and sat down, and he told me that they knew all about it. Mr. Hambrecht. Q. Knew all about what? — A. Knew all about the meeting, and I didn’t say anything. He said — I don’t know just exactly how he said it — but “A ceitain party has told the whole business.” Q. In other words, you didn’t tell it? — A. No, sir; I didn’t. I want it distinctly understood I didn’t tell. Mr. Hambrecht. Q. Do you know who did tell? Did Senator Morris say who told him? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was it? — A. I would rather have Senator Morris tell that, unless I am com- pelled to answer it. Q. I would like to have you answer it. — A. He said Mr. Richtman told about it. Q. Why didn’t you want to tell about it? — A. Nobody had asked me to tell about it. Q. Did you think that was a proper thing to do? — A. I don’t understand now what you mean. Q. Did you think that was a proper thing to do, to keep silent when Mr. Stone was going to say you had received money, when it wasn’t true? — A. When I took thafc on my shoulders the understanding was I was not to be subpoenaed, or to be on the stand to perjure myself. Q. If you were subpoenaed and were put on the stand, you would have told the truth? — A. I certainly would. You gave that testimony; did you? Mr. Kingsley. Ites, sir. Senator Sutherland. And that was true ? Mr. Kingsley. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. We have nothing further, if the chairman please. The Chairman. That is all. TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. BLAINE. Mr. Blaine, having been heretofore duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Blaine, do you at this time hold any public office ? Mr. Blaine. I do. The Chairman. What office ? Mr. Blaine. State senator from the sixteenth district of Wisconsin. The Chairman. When did your present term commence, and when does it expire ? Mr. Blaine. My term commenced in January, 1909, and expires in January, 1913. Senator Pomerene. Four years? Mr. Blaine. Four years. The Chairman. Were you holding any public office during the year 1908 ? Mr. Blaine. I was not. JOHN J. BLAINE. 593 The Chairman. So that your official status began January 1, 1909 ? Mr. Blaine. It is not January 1. I think it is the first Wednesday after the second Tuesday in January. The Chairman. That is the time you were sworn in? Mr. Blaine. The time I was sworn in. The Chairman. What time were you elected ? Mr. Blaine. At the general election in November, 1908. The Chairman. Were you nominated at a direct-primary election ? Mr. Blaine. I was nominated at a direct-primary election in September, 1908. The Chairman. On September 1, 1908? Mr. Blaine. I believe it was September 1. The Chairman. As a member of the State Senate of Wisconsin, in the session commencing in January, 1909, you participated in the investigation of charges against Senator Stephenson, affecting his election, did you ? Mr. Blaine. I presented a substitute resolution and certain charges. The Chairman. You filed specific charges, did you ? Mr. Blaine. What were known as specific charges, and have been referred to as specific charges. The Chairman. In the copy of the proceedings sent to the United States Senate by the Governor of Wisconsin they are designated ‘specific charges/’ Were they so designated in the document that you filed ? Mr. Blaine. I can tell by referring to the document. I do not remember. The Chairman. I will read the language, on page 4: Resolved, That such committee shall report to the senate and assembly in full upon such matters with the evidence and their recommendations thereon on or before the 1st day of April, 1909. The resolution was introduced by Senator Blaine. Then follow specific charges. Mr. Blaine. Yes; they were designated as specific charges. The Chairman. We will take up those charges for consideration; and I will read them and interrogate you in regard to them as we go along. First : To the honorable Senate and Assembly of the State of Wisconsin : I, John J. Blaine, an elector of the State of Wisconsin and a member of the State senate, upon information and belief, do hereby specifically charge and allege: 1. That Isaac Stephenson, of Marinette, Wis., now United States Senator and a candidate for reelection, did, as such candidate for such reelection, give to one E. A. Edmonds, of the city of Appleton, Wis., then an elector of the State of Wisconsin and said city of Appleton, a valuable thing, to wit: a sum of money in excess of $106,000, and approximating the sum of $250,000, as a consideration for some act to be done by said E. A. Edmonds in relation to the primary election held on the 1st day of September, 1908, which consideration was paid prior to said primary election, and that said Isaac Stephenson was at the time of such payment a candidate for the Repub- lican nomination for United States Senator at such primary, and did by such acts as above set forth violate section 45426 of the statutes. You made that specific charge? Mr. Blaine. I did. The Chairman. Upon what did you base it ? Mr. Blaine. Upon the information gained from E. A. Edmonds. The Chairman. Upon what was your belief based ? Mr. Blaine. Upon the information gained from E. A. Edmonds. 15235 °— VOL 1—11 38 594 JOHN J. BLAINE. The Chairman. Was it made upon any other information or belief than that which you had from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Blaine. Only generally in reference to the conduct of the campaign, as I have The Chairman. When you use the term “generally,” do you refer to any specific person or act ? Mr. Blaine. I refer to specific persons and specific acts. The Chairman. What persons ? Mr. Blaine. Those mentioned in the subsequent charges. The Chairman. Any others ? Mr. Blaine. And from speeches that had been made by public men in the State. The Chairman. What public men? Mr. Blaine. Mr. John A. Aylward, candidate for governor on the Democratic ticket. The Chairman. Upon what speech or speeches that had been made by Mr. Aylward did you rely ? Mr. Littlefield. Just one moment, if the chairman please. 1 would suggest this: I think it is perfectly proper to inquire about the sources; but we wish to object, if the chairman please, to Mr. Blaine’s stating anything that may have been said by these various people. I have no doubt the names given will give the subcommittee sources of information. But, for instance The Chairman. I think counsel perhaps misapprehends the ques- tion. The question is what he acted upon, not what somebody else acted upon. Mr. Littlefield. That is true; that may be. But even if he acted upon what turns out so be pure hearsay, it seems to me we ought not to have it in the record for the purpose of embarrassing the Senator, if it does. It may be in a class entirely different, if the chairman please, from statements made by Mr. Edmonds. I sup- pose the bcommittee would feel that Mr. Edmonds was Mr. Stephen- son’s manager; and the theory would be that whatever Mr. Edmonds said, he said perhaps when he was acting as the agent of Senator Stephenson. But Mr. Aylward was the Democratic candidate for governor — a man with whom the Senator had no connection what- ever; and I suppose whatever he said may have been in the nature of some political charge. That would be clearly hearsay. Of course, I have no objection to the witness giving the names of the people; but it does not seem to me that he ought to be allowed to put into the record what these various people may have said, because to my mind that is clearly hearsay. The Chairman. If this witness made a specific charge against Senator Stephenson, based upon anything, it is proper to know what that thing was, even though it may prove to afford no basis for such belief or for such statement. It does not charge Senator Stephenson with anything to show that this man made a statement based upon unsubstantial grounds. Mr. Littlefield. No. I make this objection early because I want if possible, if the chairman please, to keep the record clear of what we all know to be hearsay testimony. I do not think the subcom- mittee desires to get it in. The Chairman. The subcommittee will not receive the statements of these men as evidence of anything. They will be received merely JOHN J. BLAINE. 595 as the basis of a specific and responsible charge made by this witness. If they are not of a character upon which any charge could be based, they will naturally fall. As suggested to me by Senator Pomerene, they will be received also for the purpose of aiding us in getting primary evidence. Senator Pomerene. That is, we could not consider pure hearsay in trying to come to a conclusion — clearly not. But suppose the witness were to say that he had certain information from one John Jones, upon which information he based one of these charges: It would be of interest to us as an investigating committee to know what that information was not that we are going to hold anyone responsible for it. But suppose, later on, we call in John Jones, and with the information that we have obtained from the witness w'e are able to get at the primary evidence. It seems to me that we ought to be permitted to do that. Mr. Littlefield. That, of course, may raise an important prac- tical question. My impression is that as far as the witness, Senator Blaine, is concerned* there is nothing very serious either way. I do not rise on account of Mr. Blaine’s particular testimony. But if we get hearsay testimony in here, and it becomes a part of the record, it will be extremely difficult later to remove the effect that it may have. The Chairman. If the committee desire to examine witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining what other people have stated to them, I think that is to the last degree proper. Senator Pomerene. It ought not to be assumed that Mr. Blaine would be misled by any question. Mr. Littlefield. I am going a little bit further: This, to be sure, is a proceeding before the Senate; but Senator Stephenson is a man who has a leading public position in this State. I want to be perfectly frank about this. I do not think the subcommittee wants drawn out here in the progress of this investigation, either from Sena- tor Blaine or from any other witness — and I am not making any sug- gestion at all that reflects upon any witness — a mass of hearsay that later on may prove to be entirely unfounded. In the first place, it encumbers the record. In the second place, it is extremely difficult, if the chairman please, for a man who is looking over this record to be unaffected by suggestions that come in that way. In addition to these considerations, the public interest does not require (and I will go farther and say that in my judgment the public interest does not justify, nor should we be subjected to it) that there should be spread broadcast in the newspapers throughout this country hearsay evi- dence that may be drawn out here, as to which the public will not dis- criminate even for a moment. Of course we are not trying this case before the public, but it has its public phases. As representing the Senator, I ask the subcommittee — and I want to be earnest about this — to keep the investigation as nearly as possible within legal rules. The Senator should not be prejudiced, even in the public prints. This evidence goes all over the country; it is displayed in headlines. The members of the subcommittee know what vital in- jury is done to a great many men by hearsay testimony taken in investigations of this sort. The public get the charge; the man’s reputation is assailed, and the harm and the injury are done. 596 JOHN J. BLAINE. Senator Stephenson is being subjected to a very exhaustive investi- gation here, and I hope the subcommittee will feel that he ought not to be prejudiced or injured by testimony which we all agree is entirely inadmissible. If the committee desires to get information of that sort from the witnesses I will ask that instead of allowing the wit- nesses to sit here in public, so that the newspapers can spread their statements throughout the country, they be examined in that regard privately, so that you can get the information. I want the subcom- mittee to have the information. While I do not submit this as a legal proposition, if the chairman please, it has an important practical consideration. We do not want and we ought not to have the public mind poisoned by hearsay evidence that may come in here. I know the subcommittee does not want it and will not intentionally allow it to be done. The Chairman. I would like to say, with reference to the question of the public mind, that the subcommittee is not giving any consid- eration whatever to the public mind, nor will it do so. Mr. Littlefield. That is very true. But of course we all know — there is no occasion for my standing here to discuss the proposition — that hearsay testimony, coming from any of these witnesses, can not possibly be considered. The Chairman. I hope counsel will relieve himself of that misap- prehension. It is not our purpose to introduce hearsay testimony; and if the question is read, I think it will be discovered that it is merely an inquiry as to the basis upon which this witness made a statement. Mr. Littlefield. It may be, if the chairman please, that the vig- orous objection that I make here is a little premature; but the mem- bers of the subcommittee appreciate the practical significance of this matter. The Chairman. We will consider it. Mr. Littlefield. I feel bound, as representing Senator Stephen- son, to say this: There are great many of these statements. The newspapers are not to blame. The reporters sit here. They have a right to transmit anything that is disclosed here. It does not make any difference what it is; it is public property. The subcommittee does not want in the record anything that will improperly jeopardize or injure Senator Stephenson, either before the Senate or before the public, because there is not only no occasion for it but it ought not to be done. It may be that this particular question does not go as far as I contemplated. But I feel very strongly about this matter; and I think the committee are with me on the legal proposition. If I may be allowed a general suggestion, members of these com- mittees will never find, either as members of the legal profession or as conducting a solemn investigation, involving rights that are sacred and dear — rights that each member of this subcommittee now enjoys — that it will prove advantageous to a proper investigation of those questions to spread before the public gaze testimony as to which, once read, it is difficult even for a man that hears the case to discriminate. You may drive in the nail, if the chairman please, and you may withdraw it, but the hole made by the nail remains. Of course we all understand what the conditions are when we are trying a case in court: Once get a proposition before the jury, even if it be not legally there, and who can tell how much effect it may JOHN J. BLAINE. 597 have upon a man’s rights? The court says, “ Strike it out.” In the record it is out. But is it out in the minds of the men who pass upon one’s rights ? Theoretically, yes. Practically, whether or not it is, depends a great deal upon the constitution of the mind of the man who reads it. As far as the public is concerned, it does not stop to discriminate between what is proper and what is improper — what is hearsay and what is legally competent. If it happens to be a little sensational, it is displayed everywhere, and creates an uncomfortable and an unfortu- nate atmosphere. I do not believe any man on the subcommittee is to be affected by popular considerations. But having the responsibility of protecting the rights of Senator Stephenson, I should very much prefer to do it, in the last analysis, unembarrassed by an unfortunate public atmos- phere that may have been created, unwittingly and unintentionally, by evidence that was not legally competent, introduced before a com- mittee and spread broadcast in black-faced headlines throughout the public press. To my mind, this is a matter of great importance to Senator Stephen- son. I feel bound, as representing him, to insist as strongly as it is proper for me to insist, upon the rule in that regard being observed. I will not discuss things that we all know about. It is not proper for me to go before this subcommittee with the considerations that now lurk in my mind and, I have no doubt, lurk in the chairman’s mind. Trial by newspaper and magazine is not the trial guaranteed to citizens of the United States by Magna Charta and the Constitution that is predi- cated thereon. I am very anxious, so far as I can, to keep the investi- gation so that there can be no ground for complaint along that line, so far as we are concerned and so far as the subcommittee is concerned. The Chairman. I trust that as the questions arise the subcommit- tee’s ruling will meet with the approbation of counsel. It has no inten- tion of transgressing the rules of evidence. Mr. Littlefield. I do not think the subcommittee has any such intention. The Chairman. Read the question. (The reporter read as follows :) The Chairman. Upon what speech or speeches that had been made by Mr. Aylward did you rely? The Chairman. That does not call for what he said in his speech. Mr. Blaine. No. Now, we are going to get confused here. The Chairman. No; we will not get confused. Just answer that question, as to what speech it was. Mr. Blaine. Let me explain. I think the chairman has in mind the first charge — the specific charge of $ 106 , 000 . The Chairman. I have in mind only your answer to the last ques- tion. Read the last two or three questions and answers. (The reporter read as follows:) The Chairman. Any others? Mr. Blaine. And from speeches that had been made by public men in the State. The Chairman. What public men? Mr. Blaine. Mr. John A. Aylward, candidate for governor on the Democratic ticket. The Chairman. Upon what speech or speeches that had been made by Mr. Aylward did you rely? The Chairman. It is what you understood; not what he said. 598 JOHN J. BLAINE. Mr. Littlefield. I think, if the chairman please, we shall have to go back one question further, so that Mr. Blaine can have the context. The Chairman. Let us get this answer. I want to know what the speeches were, and where he made them. Mr. Blaine. The impression is not going to be clear, or at least it may be hazy in my mind Mr. Littlefield. I think, Senator The Chairman. Let the witness answer. Mr. Blaine. I refer to subsequent charges; they all go together. The Chairman. No; let subsequent charges rest until we reach them. You have said that you made this charge based upon speeches and the speech of a certain man. I want to know what speech it was and where he made it; and then I will stop there. Mr. Blaine. But I go back and refer to the subsequent charges. The Chairman. Not until they are called up. Mr. Blaine. Then the subcommittee and I are at a misunderstand- ing on just what is meant. The Chairman. I intend to take these charges, letting each one stand on its own basis. Mr. Blaine. Let me make this explanation: The $106,000 charge, referring to that specifically, was made upon the information from Mr. Edmonds— — The Chairman. You have stated that. Mr. Blaine. The other things influenced that belief that I gained from that information The Chairman. Just a moment. We shall have to get ourselves disciplined, because it is not the intention of the committee to have any explanation unless it is an explanation made after the question I am asking you about is answered, and I am going to stay by the first charge for the present. Do not confuse it with the others, be- cause each charge here is made separately. Did you base that charge upon anything else than what Mr. Edmonds told you ? Mr. Blaine. The thing that caused me to make the charge was the information derived from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. That was all, was it? Mr. Blaine. Principally. The Chairman. We will let that rest, for the first charge. What information did Mr. Edmonds give you upon which you made that charge ? Mr. Blaine. He gave me the information that he had charge of a fund of $106,000 or thereabouts. He was not definite; it was over $100,000 and about $106,000. He gave me the information that he had charge of that fund to disburse in the campaign for Mr. Stephenson, as his manager. The Chairman. It was merely his statement that he had charge of this fund that you took as a basis for making the first specific charge ? Mr. Blaine. As to the $106,000. The Chairman. Have you before you the first specific charge? Mr. Blaine. Yes; as to the $106,000. The Chairman. We will not go beyond that charge at this time. Mr. Blaine. There are two charges in the first. One says “$106,000, and approximating the sum of $250,000.” JOHN J. BLAINE. 599 The Chairman. I am coming to that. You have said that it was upon what he told you that you made the charge as to the $106,000. Upon what did you make the charge as to the $250,000 ? Mr. Blaine. Only upon calculations that I had gained from edi- torials and statements in the Free Press as to what amount the Free Press had cost in certain campaigns, through campaigns. The Chairman. Deductions made by you ? Mr. Blaine. Deductions. The Chairman. What do you mean by the cost of the Free Press? Why do you select the Free Press? Mr. Blaine. Because it was generally understood throughout the State that Senator Stephenson owned the great majority of its stock. The Chairman. Do you know whether he did or not ? Mr. Blaine. I do not; only from general information. The Chairman. Had you any knowledge as to the extent of Senator Stephenson’s ownership in the Free Press when you filed this specific charge No. 1 ? Mr. Blaine. Only as I gained it from suits, I think, against the Free Press, and general information. The Chairman. What suits against the Free Press? Mr. Blaine. I think there were some libel suits against the Free Press, and they developed who were the stockholders. The Chairman. Then are we to understand that the difference between the item of $106,000 and the $250,000 represents a sum at which you estimate the services of the Free Press? Mr. Blaine. Based upon what I have stated, substantially so, yes. The Chairman. So that is to be applied entirely to the Free Press item? Mr. Blaine. Entirely. The Chairman. Let us see if we have your testimony right: You say the first item of $106,000 was based solely upon the statements Mr. Edmonds made to you; and the difference between that and $250,000 was based upon your deduction as to the services rendered by the Free Press? Mr. Blaine. Not the services of the Free Press. The Chairman. State what you mean, then; or, rather, to what you do charge that difference. Mr. Blaine. That will require an explanation. It was, I think, generally reported — and that is where I got my information — that about $400,000 had been spent in three campaigns by the Free Press prior to this The Chairman. Now we will leave that. We will just strike out the statement as to what he had expended in prior campaigns. Mr. Blaine. No; I mean Senator Sutherland. What had been expended in prior cam- paigns ? Mr. Blaine. I am not referring to campaigns for Senator Stephen- son. I am referring to campaigns generally — that it cost $400,000. I am quite certain I obtained that information from an editorial in the Free Press. If three campaigns cost $400,000, it is a matter of calculation what one campaign would cost. The Chairman. That is the basis of your charge, is it ? Mr. Blaine. That is the explanation. 600 JOHN J. BLAINE. The Chairman. We will go on now and confine ourselves for the present to the item of $106,000, which you say you got from Mr. Edmonds. Did Mr. Edmonds give, you more than a general state- ment as to the amount that had been expended through him? Mr. Blaine. He did not. The Chairman. He gave you no details ? Mr. Blaine. No details. The Chairman. He gave you no facts, or what purported to be facts, as to the manner of the expenditure of that money ? Mr. Blaine. Not at all. The Chairman. You based that charge upon the mere payment of that sum to Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Blaine. And that he was to disburse it for Mr. Stephenson in the campaign. The Chairman. Then, was the charge based upon the giving of it to him for disbursement, or the giving of it into his possession ? Mr. Blaine. Both. That was my idea of the law — the payment to him, and for him to disburse it. The Chairman. Did you make this charge — that is, the first specific charge — under section 338, entitled “Bribery in connection with caucus,” which is section 4542b? Mr. Blaine. I am not familiar with what you are speaking about. I will have to refer to the statute. The Chairman. Have you the charges before you ? Mr. Blaine. Yes, sir. I refer to section 4542b of the statute. The Chairman. That is section 338 of the election laws ? Mr. Blaine. Those election laws are compilations. Section 4542b provides that every person who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in rdation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention shall be punished as provided in section 4542a. The Chairman. That is the preceding section. Senator Sutherland. Is that the entire section 4542b ? Mr. Blaine. No. I am just giving the substance of it. The Chairman. Will you read the whole section into the record, in connection with your charge ? Mr. Blaine. I have not got it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Littlefield. I will hand him this book, if he wants it. The Chairman. The chairman will read it. Mr. Blaine. We do not use these [referring to pamphlet of elec- tion laws]. They are not reliable. I refer to the statutes. These are compilations by clerks, and there may be misprints. I am not going to suggest to the committee that these are reliable. The attorneys in this State very seldom use them. If they do use them, they are absolutely wrong. The Chairman. And if the language does compare with the statute Mr. Littlefield. I suppose we can get the Wisconsin statute without too much trouble. The Chairman. I would prefer at this time to proceed with the examination; and I desire, m connection with this question, to put into the record both sections. Mr. Littlefield. The witness may want to take that to compare, if the chairman please JOHN J. BLAINE. 601 The Chairman. It may be subject to comparison at any time. This is put in on the responsibility of the subcommittee rather than of the witness. I will premise it by this: You state in this charge that the things enumerated constituted a violation of section 4542b of the statutes. Mr. Blaine. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Now I will read section 4542b: Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any preliminary meeting or caucus mentioned in sections 11a to Hi, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus or convention, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any preliminary meeting, caucus or convention held under said provisions shall be punished as provided in section 4542a. I will now read section 4542a, in order that the record may have the statute providing for the punishment right in connection with the one defining the offense. Section 4542a reads: Any person who shall vote or offer to vote more than once in any caucus, or at any caucus held in any caucus district in which he shall not at the time be a resident and duly qualified elector, or in any caucus where candidates and delegates are to be chosen, if he has already voted at the caucus of any other political party for candidates to be voted for or for delegates to be chosen in a convention to nominate candidates to be voted for at the next ensuing election, or who shall print, distribute or offer to distribute any caucus tickets or ballots to be voted for at such caucus, or shall print or distribute sample ballots or remove from any booth or place where a caucus is held any tickets for candidates or persons to be voted for, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than two months nor more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. I read that law into the record at this time as a basis for the examination of this witness as to his intention in making specific charge No. 1. You say that the things that you charged were considered by you to be a violation of that section of the statute ? Mr. Blaine. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Wherein were they a violation of that section? Mr. Blaine. In paying the money to an elector — a valuable thing. The Chairman. To what elector ? Edmonds ? Mr. Blaine. Edmonds. The Chairman. That is the basis and the crux of your charge, then ? Mr. Blaine. That is the basis of that charge; yes, sir. The Chairman. Is there anything else than that which you have stated that was the basis of the first specific charge ? Mr. Blaine. Nothing except the charges following, which the chairman suggests The Chairman. We are coming to that almost immediately. Mr. Blaine. With that suggestion, I would say “no.” The Chairman. At this point we will read the section of the law extending the provisions of this at tell you. Senator Sutherland. Whether or not you paid each of them the same amount? 748 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Gordon. No; I do not think I did. Senator Sutherland. You say you do not think you did. Have you any recollection on the subject? Mr. Gordon. I do not understand your question. (The question was repeated by the reporter, as follows) : ‘*You say you do not think you did. Have you any recollection on the subject?” Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that they each one received the same amount of money. I do not know whether they did or whether they did not. Senator Sutherland. Why did you say that you thought they were unequal amounts ? Mr. Gordon. Judging from the activity of the men, I think Mr. Van Auken would receive more than the others. Mr. Van Auken was more active than the others. Senator Sutherland. That is, you are simply reasoning about it ? Mr. Gordon. Just reasoning about it; yes. Senator Sutherland. Because Van Auken was the more active man you think it probable that you paid him more ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Is that what you mean to say ? Mr. Gordon. That is what I mean. Senator Sutherland. How many different times did you pay Mr. Van Auken money? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that. I think more than once, but how many times I can not remember. Senator Sutherland. Was it more than twice? Mr. Gordon. I do not think it was more than twice. Senator Sutherland. That is, you think you paid him on two occasions, do you ? Mr. Gordon. I think so. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay him altogether ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Senator Sutherland. Approximately ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Senator Sutherland. You have no sort of idea whatever? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean to say, Mr. Gordon, that you do not remember whether you paid him as much as $100 ? Mr. Gordon. I have not any definite recollection of how much I did pay Mr. Van Auken. If you desire me to make an estimate, I should think it would be somewhere between $50 and $100. Senator Sutherland. Between $50 and $100 ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Is that a mere guess or is it based upon some recollection ? Mr. Gordon. That is purely a guess. Senator Sutherland. Purely a guess ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. It may have been very much more or very much less, as a matter of fact? Mr. Gordon. It may have been; yes. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay Mr. Barber ? Mr. Gordon. I do not remember. GEORGE H. GORDON. 749 Senator Sutherland. Approximate it. Mr. Gordon. Possibly $30 or $40. Senator Sutherland. Have you any recollection on that subject or are you just guessing? Mr. Gordon. You are asking me to approximate it? Senator Sutherland. Yes; but I am asking you to answer my question whether you have any recollection or are just guessing. Mr. Gordon. I say, that is a guess, pure and simple. Senator Sutherland. That is a mere guess? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. You have no recollection whatever on the subject ? Mr. Gordon. No; none at all. Senator Sutherland. It may have been more than $100, may it? Mr. Gordon. I do not think it would be more than $100. Senator Sutherland. The question I ask you is whether it may have been more than $100 ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. Senator Sutherland. You can not tell me whether it may have been or not? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay Mr. Charles Smith ? Mr. Gordon. I do not remember that. Senator Sutherland. Can you approximate it from any recollec- tion ? Mr. Gordon. I can not do it. Senator Sutherland. Have you any recollection as to whether it was more or less than $100 ? Mr. Gordon. I should guess that it was less. Senator Sutherland. You should guess it was less? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Why do you guess it was less ? Mr. Gordon. Mr. Smith was not even as active as Mr. Barber in the work. Senator Sutherland. Because Mr. Smith was not as active as somebody else, you guess it was less than $100? Mr. Gordon. As these three men I have mentioned. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay each of these three other men that you have mentioned more than $100? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. Mr. Littlefield. What three other men does the Senator have in mind? Senator Sutherland. The three men he has mentioned. Then how does this afford any basis for your guessing that you paid Mr. Charles Smith less than $100? Mr. Gordon. My conclusion now is that a man that was very active would necessarily spend more money than one that was not quite so active. Senator Sutherland. How much would men who were very active spend ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. Senator Sutherland. More than $100, or less? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. 750 GEORGE H. GORDON. Senator Sutherland. Then I ask you again: How does that afford any basis for your guessing that Mr. Charles Smith received less than $100? Mr. Gordon. I have told you all the reason I could give for that. Senator Sutherland. It does not afford any basis at all. Mr. Gordon. That depends on how a man views it. Senator Sutherland. Does it? Mr. Gordon. I think it does. Senator Sutherland. That is, you have no idea whether you paid Mr. Auken or Mr. Barber, either one of them, more than $100, but you think they were more active than Mr. Smith ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. And that, therefore, you must have paid Mr. Smith less than $100 ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Is that correct ? Mr. Gordon. That is correct. Senator Sutherland. That is the way you want to leave your statement with the committee, is it ? Mr. Gordon. That is what I have stated. Senator Sutherland. What did you pay Mr. Perkins? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember what I paid Mr. Perkins. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay him anything ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, I paid him something; but I can not remember how much. Senator Sutherland. How do you remember that you paid him anything ? Mr. Gordon. I have a recollection of his getting some money from me, but just of the fact that I paid him — that is all. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay him in one amount? Mr. Gordon. I think he got it once from me. Senator Sutherland. How many times ? Mr. Gordon. Once. Senator Sutherland. Only once. Did you pay him more than $100 or less ? Mr. Gordon. Less than $100. Senator Sutherland. Do you recollect that ? Mr. Gordon. I feel very certain that it was less than $100. Senator Sutherland. Still, you have no recollection on the sub- ject ? Mr. Gordon. Not a definite recollection; no. Senator Sutherland. If Mr. Perkins were to say that you paid him more than $100, would you accept that as being the fact? Mr. Gordon. I would accept his statement; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. What did you pay Mr. Powell ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Senator Sutherland. You can tell no more about that than you can about any of the others ? Mr. Gordon. I know that Powell got money two or three times, but how much he got at each time I can not remember. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay Mr. Mulder? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that. Senator Sutherland. Do you remember where you paid him ? GEORGE H. GORDON. 751 Mr. Gordon. I think he came to my office and was in my office when it was paid to him. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay him at more than one time ? Mr. Gordon. I may have, but I can not say definitely. Senator Sutherland. You can not recall whether you paid him more than once or not ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay Mr. McConnell? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay Mr. Kaizer ? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that. Senator Sutherland. Or Mr. Young ? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember that. Senator Sutherland. You can not even approximate from your recollection the amount that you paid a single one of these indi- viduals ? Mr. Gordon. What do you mean by “approximate” ? Senator Sutherland. I mean just what I say. You know what the word “approximate” means, do you not? Mr. Gordon. Do you mean to guess what I paid him, now ? Senator Sutherland. Can you approximate from your recollection how much you paid any one man ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think I paid any man less than $5. Senator Sutherland. Nor more than what ? Mr. Gordon. Well, more than $100, probably. Senator Sutherland. You paid no man more than $100 ? Mr. Gordon. Yes; I want to correct that. I paid $600 to the newspapers — the Chronicle and the Leader-Press. Senator Sutherland. How much did you pay them? Mr. Gordon. $600. Senator Sutherland. For the two papers? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What was that for ? Mr. Gordon. That was for extra papers that were put out in the district. Senator Sutherland. How many extra papers ? Mr. Gordon. As much as $600 would purchase. Senator Sutherland. How many was that ? Have you any idea ? Mr. Gordon. I do not know. Senator Sutherland. How much was each paper ? Mr. Gordon. I can not remember just the figure. Both of those papers are practically owned by the same individual. One is a morning paper and the other an evening paper. I think it was dis- tributed; my intention was two- thirds and one- third — I think two- thirds for the evening and one-third for the morning paper, or the other way. I can not remember. Senator Sutherland. That is, two-thirds of the $600 for one and one-third for the other ? Mr. Gordon. I think that is the way. Senator Sutherland. And you have no idea how many papers each of them distributed or was to distribute? Mr. Gordon. Except as I was informed afterwards that there were three or four hundred extra papers, or more, put out of each issue. Senator Sutherland. Three or four hundred extra copies ? 752 GEORGE H. GORDON, Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Of each issue ?. Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is, you mean the morning and the evening issue ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir; that is my recollection now. Senator Sutherland. Let me see if I understand you : Do you mean that three or four hundred copies of one issue of the morning paper were put out and three or four hundred copies of one issue of the even- ing paper were put out ? Mr. Gordon. That is my recollection. That is my understanding of it. Senator Sutherland. Making between six and eight hundred newspapers furnished altogether ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Is that correct ? Mr. Gordon. I think that is correct. That is my recollection. Senator Sutherland. Were these special editions ? Mr. Gordon. No; they were the regular editions. Senator Sutherland. Regular editions of the paper. What special feature did they contain, that you wanted to send them out ? Mr. Gordon. There was sent to me from time to time literature of different kinds that I put in the paper, and the paper was supporting Mr. Stephenson editorially. Senator Sutherland. Referring to these particular issues, the morning issue that you sent out and the evening issue that you sent out: What particular feature did those papers contain that you wanted to distribute them ? Mr. Gordon. I say, the papers were supporting Mr. Stephenson editorially; and from time to time literature came to me that was put into those papers. Senator Sutherland. That does not answer my question, Mr. Gordon. What particular thing did these particular issues of the papers contain ? Mr. Gordon. These three or four hundred papers, you mean? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Gordon. They were the same as the other papers that were issued by the same paper to its subscribers. The paper was support- ing Mr. Stephenson editorially. Senator Sutherland. A paper might be supporting Mr. Stephen- son, and yet some particular issue might have nothing about Mr. Stephenson in it. Did these particular papers contain something about Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Gordon. I did not keep a record of the papers, as to what they said about Mr. Stephenson on any particular occasion. But gen- erally, I think almost daily, they were writing in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Senator Sutherland. Perhaps I do not understand you. I under- stood you to say that they sent out three or four hundred copies of the morning paper. Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. For one issue? Mr. Gordon. Oh, not for one issue. Senator Sutherland. You said that. What is the fact? GEORGE H. GORDON. 753 Mr. Gordon. I think generally during the time after this money was paid there were that many papers sent out. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean that that many papers were sent out every morning ? Mr. Gordon. Daily. Senator Sutherland. Covering a period of time? Mr. Gordon. I am not attempting to be specific about how many papers there were. That is my judgment — that there were three or four hundred. Senator Sutherland. Three or four hundred were sent out for how long a time ? Mr. Gordon. During the primary campaign. Senator Sutherland. That you did not tell me before. I under- stood you to answer specifically that it was only a single issue. Mr. Gordon. Oh, no; no. Senator Sutherland. Covering how long a period — four or five months or four or five weeks. Mr. Gordon. I think it would be during the month of August. Senator Sutherland. During the entire month of August ? Mr. Gordon. I will not be certain about that; but it was two or three or four weeks, possibly, before the primary. Mr. Sutherland. Did you furnish the list of names of persons to whom they were to go ? Mr. Gordon. No; I did not. Senator Sutherland. Who furnished that list ? Mr. Gordon. I do not know. The publishers secured them them- selves, I suppose. I did not have any list. Senator Sutherland. That is, you just told them to send out papers, without telling them to whom to send them. Did you tell them how many to send out ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland, Did you make any agreement about that ? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. Did you have any understanding as to how many they were sending ? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. Or going to send? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. You just handed over $ 600 , and told them to send out their papers ? Mr. Gordon. My understanding was that they would send out as many papers as that money would compensate them for. Senator Sutherland. As many as that money would pay for? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Leaving it wholly to them? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. As to the number and as to the persons to whom they should be sent ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Outside of this $ 600 , how did you expend the remainder of the $ 1 , 800 ? Mr. Gordon. In the manner I have described. Senator Sutherland. In the way you have stated? Mr. Gordon. Yes. 15235 °— vol 1—11 48 754 GEORGE H. GORDON. Senator Sutherland. As paying it out to individuals who were employed to go out and work for Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Gordon. Yes; and some incidental expenses — automobile hire, if I had an automobile, or putting up lithographs of Mr. Stephenson, or other literature. I think there was certain literature sent to me which I had men distribute for me. Senator Sutherland. Did you retain any of the $1,800 for your services ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. You expended the entire $1,800? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. How did you know when you had got it all spent ? Mr. Gordon. I think I was a little bit shy when I gat through, on my own account. Senator Sutherland. How do you know you were a little bit shy ? Mr. Gordon. Some of the bills that were contracted were paid after the primary was over. Some men were compensated; and I can remember well when I got to the end of it. Senator Sutherland. How did you keep the money or keep the account so that you were enabled to know that you had spent all of it ? Mr. Gordon. I kept no accounts. Senator Sutherland. You kept no accounts? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. How did you keep the money so that you knew? Mr. Gordon. I kept the money in my safe. I kept the currency right in the safe. Senator Sutherland. That is, you cashed the checks, and put the cash in your safe ? Mr. Gordon. Right in the safe; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you mingle it with any other funds ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. It was not mingled with your own funds ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. You simply paid it out until the contents of the safe were exhausted ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you render any account at all of your expenditures ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. You testified before the legislative com- mittee ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. In March following this campaign ? Mr. Gordon. Some time during the committee’s sessions. I do not remember the time — the date. Senator Sutherland. It was within a few months after the expend- iture of this money, was it not ? Mr. Gordon. Yes; I think it was the summer before that that it was expended. Senator Sutherland. You testified on March 12? Mr. Gordon. It was the summer before; the previous summer. GEORGE H. GORDON. 755 Senator Sutherland. The money was spent in the previous August. Your attention at that time was called to the fact that information was desired respecting the amounts of money that you had paid to these various people, was it not ? Mr. Gordon. I attempted to give them what information I could at that time. Senator Sutherland. Did you give them any more definite infor- mation than you have given us ? Mr. Gordon. My testimony will show that. I do not recollect what the testimony was. Senator Sutherland. You do not recall whether you did or not ? Mr. Gordon. No; I tried to answer the questions they put to me. Senator Sutherland. Do you recall whether or not you gave to that committee the amount that you paid to a single individual, Mr. Gordon ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think I did. Senator Sutherland. You do not think you did? Then so far as the amount Mr. Gordon. Excuse me — except this newspaper. Senator Sutherland. Except the $600 ? Mr. Gordon. The $600; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Then so far as the amounts which were paid were concerned, your testimony before that committee was no more definite than it is before this committee ? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. That was within seven months after the expenditures. Have you taken any pains to refresh your memory about these expenditures? Mr. Gordon. No, I have not. Senator Sutherland. Have you talked with Van Auken or Barber or Smith so as to ascertain the amounts? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Senator Pomerene. When were you appointed United States dis- trict attorney? Mr. Gordon. I think it was in the spring of 1909. Senator Pomerene. The spring of 1909? Mr. Gordon. I think some time in April or May. Senator Pomerene. Had you held any official position before that ? Mr. Gordon. I had been district attorney of La Crosse County, a local officer, at one time 20 years ago. Senator Pomerene. Is La Crosse County the county in which the city of La Crosse is located ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was this $1,800 that you received for cam- paign purposes in that particular county ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And was it all expended, so far as you were able to tell, in that county ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Are these men whose names you have given all residents of La Crosse ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What is the population of your city ? 756 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Gordon. 30,000. Senator Pomerene. And what is the population of the county ? Mr. Gordon. About between 42,000 and 45,000; I think 45,000 at the last census, of 1900. Senator Pomerene. With whom did you make the arrangement about the $600 that you speak of, which was given to two papers ? Mr. Gordon. I talked with Mr. R. B. Gelett. Senator Pomerene. Spell the name, please, so that I can get it. Mr. Gordon. G-e-l-e-t-t. Senator Pomerene. He is the proprietor of the two ? Mr. Gordon. He is a stockholder, manager, and editor of one of them. Senator Pomerene. And you paid the money to him ? Mr. Gordon Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was it paid in currency or by check? Mr. Gordon. Currency. Senator Pomerene. I wish you would name the men that you called to your office on that day. Van Auken you gave as one, and Smith. Who was the third ? Mr. Gordon. Mr. Barber. Senator Pomerene. That is William E. Barber? Mr. Gordon. W. E. Barber; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. They all lived in La Crosse ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. When did you see Mr. Mulder ? Mr. Gordon. Mr. Mulder ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Gordon. Some time early in the campaign. I can not tell the exact date. Senator Pomerene. When, with reference to your interview with Van Auken, Barber, and Smith in your office? Mr. Gordon. Do you mean before or after ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Senator Pomerene. Was it before or after you had received the money from Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Senator Pomerene. What was his first name? Mr. Gordon. Mr. Mulder’s first name ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Gordon. John. Senator Pomerene. What is his business ? Mr. Gordon. He is a grocer. Senator Pomerene. He was a candidate for the assembly at that time? Mr. Gordon. I think he was. Senator Pomerene. Who was nominated in that campaign ? Mr. Gordon. A man by the name of McConnell. I will not be cer- tain whether Mr. Mulder was a candidate at that time or not; but he was a candidate before the primary for that position. Senator Pomerene. He got some of this money, did he? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How much did he get ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. GEORGE H. GORDON. 757 Senator Pomerene. About how much? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, if the Senator please. Which gentleman do you refer to ? Senator Pomerene. John Mulder. Mr. Black. The witness said “McConnell.” Mr. Littlefield. I got the impression from the examination that the Senator had in mind Mr. McConnell. Senator Pomerene. Oh, no. He said in answer to my question that McConnell was nominated. Mr. Littlefield. Then you said, “ and he got some of this money;” so I got the impression that you referred to McConnell. Senator Pomerene. You understood that I was referring to Mulder? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is all right, then. Senator Pomerene. Yes; that is all right, so there will be no mis- understanding. Was it as much as $50 ? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you how much it was. Senator Pomerene. You can certainly give us some idea as to whether it was a matter of $5 or $10 or $50 or $100. Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you definitely how much it was. Senator Pomerene. I know; but I am not asking you for that. I am asking you for your best judgment about it. Mr. Gordon. It was probably, I should guess, from $25 to $50. Senator Pomerene. What did you say to him with reference to his campaign and what use was to be made of this money ? Mr. Gordon. He was one of the original Stephenson men in the county, and I asked him to do what he could in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Senator Pomerene. What else was said ? Mr. Gordon. That is all I can recollect. I do not recollect all that was said. That is what I naturally would say. Senator Pomerene. Since your attention has been directed to this matter, do you not recall that Mulder was a candidate for the general assembly ? Mr. Gordon. I say he was a candidate, but I can not recollect whether he was when I gave him the money or whether he subse- quently became a candidate. Senator Pomerene. I misunderstood you, then. Mr. Gordon. He was a candidate; yes. Senator Pomerene. We understand each other now — that he was in fact a candidate ? Mr. Gordon. He was a candidate; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. But you meant to say that you do not remem- ber whether at the time you gave him the money he was then an announced candidate or not ? Mr. Gordon. That is the idea. Senator Pomerene. Very well, just so I understand you. Mr. Gordon. My recollection is that he became a candidate late in the campaign, although I am not positive about that. Senator Pomerene. Are you able to give the date when this money was given to him ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. 758 GEORGE H. GORDON. Senator Pomerene. Was he present in your office at any time with these other gentlemen you name when you talked over the situation ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think he was. Senator Pomerene. Was this for his own personal compensation, or was it to be distributed among workers and for teams, etc. Mr. Gordon. He was to use it in securing workers if he found any that were desirable. Senator Pomerene. How much of it was for his personal compen- sation ? Mr. Gordon. I did not specify. Senator Pomerene. It was understood that some of this would be for his compensation ? Mr. Gordon. I expected that he would use it as his judgment dic- tated. Senator Pomerene. That was the understanding between you, was it ? Mr. Gordon. I can not recall what the understanding was. Senator Pomerene. Give us as nearly as you can the conversation, or the substance of it. Mr. Gordon. I think I have given you the conversation as nearly as I can recall it. Senator Pomerene. I do not now recall that there was anything said on the subject of compensation in what you gave us before. Since your attention is directed to that Mr. Gordon. I said that I gave him the money with the purpose of doing what he could in the interest of Mr. Stephenson, and my recol- lection is — I have not any recollection upon the point, but I think naturally I would ask him, if he found a man that was available and desirable, a good man, to secure him to work in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Senator Pomerene. What did you say about paying him for his services ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think I said anything about it. I gave him the money. Senator Pomerene. You gave him the money, to do with it as he saw fit ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Pomerene. To refresh your memory: Do you not recall that his nomination papers had already been filed at the time this money was given to him ? Mr. Gordon. I guess possibly they must have been. They must have been filed. Senator Pomerene. Your law, as I recall it, provides that these papers must be filed at least 30 days prior to the date of the primary. Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. So that as you now view the situation, his papers must have been filed at the time he received this money ? Mr. Gordon. I think so, because I stated that he became a candi- date very late in the campaign, very shortly before the time for filing expired. Senator Pomerene Did you discuss with him the question of his candidacy for the general assembly, or the assembly, I believe you call it here ? Mr. Gordon. The assembly. GEORGE H. GORDON. 759 Senator Pomerene. Did you discuss that question with him ? Mr. Gordon. Generally? Senator Pomerene. Yes; at the time when you were talking to him about Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Gordon. I can not recall that I did, particularly. Senator Pomerene. You knew at that time that he was favorable to Senator Stephenson’s candidacy ? Mr. Gordon. Yes; I knew that. Senator Pomerene. And you would not have given him this money if he had not been favorable to Senator Stephenson’s candidacy ? Mr. Gordon. I certainly would not have employed any man to work for Senator Stephenson that was not favorable to his candidacy; no. Senator Pomerene. Certainly. And Mr. McConnell was the can- didate against Mulder ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And he got the nomination? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Whom did he favor for the United States Senate ? Mr. Gordon.' I think he favored Hatton, if I am not mistaken. Senator Pomerene. Was that known to you at the time you were aiding Senator Stephenson in this primary campaign ? Mr. Gordon. That McConnell was for Hatton ? Senator Pomerene. That he favored Hatton, or someone other than Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Gordon. I do not know whether I knew it at the time, or whether I am confusing that with what I have subsequently learned. Senator Pomerene. Were these men that you have named here, or any of them, connected with this railroad company whose attorney you were at that time ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. None of them? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. May I make a statement there regarding Mr. Mulder? Senator Pomerene. I shall be very glad to have you make any statement you wish. Mr. Gordon. Mr. Mulder had announced in the paper that he would support the nominee of the primary, on several occasions; so that, while he was supporting Mr. Stephensoi^ he announced that he would support whoever might be nominated at the primary. Senator Pomerene. I take it from what you have said that it was commonly understood at that time that he favored Senator Stephen- son ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And, notwithstanding his position with ref- erence to Senator Stephenson, he had made the announcement that if anyone else received a plurality of votes he would support his party’s candidate ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Gordon, you are an attorney of how many years’ experience ? Mr. Gordon. About 25. 760 GEORGE H. GORDON-. Senator Pomerene. With your knowledge of the complications that grow out of affairs of this kind, did it not occur to you that you ought to keep an account of this large disbursement of money ? Mr. Gordon. Not at that time; no, sir. I think with my subse- quent experience I would not have any question about what I would do; but 1 kept the accounts as they had been kept in the State for years. Senator Pomerene. Without any political experience — and you have indicated that you were rather a novice on the subject at the time you took up this matter — did not your experience in the affairs of your clients, etc., indicate to you the necessity, when money was placed in your hands, of your being able to render a reasonable ac- count of what you had done with the money ? Mr. Gordon. My experience politically, do you mean? Senator Pomerene. No, no; your experience professionally, I will say. Mr. Gordon. I do not think I would treat a fund of that character as I would a fund that I was intrusted with professionally. Senator Pomerene. What is the difference between the two ? I should like you to discriminate. Mr. Gordon. I should say that I followed out the custom of the campaign managers in my locality since I have known anything about campaigning. That is the method they pursued. I never knew of one Senator Pomerene. Not to render any account ? Mr. Gordon. I never knew of one rendering an account. Senator Pomerene. You knew, did you not, that the statutes here required the candidates for any office, including the United States senatorial candidates, to file accounts ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And as a lawyer it occurred to you that if you were spending $1,S00 of Senator Stephenson’s money he ought to account for that ? Mr. Gordon. I expected he would account for it, according to his knowledge, as to the manner in which it was expended. Senator Pomerene. You say “ according to his knowledge.” Would it not occur to you, as one of his representatives or agents, that you ought to place in his hands sufficient data to enable him to file a detailed account? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. That did not occur to you ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think the law contemplates anything of the kind. Senator Pomerene. Do I understand this to be your position, then: That if a candidate were to place in your possession, say, $10,000, to be used in furthering his campaign, it would be a sufficient com- pliance with the law for him to say that he gave to United States Attorney George H. Gordon $10,000 to be used in his behalf? Mr. Gordon. I would think so. Senator Pomerene. What section of the statute authorizes that kind of an account ? Mr. Gordon. I do not recall. I always get hold of the statute when I refer to a particular statute. Senator Pomerene. I am asking you what the statute is. GEORGE H. GORDON. 761 Mr. Gordon. I do not recall the statute. Senator Pomerene. You are a Wisconsin lawyer, and we should like to have some light on this subject. Mr. Gordon. I do not recall the statute. Mr. Littlefield. You mean by that that you do not recall the language of it ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Will you refer to the section of the statute and furnish it to the subcommittee? Mr. Gordon. I think the general statute requiring an account simply contemplates that the candidate shall account for the manner in which the money was disbursed, if within his knowledge. Senator Pomerene. The affidavits which were filed here — and I assume that they are drawn in harmony with the prevailing practice in this State — provide, in effect, that the account of the expendi- tures which the candidate himself made is correct, and that the account of those expenditures which were made by persons other than himself is correct, according to his best knowledge and belief. Would not that contemplate, in your mind, that these agents ought to render some accounts, so that he could state that they were correct according to his best knowledge and belief? Mr. Gordon. I do not think so. Senator Pomerene. Then it is your understanding that this law can be evaded by any candidate by simply turning over bodily his money to some one as his campaign manager and making a return to that effect ? Mr. Gordon. I did not say that. The Chairman. What is the answer ? Mr. Gordon. I do not say that the law could be evaded by a candidate in doing so. Senator Pomerene. What do you say now ? Can it be ? Mr. Gordon. I would not call it an evasion. Senator Pomerene. What do you call it ? Mr. Gordon. I would say that when a man picked out a man and trusted him witli $1,800, he would have some confidence in his re- sponsibility; he would know that he was a man of character and would properly expend it. Senator Pomerene. Then suppose we put it at some abnormal sum — say $500,000 — to get your idea of the law. Mr. Gordon. That is pretty large for me to contemplate — $500,000. Senator Pomerene. You understand my question; and it is purely a hypothetical question so far as the amount is concerned. As- sume, now, that $500,000 is placed in a campaign manager’s hands, to be expended in a campaign, and that the campaign is managed by the manager who receives that money: Is it your understanding of the law that the only return the candidate is required to make is that he paid over to John Jones, for instance, his campaign mana- ger, $500,000 to be used in furthering his campaign? Is that your construction of the law ? Mr. Gordon. No; I would not say that. I would say that if his campaign manager distributed it as Mr. Edmonds distributed this money of Mr. Stephenson’s, when he had designated the men in the different sections of the State to whom he intrusted the expenditure of certain sums he had complied with the provisions of the law. 762 GEORGE H. GORDON. Senator Pomerene. Then it is your understanding that the cam- paign manager should make a report ? Is that it ? Mr. Gordon. I expect he should make a report; yes. Senator Pomerene. Suppose he then retained other lieutenants throughout the State. Would not the same obligation be upon them ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think so. Senator Pomerene. Will you state your reasons for discriminating ? Mr. Gordon. All I can say is, the custom that has always pre- vailed. Senator Pomerene. As I understand it, this statute was supposed to be adopted for the purpose of breaking up the custom that pre- vailed. Is that correct ? Mr. Gordon. I do not know what the purpose of the adoption of the statute was. I am incompetent to give an opinion upon that proposition. The Chairman. I did not hear the answer. Mr. Gordon. I say, I do not consider myself competent to give an opinion as to the purpose of the enactment of that statute. Senator Pomerene. That is all. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Gordon, was any part of this money expended for liquors and cigars and things of that sort ? Mr. Gordon. Not to my knowledge. Senator Sutherland. You spent none of it in that way? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. I want to ask you another question in line with what Senator Pomerene has been asking you. Would you understand it to be a compliance with this statute requiring an account to be filed by the candidate if the candidate were to put into the hands of a campaign manager $107,000 and the campaign manager were to distribute that sum in equal amounts among the 71 counties in the State, giving an equal amount to a sub campaign manager in each county and do nothing more about it, leaving the sub campaign manager to expend it as he pleased ? Mr. Gordon. If he gave the campaign manager instructions as to how to spend it; yes. Senator Sutherland. And he need make no further accounting of it than that ? Mr. Gordon. I think that would be sufficient. Senator Sutherland. Then, even though the money had been actually expended for the purpose of bribing and corrupting voters, there would be no way in which the account would exhibit that con- dition of affairs. That would be correct, would it not? Mr. Gordon. Certainly the account would not show anything except the person to whom the money was given. Senator Sutherland. The account would not show how one single dollar of that $107,000 was expended, would it? Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. It would not show the name of the person to whom it was paid or the purpose for which it was paid ? Mr. Gordon. I supposed your question embodied the name of the person to whom the money was paid. Senator Sutherland. It embodies the name of the campaign manager only. GEORGE H. GORDON. 763 Mr. Gordon. Yes; in the local county. Senator Sutherland. But it gives no information whatever as to how the money was ultimately expended. Mr. Gordon. No. Senator Sutherland. And you think that would be a sufficient compliance with this law ? Mr. Gordon. I think it would. Senator Sutherland. This statute, Mr. Gordon, provides that ‘ 1 every person who shall he a candidate * * * shall * * * make out and file * * * a statement in writing * * * set- ting forth in detail each item in excess of $5 in money or property contributed, disbursed, expended, or promised by him and to the best of his knowledge and belief by any other person or persons for him or in his behalf, wholly or in part, m endeavoring to secure or in any way in connection with his nomination or election to such office or place, or in connection with the election of any other person at said election, the dates when and the persons to whom and the pur- pose for which all said sums were paid, expended, or promised.’ ’ You think, do you, that it would be a sufficient compliance with that requirement that the accounts should set forth in detail each item in excess of $5, together with the names of the persons to whom, the dates when, and the purposes for which all such sums were expended, to expend the money and make the account in the way you have indicated ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. The candidate answers within his knowledge as to how the money was expended. Senator Sutherland. And that was your understanding at the time ? Mr. Gordon. I will not say as to that. I do not know that I had any understanding, particular^, at the time. I think possibly if I had examined that law, and had not had the example of my prede- cessors before me in the management of campaigns, I should have made a list of every item I expended. Senator Sutherland. Why did you not examine the law when you had this sum of $1,800 to expend? Mr. Gordon. Oh, I did not do it; that is all. I can not tell you why I did not do it. Senator Sutherland. It did not occur to you at all to make an examination ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. I understood you to say you had been practicing law for 25 years ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you been in active trial practice ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you been trying cases right along during that period ? Mr. Gordon. Of all kinds; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. You have been training your memory dur- ing that period of 25 years, to remember the facts of your case as you went along? Mr. Gordon. Training my memory to remember the case ; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Yet, after all that 25 years’ experience in the trial of cases, training your memory to recollect facts in order 764 GEORGE H. GORDON. to present them to a jury and to a court, you can not in a single instance give this subcommittee the amount you paid to a certain man in that campaign? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is correct ; is it ? Mr. Gordon. That is correct. That is the testimony. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Senator Pomerene. You have given a certain construction which you place upon this statute. Within your knowledge, have any of the courts here judicially considered this section of the statute with reference to the filing of accounts, or any of these other sections of the statute pertaining to election offenses ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think they have. Senator Pomerene. That is all. The Chairman. I desire to ask a question : Mr. Gordon, the inquiry which I made of you, in regard to the manner of the expenditure of money placed in your hands by Senator Stephenson or his represent- atives was not intended to develop the fact as to whether a state- ment was filed or was not filed; but it was to develop the facts, irre- spective of the filing of a statement. I say for myself — not assuming to speak for any other member of the committee — that I do not think, under the law, the failure to file a statement by a candidate for the United States Senate would or could at any time affect the validity of his election; but when the validity of his election is chal- lenged the question of fact is open just as much as though the state- ment had been filed. I have asked you the questions which I did submit to you in order that you might have an opportunity to justify the expenditure which you made of this money, the responsibility being upon you. I will ask you generally this question: Did you expend any part of that money for the purpose of in any manner influencing electors of the State of Wisconsin to support Senator Stephenson as a candidate for the United States Senate ? Mr. Gordon. The money was used for the purpose of bringing out the vote, and talking Mr. Stephenson to the electors. If that can be construed to be “influencing” them, I would sav “yes.” The Chairman. Did you pay any of that money to any person who was an elector as a consideration for his support ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. The Chairman. When I use the term “pay,” I mean directly or indirectly. Mr. Gordon. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you use that money for the purpose of chang- ing favorably to Senator Stephenson the action of any elector? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. The Chairman. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. Right along on that line, Mr. Gordon, will you be kind enough to state whether any of this money was used by you, either directty or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any elector to support Senator Stephenson in the primary election ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Within your knowledge — of course I do not expect you to state the impossible — was any of this money used, by any of the gentlemen to whose hands you entrusted it for use in GEORGE H. GORDON - . 765 promoting the interests of Senator Stephenson in that primary cam- paign, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any elector to support the Senator, so far as you know ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You were inquired of in relation to the phe- nomenal memory that an attorney at law has in connection with facts. Do I understand you to say that although you are engaged in active practice in the trial of cases before a jury you are not only able to remember the facts in a particular case when you sum up to a jury, but that you carry all those facts right along with you? Mr. Gordon. 1 do not. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever hear of a lawyer that had the nerve to undertake that ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir; never. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose we have all tried cases before juries, somewhat, and had more or less experience in that line. Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Have you given the names of all the gentlemen that you recollect to whom you gave any funds for the purpose of promoting the Senator’s interest in this campaign? Mr. Gordon. All that I can recollect at present; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. May I call your attention to one or two for the purpose of refreshing your recollection? Do you remember a man by the name of Anderson ? Mr. Gordon. Oh, yes — A. F. Anderson. Yes; I know him. Mr. Littlefield. What about him ? Mr. Gordon. He was a man who was working during the entire primary campaign in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have a definite recollection as to how much you gave him ? Mr. Gordon. No; I have not. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember a man by the name of Lang ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir — J. C. Lang. He worked also for Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect how much you gave him ? Mr. Gordon. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember a man by the name of Larson ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. I do not know his first name. There was a man by the name of Larson. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect how much you gave him ? Mr. Gordon. I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember any others than these to whom I have called your attention? Mr. Gordon. Not aside from the names I have given already. Mr. Littlefield. You have mentioned a Mr. McConnell. Is that the same McConnell that was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. Gordon. No. Mr. Littlefield. He was another man ? Mr. Gordon. Another man. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember how much you gave him ? Mr. Gordon. No; I do not. Mr. Littlefield. Have you done the best you can to refresh your recollection in connection with these names? Mr. Gordon. Yes; I have. 766 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Littlefield. I do not understand that you have gone about to see the men, and discuss it with them. Mr. Gordon. I have not devoted any of my time to that. I have been pretty busy. Mr. Littlefield. Have you had any discussion of this matter with any of the men to whom you intrusted funds? Mr. Gordon. No; I have not. Mr. Littlefield. Since your examination at Madison ? Mr. Gordon. No. Mr. Littlefield. Are you prepared to state that all of the funds that were placed in your hands were disbursed through these gentle- men, or may there have been others? Were there others, or do you not remember about that ? Mr. Gordon. There were a great many others; but, as I say, I did not know their names, and those that I did know I have forgotten. Mr. Littlefield. Did you go about the county yourself? Mr. Gordon. I went into several of the towns; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was the work that was done by you done prin- cipally by going about the county, or from your office in La Crosse ? Mr. Gordon. Principally in my office; but I was out in two or three of the towns. Mr. Littlefield. How many precincts are there in La Crosse County ? Mr. Gordon. There are 36. Mr. Littlefield. Those are voting precincts ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How long have you lived in La Crosse County? Mr. Gordon. I have lived there all my life. Mr. Littlefield. How old are you ? Mr. Gordon. I am 50 years of age. Mr. Littlefield. Can you give the committee any approximate estimate of the number of men that were at work in the campaign — I mean, as the result of your activities ? Mr. Gordon. This is purely a guess; I would not say, but possibly there were 30 or 40. There were a great many men that were work- ing in the interest of Senator Stephenson that did not receive any funds — such men as Senator Withee and John M. Holley and Mr. Hixon, and men who were in business there. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. But what I had in mind particularly was, men that were employed either by you or by gentlemen who were acting for you. Mr. Gordon. There probably were a great many more than the names I have given; I can not tell just how many. Mr. Littlefield. How many more w T ere there, so far as you can remember, with whom you came in personal touch — those that you yourself met personally in the campaign? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you that. But there were a great many that came to me who were sent by these different men, or of their own accord. Mr. Littlefield. Was there an active campaign being conducted in that county in the interests of the other candidates? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to explain in a general way to the subcommittee the sort of a campaign that it was necessary GEORGE H. GORDON. 767 to conduct to meet the campaigns that were going on in the interest of the other candidates? The Chairman. Is that material to any issue that we are inquiring about ? Mr. Littlefield. I simply want to show the kind of work these men were expected to do. The Chairman. We do not want to open up the question of any other campaign. Mr. Littlefield. No; but I want to get enough on the record, if the chairman please, to show the sort of work that it was necessary to employ men to do in our campaign. That is my only purpose. The Chairman. The question here is as to the manner of the expen- diture of money in behalf of Senator Stephenson, and no other person. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is true. All I want on this point is simply to get enough into the record to show the sort of work that Mr. Gordon's men who were engaged in canvassing had to do. I am not going into details. The Chairman. I think we will not go into the sort of work that anyone was doing for any other candidate. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have the record show that we offer to show by this witness the character of the publicity work and canvassing that the gentlemen that he employed found it necessary to do in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. The record will show that the offer was made. Senator Sutherland. Head the question. (The reporter read as follows:) Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to explain in a general way to the sub- committee the sort of a campaign that it was necessary to conduct to meet the cam- paigns that were going on in the interest of the other candidates? Mr. Littlefield. Read the offer; that is my question. I stand on that. (The reporter read as follows:) « Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have the record show that we offer to show by this witness the character of the publicity work and canvassing that the gentlemen that he employed found it necessary to do in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. That question is not objectionable. The objection was only in connection with the purpose and the further proposition of counsel. If it is confined to the character of work which those working for Senator Stephenson were compelled to do, the question is not objectionable. Mr. Littlefield. That is all I intended to draw out by the other question. The Chairman. It is not to go beyond that. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I want to be perfectly frank with the chairman. If he got the impression that I was intending to go into another field, I did not intend to convey that impression. The Chairman. I thought the proposition would justify that, and I merely wanted to warn counsel. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I think the suggestion is perfectly proper. Just read that question, please. (The reporter read as follows:) Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have the record show that we offer to show by this witness the character of the publicity work and canvassing that the gentlemen that he employed found it necessary to do in the interest of Senator Stephenson. 768 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Littlefield. Will the witness please answer the question? That, I think, covers it exactly. Mr. Gordon. You mean, to combat the arguments that were made against Stephenson ? Mr. Littlefield. I mean exactly what they had to do. What had they to do ? Mr. Gordon. They had to go about the county, in the different precincts, and talk to the voters about Mr. Stephenson. There were arguments used against Mr. Stephenson — that he was a very old man, decrepit, unfit for the position; and it became necessary to refute those statements. Mr. Stephenson had been allied with the faction of the party other than the stalwarts; and it became necessary to argue with stalwarts somewhat to get them to support Mr. Stephen- son. Then, Mr. Stephenson was not acquainted in our locality, except by reputation. It was necessary to talk Mr. Stephenson, tell them who he was, and what his position had been in the State. I am stating generally what the arguments were. Mr. Littlefield. You have always lived, you say, in La Crosse? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. How large is that town ? Mr. Gordon. We claim 30,000; between 29,000 and 30,000. Mr. Littlefield. What is it — the second or third city in the State ?. Mr. Gordon. No ; I think we claim Mr. Littlefield. Perhaps that is a tender point. Outside of Milwaukee it is one of the largest cities in the State ? Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You say you have always lived there? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What is the fact with reference to the interest, active or otherwise, that you have taken in political matters since your majority ? Mr. Gordon. I have always taken an interest in political matters. I have not managed any campaigns. I have always taken an active part and assisted what I could in the interests of the Republican party. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not during this whole period you have known of and participated in the campaigns ? Mr. Gordon. Pretty generally since my majority; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Dou you know what methods have been employed in conducting the campaigns ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What I mean by that is as to whether or not you are familar with the details of political organization ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What is necessary in order to make an effective and successful organization ? Mr. Gordon. Yes, I think I know. I know what has been done. Mr. Littlefield. Have you been familiar with those matters during practically all of your lifetime since your majority ? Mr. Gordon. I think so. Mr. Littlefield. Did you, in this campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson, make any canvass for the purpose of ascertaining the Republicans, and the Republicans who would support the Senator ? GEORGE H. GORDON. 769 Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Why not ? Mr. Gordon. I did not have time nor funds to do it with. Mr. Littlefield. Could you give any estimate of what it would cost per precinct, on the average, to make and perfect and carry through an effective, successful political organization in the interest of a candidate in the primary ? Mr. Gordon. From $60 to $100, I would say. Mr. Littlefield. Per precinct ? Mr. Gordon. Per precinct. Mr. Littlefield. How would you reach that result ? Mr. Gordon. Do you mean what items go to make that up ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Gordon. If I were making a thorough campaign, such as has been made, I would, in the first place, get a list of all the voters in a precinct. I am taking one precinct now. Mr. Littlefield. I want you to illustrate by taking one precinct. Senator Pomerene. How many precincts are there in the State? Mr. Gordon. Twenty-two hundred; little bit better, I think. I am taking one precinct. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, I want you to apply it to one precinct, as a unit. Mr. Gordon. I would first secure a list of the voters in that pre- cinct, have the names put into a proper book, and then I would have that precinct canvassed thoroughly. Mr. Littlefield. When you say you would have it canvassed thoroughly, does that involve a personal canvass ? Mr. Gordon. That involves a personal canvass. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose? Mr. Gordon. For the purpose of determining of what political faith the respective electors in the precinct were or are; in this instance, what faction they would line up with. Mr. Littlefield. That is, do you mean by that the number of Republicans that could be relied upon to support the Senator ? Mr. Gordon. Yes; and the number that were against him, and the ones that were doubtful. Mr. Littlefield. What do you estimate that would cost ? Mr. Gordon. It would cost anywhere from $20 to $35. Mr. Littlefield. Then what next ? Mr. Gordon. Then you would want some person, after this canvass was made, to interview the doubtful voters, talk to them, and keep track as to whether or not there had been any changes from the previous canvass, between that time and the time of the primary or of the election. Mr. Littlefield. At what would you estimate the expense of that ? Mr. Gordon. Men vary in their prices for work of that character. I should say $10 would be a low estimate for that. Mr. Littlefield. What next? Mr. Gordon. Then on the election or primary day you would need at the polling place two or more carriages and a couple of men to go with those carriages to bring out the voters; two or three men at the polls to meet the voters — at the legal distance from the polling place — and a checker, perhaps, on the inside. That would constitute the force, ordinarily. 15235°— vol 1—11 19 770 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Littlefield. At what would you estimate that ? Mr. Gordon. It depends. Sometimes men who are competent to do that work charge $10 per day, and sometimes they would charge $5 per day. I would put it on a basis of $5 per day. It would be probably $40. Mr. Littlefield. Would you include advertising and publicity in a proper campaign? Mr. Gordon. I would include that, but not in this estimate. Mr. Littlefield. You have not included it in the estimate that you have given ? Mr. Gordon. No ; I have not. Mr. Littlefield. What would you say would be a reasonable estimate of the expense of the proper advertising and publicity ? Mr. Gordon. Circulating literature, etc. ? I would not be prepared to say about that. That sort of literature is usually circulated throughout the entire county or throughout the entire city. What you would pay to a man for a precinct I could not say. Mr. Littlefield. In other words, that is not ordinarily done by the precinct ? Mr. Gordon. No. Mr. Littlefield. You would do that through the county? Mr. Gordon. Or it would be done by the chairman throughout the city. Mr. Littlefield. In conducting a State campaign, would there be other expenses than these you have mentioned that would be not only legitimate but necessary — that is, from the general headquarters ? Mr. Gordon. I should think there would be ; yes. Mr. Littlefield. Do the estimates that you have given include newspaper advertising ? Mr. Gordon. No. Mr. Littlefield. Or the circulation or the publication or the printing of literature, lithographs, etc. ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Or campaign buttons ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Or the circulation of such material throughout the State ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. They do not include, I take it, the expense of maintaining a general headquarters? Mr. Gordon. No, sir. Telegraph, telephone, stenographers’ hire, stationery, postage — I do not consider those. Mr. Littlefield. Did you at any time during this campaign get, or were you able to get, anything like a reliable list of the Republican voters who could be relied upon to support the senator ? Mr. Gordon. No. Mr. Littlefield. Whom did Mr. McConnell support, if you know ? Who was the opposing candidate to Mr. Mulder in this campaign there in your section ? Mr. Mulder was a candidate for the assembly, also ? Mr. Gordon. I was led to believe that he was supporting Mr. Hat- ton. I have no definite information. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether he had made public announcement as to the fact that he would stand by the result of the primary ? GEORGE H. GORDON. 771 Mr. Gordon. He had. Mr. Littlefield. So that Mr. Mulder and Mr. McConnell, the opposing Republican candidates for the assembly, had both publicly stated that they would support whoever received the nomination in the primary? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember whether or not Mr. McConnell actually voted for Senator Stephenson on the first ballot? Mr. Gordon. I do not know as to that. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. McConnell was the man that was nominated and ultimately elected? Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. That is a matter of record, is it not? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Senator Pomerene. The record would be the best evidence, then. Mr. Littlefield. That is true. The Chairman. It is in the record sent to us by the governor of the State. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I presume it is. I have not looked at that. Mr. Black called my attention to it. Was there any understanding, Mr. Gordon, or any agreement as between yourself and Mr. Mulder as to whether or not the funds placed in" his hands were to be used in promoting his candidacy? Mr. Gordon. They were to be used in the interest of Mr. Stephen- son. Mr. Littlefield. State what the fact was in that regard — whether anything was said between yourself and Mr. Mulder with reference to that question. Mr. Gordon. I can not recall, specifically, now, what I said to Mr. Mulder or any other man; but when I gave a fund, it was my custom to tell the man that I desired him to do what he could in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that you did or did not at any time during this campaign report to Mr. Edmonds the details of the work you were doing ? Mr. Gordon. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. Did Mr. Edmonds, at any time, know whom you were employing, or through whom you were using the funds in the interest of Senator Stephenson, so far as you know? Mr. Gordon. As to that previous question, my recollection is that once or twice during the campaign I made a report to Mr. Edmonds on a blank of some character. I have forgotten what the report was. Mr. Littlefield. My inquiry was as to whether you made any report to him as to the details in connection with the men that you were employing. Mr. Gordon. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. For instance, so far as you know, did he know that you were employing Van Auken? Mr. Gordon. No, sir; he did not know any men that I was employ- ing. Hr. Littlefield. He did not know anything about any of the men ? Mr. Gordon. No. 772 GEORGE H. GORDON. Mr. Littlefield. Those were details, then, as to which you did not consult him ? Mr. Gordon. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I wish you would state to the committee what your judgment is about the relative expense to which a candidate for the senatorial nomination is subjected as compared with the expense to which a local candidate would be subjected in the same campaign to get the same result. Mr. Gordon. It would be a great deal more expensive. Mr. Littlefield. It would be a great deal more expensive for whom ? Mr. Gordon. For the senatorial candidate than for the local man. Mr. Littlefield. Will you explain why ? Mr. Gordon. That is self-evident. The local man has his acquaint- ances in the county; he has probably run for office before on the ticket; he has relatives and friends throughout the county; whereas the man running for Senator, in most localities, would not have any personal acquaintances, and no relatives, and no friends that would interest themselves in his behalf, unless they were paid for it. Senator Sutherland. It would be more expensive for a man who was known to have a lot of money ? Mr. Littlefield. I was just going to ask him about that, Senator. What is the fact about that, Mr. Gordon ? Mr. Gordon. I do not think the fact that he had a lot of money would make it any cheaper for him. Mr. Littlefield. I do not suppose you can do anything more than to approximate, but is there or is there not a substantial difference between the results that a candidate, for instance, for county sheriff, or a candidate for a county office, could legitimately and properly secure by the expenditure of $10, as compared with that same expendi- ture in the interest of a senatorial candidate who was little known in the section ? Senator Pomerene. How do you claim that to be pertinent? Mr. Littlefield. A little later I shall show some of the expenses of some of the county candidates, as bearing upon the question whether this is a disproportionate expenditure. The Chairman. The committee will pass on that. Mr. Littlefield. This is laying the foundation for that. I think I appreciate the legal features of the situation, but I want to see that the committee have everything that can throw any legitimate light upon this question. If we are up against the broad and indefinite proposition, I am going to do the best I can to give this committee, and ultimately the Senate of the United States, all the information at our disposal; and this lays the foundation for that. That is the only purpose of it. I do not know but that it is so obvious that it is hardly worth calling to the attention of the committee, but still I wanted the record to show that we were not unmindful of the existence of these differences. The Chairman. The testimony could only be admissible if this man were an expert. Every member of the committee and every member connected with the investigation is as capable of forming a judgment just as valuable as that of any other man, without any testimony. GEORGE H. GORDON. 773 Mr. Littlefield. I have no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, but I want to clear my skirts. Standing here in a professional capacity, I would like to have this record show that I have in mind all the considerations that are proper and legitimate for consideration by the committee. Senator Pomerene. No one will charge you with overlooking any- thing in the interest of your client. Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate the handsome compliment the Senator pays me; but that will hardly have the effect of having me fail to get into the record all these considerations, so far as I am able to do so. Senator Sutherland. You would rather demonstrate it than have it admitted ? Mr. Littlefield. To be perfectly frank, I want, if I can, when you get through, to have the committee, and, ultimately, the Senate, have all that they can have of the proper legal atmosphere and the local color, so far as is legitimate and proper. The Chairman. I suppose it is not claimed by counsel that the conditions in that regard are different in Wisconsin from those existing in any other State in the country? Mr. Littlefield. No. Human nature is the same everywhere. There are lots of things that we all know about. The Chairman. What you are seeking to get into the record would probably make a very proper paragraph in a brief. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, Mr. Chairman, but still I do not know just exactly how technical some distinguished gentlemen may be later on; and I do not like to have them say, when they come to read the brief, ‘‘That sounds well and reads well, but what is it predicated upon ? ” The Chairman. The committee is desirous of not enlarging the scope of the hearing Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate that fully, Mr. Chairman, and I have no desire to do that. The Chairman. We are rather inclined to give the benefit of any doubt in favor of the admission of testimony; but we want to keep it within reasonable limits. Mr. Littlefield. Up to date we have not the slightest cause for complaint, so far as we are concerned, in regard to any ruling of the committee along that line; and we shall endeavor to keep within the legitimate rules, and to keep everything out of the record that we do not think is really necessary. I think that is all, Mr. Gordon. Senator Pomerene. I have just a question or two that I wish to ask you, Mr. Gordon. Were you assisting Mr. Mulder in his campaign? Mr. Gordon. Yes; I think I voted for Mr. Mulder. I do not think I did much of anything actively for him. Senator Pomerene. Did you contribute any money to his cam- paign ? Mr. Gordon. I think I did. Senator Pomerene. What amount? Mr. Gordon. I can not tell you. Senator Pomerene. From your own personal funds, or from the funds of Senator Stephenson ? 774 D. E. RIORDAN. Mr. Gordon. From my own funds. Senator Pomerene. Approximately what amount ? Mr. Gordon. Probably $10. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. (The witness was thereupon excused.) TESTIMONY OF D. E. RIORDAN. D. E. Riordan, haying been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. State your place of residence. Mr. Riordan. Ashland, at present. Eagle River three months of the year. The Chairman. Your present home is where? What is your resi- dence to-day, if you were going to vote ? Mr. Riordan. Eagle River. The Chairman. How long have you been acquainted with Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. About 12 or 14 years. The Chairman. Did you support him in the campaign of 1908? Mr. Riordan. I did. The Chairman. During the primary campaign ? Mr. Riordan. I did. The Chairman. Had you supported him during the previous cam- paign, when he was elected to the Senate ? Mr. Riordan. I did not. The Chairman. When did you first become a supporter of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. About the time the national convention was held in Chicago that year? The Chairman. What year ? Mr. Riordan. 1908. The Chairman. Can you fix the date ? Mr. Riordan. I can not fix the date exactly; no. It was in June, I think. Mr. Littlefield. I think it was in June, was it not ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Riordan. I made up my mind, at that time, to support him, in case he should announce his candidacy. Mr. Littlefield. The convention was in June, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Oh, yes; the last week in June. Mr. Riordan, did you make up your mind because of anything that occurred at Chicago that you would support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. As a result of conferences I had with friends of mine there, and because of what had been occurring during the past two years. The Chairman. Had you learned, at any time prior to those oc- currences in Chicago, that Senator Stephenson was a candidate or would be a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate ? Mr. Riordan. I was not certain at that time. His friends were urging him to become a candidate. The Chairman. When did you first enter into an arrangement to support Senator Stephenson, and with whom did you make that arrangement ? D. E. RIORDAN. 775 Mr. Riordan. I could not give the exact date, but it was with Mr. E. A. Edmonds, and some time in the latter part of July; about the middle of July. The Chairman. Where did you meet Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Riordan. I met him first on the train, I think; on the North- western train. The Chairman. You had known him before that time? Mr. Riordan. Yes; I have known him for many years. The Chairman. At the time you met Mr. Edmonds, or rather im- mediately prior to meeting him, had you made up your mind to support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You can not fix the date, you say, any closer than you have stated it, as to when you met Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I could not. The Chairman. Did Mr. Edmonds give you $1,000 at the time of the first meeting, to be expended on behalf of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; he did not. The Chairman. You had more than one meeting, then, with Mr. Edmonds, in Milwaukee, did you ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; I had several. The Chairman. When did he pay you the $1,000? Mr. Riordan. He sent me $1,000, 1 should say, a week or two later than the time when I agreed to assist him. The Chairman. How did you receive that ? Mr. Riordan. By American Express. The Chairman. How long was that after you had had the conver- sation with him in which you agreed to support Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. I should think it was a short time. I could not say exactly. The Chairman. Days or weeks ? Mr. Riordan. Days; a few days; perhaps a week. The Chairman. The money was sent you pursuant to an under- standing that you had when you met ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; he said he would send me $1,000. The Chairman. What did you do with the money when you received it ? Mr. Riordan. I put it in the safe. The Chairman. Did you keep it separate from your other moneys ? Mr. Riordan. I did keep that separate; yes, sir. The Chairman That is, that $1,000? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did he give the date when he received that money ? The Chairman. No. I will try to get it later. He says he can not fix the date now. Mr. Riordan. As to the date, it was about the 22d or the 25th of July. The Chairman. When did you next receive a sum of money from him ? Mr. Riordan. I could not state. The Chairman. Did you receive it on August 4 ? Mr. Riordan. No; I did not. It was later than that. I under- stand the draft was drawn on the 4th, but I was out, and it was some time before I received it. 776 D. E. RIORDAN. The Chairman. You received the $1,300 which the record already in shows was sent to you on the 4th of August ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So that made $2,300 ? Mr. It iordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What other sums of money did you receive? Mr. Riordan. I received $900 more. The Chairman. You received that in two payments of $400 and $500, did you ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. About when did you receive that ? Mr. Riordan. I received that sometime after the 20th or 25th of August; I think it was nearly the close of the campaign before I received that. I think it was. The Chairman. You had all of this money before the direct primary election ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And after the announced candidacy of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You received $2,300 of it after the filing of his nomination papers, did you not? Your testimony would so show. Mr. Riordan. I do not remember when his papers were filed. The Chairman. I make that statement and refer you to the testi- mony to avoid a long inquiry to ascertain the fact. Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. There is no controversy about it. You had this money. What did you do with it ? Mr. Riordan. I expended it in the interest of Senator Stephen- son’s candidacy for Senator. The Chairman. When you received or arranged to receive this money from Mr. Edmonds, for what purpose did he say he was giving you the money ? Mr. Riordan. To take charge of Senator Stephenson’s campaign in the counties included in that northern portion of the State. The Chairman. Name those counties. Mr. Riordan. Forest, Florence, Langlade, Lincoln, Iron, Oneida, and Vilas. The Chairman. Did you expend some of this aggregate sum of money in each of those counties? Mr. Riordan. Yes; I spent some in all of them, but not very much in two of them. The Chairman. Did you disburse it personally, or did you turn a portion of it over to other persons to be disbursed by them accord- ing to their judgment ? Mr. Riordan. I did turn over some money to be disbursed on the judgment of others. The Chairman. To whom did you turn over money for that pur- pose? Mr. Riordan. You mean, to give the names of those that I can remember ? The Chairman. Yes; just give the names of those that you can remember, and the amounts that you gave to them. Mr. Riordan. Frank Marto, $75. D. E. RIORDAN. 777 The Chairman. You might just as well as you go along tell who he was and where he lived and for what purpose you gave him the money. Mr. Littlefield. Name, address, amount, and purpose. The Chairman. Yes. In each case when you give the name just state the facts in regard to the man; who he was, what he was to do, and where he lived. Mr. Riordan. Frank Marto is a newspaper man. He runs a newspaper that is printed, I think, in the Italian language, at Hurley, in Iron County. The Chairman. For what purpose was he to expend the money, or was he to have it for his own services ? Mr. Riordan. If you will permit me to make a correction there, Mr. Chairman, it was $100 instead of $75. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Riordan. Twenty-five dollars of that was for the purpose of printing sample official ballots; that is, samples of the regular official ballot that would be used and voted on the primary day, with the exception that there was to be a cross printed in the square opposite the name of Senator Stephenson, and at the bottom of such ballot was to be printed a statement — I could not give the exact words now, but something to the effect that if they desired to vote for Senator Stephenson, to make a cross as indicated on the blank. These were to be printed on colored or tinted paper, which is lawful. The Chairman. Did you perform those services ? Mr. Riordan. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further statement before I answer that, and I think it will be better for the committee. The Chairman. Very well. Proceed. Mr. Riordan. The other $75 was to be used in picking out men in that locality, residents who were voters, to take these ballots on election day and attend the polls in the different precincts, call the attention of the voters to Mr. Stephenson and his qualifications, and tell the voter if he desired to vote for him, which he hoped he would, to take this sample ballot to the booth with him, which would enable him to properly mark the ballot. He was to hire as many men as he could on the primary day to perform that service. The Chairman. You may proceed to the next man to whom you gave money, and state the corresponding facts in regard to him. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that he gave the residence of Mr. Marto. Was it Hurley ? Mr. Riordan. Hurley; in Iron County. On the same day I gave to Matt Connor, a resident of Hurley Senator Pomerene. In what county ? Mr. Riordan. Iron County. Hurley is the county seat of Iron County, in the center of a mining district. I paid to Matt Connor on the same day $40, with the understanding that he was to get a supply of these same blanks and put them in the hands of men who would attend the polls on election day and perform the same work which I have stated it was understood would be done by Marto. The Chairman. The money you gave him was for his personal services in that matter? And did it include the payment for the printing necessary to be done, or did you pay for that separately ? 778 D. E. RIORDAN. Mr. Riordan. I paid to Marto, in the first instance, $25, which g aid for all of that class of ballots that were necessary in Iron County, [e had the official plate there; and they were not expensive. The Chairman. The amount you paid to this man, then, was for his services? Mr. Riordan. I testified that it was for the purpose of emploving as many men as he could to take those ballots and handle them at the polls, the same as in the Marto case. The Chairman. You may proceed. That makes two men you have accounted for, to whom you paid money. Did you give the name and address of this man? Mr. Riordan. I did. Mr. Littlefield. This man Connor was from Hurley, Iron County. Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. In order that there may not be any confusion — I do not know what the fact may be — I wish to say that we do not find the name of Hurley here under Iron County. There are other towns here, and I do not know whether there has been any change of name, or whether that is a localism. What is the fact in regard to that, Mr. Riordan? Mr. Riordan. Hurley is the name of the post office; but there is a peculiar form of government there. The town of Vaughn is the town in which it is located, and there are several precincts there, you will notice Mr. Littlefield. Yes; there are three precincts. That is all right. It is the town of Vaughn. Mr. Riordan. We have a special section in Wisconsin that per- mits cities of the size of villages and larger cities to have within their corporate borders as high as 12 or 14 government townships, each 6 miles square. That is why the name does not appear. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Riordan. I paid to the editor of the Rhinelander New North, at Rhinelander, Wis., whose name is Lowell — I can not give his initials — I can not state now whether it was $20 or $25, for print- ing sample ballots such as were to be used in Oneida County on elec- tion day, with a cross opposite the name of Senator Stephenson, and a direction to the voter to support him, and instructions as to how to mark his ballot. About the same time, within one day, if not the same day, I paid to Barney Moran, of the town of Pelican, in Oneida County, $50, with the understanding that he was to employ as many men as he could to attend the polling places or precincts outside of the city of Rhinelander in Oneida County, and attend the polls, using those sample ballots in advising and instructing voters to vote for Isaac Stephenson. I paid to Frank Trimble, at the same time — I am not able to say now whether it was $60 or $75. Mr. Littlefield. Of what place? Mr. Riordan. Of Rhinelander, Oneida County. He was to select as many men as he could in the different wards in the city of Rhine- lander, to handle those same sample ballots, all of which I had pro- vided for in the printing done by Lowell. I paid to Stewart — I can not give his initials now; he was formerly chairman of the county committee of Langlade County Mr. Littlefield. That is spelled S-t-e-w-a-r-t ? D. E. RIORDAN. 779 Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Of what place? Mr. Riordan. Of Antigo, Wis. He is a prominent business man, in the furniture business. I do not just recall his initials now. Senator Pomerene. What was the amount you gave him? Mr. Riordan. $185. The Chairman. Was it J. D. Stewart? Mr. Riordan. I could not say. I do not remember his initials. The Chairman. He received money from you, according to the testimony. Mr. Riordan. If that is the man, that is correct. I have described his location and his business. He is well known in Antigo. Senator Pomerene. I notice you were testifying from some mem- oranda, Mr. Riordan. Mr. Riordan. I am referring to some memoranda. I recently went over it. Senator Pomerene. Are those original memoranda that you had ? Mr. Riordan. No; these are some memoranda that I took from the testimony that I gave before the investigating committee. I did make some kind of a statement and file it, but I am unable to find it printed in the record. The Chairman. It does not seem to be in the record. I have had some search made for it. Mr. Riordan. It was handed to the senatorial committee at Madi- son; but it is not printed in the volume. The Chairman. You h&ve examined the volume? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. I had my testimony taken from there. Senator Pomerene. I did not mean to interrupt you further. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether or not this statement you filed was marked by the committee as an exhibit ? Mr. Riordan. I do not know. I handed it, I think, to Senator Morris. I am not certain what it contained; whether it contained the items made up in the testimony which I gave and verified, or whether it was simply an affidavit to the effect that the testimony I gave contained all of the items that I was able to remember. The Chairman. You may proceed. Mr. Riordan. I paid to Mr. Stewart $185 as the result of a con- ference with him and other Republicans in Langlade County, to be used by him and others who were present at said conference in the employment of men throughout the city of Antigo, and in some of the towns and country precincts in Langlade, to attend the polls on the primary day, and to handle sample ballots such as I have de- scribed here, which were used throughout that section. The Chairman. That was the extent of his employment ? Mr. Riordan. That was the extent of his employment. The Chairman. You may proceed. Mr. Riordan. I paid to the Antigo Journal, or the publishers of the Antigo Journal — I think it is a corporation — either $20 or $25 for the printing of those sample ballots from the plates which they had. I paid to the Rogers Printing Co. of Eagle River $25 for printing sample ballots such as I have described in the other instance, to be used at the polling places in Vilas County. I paid to W. H. Bissell of Arbor Vitae, in Vilas County, to be used in employing men for distributing in Vilas County ballots in the town or in the 780 D. E. RIORDAN. precincts of Arbor Vitae. I might add here that he did not take that money voluntarily. I had to insist upon his doing so. The Chairman. I do not understand. Mr. Riordan. I had to insist on his taking the money. I mention that because he is a lumberman and a friend of Mr. Stephenson’s. The Chairman. You mean you had to insist upon his taking the money ? Mr. R iordan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. He ought to be here as an exhibit. Mr. Littlefield. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that we have developed a number of people in various sections who worked for love and affection, as distinguished from sordid cash, but not many, it is true. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Riordan. I would like to suggest at this time that I paid to a number of people in Vilas County sums of $5. The Chairman. For what purpose ? Mr. Riordan. For the purpose of attending the polling places on election day to handle these sample ballots in the same manner; but I do not recall their names. The Chairman. But it was in every instance for the purpose of handling these sample ballots in the manner that you have described ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; that was the manner in which I conducted the campaign. The Chairman. To whom did you pay the largest sum of money ? Mr. Riordan. In all ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Riordan. During the campaign ? The Chairman. Yes; out of this fund. Mr. Riordan. For any purpose ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Riordan. $250 to E. A. Everett, of Eagle River. The Chairman. For what did you pay him that sum ? Mr. Riordan. For traveling through the counties of Vilas, Iron, and Oneida, and ascertaining as far as he was able the sentiment of the people as he went along; that is, those who were for and against each of the several candidiates. The Chairman. Did he report to you a memorandum of people showing the result of that work ? Mr. Riordan. He made two such trips through the county. After the first one he came back and made a report to me, and the second time he came back and made a similar report. The Chairman. Tell us who he was. Mr. Riordan. E. A. Everett is the proprietor of the Everett resort. The Chairman. What is that ? Mr. Riordan. That consists of a large hotel dining room and about 40 cottages on the Eagle chain of lakes, at Eagle River. The Chairman. It is a summer resort ? Mr. Riordan. It is a summer resort. Prior to that time he was a member of the Wisconsin Assembly. The Chairman. But at the time you made this arrangement with him he was not a public officer ? Mr. Riordan. He was a candidate for public office. D. E. RIORDAN. 781 The Chairman. What office ? Mr. Riordan. The office of member of the assembly. The Chairman. At the time you paid him this money ? Mr. Riordan. I did not pay him the money, I see by my testi- mony, until the 31st of August. Senator Pomerene. Is that George E. Everett? Mr. Riordan. E. A. Everett. The Chairman. The testimony would indicate that you paid it to him before the primary election. Mr. Riordan. I think a day or two before the primary election. Mr. Littlefield. He was a candidate for the assembly? Mr. Riordan. Yes. The Chairman. Was he elected? Mr. Riordan. No, sir. The Chairman. When you paid it to him, did you know that he was a candidate for the assembly ? Mr. Riordan. I think I did, certainly. I surely talked with him about it. The Chairman. Was he announcing for whom he would vote in the legislature if he were elected ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; he was to vote for the candidate who received the primary nomination. The Chairman. Without regard to who it was ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; and I would like to add there that the man who was running against him made the same promise. Mr. Littlefield. What was his name ? Mr. Riordan. D. B. Stevens. The Chairman. They promised to abide the result of the primary? Mr. Riordan. Yes. The campaign was made with that under- standing. The Chairman. For whom did they assert their influence during the primary, the time preceding the election? Mr. Riordan. I think for themselves individually. The Chairman. Were they announcing their support of any par- ticular candidate, or doing anything in the interest of any particular candidate? Mr. Riordan. No; I do not think they were. The Chairman. You think they were avoiding any such action, do you ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. The Chairman. So that they might draw from the strength of all these factions ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. And if the chairman will permit, I would like to say that this trip that was made in the first instance by Mr. Everett, in pursuance with this agreement 1 made with him, was made early. That was the first thing I did after I agreed with Mr. Edmonds to support Senator Stephenson and to do some work for him there — to make this arrangement with Mr. Everett and start him out. The Chairman. You paid him that out of the first $1,000? Mr. Riordan. No; I did not. The Chairman. When did you pay it to him ? Mr. Riordan. I paid that by check, and I gave it to him along late in August. 782 D. E. RIORDAN. The Chairman. You promised it to him? Mr. Riordan. I promised to him at once before I had any money from Mr. Edmonds at all. The Chairman. You say he had 125 to 150 people in his employ? Mr. Riordan. That was a mistake of the reporter in taking my testimony in the investigation before the joint committee. It is cor- rected later. The Chairman. I find that statement near the top of page 2863 of that testimony. What were the facts ? Mr. Riordan. Those were guests, and not people in his employ. The Chairman. They were guests from all over the country ? Mr. Riordan. From all over the country. Perhaps not more than 5 per cent of them came from the State of Wisconsin. The Chairman. Proceed. To whom other than Mr. Everett did you give money ? Mr. Riordan. To George E. O’Connor. The Chairman. How much did you give him ? Mr. Riordan. $75. Mr. Littlefield. What is his address ? Mr. Riordan. Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give him that money ? Mr. Riordan. For the same purpose and with the same under- standing I had with Mr. Everett, excepting that he was to take a different course in the more rural parts of the district — what we call the mill towns. The Chairman. You have said here in your testimony before the investigating committee that the understanding with him was that he would go out to some of the mill towns outside, look around, and find out what the situation was. Is that the fact ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; and I was looking for that information for the purpose of knowing, before I undertook to do anything in the cam- paign, who was for and against each of the candidates. The Chairman. He had been a supporter of Senator Stephenson before that time? Mr. Riordan. He had always been a supporter of Senator Stephen- son. His father was a friend of Senator Stephenson in the early days. The Chairman. What did he do for the money that you paid him ? Mr. Riordan. He took the train and went, I think, to Hackley, Fosterville, Arbor Vitae, and several of those small towns. The Chairman. What acts or things did he do at those places in the interest of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Riordan. He sat down and visited with the men who were prominent and influential in those places, discussed the approaching campaign for Senator, and made a note of who the party was for and his reasons for it, and discussed the other candidates and his reasons for being against them. The Chairman. Did he report that to you ? Mr. Riordan. He brought that to me. The Chairman. Have you that memorandum ? Mr. Riordan. Oh, no. He did not bring me any more than a mere list of the names. We are well acquainted with those people, and have been for years — the people that he was interviewing; and that was all I needed — just the name and an indication. D. E. RIORDAN. 783 The Chairman. Do you know what, if any, inducements he offered those people for their support of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. He did not offer them any. Mr. Chairman. It was purely a question of talking to them? Mr. Riordan. That was it. I did the rest of it when he got back. The Chairman. What do you mean by that? You might mean a great many different things. Mr. Riordan. I went back afterwards. You will come to that part of my testimony further on. The Chairman. We will take it up now, inasmuch as it arises at this time. Mr. Riordan. I tried by the best arguments I could produce to remove any reasons they had for not supporting Senator Stephenson, and to urge upon them such reasons as I thought would be likely to influence them, and which I believed to be true, to get them to sup- port him. The Chairman. Did you pay anybody any money, directly or indi- rectly, for the purpose of inducing them to support Senator Stephen- son ? Mr. Riordan. I did directly, and in a manner that I thought was proper, and which was customary. The Chairman. Just describe how you did it. Mr. Riordan. The manner in which I provided for the employment of men to handle those sanple ballots that I caused to be printed, and to use them on election day. The Chairman. Is that the only way ? I asked you if you paid any money to any person to secure their influence for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. I misunderstood the question. I thought you said support. Mr. Chairman. Then you did not pay any person any money, directly or indirectly, to secure the support of such person for Sena- tor Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. No; I did not. The Chairman. You may now proceed with any other person to whom you remember having paid portions of this money that you received. Mr. Riordan. B. F. Jillson. The Chairman. Who is he ? Mr. Riordan. He keeps a hotel at Monico Junction. The Chairman. How much did you give him ? Mr. Riordan. $50. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Riordan. For use in getting out the vote to the polls and to influence them with the use of the ballots, as I have suggested. The Chairman. Make that plain, because that might mean many things. You say “to influence” them with the use of the ballot. Do you mean this sample ballot ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; I mean this sample ballot. The Chairman. Is there anything else? Just recall the question: Did you pay them, or was any money paid them, for anything else than merely to handle sample ballots in the manner that you have described ? Mr. Riordan. And to talk to the elector within a proper distance of the polls. 784 D. E. RIORDAN. The Chairman. You may proceed with the next one to whom you paid money. Mr. Riordan. I paid $50 at the same time to parties who were at his hotel who came there to me from Forest County; but I am unable to give their names or the amounts. The Chairman. How much money did you pay them? Mr. Riordan. $50. I paid that to parties at the same time and at the same place that I paid Mr. Jillson the $50. The Chairman. To be used for what purpose ? Mr. Riordan. To be used for the purpose of employing men at the polling places across the line in Forest County on election day. The Chairman. To do what on election day? Mr. Riordan. To attend the polls and electioneer for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Electioneer in what manner? Mr. Riordan. In any lawful and proper manner. There are many ways, I presume. The Chairman. Did you admonish them as to the manner in which they were to electioneer, and instruct them as to the law ? Mr. Riordan. In regard to electioneering? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Riordan. I think I did in nearly every instance — especially in one particular, and that was not to attempt to talk to any elector within 100 feet of the polls. The Chairman. Do Mr. Berg and Mr. Oberhalzer come within this list of persons to whom you paid money for this purpose ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I did not pay them any money and they did not do any work for me. The Chairman. Who were they? Mr. Riordan. They were former game wardens and used to be political workers. (At 12.30 o’clock p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. The recess having expired, the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF D. E. RIORDAN— Resumed. (By request the reporter read the last few questions and answers.) The Chairman. We will return to the point where you were interrupted. Mr. Riordan. Mr. Chairman, I think I have given Mr. Littlefield. What I have here is that he paid $50 to sundry parties at the hotel at some place where he met Mr. Jillson. The Chairman. I think he had finished that item. What were you proceeding to say ? Mr. Riordan. That I believe I have given the names of all the persons I can remember to whom I gave money. The Chairman. Referring to the sum remaining unaccounted for between the amount received by you and the amount that you have accounted for: What was done with that money? D. E. RIORDAN. 785 Mr. Riordan. I figure that with the exception of between $450 and $500, it was expended by me. The Chairman. For your personal expenses? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; traveling expenses. The Chairman. Did you expend any of that money for the pur- pose of corrupting the electors, or any elector, of this State ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. Did you pay any man for voting for or supporting Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Riordan. I did not. The Chairman. No sum of money whatever? Mr. Riordan. No sum of money nor anything of value. The Chairman. I believe you have included Frank Martine in your list, have you ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir — Frank Marteau. The Chairman. Yes; it is Marteau. Mr. Riordan. Yes. The Chairman. You have already included him. Mr. Littlefield. How do you spell the name? The Chairman. M-a-r-t-e-a-u. He seems to be the editor of an Italian paper at Ironwood. Mr. Littlefield. I got the name as “Marco.” May I ask Mr. Riordan this question: Did you get this man Stewart’s initials? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What are they ? Mr. Riordan. Arthur D., of Antigo, Langlade County. The Chairman. You were asked on March 25, when you were before the legislative investigating committee, whether or not you had completed your list of expenditures. Were you at that time making out a list of expenditures for the committee? Mr. Riordan. I was endeavoring to, your honor. The Chairman. Your answer was: No; I haven’t finished it yet. You state further: I was making it from memory, largely; that is, the amounts that I have paid out along the lines that we stated yesterday were paid out in cash. That is correct, is it ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You accounted for about $1,200 of this money before the legislative committee ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much have you accounted for before this committee ? The same amount ? Mr. Riordan. I have endeavored to do so. The Chairman. You have not added any items to the expendi- tures that you have stated ? Mr. Riordan. Before the other committee? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I have not. The Chairman. You have stated the same expenditures that you gave before that committee ? Mr. Riordan. So far as I have been able. 15235 ° — vol 1--11 50 786 D. E. RIORDAN. Mr. Littlefield. They do not aggregate the same in my footing. The Chairman. I want to test that matter a little. I am laying the foundation for it now. At that time it was stated by Senator Husting that the difference between the amount you received and the amount you accounted for was about $2,000. That you denied. You were asked if you spent $3,200, and you said you did not; that you had received $3,200. The question was then asked you in this form: And you account for twelve hundred; that would leave two thousand. Mr. Ingalls says: He kept some. The next question was: You kept $500, and that would leave $1,500 unaccounted for? You said: I accounted for it by spending it. What did you mean by that ? Mr. Riordan. That was in line with my testimony preceding that, your honor, wherein I stated how I had traveled and what I had done, and that my incidental expenses and traveling expenses and other expenses and money that I gave to people to assist me in making that preliminary organization were included in that. The Chairman. Then did you keep $500 as compensation for your services ? Mr. Riordan. I figured that I had between $450 and $500 left after I had completed the campaign. The Chairman. Then that sum of $450 or $500 you kept for your services ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have already stated that you knew that Everett was a candidate when you gave him the money ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you give any money to the game wardens ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I never did. The Chairman. Or to the deputy game wardens ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir. The Chairman. There is a great deal of this testimony that relates to another campaign, and I am trying to eliminate it entirely from this examination. That is aH I have to ask the witness. Senator Pomerene. I understand you received $3,200 ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you account for approximately $1,200? Mr. Riordan. By giving the name of the person; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And then you retained from $450 to $500 for your own compensation ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. That would be in the neighborhood of $1,650 to $1,700, leaving a balance of about $1,500. Can you give us any account for that ? Mr. Riordan. I can state what I did, and let the committee judge as to what would be necessary in paying the expenses incident to the doing of that. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep any memorandum at that time ? D. E. RIORDAN. 787 Mr. Riordan. I did not, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why was that ? Mr. Riordan. It has never been my custom, in the many cam- paigns that I have gone through in the past, in spending my own money when a candidate for office. I have never required anyone to account to me for any money that they expended in my behalf, or in behalf of any candidate that I might be interested in. Senator Pomerene. It is somewhat different when you are expend- ing your own funds on the one hand and the funds of another that have been intrusted to you on the other hand. Are you a lawyer ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; not in general practice, however. Mr. Littlefield. Did I understand you to say that you were or were not in general practice ? Mr. Riordan. I am not in general practice. Senator Pomerene. You can not give the names of any other per- sons to whom this money was paid ? Mr. Riordan. I can not. I gave my best recollection at the time I gave my testimony. Senator Pomerene. Of this $1,500, did you give part to other men to be expended in behalf of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Riordan. Not very much of it. If I did, it was in small amounts. Senator Pomerene. Then, if I understand you correctly, the most of this $1,500 would go to the “ultimate consumer, ” as he has been termed here ? Mr. Riordan. A great deal of it went for what I regarded as legiti- mate traveling and incidental expenses, incident to organizing and going through that vast territory. Senator Pomerene. That is, your own traveling expenses ? Mr. Riordan. And those that I asked to accompany me and to come to meet me. Senator Pomerene. How much of it went to pay your own travel- ing expenses? Mr. Riordan. I did not keep any itemized account. Senator Pomerene. Approximately? Mr. Riordan. I am not able to say. Senator Pomerene. A couple of hundred dollars ? Mr. Riordan. Oh, yes; more than that. Senator Pomerene. What other men did you have traveling for you ? Mr. Riordan. I called a great many men to me from all over the district, and when they came I oftentimes paid their expenses. Sometimes they came without the payment of their expenses. If they accepted it, I paid it. Senator Pomerene. And you are not now able to give any more definite information than you have as to where this money went ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I am not. Senator Pomerene. You understood perhaps 50 or 60 days ago that there would probably be an investigation ? Mr. Riordan. When the sergeant at arms wired me; I do not remember. Senator Pomerene. But you knew that as a matter of common report ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; I did. 788 D. E. RIORDAN. Senator Pomerene. Did you make any effort, after you had learned of that fact, to refresh your memory as to these expenditures ? Mr. Riordan. I made the very best effort that I could before I testified before the joint investigating committee at Madison, shortly after the primary. Senator Pomerene. You have made no investigation since for the purpose of recalling these details? Mr. Riordan. I have not been in the locality where I could have done so if I had desired. Senator Pomerene. This money was expended in how many counties? Mr. Riordan. In seven counties, including, if your honor will permit me to say so, over 60,000 square miles. Mr. Littlefield. Six thousand square miles, you mean, do you not? Mr. Riordan. Six thousand, I should say. They are large coun- ties, and are not densely populated. I should like to add this state- ment, which appears in my testimony before the joint investigating committee: The campaign which I planned in the beginning, and tried to carry through, was one to reach the votes in the rural dis- tricts, and not so much in the cities, which was very much more expensive for the reason that the other candidates had been for many months working in those centers, because they were easily reached by railway. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Riordan, was there any arrangement between yourself and Mr. Everett, when you gave the money to him for use in the interest of Senator Stephenson, with reference to the particular purpose for which the money was to be used ? Mr. Riordan. I made a definite bargain with him at the time I agreed to pay him the money. Mr. Littlefield. What was it ? Mr. Riordan. I would like to preface it Senator Pomerene. Give us the conversation as nearly as you can. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Riordan. I said to him, when I returned, after talking to Mr. Edmonds— in fact, I had talked to him before that; after the national convention in Chicago — that if Mr. Stephenson became a candidate I should support him. We discussed it. We were friends and neigh- bors. My summer home was near bis resort. And he agreed with me very fully. Senator Pomerene. Your summer home was near Everett’s resort ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; then I asked him, after I returned, if he would not go out and make an inquiry through those three counties and find out just what the situation was. We were both well acquainted in that territory. And I asked him to go out and find out who of our friends were for Stephenson, who for Cook, who for Hatton, and who for McGovern; and, so far as he was able, their reasons for sup- porting one or the other of the candidates ; that this would enable me to go out and do some effective work; and that I would like to have that information before I started, as it would save me a great deal of time, and I would be better prepared to answer their arguments as they came along. D. E. RIORDAN. 789 He said he had over a hundred people there in his resort — I think 125, at the time — and that his time was valuable, that no one could take his place, and he could not possibly leave. I finally prevailed on him. In fact, I made him the offer. I said: “You can hire someone to take your place, and then you can go out and make that inves- tigation and report to me, and I will pay you $250.” I even went so far as to talk to him in regard to his being a candidate, and the propriety of his taking the money because of that fact. Mr. Littlefield. What was said about that ? Mr. Riordan. I said to him: “I do not think that there is any violation of the law in your taking this money and doing the thing which I have requested you to do, because you personally feel friendly to Mr. Stephenson. You are going to support him anyhow — that is, with your vote; you are not going to do any electioneering for him, or anyone else, because it would injure you to do so ; and you must agree, if elected, to support the candidate who is successful at the primary. ” Mr. Littlefield. What did he say to that? Mr. Riordan. He said he thought so too. And that is not all. He made that investigation and made that report to me in the most thorough manner, and no one through that district knew what his mission was. Mr. Littlefield. How long was he engaged on the two trips ? Mr. Riordan. I should think he was perhaps 10 days the first time, and perhaps less than a week the second. It is a large district. It must be 124 miles across, by railway, one way. Mr. Littlefield. If I understand you correctly, then, he was simply ascertaining the conditions, and was not making any move- ment in the line of promoting the Senator’s canvass? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; he was not suggesting to anyone that they change their views on the subject. They were simply discussing the senatorial situation, which was very much talked of in the State at the time, because the other candidates had been making a very thorough campaign of the State for some time ; and it was a personal campaign, not a speaking campaign. It was a house-to-house cam- paign, that was made by all of the candidates in the State. Mr. Littlefield. You mean by that a house-to-house solicitation, in a sense? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, so far as they did solicit, it was an indi- vidual solicitation ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; it was not the customary procedure of hiring halls and gathering people and making their arguments in that manner. Mr. Littlefield. Did Mr. Edmonds know about the details of your work in connection with the management of these seven coun- ties, for instance ? Mr. Riordan. As to the details, I should say no. Mr. Littlefield. Did he know, for instance, whether you had made any arrangement with Mr. Marto, or with Mr. Connor, or with Mr. Lowell, or with Mr. Trimble, or Mr. Everett, or any of these gentlemen ? Mr. Riordan. I do not think that he did. 790 D. E. RIORDAN. Mr. Littlefield. You do not think you reported to him in that detail ? Mr. Riordan. Not in that manner. I met him here, I think, at least once a week, and went over the general situation in the State with him, and carried on a correspondence throughout the State and at various places with him, in respect to the canvass that was being made in other districts; and, of course, at such times I reported to him the character of the campaign that I was making. Mr. Littlefield. So that, in a general way, he was advised of what was going on ? Mr. Riordan. As well as he could be, in the position he occupied. Mr. Littlefield. How much of your time was occupied, Mr. Rior- dan, in managing this campaign, from the time when you first accepted the responsibility until the primary dav ? Mr. Riordan. I gave it practically all of my time. Mr. Littlefield. Were you at your home, or were you traveling about through this large area? Mr. Riordan. I was going over the whole district. I tried to get to every place, and to some of them many times. Mr. Littlefield. I think these counties are equal in area to my State, are they not? Mr. Black/ N ot quite; no. Mr. Riordan. If you could examine the railroad map, you would see it is a very difficult matter to visit the different localities. It is a new country. Mr. Littlefield. These seven counties would have an area prac- tically equal to the area of the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island, would they, for illustration ? Mr. Riordan. Well, I do not know. Senator Pomerene. He has given it in square miles. lie says it has an area of about 6,000 square miles. Mr. Riordan. Yes. I went over the townships on the State map, because of some of the testimony that was given here yesterday. Mr. Littlefield. My notes do not show, Mr. Riordan, that you have accounted in detail for as much as you accounted for before the legislative committee; and if it is agreeable to the committee I should be glad to have Mr. Riordan reexamine his testimony before the legislative committee, to see whether it refreshes his recollection ; so that, if there are any additional details he would like to add, they can be added. I do not want to ask him to stop to do it now. Is that agreeable to the committee? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to have him refresh his recollection, and see if he is able now to account for substantially the same as then. Senator Pomerene. He can check it up. Mr. Littlefield. I wish you would do that, Mr. Riordan, because my checking only shows about $1,000 instead of $1,200. Mr. Riordan. I think in my testimony before the legislative com- mittee I stated where I had expended money at times, just the par- ticular place, when I was not able to give the man’s name, but could state the amount. Mr. Littlefield. I should be glad to have you examine your testimony at that time, so as to refresh your recollection as to the details. D. E. RIORDAN. 791 Mr. Riordan. I shall be glad to have the opportunity to do that Mr. Littlefield. Of the $3,200 which you received, you have no detailed accounting for something like $1,500. Mr. Riordan. That is my recollection. Mr. Littlefield. And that was the sum that was expended by you in the work that you were doing all over these counties during the progress of the campaign? Mr. Riordan. As well as making several trips to other places in the State. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able to give the committee any approx- imation of the number of men that you succeeded in employing from time to time as you traveled about the seven counties ? I would like to get an approximation of that. Senator Pomerene. You mean persons whom he directly employed ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Let me see if I get this right. I do not wish to testify for the witness. Of course, Mr. Riordan does not need any prompting from me. The understanding I have of the testimony is that you went over the State, from time to time, and employed men yourself to do various kinds of work to which you have called attention ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In various sections ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What I want to find from you, as nearly as I can, by approximation, is about the number of men all over the seven counties that you, yourself, personally employed, and to whom you paid money for their services, to be rendered in the manner in which you have described. Mr. Riordan. I can only guess at it. Mr. Littlefield. Give the best impression you have. Of course it must be an approximation. I understand that. Mr. Riordan. Well, I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. How many precincts are there in these seven counties ? Do you remember ? Mr. Riordan. Over 100. Mr. Littlefield. Have you any recollection as to whether you had one man to a precinct, or more or less ? Mr. Riordan. In the precincts where I had planned to do the best work I had more than one. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any men employed for the purpose of procuring names to nomination papers ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. You did not attend to that feature of the cam- paign ? Mr. Riordan. I did not take any part in that. If I did, there was no charge made for it, and it was done from my office. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any man employed for the pur- pose of distributing literature of a publicity character? Mr. Riordan. I did; and, by the way, that is something that I omitted in testifying before the joint investigating committee. Mr. Littlefield. Tell this committee, as fully as you can, what you did in that line. Mr. Riordan. As I traveled, in places that I visited where I found that Senator Stephenson’s lithographs and advertising matter were not as conspicuous as those of others, I made arrangements 792 D. E. RIORDAN. here, by wire and by telephone, with Mr. Edmonds to send such advertising matter from place to place. I paid men for putting that up, and I also in many places left something for the privilege and for the trouble of keeping it up. Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by that ? Mr. Riordan. Where the literature was once posted, there was a time when it would be torn down in the nighttime and made to disappear; and, in many places, I made the arrangement that if it was so removed it would be replaced. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you covered the seven counties with that kind of work as well as you were able within the time at your disposal. Mr. Riordan. There were arrangements made from the general office here — from the headquarters — for sending that stuff out.. Mr. Littlefield. But some one had to post it and distribute it ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Who made that arrangement? Mr. Riordan. Mr. Edmonds endeavored, through the office here or Mr. Sacket, to see to that posting early; but in many places that was not attended to. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Riordan. And where it was not, I looked after it. Mr. Littlefield. Could you give any approximation or estimate of the expense of that feature of the work? Mr. Riordan. Only to guess at it. Senator Pomerene. You have some fair judgment about that, have you not ? Mr. Littlefield. Every approximation, of course, must have the element of a guess. Mr. Riordan. That is, the expense of posting and keeping it up ? Mr. Littlefield. What I want to get at from you is this: You were going about doing this work, employing men, in order to see that the advertising was effectively done. That is what it really amounted to, is it not ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Give your best judgment as to about what that feature of the cost was, that you yourself attended to. Mr. Riordan. I should say that I paid out, directly, not less than $ 100 . Mr. Littlefield. For that purpose ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you make any canvass of these seven counties for the purpose of having intelligent information as to how many of the Republicans in those counties could be relied upon to support the Senator as an original proposition? Mr. Riordan. I tried to. Mr. Littlefield. What I mean, now, is a careful canvass. Mr. Riordan. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. Why not ? Mr. Riordan. Because I did not have either the time or the money. Mr. Littlefield. State whether an essential factor of an intelli- gent, effective, and thorough campaign is a preliminary canvass for the purpose of ascertaining what the conditions are. D. E. RIORDAN. 793 Mr. Riordan. What do you mean by a preliminary canvass ? Mr. Littlefield. A preliminary canvass of the voters. I do not mean the primary election. Mr. Riordan. That is, to get a list of the names ? Mr. Littlefield. Surely; and to ascertain how many of the Republicans can be relied upon to support the candidate that you represent. That is what I mean by a preliminary canvass. Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not that is an essential feature in any successful, thorough campaign. Mr. Riordan. It certainly is. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that the reason why you were not able to do that in this instance was on account of the short time at your disposal and the fact that you had not the funds necessary therefor ? Mr. Riordan. I talked that over with Mr. Edmonds, not only with reference to the seven counties that I was attempting to organize, but with respect to the rest of the State; and we made up our minds that there would be no use attempting to do anything of that sort. Mr. Littlefield. Why ? Mr. Riordan. For lack of time and for lack of money; no matter how much Mr. Stephenson might be willing to contribute. Mr. Littlefield. Do you or not consider that a legitimate and necessary feature of a successful and thorough campaign? Mr. Riordan. In years gone by I have always regarded it so. Mr. Littlefield. What is your age, Mr. Riordan ? Mr. Riordan. I am 48 years old. Mr. Littlefield. Have you always lived in this vicinity where you now live ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How long have you lived there ? Mr. Riordan. Eighteen years. Mr. Littlefield. During that 18 years is it or not a fact that you have been actively engaged in political matters in all the cam- paigns that have been carried on ? Mr. Riordan. From 1894 until 1908, with the exception of 1906, I took quite an active part. Mr. Littlefield. During all that period ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Are you or are you not familiar with the various details that are necessarily involved in a thorough, effective, and legitimate campaign for the purpose of getting the voters to the polls on election day ? Mr. Riordan. I can not say that I am. I have my ideas about how to conduct a campaign. Mr. Littlefield. Are you familiar with the methods that have been in vogue in this vicinity, where you have been living for the last 18 years? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; I am. Mr. Littlefield. And I suppose there is no doubt that they are the same methods that are employed throughout the State and everywhere ? Mr. Riordan. Well, I think it is more difficult and more expensive in the northern part of the State than it is in the southern part. 794 D. E. RIORDAN. Mr. Littlefield. That is on account of its being a sparsely settled section ? Mr. Riordan. Not only that, but because of the different class of people. In the southern part of the State, the population is made up more of farmers and factory laborers; in the northern part of the State the people are more engaged in mining, lumbering, and that class of work. Mr. Littlefield. I see. Mr. Riordan. And I think it is more expensive to make a cam- paign in that section of the country than it is in the southern places, that have been settled for a longer time. Mr. Littlefield. Have you been a member of the State senate? Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. How many times ? Mr. Riordan. I was there from 1896 until 1904. Mr. Littlefield. Eight years ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is, two full terms ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have a four years’ term here ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the senators are alternately elected ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the senators are elected every two years, but in different districts ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. What is the method ? Mr. Riordan. The senators are elected one year from the odd- numbered districts, and two years from that time those from the even-numbered districts are elected. Mr. Littlefield. Does that result in about half the senators being elected at each election ? Mr. Riordan. About half. We have 33 members. Senator Pomerene. While you are on that subject: The assembly- men are elected every two years, are they not ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have biennial elections ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir; they hold for one term only. Mr. Littlefield. I infer, from what you say, Mr. Riordan Senator Pomerene. You say they are elected for only one term ? Mr. Riordan. The assemblymen are elected for one session of the legislature only. Senator Pomerene. That is, they may not succeed themselves? Mr. Riordan. Oh, yes; they may. Mr. Littlefield. In addition to those detailed matters involved in a thorough and effective and legitimate political organization for the purpose of getting a result at the polls, I suppose there are expenses connected with a senatorial campaign in the primary that are general in their character, such as advertising and circularizing by literature, postage, telephone messages, telegrams, and all the incidental expenses connected with the general headquarters ? Mr. Riordan. I suppose that is understood. Mr. Littlefield. Or course that is a well-known fact ? Mr. Riordan. Yes. D. E. RIORDAN. 795 Mr. Littlefield. Do I infer from what you say, Mr. Riordan, that you discussed thoroughly with Mr. Edmonds, in the early part of this campaign, the character of the organization and of the cam- paign to be carried on in the interest of the Senator in connection with this primary election? Mr. Riordan. I did. Mr. Littlefield. And, in connection with that discussion, you discussed this question of whether or not it would be feasible to take the initial step by having this careful, house-to-house canvass made ? Mr. Riordan. I did. , Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state to the com- mittee what, in your judgment, a thorough and effective and legiti- mate senatorial campaign, conducted like this of Senator Stephen- son — I mean, under the circumstances existing in that campaign — - with three other candidates in the field, beginning as he did, with an effective organization such as is utilized when it is desired to get the last and best ultimate results at the end of a campaign, would cost in the State of Wisconsin ? Mr. Riordan. I do not know. I would not want to make an estimate in a case of this kind, where there were four candidates; three already in the field, two of them wealthy men, well acquainted, having been very active in State politics in the past, and with the existing conditions with respect to factions in the State, I would rather not express myself on that. Mr. Littlefield. What would you say about the necessity of an expenditure of at least $107,000? The Chairman. I think the committee will have to draw the line against that question. This is a question of fact, and does not need particularly to be established by the testimony of an expert. The question is: What did this campaign cost, and was the expenditure a legitimate one ? Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but if the general proposition is to be involved that a certain expenditure creates a certain presumption, it seems to me it is not only proper but rather incumbent on us to show that a thorough and effective campaign, if we can show it, would undoubtedly cost considerably more — for the purpose of meeting the general presumption. The Chairman. I think that should be established by a proof of facts as to what it would cost. That is, whether another man expended a large or a small sum of money would have nothing whatever to do with it in determining whether or not the expenditure in this case was a legitimate one. It is not a question of matching pocketbooks. Mr. Littlefield. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is not a question of matching pocketbooks, but I suppose we have a perfect right to show what the conditions are, what it is necessary to do in order to carry on a thorough, effective, lawful, legitimate campaign, and from that The Chairman. That is not the question. Mr. Littlefield. I appreciate that I have gone a little further. I have put a more general question. But, of course, the result of the proof of details would be the conclusion that I have been asking the witness to make. Of course you gentlemen of the committee will appreciate that I can not be expected to demonstrate this to dollar or to a cent. 796 D. E. RIORDAN. The Chairman. It would open up a very large field of inquiry, and it is not within the rule of the investigation. The investigation is as to what was done ; and to that will be applied the rule of law. Mr. Littlefield. That is quite true, Mr. Chairman, but what I am trying to get at, if I make myself clear, is the suggestion that may be made that the expenditure, in and of itself, raises an im- proper presumption. I desire to show, by such witnesses as I am able to produce, who have the best knowledge obtainable upon that subject matter, that the conditions $re such that that proposition can not be predicated upon that expenditure. The Chairman. I do not think it raises a presumption. It only calls for proof. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that that really changes the situa- tion much, Mr. Chaiiman. It embarrasses us just as much whether it raises a presumption or calls for proof. It puts the burden on us, exactly the same, in either case. 1 want to do the best I can, with such testimony as may be relevant and material, to place upon the record what seems to be the evidence that tends to show that no such presumption could be attached to these particular expenditures. The Chairman. I was going to suggest that this might lead to a comparison of expenditures, and open up the held of inquiry as to what some other man had expended at some time. That is to be avoided. Mr. Littlefield. Surely. I appreciate that; and that I do not propose to go into. On the general proposition of what would be the reasonable expense of such a campaign, evidence such as you have suggested would not be admissible, because it would not tend to prove the proposition one way or the other. The mere fact that a man spent or did not spend a certain amount, standing by itself alone, accomplishes no result and gets nowhere. It does not advance the argument. I suppose I could, of course, approach this by showing in detail about what the probable expense would be of all these various steps, as I have already undertaken to show by one witness; but what I was trying to do by Mr. Riordan, without taking 'that time, was to get from him, with his practical knowledge and experience, after having discussed the very matter with Mr. Stephenson’s manager, an opinion as to what the probable cost would be. I do not under- take to say that it forecloses it, but it does seem to me that it has some tendency to throw light upon the issue. Senator Pomerene. Suppose, Mr. Littlefield, for the moment, we assume that $100,000 is a reasonable amount for any man to expend in a campaign for the United States Senatorship. If your position be true, then it must follow that the man who did not have the $100,000 would not be able to enter into this campaign at all, or take any part in it with a reasonable prospect of winning. Does not that follow as a sequence of your position ? Mr. Liltlefield. Very likely. Senator Pomerene. Do you think, then, that that would be a proper criterion Mr. Littlefield. It does not, in the slightest degree, affect the admissibility of the evidence, in my judgment, if the Senator desires me to answer the specific proposition. What is or is not a proper D. E. HI CVRD AN. 797 sum to expend stands by itself, alone. For the consequences that flow from it we are not responsible. If it should turn out that, in order to make a thorough and effective campaign here for the pri- mary a man had to go through these 22 precincts with the most thorough kind of a canvass that could be made, we all know what an expensive proposition that would be. I know, and I suppose every member of this committee knows, if in the last analysis it was de- sired to get every vote in the State of Wisconsin that would be legiti- mately obtainable, to get the vote of every man who could properly be induced to support the candidate, by legitimate suggestion and proper argument — we all know just exactly how we would begin to do that work. And it makes no difference how many candidates there were. When we began to do it and proceeded to do it, it would be a matter of no consequence whatever as to whom it elimi- nated or whom it included. It would not affect the legitimacy of the expenditures. Here are details that are not only proper to be done, but, if you are going to get the ultimate result, necessary to be done. And because some other man can not do them is no reason why they should not be done. Of course that raises the question as to whether or not some other man can do them. I can imagine a man not having a dollar in his pocket, who could probably stand up against the most effective organization and carry a primary. I shall not describe him. I do not admire him. I know him. There are many of him. He is not peculiar to Wiscon- sin. He inhabits too many places in the Republic now. That kind of a poor man is the kind of a poor man that would make a campaign very much more effective than the man who was able to go out and hire men and employ people to distribute his literature, hire men to see that the proper men go to the polls and see that the proper watchers are on duty, to get out the vote. I can imagine, in the case of that sort of a man, that the less dollars he had in the world — and perhaps the more he owed — I will put it that way; I know some men of whom it is true that the more they owe, and the less they are worth, from any point of view, financial or otherwise, unfortunately, the more they appeal to an electorate. And they would be very dangerous men. To carry out the suggestion that has been made, I know that reference was had to the case of an average poor man. It is a matter of no consequence, so far as we here are concerned, and it does not affect the legitimacy or the propriety of this expenditure, as to whether or not Jones or Brown, a worthy poor man, entitled on general principles to the support of his fellow citizens, could or could not carry on a canvass and make his organization. The question is: Is such an organization legitimate ? Is it lawful ? Is it right ? Can anybody criticize it ? No power on earth, I take it, can prevent a man who wants the suffrages of the people of Wisconsin in the primary from hiring every man that is necessary, if need be, to see every Republican voter, and ask him whom he is ready to support. I think that is lawful; I believe it to be right. That is an expenditure, probably, in which a poor man can not engage, but any man who has the money to do it can engage in it rightfully and properly, without the slightest question, either in the primary or in an ordinary election. There is no chairman of a political committee who is worth his salt, or who is entitled to hold his place, who, if the means are within his disposal, 798 D. E. RIORDAN. does not begin his campaign in precisely that way. That is common, ordinary knowledge. What I want to get at is this: I would like to get into this record as to this State, with its 2,200 precincts, estimates from people who know best, so far as we know, who can give the best information on the point what it would cost (the money to be legitimately expended) to go into details and make the canvass and organization thorough and effective. I am one of those who happen to believe that anything that is worth doing at all is worth doing well. If there are 100 votes that will support me in a campaign, I want those 100 votes; and if there are 500 votes, I want the 500 votes. I should want to do everything that was legitimate and proper and necessary to ascertain their existence, and see that on election day those votes were regis- tered for me. That is expensive. I agree with the Senator in that. There is not any question that the ordinary poor man can not, prob- ably, compete on that proposition. But that, if the committee please, does not invalidate the expenditure of the man who has the means, provided he keeps himself within legitimate and proper lines. Do I make myself clear? Senator Pomerene. I understand your position. Mr. Littlefield. That is my position. Of course $107,000 is a large sum of money, and there are a great many things to be taken into account in connection with its expenditure. It is incumbent upon us to show the size of this State. One hundred and seven thousand dollars might be a large sum to expend in Delaware or in Rhode Island. It might be a small sum to expend in New York. It might be a reasonably legitimate sum to expend in Wisconsin. There are a great many features involved in it. Of course if the committee feels that I am pressing it too far, I will not insist upon the testimony; but this is rather a general proposition. If we are to be embarrassed later on by the suggestion that $107,000 has been expended, and that that of itself not only casts a burden upon us, but also raises a presumption of unlawful and corrupt ex- penditure, then I want to do everything that is legitimate and within my power to show that under these conditions such a presumption should not arise. If I am wrong in the method I am undertaking to employ, of course I subject myself very cheerfully to the ruling of the committee. But I want to do the best I can along that line. Senator Sutherland. Congress has recently declared that the expenditure of a sum exceeding $10,000 would be unreasonable for a senatorial primary or election. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that Congress has declared that. Congress has declared that in excess of $10,000 shall not be expended. Of course that proceeds upon the assumption that a larger sum than that might be unreasonable. It does not demonstrate that the expenditure of a larger sum would be unlawful. I think we should have considerable care as to the ultimate result that flows from legislation. While $10,000 may be fixed arbitrarily by the statute, fixed of course after this campaign — and I hope any alleged reasons that the legislation may be predicated upon may not prove to be retroactive and ex post facto in its operation on the Senator — it seems to me that no man can contend even for a moment that an expenditure beyond that sum is per se corrupt.. 1 dissent from the proposition that it is within the power of a legislature to lay down an arbitrary rule, and say that expenditure D. E. RIORDAN. 799 beyond that line is corrupt, and that expenditure within that line is honest. It is competent for the legislature to say that one can not expend any more than a particular sum, and to impose a penalty for doing so. Senator Sutherland. It would be unlawful to expend any more. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; and to impose a penalty for expending it. But when the statute prohibits the expenditure, that is what makes it unlawful. Independently of the provisions of the statute, to say that $10,000 is a maximum, and that $11,000, as to the extra $1,000, would be corrupt, is absurd from a logical standpoint. I grant you that the legislature can arbitrarily do a great many things, and that for a violation of its prohibitions it can undoubtedly impose penalties. I trust that I have as profound an admiration as anyone for the omniscient wisdom of the Congress of the United States. The experience I have had with it does not detract from my views in that regard, though I do not shed the information I acquired when I was in it, by any means; and the fact that I am out of it does not allow me to discredit the body by any means. But I deny that the Congress can give a corrupt character to the expenditure beyond a certain sum, because that is simply preposterous and absurd. It can make the expenditure beyond a certain sum unlawful; but I am speaking now of moral turpitude. Of course I am not going to discuss the reasons why Congress is justified in making those limitations. But we are confronted here with this proposition; and I know that the committee is going to give me every legitimate opportunity of which I can. avail myself The Chairman. If you will permit an interruption, Mr. Littlefield, I have not been convinced that Congress was justified in enacting the statute to which you refer. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I do not criticize the Congress. The Chairman. I have not been convinced that it was justified in enacting it. Mr. Littlefield. I may say that I was advised of the chairman’s views. Whatever our personal feelings may be, I do not hesitate to assert the distinction I make, because in my judgment it is unanswer- able. The Congress of the United States can not eliminate the opera- tion of reason and its application to conditions as they exist. It can define what it wants to prohibit, and it can impose penalties, but it can not do the other thing. The very fact that Congress has seen fit to enact this limit should not alter the scope of this investigation as far as we are concerned. The Chairman. And it will not. Mr. Littlefield. I know it will not; but I want the committee to have it in mind, because while it will not narrow it the fact that Con- gress has fixed a limit of $10,000 will inevitably embarrass us. It can not help it. And when this case is presented with an expenditure of $107,000, the simple statement of it tends to embarrass us, and improperly embarrass us. The Chairman. It is not the amount expended under the law that we are considering. It is the character of the expenditure. Mr. Littlefield. If the amount can be eliminated so that it does not disturb me hereafter in the trial of this case — if the matter of the amount can be eliminated on the assumption that it does not create a presumption of unlawfulness and that what we have to meet is expenditures per se — then, of course, we have cleared away a great 800 D. E. RIORDAN. deal of difficulty. But if I am to meet later on the suggestion that the amount in and of itself, standing alone, creates a presumption of fraudulent, corrupt, and criminal conduct, then I want to go the extreme length in showing that the expenditure of this amount under these circumstances, taking everything into account, for a legitimate and lawful and justifiable purpose, is not excessive. I do not know that I make myself clear to the committee, but that is precisely what I want to show. I should not feel justified in allowing the case to go along and the record to be put in before the committee without doing my very utmost, as the representative here of Senator Stephenson, to meet any possible criticism that may be made. Of course I know how this thing drifts about. We all know that these figures get all around the community. The country is simply saturated with a proposition of that kind. I want to be in a position to avail myself of every legitimate factor in showing that when the situation is fully understood, when the people know and the Senate knows what it is necessary to do, how it has to be done, and what it would cost to do it in a legitimate and lawful way, every one will understand that such an expenditure was not excessive, and was not in and of itself corrupt. If we can show that in order to accomplish the results it would aggregate this sum and more, then I feel bound, if the com- mittee please, to do my very best to do it. I feel that we can do it. It may be that we can not, but I feel that we can; and if we can, the responsibility is on me to do it. Of course the committee will appre- ciate that I can not insist that I come on all fours within the appli- cation of some strict legal rule. We have not been conducting the inquiry The Chairman. No strict rule of evidence should apply or will be applied to the introduction of testimony in explanation of the ex- penditures made in this case. We are here to listen to just that class of testimony within liberal rules — testimony that will explain. Mr. Littlefield. Will the committee put this ruling upon the record — that they do not care to hear anything upon the proposi- tion as to whether or not the expenditure of the $107,000 is, per se, or does, per se, raise an unlawful and corrupt presumption ? The Chairman. The committee will not hold that it raises a pre- sumption in the legal sense of the application of that term. The committee has not gone further than to say that it merely requires proof as to the nature of the expenditure. It would require proof if the expenditure were $10 and the expenditure were challenged. It will require proof when the expenditure is a hundred and more thousands of dollars, and the legality of that expenditure is chal- lenged. The committee has not gone further than that. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that so far as we are concerned we can safely rest upon that proposition, and that the record will show that ? That will place me in a position where I may not find it necessary to go into the general question. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean by that that you may safely rest upon the assumption that no unfavorable deduction will be made from the fact that this large amount of money was expended ? Mr. Littlefield. That is exactly what I mean. Senator Sutherland. I would not want to say that. Mr. Littlefield. I do not ask the Senator to say it. D. E. RIORDAN. 801 Senator Sutherland. I would not want to join in any such ruling. I do not think that because a man has expended $100,000 it follows that the expenditure of that money was unlawful. I think a man may spend $100,000 or $200,000 and have every cent of it expended in a perfectly legal way. But speaking only for myself, I think that the expenditure of such a vast sum of money as $100,000 in a primary campaign is an unreasonable expenditure. I can not in any way con- ceive how the expenditure of such a large sum of money as that can be called a reasonable expenditure; and I think, at least in that aspect of it, that it calls for some sort of an explanation. I sympathize entirely with the laws that have been passed in some of the States which have limited the amount that may be expended by any can- didate for the Senate or any candidate for the House of Representa- tives. I think they are very wise laws; and I think the amounts that have been fixed in the act of Congress and the amounts fixed in the various State laws in some degree, at least, indicate what is a rea- sonable expenditure. I do not mean to say that it is controlling, because I do not think it is; but it is at least an indication of what may be regarded as a reasonable expenditure. I think, so far as I am concerned, that it would be well to put on the record any evi- dence which you may have that would indicate that this expendi- ture was reasonable. I am not prepared to assent to the proposition that the expenditure of such an amount without explanation is reasonable. In saying that, I do not mean to in any manner prejudge this case. ,Mr. Littlefield. Precisely. I understand that perfectly. Senator Sutherland. It has nothing to do with what I might finally find as far as the question of this election is concerned. I am simply dealing with that one phase of it. If the condition that you suggest exists — that under the direct primary system the election or the nomination is open only to the demagogue or the millionaire — then we have reached a very unhappy pass. I am not an admirer of the primary system. I think it does tend in that direction. Mr. Littlefield. As far as I am concerned, I have not the burden of taking care of primary legislation. It is a matter of the greatest indifference to me. I am endeavoring, as far as I can, to look after the rights of Senator Stephenson under these conditions. If the development of the facts give rise to an unfortunate conclusion or an unfortunate inference so far as the primary law is concerned, that we can not help. With that suggestion I shall endeavor to get along. Of course I shall try not to take up undue time; but so far as we can I should like to get evidence here (and I think we can do it) that will satisfy this committee, and ultimately the Senate of the United States, while they may say more money was expended than ought to have been expended, that the conditions are such that it was lawfully and right- fully expended. There is a very broad distinction between an unrea- sonable amount and a corrupt amount. I want to make the record such that carrying this thing out to its last detail the committee can say that legitimately and properly this would call for the expenditure of a much larger sum than the Senator expended without indulging in any corrupt or improper expenditure. What consequences would result from that, so far as I am concerned, are absolutely immaterial. 15235 °— vol 1—11 51 802 D. E. RIORDAN. I want to show it, if I can, for the purpose of leaving the Senator where he ought to be left if the facts are as I state them. Senator Pomerene. Let me interrupt a moment. The question that is before us is one as to the admissibility of expert testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. I do not know that there is any objection to your showing to the committee the amount of territory, for instance, that Mr. Riordan had to cover, the amount of voters lie had to see, and facts of that kind. But you now come to the question whether a certain expenditure would be reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Littlefield. Not quite that, if the committee please. Senator Pomerene. In effect it is that. It leads to that conclusion. Mr. Littlefield. Whether it is lawful or unlawful. I think, if the committee will permit, that there is a profound distinction. Senator Pomerene. It is a question as to whether or not this was a reasonable expenditure, or what amount would be a reasonable expenditure. Mr. Littlefield. No ; I beg your pardon, if the Senator w ill excuse me. I shall not put that question to any witness. Senator Pomerene. That is the question that was put to this witness. Mr. Littlefield. If I put that question, I did not understand it. Senator Pomerene. I will ask the reporter to repeat the question. (The reporter read as follows:) “What would you say about the necessity of an expenditure of at least $107,000 ?” Senator Pombrene. It is in effect what I was seeking to state. If your position is to control, then it must follow of necessity that there is one rule to apply to the man who is worth $100,000, another rule to apply to the man who is worth $1,000,000, another rule to apply to the man who is worth $10,000,000, and still another to the man wdio is worth $100,000,000. It seems to me that looking at this matter as lawyers, we must come to the conclusion that that could not shed very much light either to this committee or to the Senate in ultimately passing on this question. Mr. Littlefield. I do not concede the conclusion that the Senator draws, and for this reason: In my judgment, of necessity quite a different question is raised. To bring this down to a concrete illus- tration, let us suppose it takes three men to canvass a precinct, at an expense of $30. That expenditure would not be $40 if the candidate were worth $1,000,000. It would not be $60 if he were worth $10,000,000. I bring it down, not to the ability of the candidate to spend, which is the criterion suggested by the Senator, but to the necessity of an expenditure to produce the result. If it takes 10 men to canvass a precinct, if it takes 3 men to get the voters out to the polls, or 4 men to watch, it does not cost a man who is worth $10,000,- 000 or $40,000,000 any more than it does a man who is worth $1,000,- 000 or $100,000. My criterion is not the ability of the man to spend. If the committee got that impression from me, I certainly was very unfortunate in expressing my views. My criterion is the expenditure, precisely the same as though it required a certain amount of forage in carrying on a campaign. Suppose it required 100 barrels of flour. That would not cost a man worth $1,000,000 any more than it would cost a man worth $100,000. D. E. RIORDAN. 803 Ten watchers would cost the same under any circumstances, except of course with the qualification that if a candidate has means these men would be liable to charge more; but that is not a feature to take into account. I predicate my proposition not upon the ability of the man to pay, not upon whether he has SI or $10,000,000, but upon the expense that it is necessary to incur to lawfully and legitimately produce the result. That is what I intended to be understood as saying, and that is what I mean to say now. If a man has not the money to hire men to do the work, and the men will not do it without being hired, then the man can not get the work done. That follows just as surely as night follows the day. But it does not change the amount to be expended as bearing upon the ability of the man to expend. The great question, the only question, is, how much would it require, with legitimate expenditure, with the necessary organization, to produce the ultimate result ? The Chairman. Suppose we pass upon each question as it arises. Let the last question be read. (The reporter read as follows:) “What would you say about the necessity of an expenditure of at least $107,000 V’ Mr. Littlefield. That is, to make a thorough, effective campaign, and get at the ultimate result. Mr. Riordan. For the United States Senate, you mean, under the primary law ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Riordan. I should say that he could not make a very thorough campaign with it under the Wisconsin primary law. The Chairman. That answers the question. Mr. Littlefield. That is as far as I want to go. I understood that you stated that there were no game wardens who took any part in this campaign. I do not wish to go into detail, but I want to ask this general question, as bearing on the propriety of the employment of J. W. Stone: What is the fact with reference to the employment of the game-warden force as a political factor in the State of Wisconsin during the last 8 or 10 years ? The Chairman. The witness will not be called upon to answer that question. The question of employing game wardens is not material. It would open up a branch of inquiry as to which the committee is sufficiently advised from the record, that it is not desirable to go into at this time. Mr. Littlefield. I did not intend to go into it. I would not under any circumstances. The Chairman. Mr. Riordan, w 7 as any money expended by you in the campaign for Senator Stephenson, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any elector in the primary election ? Mr. Littlefield. Within his knowdedge, I assume ? The Chairman. Yes. In the first place I asked him about money expended by him. I mean your personal expenses now. Mr. Riordan. In answer to that I vmuld say no, sir. The Chairman. Was any^ money expended by the gentlemen to whom you intrusted funds in the interest of the Senator in the cam- 804 D. E. RIORDAN. paign, to your knowledge, for the purpose of direct!} 7 or indirectly bribing or corrupting electors in the primary election ? Mr. Riordan. There was not. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Riordan, was any money spent for liquors or cigars during the campaign ? Mr. Riordan. Yes; there was some. Senator Sutherland. By whom ? Mr. Riordan. I will answer that question in this way: I carried some cigars with me, and I treated gentlemen to cigars now and then, when I met them, in discussing the matter. I will say this, however: There was no money given to anyone to buy liquor or cigars with. Senator Sutherland. How about liquors ? Mr. Riordan. Or liquor, either. Senator Sutherland. Was there any spent for liquors? Mr. Riordan. There might have been a drink bought, here and there, occasionally; but there was no saloon campaign made. It was conducted in a dignified and respectable manner. Senator Sutherland. Can you give an approximate idea of how much was spent altogether in that way? Mr. Riordan. For liquor? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Riordan. Of the funds intrusted to me? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Riordan. I should say there was not to exceed $50. Senator Sutherland. Not to exceed $50 out of the $3,200? Mr. Riordan. Out of the $3,200, that went to buy liquor. Senator Sutherland. Do you think the expenditure of $107,000 would not be sufficient in the primary election to make an effective campaign? Do I understand you to say that? Mr. Riordan. Under the circumstances surrounding the campaign made here in 1908? Senator Sutherland. Under the direct primary ? Mr. Riordan. Under the direct primary, yes. Senator Sutherland. What do you think would be an amount that would give vou an effective campaign? Mr. Riordan. It would depend somewhat upon the length of time. Senator Sutherland. We will say under the circumstances here in this particular campaign. Mr. Riordan. I think $200,000 could have been spent legitimately. Senator Sutherland. There were four candidates before the primary ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. If eacli of them carried on an effective cam- paign, that would mean spending $800,000 in the primary election for Senator alone? Mr. Riordan. That would be a different situation from that which E revailed here, Senator. In this instance the other candidates had een perfecting their organizations, some of them for two years. Some of them had the benefit of four or five years’ work. That was cumulative. They had such an organization there that if one should start out as Mr. Stephenson did, without any combination or organ- ization, and start right at the beginning and do it all in 60 days, it would take more than twice or three times the amount. D. E. RIORDAN. 805 Senator Sutherland. But if Mr. Stephenson found it necessary to spend $200,000 to make an effective campaign, would not the others as well have to spend a similar amount? Mr. Riordan. They would if they were endeavoring to make it in the same length of time, Senator. Senator Sutherland. If they had a longer time in which to make the campaign, the expenses would simply be carried over a longer period. Would not that be all the difference? Mr. Riordan. No; I do not so understand it. I think there are men in this State who have been carrying on the campaign so long that they could get along with a very much less amount. Senator Sutherland. If $800,000 were spent in the primary cam- paign to employ electors to do work for each candidate m the various precincts, practically the entire electorate of the State would be in one of these four machines, would it not ? Mr. Riordan. That is true. The party for whom they were going to cast their vote would be known the night before; and there would be some one there on election day to see that none of those missed getting to the polls, or that they were not taken away from the place where they were supposed to be the night before. Senator Sutherland. There would not be any other voters left to be brought in to the polls; they would already be in the organ- ization, would they not ? Mr. Riordan. All of that party and, under the Wisconsin primary, a great many of the other party also. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Riordan, how was the item of $400 paid to you ? Mr. Riordan. The item of $400 and the item of $500 — if you will permit me to put them together, one to A. C. Miller, of Ashland, and the other to T. I. Laughlin, of Eagle River — were sent to me by Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Littlefield. A. C. Miller, or A. D. Miller? Mr. Riordan. A. C. Miller. Mr. Littlefield. I have it here “A. D. Miller.” Is he a member of the Price & Taylor Co. ? Mr. Riordan. No, sir. Mr. A. C. Miller was the stenographer and clerk in my office at Ashland. Mr. Littlefield. So that one came through A. C. Miller ? Mr. Riordan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember the amount of that? Mr. Riordan. It w~as either $400 or $500. Mr. Littlefield. And the other came through Mr. T. I. Laughlin ? - Mr. Riordan. T. I. Laughlin, who was vice president of the Eagle River Land Co., of which I am president, and had charge of my office at Eagle River. Senator Pomerene. Your attention was called to the employment of a man by the name of Everett, I believe, who was a candidate for the assembly. Were any of these other men whom you employed candidates for the assembly? Mr. Riordan. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. He was the only one? Mr. Riordan. He was the only one. Senator Pomerene. That is all. The Chairman. The witness is excused. 806 v WILLIAM L. ESSMANN. Mr. Riordan. Will my presence be further required, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. We will send for you if we need you further. You do not need to remain in attendance. Mr. Riordan. I can go home, then ? Mr. Littlefield. I do not know* but that Mr. Riordan would like to know whether Mr. Essmann found his statement in the papers on The Chairman. We are going to put Mr. Essmann on the stand right now. Mr. Littlefield. Then Mr. Riordan can remain here. The Chairman. You can remain here if you prefer to do so. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM L. ESSMANN— Recalled. William L. Essmann, being recalled, testified as follows: The Chairman. What is your official position ? Mr. Essmann. Superintendent of public property of the State. The Chairman. As such official, have you the exhibits and papers introduced in evidence before the joint committee of the legislature appointed in 1909 to investigate the election of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Essmann. I have all those in my possession. The Chairman. Have you indexed and arranged those papers in such way as to make them readily available? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say you have all that were left in your possession. Do you know of others in the possession of some one? Mr. Essmann. I have been unable to ascertain. The Chairman. Where would you be able to ascertain, if at all ? Mr. Essmann. I think from the chairman of the committee, Mr. Marsh. The Chairman. Where is he ? Mr. Essmann. He lives in Neillsville. The Chairman. Would it be necessary for you to go to Neillsville to ascertain, or could you do it by communication — telephone or otherwise ? Mr. Essmann. I called him 1 J 1 1 1,1 were two trunks left in my p , ^ ^ 7 one of them had nothing in it pertaining to this investigation, and one of them did. The Chairman. You have examined those trunks to which he referred as containing all of these exhibits? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you here in the court room all that you found in those two trunks? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Tell us how you have arranged them, so that we may identify them and use them. Mr. Essmann-. The official stenographer prepared an index; and they are all listed as exhibits in the last four pages of this book, running from Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 474. file. to know anything about it. WILLIAM L. ESSMANN. 807 The Chairman. Have you all of those exhibits here ? Mr. Essmann. I have all except what I have written here on this paper. The Chairman. You say you have all except those enumerated on the paper in your hand ) Mr. Essmann. Yes. The Chairman. Just have that paper marked Exhibit No. 1 in connection with your testimony. (The paper referred to was marked “ Exhibit No. 1, Essmann.”) The Chairman. We understand you to say that those marked on the paper are not found in the trunk? Mr. Essmann. In this trunk; yes, sir. The Chairman. How many are there ? Mr. Essmann. There are about 12 or 13. The Chairman. Have you the names of the exhibits there ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Read them, please. Mr. Essmann. Exhibit 43, Thomas Reynolds’ statement of ex- pense. Exhibit 49, detail statement of Senator Stephenson’s expense. Exhibits 50 to 59, stubs of cashier’s checks produced by Mr. Puelicher. Exhibit 65, check to W. L. Smith. Exhibit 113, letter accompany- ing No. 112. Exhibit 114, account of W. R. Knell found in record on page 3874. Exhibit 452, statement of J. W. Stone. Exhibit 455, voucher of W. C. Haslem for February, 1908. Exhibit 456, voucher of W. C. Haslem for May, 1908. Exhibit 463, voucher of Thomas M. Purtrie — record, page 7245. Exhibit 469, stub of check of A. S. Herbert from E. A. Edmonds. Exhibit 470, vouchers of Frank Brown. Exhibit 471, poll list produced by George Beyers. The Chairman. With reference to the Stone exhibit — is that J. W. Stone? Mr. Essmann. That is the ex-game-warden. The Chairman. Have you made diligent search to find that exhibit ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. I went through the box three or four times. The Chairman. You say it is not in your custody? Mr. Essmann. It is not in my custody. The Chairman. Has it been in your custody, do you know? Mr. Essmann. I do not know. The Chairman. Have you a list of the exhibits prepared in the order of their number? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir; I have them all written out. The Chairman. Produce the list, please, for identification, and have it marked “Exhibit 2” in connection with your testimony. (Mr. Essmann produced the list of exhibits, and it was marked by the secretary Exhibit 2.) The Chairman. We are now dealing with Exhibit 2. The reporter will mark those as a part of the testimony. They will be a part of the record and copied into it. 808 WILLIAM L. ESSMANN, (Exhibit 2 is in words and figures as follows:) Index, volume i. 3 age. Exhibit No. 36 1 84 2-24 113 25 117 26 120 27 131 28 134 29 148 30 149 31 150 32 160 33 178 34 188 35 188 36 190 37 191 38 192 39 225 41 229 42 378 43 495 44 Remarks. Statement of Senator Stephenson (money paid out by him). Vouchers in connection with above. Certified copy of Stephenson’s campaign expenses. Jacob Rummell, statement election expenses. Melvin A. Hoyt, statement election expenses. Book containing expense account of F. E. McGovern, found in record at page 1895. Bundle of checks introduced by McGovern in connection with No. 28. Checks introduced by McGovern. Original checks introduced by McGovern. E. E. McGovern, statement election expenses. Neal Brown, statement election expenses. Letter containing Cook’s contract with William C. Cowling. Vouchers introduced by S. A. Cook. Itemized statement of checks sent W. C. Cowling as per Cook’s statement to secretary of state Sept. 29, 1908. Receipt of Louis Sorenson (introduced by S. A. Cook). Statement of checks to W. C. Cowling since making statement to secretary of state on Sept. 29, 1908, in connection with Cook’s campaign. S. A. Cook, statement election expenses. W. H. Hatton, statement election expenses. Additional items of No. 41. Thos. Reynolds, statement of expenses. Receipt of Rodney Sacket for $98,083.72 received of J. H. Puelicher. VOLUME II. 576 45 642 46 721 47 829 48 897 49 1228 50-59 1247 60 1249 61 1377 62 1316 63 1324 64 1350 65 1353 66 1380 67 1380 68 1380 69 1381 70 1382 71 1383 72 1384 73 Letter from C. K. Lush introduced by Hatton. Charges preferred by John J. Blaine. Account of Rodney Sacket. Resolution offered by Mr. Bray, found in the record at page 827. Detailed statement of Stephenson expenditures. Stubs of cashier’s checks produced by J. H. Puelicher. Directory of Wisconsin Legislature— 1909. Bundle of checks produced by J. H. Puelicher. Account of C. C. Wellensgard. Bill of Koch Advertising Bureau, (Stephenson). Bill of Koch Advertising Bureau (Stephenson). Check to W. L. Smith. Bill of E. B. Usher (Stephenson). Bill of Kuryer Publishing Co. (Stephenson). Bill of Griffiths (Stephenson). Bill of Jewish Courier (Stephenson). Bill of Superior Tidende (Stephenson). Bill of Courier Printing House (Stephenson). Bill of Norden Tribune (Stephenson). Bill of C. Rasmussen Publishing Co. (Stephenson). VOLUME III. 1492 74 1492 75-77 1494 78 1662 79 1512 80 1513 81 1537 82 1659 83 1778 84 1807 85 1808 86 1875 87 2046 88 2050 89 2168 90 2110 91-92 2109 93 2141 94 2219 95 2237 96 2238 97 Letter from J. A. Stone produced by John J. Blaine, appears in record at page 1429. Memorandum produced by J. J. Blaine, appears in record at page 1456. Supplemental statement of W. H. Hatton. Account of W. C. Cowling. Bundle of checks on Stephenson National Bank signed by J. A. Van Cleve. J. A. Van Cleve, statement of election expenses in Marinette County, appearing in record at page 1738. Account of J. A. Van Cleve. Original letter signed by J. A. Stone, produced by J. J. Blaine. Check on Corn Exchange Bank to F. J. Epling for $200, No. 681. Check to H. L. Ekern for $1,000, dated May 14, 1908. Check to H. L. Ekem for $1,000, No. 5005, dated Jan. 4, 1908. Bundle of checks relating to Hatton campaign, produced during examination of C. K. Lush. Account rendered to W. C. Cowling by George D. Orput. Letter to W. C. Cowling from C. D. Orput. Letter to P. J. Koehler, introduced by W. C. Cowling. Letters from Dr. F. H. Gehbe to Cowling, appear in record at pages 6666 and 6667. Bill of Dr. F. H. Gehbe to W. C. Cowling, appears in record at page 6667. Letters produced by W. C. Cowling, being correspondence with Franz Heyden. Account of W. J. McElroy appears in record at page 2264. 319 checks, bank book, and papers produced by W. J. McElroy. Letter introduced by W. C. Cowling. WILLIAM L. ESSMANN, 809 VOLUME IV. Page. Exhibit No. Remarks. 2273 98 Letter and affidavit from J. P. Peterson, Polk County. 2276 99 Statement of W. L. Houser. 2243 100 Letter from Knute Johnson, pertaining to Hatton campaign. 2410 101 Requisition produced during examination of Mr. Shape. 2468 102 Letter to Dresser from Tsaac Stephenson. 2561 103 Account of L. B. Dresser, appearing in the record at page 2653. 2561 104 List of counties to be visited by members of State board of control. 2561 105 Same as No. 104. 2670 106 List of game wardens, appearing page 2843. 2915 107 Statement of S. L. Perrin. 2916 108 Checks from which No. 107 was made up. 3076 109 Account of J. W. Miller relating to Stephenson campaign. VOLUME V. 3181 110 Receipts of poll workers in Dane County produced by A. R. Ames. 3317 111 Account of C. H. Russell. 3433 112 Account of C. E. Brady, Manitowoc, appears in the record at page 6668. 3444 113 Letter accompanying No. 112. Account of W. R. Knell, found in the record on page 3874. 3805 114 VOLUME VI. 4170 115 List of men who worked for Stephenson during the month of August and week of primaries, appears in record at page 4265. July, August and 1 week in September appears in record on page 4266. 4170 116 4281 117 Account of C. M. Hambright. 4296 119 Letter to John Aylward from Lester Tilton. 4357 120 Affidavit of Lester Tilton. 4609 121 Statement of W. W. Powell. 4628 122 Bill from members of State barbers’ board to W. W. Powell. 4695 123 Bills of Cantwell Printing Co. (Hatton). 4701 124 Bill to W. H. Hatton from Geo. N. Wood. 4744 125 Account of Geo. B. Hudnall. 4745 126 Bill of Sullivan Printing Co. 4746 127 Account of Fred Hess. 4748 128 Account of C. W. Miller. 4752 129 Bill of Geo. F. Cooper to W. S. Braddock. 4753 130 Account of Henry Krumrey. 4754 131 Account of C. E. Broughton. 4757 132 Account of C. F. Stout. 4787 133 Bunch of letters produced by Van Slyke, from W. H. Dick. Account of C. F. Stout, complete (includes No. 132). 4866 134 4869 135 Affidavit of C. F. Stout. 4873 136 Statement of money received by W. J. McElroy rendered to Hatton. 4956 137 Letter to C. F. Stout from J. J. Blaine. 4957 138 Letter to C. F. Stout from W. H. Dick. VOLUME VII. 4979 5031 5039 5039 5045- 50451 5066- 5134 5135 5183 5185- 5186 5221 5228 5260 5276 5310 139 141 141 142 Letter from J. A. Stone to W. H. Dick, Sept. 2, 1908. “Directions to H. E. Bates,” from J. A. Stone. Mailing list. Letter accompanying same. Letter No. 1. 143 Letter No. 2. >144-183 184 185 | 180-188 189 190 191 192 193 Correspondence between J. A. Stone and W. H. Dick. Poster “To the readers of the Milwaukee Free Press.” Account of C. E. Broughton. Letters produced by C. E. Broughton pertaining to campaign. Account S. H. Cady. Letter to Taylor from W. H. Dick confirming contract of Taylor with Powell. Copy of statement rendered to W. H. Dick by Taylor. Letter to C. H. Stevens from W. H. Dick. Account of E. L. Tracy Page. 5310 5620 5399 5411 5417 5441 5442 5467 5468 5473 5475 5479 5481 5485 5487 5530 5532 5536 6539 5545 6547 5548 5550 5552 5552 5561 5583 5585 5586 5597 5624 5627 5628 5629 5634 5639 5641 6645 5647 5652 5656 5658 5663 5669 5674 5675 5682 5683 5695 5699 5704 5705 5711 5714 5717 5720 5721 5738 5739 5742 5743 5744 5746 5751 5753 5754 5756 5758 5759 6763 6767 5769 5780 5782 5784 5788 5790 5702 WILLIAM L. ESSMANN, volume vii — continued. Remarks. Letter accompanying No. 193. Expense and per diem voucher of E. L. Tracy. Letter dated July 20, 1908, addressed “Dear Jim.” Letters between C. F. Stout and Cooledge. Letters between C. F. Stout and W. H. Dick. Letter from C. F. Stout to James Hanson, Ephraim, Wis. Letters between C. F. Stout and W. H. Hatton. Letter from C. F. Stout to C. K. Hayes. Letters between C. F. Stout and C. A. Ingram. Letter from C. F. Stout to W. A. Kay. Letters between C. F. Stout and E. G. Keup. Letter from E. J. Keyes to C. F. Stout. Letters between C. F. Stout and Anton Kuckuk. Letter from Frederick Kull to C. F. Stout. Letters between C. F. Stout and C. K. Lush. Letters between C. F. Stout and D. J. Morris. Letters between C. F. Stout and Thos. Morris. Letters between C. F. Stout and Frank Mueller. Letters between C. F. Stout and O. L. Olen. Letters between C. F. Stout and W. M. Perry. Letter between C. F. Stout and W. W. Powell. Letter to C. F. Stout from Geo. Quinn. Letter from T. M. Thomas to C. F. Stout. Letter to C. F. Stout from John O. Thomas. Letters to C. F. Stout from T. M. Thomas. Letters between C. F. Stout and G. B. Hudnall. Letter from C. E. Broughton to F. E. McGovern. Letter from C. E. Broughton to Herman L. Essmann. Letter from C. E. Broughton to Zeno M. Host. Letter to J. A. Stone from John Strange. Letters between J. A. Stone and G. E. Scott. Letter from Walter Pietch to J. A. Stone. Letter from J. A. Stone to John Strange. Letters from J. J. Blaine to J. A. Stone. Letters between M. L. Bunnell and J. A. Stone. Letter to W. S. Braddock from J. A. Stone. Letters between H. J. Clark and J. A. Stone. Letter from F. E. Cabanis to J. A. Stone. Letters between S. A. Cook and J. A. Stone. Letters between G. C. Cox and J. A. Stone. Letter, Jeff Crawford and Stone. Letters between W. H. Dick and J. A. Stone. Letters between E. F. Dithmar and J. A. Stone. Letters between J. T. Dithmar and J. A. Stone. E. F. Dithmar and J. A. Stone. Letters between R. I. Dugdale and J. A. Stone. Letter, H. L. Ekem and J. A. Stone. Letters between W. L. Essmann and J. A. Stone. Letters between F. C. Falconer and J. A. Stone. Letters between C. C. Gittings and J. A. Stone. Letter, G. C. Harney and J. A. Stone. Letters between W. H. Hatton and J. A. Stone. Letter, W. D. Hoard and J. A. Stone. Letters between R. M. LaFollette and J. A. Stone. Letters between Lenroot and J. A. Stone. Letter, Henry Lockney and J. A. Stone. Letters between F. E. McGovern and J. A. Stone. Letter, D. McGregor and J. A. Stone. Letter, S. M. Marsh and J. A. Stone. Letter, C. J. Meyer and J. A. Stone. Letter, Thos. Morris and J. A. Stone. Letter, R. J. Nye and J. A. Stone. Letters between W. J. Pearce and J. A. Stone. Letters between G. A. Parham and J. A. Stone. Letter, D. T. Parker and J. A . Stone. Letter, G. H. Parham and J. A. Stone. Letter, D. T. Parker and J. A. Stone. Letter, Geo. O. Pretzsch and J. A. Stone. Letters between Edward Pollock and J. A. Stone. Letters between O. G. Rewey and J. A. Stone. Letter, M. A. Reynolds and J. A. Stone. Letters between Alfred Rogers and J. A. Stone. Letter, O. J. Schuster and J. A. Stone. Letter, G. E. Scott and J. A. Stone. Letters between John A. Sholts and J. A. Stone. Letter, S. S. Squires and J. A. Stone. Letter, Edmund Steidtman and J. A. Stone. Letter, Peter O. Stenrue. WILLIAM L. ESSMANN, 811 volume vii — continued. Page. Exhibit No. Remarks. 5794 423 Letter, S. S. Squires and J. A. Stone. 5794 424-425 Letter, John M. Swingle and J. A. Stone. 5797 426 Letter, John 0. Thomas and J. A. Stone. 5799 427-428 Letters between R. N. Van Doren and J. A. Stone. 5801 429-431 Letters between L. F. Wells and J. A. Stone. 5807 432 Letter, Frank J. Kimball and J. A. Stone. 5808 433-434 Letters between P. C. Wilder and J. A. Stone. 5811 435-436 Letters between Fred Wilkins and J. A. Stone. 5816 437 Letter, F. M. Wilcox and J. A. Stone. 5822 438 Statement of W. W. Lindsay. 5856 439 Letter from M. H. Whittaker to W. W. Powell, inclosing bill. 5856 440 Check signed W. H. Hatton, payable to M. H. Whittaker. 5857 441 Letter from M. H. Whittaker acknowledging check. 5857 442 Bill of Whittaker to Powell for $13.85. 5858 443 Bill of Henry Heine, M. H. Whittaker, and George F. McDonough, for $32.40, to W. W. Powell. VOLUME VIII. 5918 444 Receipted bill produced by G. B. Hudnall. 5938 445 Letter from Dr. J. J. McGovern to Henry Krumrey. 5940 446 Answer of Henry Krumrey to No. 445. 5946 447 Check to J. S. Craig for $82, signed by J. W. Stone. 5948 448 Check to J. T. Porter for $80.25, signed by J. W. Stone. 5949 449 Check to C. R. Fridley for $187.05, signed by J. W. Stone. 5990 450 Statement of P. J. Koehler. 6072 451 Letter to P. J. Koehler from W. C. Cowling. 6072 452 Statement of J. W. Stone. 6159 453 Statement of W. C. Haslam. 6186 454 Letter from W. C. Haslam to J. W. Stone, asking for leave of absence. 6215 455 Voucher of W. C. Haslam for February, 1908. 6218 456 Voucher of W. C. Haslam for May, 1908. 6233 457 Note for $1,000, Wisconsin National Building & Loan Association, signed by F. E. McGovern. 6234 458 Note, Marshall & Ilsley Bank, for $600, signed by F. E. McGovern. 6334 459-460 Letters from J. A. Stone to S. A. Towne. 6369 461a Telegram from Jas. Fenelon to T. F. Ramsey. 6370 461b Envelope containing No. 461a. 6371 462 Answer to 461a. 6464 463 Voucher of T. M. Purtell appears in record at page 7245. 6540 464 Affidavit of W. H. Hatton. 6565 465 Letter from Win. M. Perry to S. A. Cook. 6626 466 Stub of check dated 8/31, signed Thos. Morris. 6641 467 Dodger sent out by Thos. Morris in behalf of W. H. Hatton. 6643 468 Check of Thos. Morris to F. Geisenheimer for $5. VOLUME IX. 6838 469 6981 470 6898 471 6917 472 6976 473 7167 474 Stub of check to A. I. Hulbert from E. A. Edmonds. Voucher of Frank Brown. Poll list produced by Geo. Beyers. Stub of check to D. J. O’Connor from E. A. Edmonds. Affidavits of Blewett, Swett, Morse, Piggott, and DeSteese, of Fond du Lac. Resolution introduced by Mr. Ingalls providing for the taking of depositions before the committee. The Chairman. What have you now in addition to these two exhibits ? Mr. Essmann. I have prepared here an index to the names of the individuals. The Chairman. We will mark that Exhibit 3 in connection with your testimony. 812 WILLIAM L. ESSMANN, (The index of the names of the individuals was marked Exhibit 3 and is in words and figures as follows:) Ay 1 ward, Jno Ames, A. R Brady, C. E Bray resolution Blewett Blaine, J. J Courier Printing House DeSleese Dresser, L. B Directory Eckern Epline Fenelon, James Game wardens Griffith, Thos. J Hambright, C. M Haslam, W. C Jewish Courier Kuryur Publishing Co. Miller, J. C Morse 119 110 112 48 473 74-76 71 473 104, 105, 102, 103 60 84,85,86 84, 85, 86 461-A-B 106 68 117 453-4 69 67 109 473 Norden Tribune 72 O’Connor, D. J., check stub. ... 472 Piggott 473 Peterson, J. P 98 Pjrrin, S. L 107 Puelicher. J. H 61 Russel, C. H Ill Ramsey, T. F 461-A-B Rasmussen Publishing Co 73 Swett 473 Sacket, R 44-47 Stone, J. A 74-83, 459, 460, 454 Stone, J. W 447-8-9 Stephenson, Senator 1-25 Superior Tidende 70 Tilton, Jno., letter 119 Tilton, Lester, affidavit 120 Usher, Ellis B 63-4-6 Van Cleve, J 80-81 Way land, C. C 11&-116 Wellensgard, C. C 62 The Chairman. Have you there now all of the exhibits referred to in Exhibit 2 ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Will you leave them with the clerk of the com- mittee? They will be accounted for and returned to you as public documents when the committee has had proper copies made of them. Mr. Essmann. I will leave the key with Mr. Smith. The Chairman. Yes. (Mr. Essmann handed the trunk key to the secretary of the com- mittee.) Mr. Essmann. I have here also a resolution fixing the penalty imposed on E. A. Edmonds, adjudged in contempt of the senate. It was not indexed, and no record was made of it in any way; but it was found in the box. The Chairman. The committee will need that document. It belongs to the Senate. Mr. Essmann. I have here also the expense account of Mr. Wheeler, with checks, which is not marked in the exhibits. The Chairman. Is it enumerated upon your list ? Mr. Essmann. Not at all. The Chairman. It will be marked “ Exhibit 4,” and it will be properly catalogued by the clerk of the committee. (The Wheeler expense account was marked “ Exhibit 4.”) Mr. Essmann. I have here also the “ Report of the Senatorial Com- mittee on Investigation/ ’ which is not marked. The Chairman. That may be marked “Exhibit 5.” (The report of the senatorial committee on investigation was marked “Exhibit 5,” and is in words and figures as follows:) Report op Senatorial Committee on Investigation. To the honorable the Senate of the State of Wisconsin : The senatorial investigating committee beg leave to report the following resolution unanimously adopted by said committee this 19th day of May, 1909, with the recom- mendations therein contained : RESOLUTION. Whereas the work of the joint committee appointed by the two houses of the legis- lature to investigate the recent senatorial primary campaign was delayed and bin- WILLIAM L. ESSMANN. 813 dered by those members of the committee who were opposed to a thorough investiga- tion of said primary, and who voted for Isaac Stephenson for United States Senator on every ballot while they were investigating him, including the ballot on which he was elected ; and Whereas this committee subsequently appointed by the senate to investigate said senatorial primary and the election of Senator Stephenson by the legislature to the United States Senate has been unable to secure the attendance of several witnesses, notably — Senator Stephenson himself, who was excused temporarily under promise on his part to return at any time upon request, but who now refuses to return and testify, and who is in Washington, D. C., beyond the reach of a subpoena; Rodney A. Sackett, who was also excused upon the same agreement, and who is now in Washington, D. C., beyond the reach of a subpoena, and refuses to return and testify; Arthur Lambeck, who was one of the Stephenson managers, and who is also in Wash- ington beyond the reach of a subpoena; J. H. Puelicher, of Milwaukee, who appeared before the joint committee, and after having testified in part was excused by the committee upon his urgent request to be permitted to visit his sick father in Chicago, and who shortly thereafter, without returning to Madison and without notice to the committee, left for Europe, where he has since been and now is beyond the reach of a subpoena, as the committee is informed and believes; Robert Shields, of Superior, Wis., whom the committee is informed visited Senator Stephenson in the city of Washington, D. C., after the beginning of the investigation and returned just prior to the election of Isaac Stephenson and acted as the agent of said Stephenson in his candidacy for United States Senator during the primary cam- paign and supported him before the legislature, and who has since left the State of Wisconsin, and for whom a subpoena was issued which has been returned to the com- mittee unserved, the sheriff of Douglas County reporting to the committee as a reason for his not being able to serve such subpoena that said Shields does not return nearer to his home at Superior than the city of Duluth, which is beyond the reach of a sub- poena of this committee; Henry Hetting, of St. Croix Falls, Wis., who is now in Winnipeg. Canada, and who, the evidence shows, received a large sum of "Stephenson campaign money from the president of the State board of control, and who acted as a campaign manager and disburser for Senator Stephenson during the primary campaign; L. W. Thayer, of Ripon, Wis., who also received a large amount of Stephenson cam- paign money, and acted as his campaign manager during the primary campaign, and who has been and now is, as the committee is informed and believes* in Arizona ever since this committee was appointed; Whereas subpoenas have been issued for Assemblyman Thomas Ramsey, Joseph T. Farrell, Silas A. Towne, Lawrence Ledvina, William Reader, J. E. Thomas, L. H. Bancroft, and Frank Smith, upon some of whom subpoenas have been duly served, and whose testimony is necessary in order to enable the committee to make the full and complete investigation which they have been instructed to make; and Whereas the assemblymen above named upon whom subpoenas have been served have claimed to be privileged as members of the legislature and have refused to appear and testify; and Whereas a resolution has been adopted by the assembly indicating that all of the assemblymen who have been or may hereafter be subpoenaed will claim such privi- lege and refuse to testify; and Whereas said privilege, if it exists, will continue during the balance of this legis- lative session and for 15 days thereafter; Now, to the end that the committee may be continued beyond this session of the legislature and that the committee may be invested with the power and authority to subpoena and examine witnesses after the close of the present session of the legis- lature, up to and including the special session if necessary: Now therefore be it Resolved, That the facts as aforesaid be reported to the senate for its action in the premises with the recommendation that the powers of said committee be so extended and that said committee be authorized to make and file its final report with the legis- lature at its next special session, or at any time prior to said special session if sooner completed, with the governor. Mr. Essmann. I have here a whole box of receipts and bills of the Stephenson campaign, which is not marked. The Chairman. Have they been arranged in order and classified? 814 WILLTAM L. ESSMANN. Mr. Essmann. No; I have gone through them, and they are just simply receipts of bills that were paid. They were not marked as exhibits in the original investigation, and I did not mark them. The Chairman. They will be left with the clerk of the committee, and will be classified. They are not to be taken out of the possesssion of the clerk of the committee until after they have been arranged. Mr. Essmann, you testified in this case on a former occasion, did you not? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In regard to the facts, or your knowledge of the facts relative to the campaign. Did you support Senator Stephenson in his campaign for the Senate ? Mr. Essmann. No, sir. The Chairman. Whom did you support? Mr. Essmann. I managed the campaign of Francis E. McGovern. The Chairman. Yes; that the record seems to show. This com- mittee is not investigating the campaign of Mr. McGovern. You are excused for the present, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, if the chairman please; I take it, Mr. Essmann, that you have made a careful search of this box for all papers that have any relation to the Stephenson inquiry ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. It seems that a letter from one J. A. Stone to J. J. Blaine was handed by Mr. Blaine to Mr. Marsh, the chairman of that investigating committee, since which time no one has seen it. Did you find any letter like that in your search ? Mr. Essmann. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You know the letter, I suppose? Mr. Essmann. I would know it; yes, sir. I am familiar with the proceedings. Mr. Littlefield. Have you seen the letter from Mr. J. A. Stone to J. J. Blaine since the meetings of the committee? Mr. Essmann. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Apparently a great many of these papers which were handed to the committee were not marked as exhibits. That is true, is it not ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is, in the papers that you produce here there are a large number of papers that did not seem to be marked by the committee as exhibits, and were not, therefore, formally referred to in that investigation. I am correct about that, am I? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the box that you have there, holding a lot of bills, is an illustration of papers of that kind? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I understand there are no such papers outside of the box? Mr. Littlefield. No. I am simply developing the fact that the committee had a lot of material put in their hands that they did not identify and did not mark, and there is no way of tracing it. That is true; is it not? The Chairman. He has classified the papers by putting them in a box by themselves. WILLIAM L. ESSMANN. 815 Mr. Littlefield. Yes; certainly. Did you carefully examine all the papers in this box with reference to whether or not this letter of Mr. Blaine was there ? I do not know that your attention was called to that. Mr. Essmann. There are several letters here from Mr. Blaine. Mr. Littlefield. But no letter to Mr. Blaine from Mr. Stone ? Mr. Essmann. From J. A. Stone? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Essmann. I think that letter is here. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, it is ? Will you be kind enough to show it to me ? The Chairman. Is it enumerated among the exhibits ? Mr. Littlefield. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. You are referring to the letter a part of which was introduced the other day ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; that is it exactly. What I want to get at is the date of it. There is nothing in the proceedings thus far to show the date. All that appears in the proceedings thus far is an excerpt from the letter, minus the date. Senator Pomerene. Is it your claim that there is anything further in the letter that should be in evidence? Mr. Littlefield. I do not know. I want to see the whole letter. I do not know what the context shows. The Chairman. I should like to suggest that the witness has testi- fied that everything outside of that box is enumerated in the schedule that he has given us, and we will find it there. Mr. Littlefield. If that is the fact, very well. I simply wanted to develop the fact whether it was or was not here. The Chairman. We will have the box carefully investigated. Mr. Essmann. Here is a letter [producing it]. Mr. Littlefield. This is Exhibit 74. That is not it. What I want is the original. Mr. Essmann. That is the only thing that is here. Mr. Littlefield. The only paper you find is a copy ? Mr. Essmann. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. So that the original of this letter, although handed to the chairman of the committee, apparently did not come into your possession ? Mr. Essmann. All I have is there produced. The Chairman. The witness testified that he made a copy of certain parts of the letter, and handed it to the chairman. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Then he afterwards testified, on my ex- amination, that he delivered the original to the chairman of the com- mittee; and the original is what I want to see. The Chairman. We may find that in the box. Mr. Littlefield. The witness says it is not in the box. The Chairman. This witness does not know T what is in that box. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, you mean in this box with the receipts ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Is there anything in the box but receipt^ ? Mr. Essmann. I do not know. I know there are receipts in there. I have not examined it. Mr. Littlefield. You have not examined the contents of the box in detail ? 816 WILLIAM L. ESSMANN. Mr. Essmann. I think there is nothing there but receipts from Mr. Puelicher, Mr. Sacket, and Mr. Knell. Mr. Littlefield. You have not gone in detail over the papers in the box? Mr. Essmann. I do not think you will find any letters in the box. Mr. Littlefield. We can see about that, of course. But so far as you know there is not any letter there ? Mr. Essmann. So far as I know there are not any letters there. Mr. Littlefield. I should now like to see what information we €an get about the principal exhibit in this case. See if I have the identity right: The proceedings of the committee show Exhibit 49, and an immense amount of time has been spent in this hearing on Exhibit 49; and it is described here on page 588 as “Edmonds’ expense account. ” I should like to have that exhibit. Mr. Essmann. Exhibit 49 ? Mr. Littlefield. I think that is one that you are not able to find. Mr. Essmann. No, sir; that is not here. Mr. Littlefield. Do you have any knowledge of this principal exhibit in the case? Mr. Essmann. No, sir; I do not know anything about that. Mr. Littlefield. Can you give the committee or give me any information that would enable me to find out where that original exhibit now is? Mr. Essmann. Unless you should get it from the members of the joint committee or the secretary. Mr. Littlefield. As I understand it, you have already been in telephonic communication with Chairman Marsh ? Mr. Essmann. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And he has no knowledge on the subject except that his recollection is that two boxes were left, substantially, I suppose, in the custody of the superintendent ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know that you were the superintendent at that time. Were you? Mr. Essmann. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. So that you simply succeeded some other gentle- man who held the office ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you have taken whatever you found in his hands ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is the only suggestion you can give us as to ascertaining the whereabouts of that original exhibit ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you examine the other trunk with such care that you feel able to confidently state that this letter from Mr. Stone to Mr. Blaine is not to be found in it ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You feel very certain of that? Mr. Essmann. It is not there. Mr. Littlefield. That is, we can rest upon that ? Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And we can also rest upon the fact that Exhibit 49 is not in that trunk? D. J. O’CONNOR. 817 Mr. Essmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all except that Mr. Riordan wanted to know if you found his statement. Mr. Essmann. It was not in the box. (The names of D. J. O’Connor and George Beyers were called. Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Beyers responded to their names, and the oath was administered to them by the Chairman.) D. J. O’CoNnon, haying been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. You are a practicing physician, are you? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How long have you been such practicing physician ? Mr. O’Connor. About 15 years. ^ 11 reside ? e you resided there ? Mr. O’Connor. Five years last February. The Chairman. Did you take any part in the senatorial primary contest during the year 1908, at which Senator Stephenson was a candidate for nomination? Mr. O’Connor. I did. The Chairman. What part did you take ? Mr. O’Connor. I do not know how I can answer that without going into The Chairman. What did you do ? Mr. O’Connor. I made a canvass of our county, Outagamie County. The Chairman. Did you enter into an arrangement with Mr. Edmonds as Senator Stephenson’s representative by which you were to take part in the campaign in that county in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When did you make that arrangement ? Mr. O’Connor. Six or seven weeks before the primary. The Chairman. Where did you make it ? Mr. O’Connor. In Milwaukee. The Chairman. Did you come to Milwaukee for the purpose of making such an arrangement ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; but I received a letter from Mr. Edmonds previous to my visit. The Chairman. Pursuant to that letter you came to Milwaukee. What arrangement did you make with Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. O’Connor. I was to go around the county and visit the dif- ferent people there throughout the country, interest them in Mr. Stephenson’s campaign, and put up some of his literature, if it was not already put up. The Chairman. Were you to expend any money on behalf of Senator Stephenson in doing the things that you mention ? Mr. O’Connor. In the first arrangement I was to have $500. After I returned home I received a letter from Mr. Edmonds to “call the deal off,” as he expressed it. 15235 °— VOL 1—11 52 TESTIMONY OF D. J. O’CONNOR. 818 D. J. O'CONNOR. The Chairman. Then you did not receive the $500 ? Mr. O'Connor. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you afterwards renew the arrangement through Mr. Way land ? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Wayland was representing Senator Stephenson or Mr. Edmonds ; was he ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It was so stated to you ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What arrangements did you make with Mr. Way- land ? Mr. O'Connor. He told me to continue to do what I could for Mr. Stephenson’s election, and when I got through he would pay me what money was expended. The Chairman. That was C. C. Wayland, was it? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You know him personally ? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How long have you known him ? Mr. O’Connor. About four years, I think; since he first came to Appleton. The Chairman. Is he the witness who testified before this sub- committee, or were you not present when he testified ? Mr. O’Connor. I was not present. I met him here, though. The Chairman. What arrangement did you make with Mr. Way- land with reference to payment for your services ? Mr. O’Connor. He told me that when I got through, any money I expended, he would see that it was paid back. The Chairman. Did you, pursuant to that arrangement with Mr. Wayland, receive any money from the Stephenson campaign fund ? Mr. O’Connor. Some time after the primary I received three hun- dred and seven dollars and some cents. The Chairman. $307.30 ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is the amount stated in your former testi- mony. Before receiving this sum of $307.30, had you expended money out of your own pocket on account of Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much had you expended ? Mr. O’Connor. That sum. The Chairman. You rendered an account, and the account was paid ? Is that true ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you make out that account yourself ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was it in typewriting, or did you write it out? Mr. O’Connor. I think it was written out with a pencil on a pad. The Chairman. Where is it ? Mr. O’Connor. I brought it up to Mr. Wayland’s office, and he asked me what the amount was. I told him, and I had down there what it was for. D. J. O'CONNOR. 819 The Chairman. You had the statement, and he paid you on the statement that you rendered in writing ? Is that right ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. I received the payment several days afterwards. He said he would take it up with Mr. Edmonds, and I would get paid. The Chairman. But the payment was based upon the statement in writing which you rendered of the expenses which you had incurred ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you know where that statement is ? Mr. O’Connor. I do not. The Chairman. You left the statement with Wayland? Mr. O’Connor. It was a statement or memorandum. I do not even remember whether or not I left it there. The Chairman. You do not? Mr. O’Connor. No; I do not. I took it to his office, though. The Chairman. Can you remember the items of expense which you had incurred, as set out in that statement ? Mr. O’Connor. I can remember that they were cigars and liquor and automobile hire and moneys expended on an auto trip through- out the county. The Chairman. When you testified before the joint committee, did you have the memorandum that you had used in settling with Wayland ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. The Chairman. You gave items before that committee. Did you give them from your memory ? Mr. O’Connor. So.ne of them; yes, sir — in fact, all of them. The Chairman. I have before me your testimony given on that occasion. I have also a memorandum made by the witness which I think he is entitled to, inasmuch as he made it, to refresh his memory. [The Chairman handed the memorandum to the witness.] Will you now give us the items of expenditure made by you on behalf of Senator Stephenson ? Just give us the items in the order that you have them there. Mr. O’Connor. There was one cigar bill of $52 or $62. The Chairman. What is it in the statement that you have ? Mr. O’Connor. This is the statement here. One bill of cigars, if I remember correctly, was $52 or $62. The Chairman. When did you purchase those ? Mr. O’Connor. Immediately after returning from Milwaukee, be- fore receiving the letter I referred to. The Chairman. In what month ? Mr. O’Connor. I think it was the latter part of July. The Chairman. What did you do with those cigars ? Mr. O’Connor. I had some in the office, and I gave them around to different fellows. The Chairman. What do you mean by the “ different fellows?” Who were these people to whom you gave the cigars ? Mr. O’Connor. Why, just as I met the men. The Chairman. Were they electors in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir; they were all men in that county. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give these cigars ? Just tell us the conditions or circumstances under which you did it. 820 D. J. O’CONNOR. Mr. O’Connor. I just asked them to have a cigar, and handed it to them; or I asked them if they would have a cigar, if they were up at the office, and had a box there. The Chairman. Were these distributed in ymir office ? Mr. O’Connor. Some of them; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you accompany this act of giving them cigars with any conversation on behalf of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. O’Connor. I do not recall any instance, though I might have. The Chairman. Did you tell them why you were giving them cigars ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; I do not think so. The Chairman. How many cigars did you get for $62 ? Mr. O’Connor. I think there were about a thousand cigars, and I returned a few of them afterwards — I do not know how many ; about 350, I think, or 400. The Chairman. To whom did you return them ? Mr. O’Connor. To the person I bought them from — to the drug store. The Chairman. Can you tell how many you returned ? Mr. O’Connor. Either 350 or 450. The Chairman. Of the thousand ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say that you spent about twenty or thirty or forty or fifty dollars before you made the arrangement with Mr. Way- land on the strength of your tentative arrangement with Mr. Edmonds? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you expend that for ? Mr. O’Connor. I think it was for those cigars. The Chairman. No ; it is a separate item. The cigars follow. On page 4406 of the testimony you say, in accounting for this money, that you went on this trip in the interest of Senator Stephenson. You were asked how many days you were in making the trip and you said just one day, in an automobile. You were asked whether that was the only time that you were out of town on Mr. Stephenson’s campaign, and you said : A. No; I went out to Horton ville one Sunday; went out on the train. Q. How much, about, was that whiskey bill? — A. Oh, I don’t remember. Q. Were they bottles or gallons? — A. I don’t remember. I might be able to get the bill of that. Q. Can you approximate it? Do you know about how much it was? — A. No; I couldn’t. Q. Whether it was $20, or thirty or forty or fifty? — A. Maybe it was $20; I don’t know. Did you so testify ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was that true? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say you paid $15 for the automobile. Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We come now to the $62 item for cigars. The question is: Q. That bill for cigars was included in the $62 bill, wasn’t it? — A. I don’t know; there was two or three bills. Q. Did you have more than $62 worth of cigars in the campaign? — A. Yes; there was some returned after I got through ; and I bought some at the Sherman House, and some at Woelze Bros., and some at Camps & Sackstetter’s. Is that correct ? 821 D. J. O'CONNOR. Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then you were asked if that was the only large bill of cigars that you bought — that $62 bill. You say: A. Yes, sir. Q. That was a thousand? — A. Something like that. Then we come down to subsequent testimony, on page 4407. The question is: Q. That day at Hortonville, and this day out in the automobile, were practically the only days you spent away from Appleton? — A. Yes; sir. Q. Where was the rest of the money expended? — A. It was expended on this trip. Q. Three hundred and seven dollars? — A. Whatever it was. Q. On that one-day trip? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you pay any money to any persons? — A. No, sir. Is that correct? Mr. O’Connor. Except the $15 for the automobile hire; that is all. The Chairman. I have passed the $15 item. Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; I did not pay any money to anyone — no, sir. The Chairman. Did you testify as I have read from the record? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is that true ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You are asked the question: Q. Did you pay any money to any persons? You say: A. No, sir. That is what you have just said. Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is true, is it ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading): Q. Then in what manner was this amount of money expended in two days, $300, less — you have here about $100; that would leave about $207. Did you spend that all in two days? — A. Yes, whatever the difference was. There is a good many saloons up there, and road houses. Did you so testify? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is that true ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading): Q. Did you attend the picnic? — A. I was at their picnic, but didn’t spend any money up there. Is that true? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading) : Q. So you expended $200 in one day? — A. I don’t know whether it was two hun- dred, or what it was. The difference from those cigars. That is correct, is it? You so testify now? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 822 D. J. O’CONNOR. The Chairman (reading) : Q. Can you name any place where you spent any considerable amount? — A. No, sir; some places a dollar, and $2, and some places 50 cents; just as it happened to be, the number of people there, and the number of saloons in those little villages. Do you so testify now ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman, (reading): Q. Did you make any speeches, or talks? — A. No, sir; I am not a politician. Q. What did you say when you “set them up”? — A. Why, I was given to under- stand that Mr. Stephenson’s lithographs were already distributed throughout the county, and in these places I didn’t find any; and I asked if they had any objection to me putting those up back of the bar, and no one refused; and I would buy a drink, and sometimes I bought two or three drinks, if there was a crowd in there. Did you so testify? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That is true, is it ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading): Q. You kept no track of it. How could you present a bill to Mr. Wayland? Was that just an estimate of what you spent? — A. No. I think there was $135 cash I had in my pocket, without the automobile, which was $15. I think it was $150 I had that day when I left the office. - Is that correct ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading) : Q. And you spent all that in one day? — A. Yes, sir. Is that correct ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading) : Q. On this automobile trip? — A. Yes, sir. Q. That was $150? — A. Whatever it was; something like that; yes. Is that correct ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were asked by a member of the committee: Q. Who was with you on that trip? — A. This automobile driver, a fellow by the name of Van Nistleroy. Is that right? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading): Q. Did you campaign at all with Senator Lehr? — A. No. Q. Did you support him? — A. No, sir. Q. Who did he stand for; for what senatorial candidate? — A. I don’t know. The Chairman. What candidate did you stand for on that trip ? Mr. O’Connor. Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Did you stand for Mr. Stephenson because you had received this money from Mr. Wayland? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. The Chairman. Had you supported Senator Stephenson before ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When ? Mr. O’Connor. I had always known Mr. Stephenson’s family. My father used to lumber in the same community with Mr. Stephen- D. j. o'connor. 823 son a good many years ago, and 1 had always heard him spoken of in very friendly terms. The Chairman. Would you have supported Mr. Stephenson in the absence of any arrangement with Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Wayland? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were asked the question: Q. Now, I have got it here: $97 for whiskey, cigars, and auto, as you have stated it? — A. That $62 was cigars at one store. That is correct, is it ? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman (reading) : Q. Now, can’t you tell us how much you invested in cigars altogether, so we can get some idea of how much money you expended that afternoon? — A. I think there was about fifty some odd dollars at the Sherman House. Where was the Sherman House ? Mr. O'Connor. The Sherman House was a hotel at Appleton. The Chairman. How did you spend that money at the Sherman House ? Mr. O'Connor. I got some cigars there at the Sherman House. The Chairman. Some cigars in addition to this $62 worth of cigars ? Mr. O'Connor. Yes, sir; there were some cigars bought at the Sherman House. The Chairman. Did you get $50 worth of cigars at the Sherman House? You say here you think you spent fifty some odd dollars at the Sherman House. Mr. O’Connor. There were some cigars and liquor bought there; yes, sir. The Chairman. How much liquor did you buy there ? Mr. O’Connor. I do not remember. The Chairman. What kind of liquor did you buy ? Mr. O'Connor. It was just treating, as I would go in there and find somebody in there. The Chairman. Was it beer, or whisky, or wine? Mr. O’Connor. I suppose they drank beer and whisky both. The Chairman. Who were these people that drank on that occa- sion with you ? Mr. O'Connor. Town people, residents. The Chairman. Did you invite them in to drink ? Mr. O'Connor. I might have, sometimes. The Chairman. Did you find people in the barroom when you went there upon whom you spent $50 ? Mr. O'Connor. I might have invited some of them if they were standing in there; yes, sir. The Chairman. How many drinks could you buv for $50 at that bar? Mr. O’Connor. It would depend upon Mr. Littlefield. I think the chairman misunderstands. I under- stood Mr. O’Connor to say he bought cigars and drinks for the $50. The Chairman. I am asking him how many drinks of whisky he could buy for $50. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose that is a proper abstract proposition. The Chairman. Oh, yes. 824 D. J. O'CONNOR. Mr. O’Connor. It would depend upon what they drank. The Chairman. I want to get at about the number of people you were treating there. Were there 100 people whom you treated on that occasion? Mr. O’Connor. At different times ? The Chairman. No; during that one afternoon in the Sherman House, where you say you spent about fifty some odd dollars. Mr. O’Connor. That was not on any one afternoon. That was during the time of this primary. The Chairman. But the question was: Q. Now, can’t you tell us how much you invested in cigars altogether, so we can get some idea of how much money you expended that afternoon? — Referring to the afternoon that you were there. Mr. O’Connor. The afternoon that I was on this auto trip, the money expended in the Sherman House was for a supper for this auto driver and myself. That is the only money that was spent in there that day not mentioned in here. The Chairman. What explanation have you to make of your tes- timony there, when you say — I thin there was about fifty some odd dollars at the Sherman House. That is what you said when you were accounting for your expendi- tures. Mr. O’Connor. That was money expended during the time of this primary, from day to day as I would happen in there. The Chairman. Is the Sherman House in the city where you live? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. All right. You say further: I don’t remember how much at Woelze Bros.’; somewhere around $50; something like that; I don’t know. Was that also scattered along during the campaign? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. That is a drug store. The Chairman. You have said above that during the time of this trip, from about noon until about half past 10 or 11 o’clock at night, you spent the balance of the $307 after deducting the cigars. Is that true ? Mr. O’Connor. What is that question again, please ? The Chairman. In answer to a question as to how long this trip upon which you went lasted, you said : A. From about noon until half past 10 or 11 o’clock at night. Then the question was asked: Q. During that time you say you spent the balance of the $307? — A. The difference in those cigars and whisky; yes, sir. Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You spent the balance of the $307 in one afternoon and night, then ? Is that true ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then comes this question: Q. You can’t make it any more definite than you have made it now? — A. No, sir. I knew how much cash I had, about. I think it was $150 cash. Q. Now, I have got it here, $97 for whisky, cigars, and auto, as you have stated it. — A. That $62 was cigars at one store. D. J. O’ CONNOR. 825 Q. Now, can’t you tell us how much you invested in cigars altogether, so we can get some idea of how much money you expended that afternoon? — A. I think there was about fifty some odd dollars at the Sherman House. I don’t remember how much at Woelze Bros.’; somewhere around $50; something like that; I don’t know. Are you not referring to your expenditures in that one afternoon ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. The Chairman. The question was as to how much you had ex- pended that afternoon. Mr. O’Connor. When I was before that committee The Chairman. I will read a little further. Mr. Littlefield. He was going to say something about “when he was before the committee. ” I do not know what he was going to say. Mr. O’Connor. When I was before that committee, I understood them to ask me what money was expended on this afternoon, and ar little further in the testimony I testified to what cash I had in my pocket unexpended. But this money spent at the Sherman House and at Woelze Bros.’ drug store was money that was expended during the entire course of the primary campaign. The Chairman. We will proceed a little further: Q. At the Sherman House? — A. At Woelze Bros.’. That is referring to the last item of $50. Q. You think about $50? — A. Yes, sir. Q. For cigars also? — A. Cigars, and some whisky there, too. Q. That would include the $20 for whisky you have already testified to? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you recollect that you had $150 in your pocket when you left Appleton? — A. Something like that; I wouldn’t be positive. Q. And spent it all that afternoon? — A. Yes, sir. Is it true that you spent $150 that afternoon? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For drinks and cigars? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In treating men in the saloon at the Sherman House and in Woelze Bros.’ ? Is that correct? Mr. O’Connor. No; this afternoon that I testified to was this trip throughout the countjq where I was riding in the county some 150 or 160 miles. I spent that afternoon. The Chairman. Is that all the connection you had with the Stephenson campaign? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You received that money on an account rendered by you. In what manner did you receive it? Mr. O’Connor. I do not know whether it was a check or a draft. It was left at my office during my absence. The Chairman. From whom did you receive it? Mr. O’Connor. I think Mr. Edmonds signed the check. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds signed the check? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir; I think it was. The Chairman. You may tell why the $500 agreement was can- celed . Mr. O’Connor. Why it was? The Chairman. Why was that agreement canceled? Mr. O’Connor. I do not know. 826 D. J. O'CONNOR. The Chairman. Did you ever talk to Mr. Edmonds about it? Mr. O’Connor. No. I did not see Mr. Edmonds again until three or four weeks afterwards, and I never mentioned it to him, and he did not mention it to me afterwards. Mr. Edmonds asked me the day I was there what I thought it would cost to go over this county and make a thorough campaign and talk on that line. The Chairman. And you told him $500 ? Mr. O’Connor. No; I told him a great deal more than that. He thought $500 would be about enough to spend up there, with what they were going to spend through Mr. Wayland. The Chairman. Did you undertake to organize that place and make a campaign for $500 ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. What did you agree with Mr. Edmonds that you would do ? Mr. O’Connor. He limited me to that amount, and I said I would do what I could with it. The Chairman. And you spent it in one day, did you, or two days ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; I spent about $135 that day, and the rest I spent during this time, during the primary campaign — I do not know how many weeks it was ; four or five weeks, or whatever time it was. Senator Sutherland. You say you are a practicing physician? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. In active practice ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Now ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And then ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. How long have you been practicing ? Mr. O’Connor. Since 1896. Senator Sutherland. Have you been in active practice all the time ? Mr. O’Connor. I was in the hospital for two or three years after that. Senator Sutherland. After this trip ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; before. Senator Sutherland. Before the trip ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you spend any of this $307 for any- thing except whisky and cigars and automobiles ? Mr. O’Connor. I bought a supper for myself and the driver that night. Senator Sutherland. Supper ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. For you and the driver? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. At night? Mr. O’Connor. About half past 7 or 8 o’clock. Senator Sutherland. That was after the trip was practically over ? Mr. O’Connor. I tliink it was. Senator Sutherland. What was it — a wine supper ? D. J. o’ CONNOR. 827 Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; it was a supper, I guess, that cost about SI. 60 for the two of us. Senator Sutherland. You spent $1.60 for food, as 1 understand you ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. That would leave $305.40 for whisky and cigars and automobiles ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do you think you spent a little too much for food ? Mr. O’Connor. No; I did not think anything about it. Senator Sutherland. You do not recall spending any of the money for anything else ? Mr. O’Connor. That is all it was spent for. Senator Sutherland. That is, you spent $305.40 for an auto- mobile and for whisky and cigars ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. And that was your notion of furthering the interests of Senator Stephenson in this campaign ; was it ? Mr. O’Connor. That is the way they make a campaign up in that territory. Senator Sutherland. That is the way you made it, at all events ? Mr. O’Connor. That is customary up there. Senator Sutherland. Just to get an automobile and go through the county on a big drunk? Is that the way they do ? Mr. O’Connor. No; I do not think anyone got drunk. I never drink anything at all myself. Senator Sutherland. How much would it take to make anybody drunk ? Mr. O’Connor. There are probably 150 saloons up through that county. Senator Sutherland. 150 saloons ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you not drink at all on the trip ? Mr. O’Connor. No; I never diink anything; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. You did not drink anything? Mr. O’Connor. I never do; no, sir. Senator Sutherland. Did you leave a lot of sober men in your train as you went through ? Mr. O’Connor. Two or three glasses of beer, it they drank it in a country saloon, would not seem to make anyone drunk. Senator Sutherland. You spent $135, all except $1.60 for food, on intoxicating liquors, and nobody was drunk? Mr. O’Connor. I did not see anyone. Senator Sutherland. You do not know why this first contract with Mi . Edmonds was broken ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; I do not. Senator Sutherland. It was broken the very next day? Mr. O’Connor. Well, I would not say; I think it was within a day or two that I got the letter. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. Just a moment, Doctor. As bearing upon the character of the trip that you took on this afternoon, will you not be kind enough to begin and state to the committee as nearly as you can 828 D. J. O'CONNOR. where you started from and where you went, and go right through the trip and state what you did — the places that you visited and what you did at each place, so far as you can remember ? My object is to have the committee understand just exactly the nature of the trip that you were engaged on and just what you did on it. Mr. O’Connor. I took a great many of Mr. Stephenson’s litho- graphs and pamphlets and cards into each road house or saloon or stopping place. I had been informed that this county had been well covered with his literature. When I got out there I did not find any of it. I inquired if they had any objections to putting any of this stuff up, and they did not; so I put up these different pieces of liter- ature, and distributed- them to the farmhouses that I rode past. It is customary in that community to buy a drink at each one or every one of those places; and every one of the county politicians were going around and had their cards at the same time, and they were doing the same thing. Mr. Littlefield. You say you would buy a drink. I want you to tell us just exactly what you did. You went into a saloon or road house and asked for the privilege of putting up the Senator’s liter- ature. Am I right about that ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. His lithographs, etc. Did you or did you not find the literature of the other distinguished gentlemen who were also running for the Senate more or less distributed in these same saloons ? Mr. O’Connor. It was all there, yes, sir; except Mr. Stephenson’s. Mr. Littlefield. Is it not a fact that the principal or only store or place of resort up there in that section is the saloon or road house that you speak of ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is it or not a fact that that is where you would expect to meet the people of the vicinity as they came in to visit or meet each other? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know what the fact is, but is that the fact ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir; that is the fact. Mr. Littlefield. Is the road house or saloon anything but a saloon ? Mr. O’Connor. That is all. Some of them have a store on one side and a saloon on the other. Some of them run a hotel and saloon. Mr. Littlefield. With reference to this question of treating; you would go into a saloon or road house and ask permission to put up the literature ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you or not, on those occasions, treat any- body? If so, who, how many, and to what? Mr. O’Connor. I would ask whoever was present to have a drink, and they drank whatever they wanted. Mr. Littlefield. What did you say? Mr. O’Connor. I asked anyone present to have a drink, and they would drink what they wanted. Mr. Littlefield. They would drink what? Mr. O’Connor. Some of them drank beer, some whisky; some cigars. D. j. o'connor. 829 Mr. Littlefield. On the average, how many people would you meet at these places ? Mr. O’Connor. From four or five up to ten or fifteen. In one place there were about twenty-five. Mr. Littlefield. How many of these saloons did you visit in the course of this automobile trip ? Mr. O’Connor. I should think about, may be, eighty or more. Mr. Littlefield. Not necessarily for the information of the committee, but in order that I may know so that later on I can use it, I will ask you what is the average cost of a drink? Mr. O’Connor. The farmers there get a five-cent drink of whisky or a ten-cent drink of whisky. They generally take a five-cent drink. An average treat would be anywhere from twenty-five cents up to a dollar and a half or a dollar. Mr. Littlefield. What did you spend, on the average, in each of these saloons, in this way and under these circumstances ? Mr. O’Connor. From 50 cents to about $2 in each saloon. Mr. Littlefield. And you say you visited something like eighty ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know what the truth about it is; but are there any other places up in that section where you can meet the people of the vicinity ? Do they gather anywhere else ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir; not in those crossroads, in small places. That is the only place — the saloon. Mr. Littlefield. And it was under these circumstances that you spent something like $135 or $150 ? Mr. O’Connor. About $135. Mr. Littlefield. About an average of $2 a saloon ? Mr. O’Connor. No; less than $2 in a saloon. I went to about eighty saloons. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; it would be less than $2 in a saloon. Did you, at any time during this primary campaign, pay any money or give any consideration to anyone for voting for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you use any money for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any voters ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. No one expended any money for you ? Mr. O’Connor. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And, as I understand you, whether it is a com- mendable practice or not, what was done by you on that occasion was what the representatives o*f all the other candidates were doing? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And in entire accord with the custom of the country, whether wise or unwise ? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Sutherland. I did not understand how long you were on this trip — how many hours. Mr. O’Connor. From sometime in the forenoon, between 10 or 11 o’clock, until about that time at night. Senator Sutherland. You were gone about 12 hours? Mr. O’Connor. Yes, sir. 830 HENRY OVERBECK. Senator Sutherland. How many miles did you cover ? Mr. O'Connor. Somewhere between 150 and 160 miles. Senator Sutherland. You were going pretty rapidly all the time, then, I take it — visiting 80 saloons in that time ? Mr. O’Connor. Somewhere, I think, about 80. Senator Sutherland. I say, you must have been going pretty rapidly. You did not spend much time in each place? Mr /O’ Connor. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. That is all. The Chairman. That is all, Mr. O’Connor. Call Mr. Overbeck. TESTIMONY OF HENRY OVERBECK. Henry Overbeck, having been heretofore duly sworn, was exam- ined and testified as follows: — The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Overbeck. I now reside at Sturgeon Bay, Wis. The Chairman. Where did you reside during the year 1908? Mr. Overbeck. In Milwaukee. The Chairman. In what business were you engaged at that time? Mr. Overbeck. The insurance business. The Chairman. In what business are you engaged now? Mr. Overbeck. The same business. The Chairman. Did you take part in the Senatorial campaign of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Overbeck. I did. The Chairman. Did you receive any money from Senator Stephen- son, or from anyone acting for him, to be used in his behalf in that campaign ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Overbeck. I think the exact amount was $771. The Chairman. Did you receive it in one payment? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. The Chairman. On August 28 did you receive $71.79? Mr. Overbeck. I can not give you the date. The Chairman. About that time ? Mr. Overbeck. That is, the 28th of August ? I must have received $71 before that. May I explain? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Overbeck. $71 was paid out by me before 1 received any money from Mr. Edmonds. I paid that out of my own funds. The Chairman. Had you received any money except $71.79 before the primary election ? Mr. Overbeck. Oh, yes. The Chairman . How much ? Mr. Overbeck. $771. The Chairman. You received $700 besides the $71.79? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. The Chairman. Do you remember when you received that $700 ? Mr. Overbeck. There was $100 received early in the campaign, and then I received $500. I would not even approximate the date. The Chairman. For what purpose did you receive this $700? HENRY OVERBECK. 831 Were you to have any salary for services you per- Mr. Overbeck. It was to be expended in Mr. Stephenson’s behalf in Kewaunee and Door Counties, and in paying my personal expenses. The Chairman. formed ? Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Just your expenses? That is all. Did you pay out any part of this $700 to others? Yes. To whom ? I paid $110 to John L. Haney, of Kewaunee. Who was he ? He was a manufacturer there. For what purpose did you pay him that money? To be used in hiring teams to bring people to the polls and to hire poll workers. The Chairman. What do you mean by “poll workers” ? Mr. Overbeck. It is for men to check up and see who go to the polls and to call their attention to voting for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. To whom else did you pay money ? I paid $100 to T. M. White. For what purpose ? The same purpose.. What other money did you pay out? To M. W. Perry. Who was Mr. White ? He is a partner in business with John L. Haney. Who is Mr. Perry ? He is also a partner in the same business. What is the business? Manufacturers of veneer. State any other amount that you paid out. I paid E. S. Miner, of Sturgeon Bay, $100. Who was he? He was then a candidate for Congress. Was he elected or nominated? No, sir. Mr. Littltfield. He was a former member ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him the $100? Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. For the same purpose. I suppose he was working for himself also ? He was working for himself. State any other sums that you paid out. I paid a man named Crandall between twenty and thirty dollars for distributing literature in Door County. The Chairman. The regular campaign literature that Senator Stephenson had prepared ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. I do not know the exact amount. That is between twenty and thirty dollars ? Yes. I sent a man named Jesson, on Washington The Chairman. Mr. Overbeck. Isle, $10. The Chairman. For what purpose ? 832 HENRI uVERBECK. Mr. Overbeck. To be used for the same purpose — looking after that polling place. The Chairman. Any other persons ? Mr. Overbeck. I hired three or four poll workers in Door County in different towns at different times; but the names I can not recall. The Chairman. How much did you pay them ? Mr. Overbeck. From three to five dollars apiece. The Chairman. To whom else did you pay money? Mr. Overbeck. I do not recall paying out any money to anyone else. If I paid out any to anyone else, I do not recall it. The Chairman. Any balance remaining you kept for your own expenses ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. The Chairman. Or compensation ? Mr. Overbeck. No compensation. It was all expended in expenses. The Chairman. You have accounted for a little over $400. That leaves nearly $300 yet to account for. Mr. Overbeck. That was used by me in paying my personal expenses in traveling in the eastern part of the State. The Chairman. Did you expend any of this money for the purpose of influencing the electors to vote for Senator Stephenson, to pay them or compensate them for doing so ? Mr. Overbeck. That is, for the purpose of voting for him? The Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. The Chairman. You had been a supporter of Senator Stephenson before ? Mr. Overbeck. Always. Senator Pomerene. Were you one of the game wardens or deputy game wardens ? Mr. Overbeck. I was formerly the State warden. Senator Pomerene. I mean at this time. Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You were not one of the deputies? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you pay any money or use any of the funds in your hands, as the representative of Senator Stephenson, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in the primary campaign ? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Mr. LittlefIeld. Was any money that was placed by you in the hands of these or other people to your knowledge used for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in the primary cam- paign ? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand you to say that the total sum of $771.79 that came into your hands was all disbursed in the manner in which you have described ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. To the parties you have mentioned, and a few whose names you are not able to remember ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the balance was for your own personal expenses ? HENRY OVERBECK. 833 Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Were you at work in the campaign under Mr. Edmonds during its whole progress from the 1st of July until the 1st of September? Mr. Overbeck. I do not recall the exact date. Mr. Littlefield. Were you at work during practically all of that time ? Mr. Overbeck. During the campaign; yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not during all of that time you were engaged in traveling all about the State Mr. Overbeck. I was in Milwaukee part of the time and part of the time throughout the eastern part of the State. Mr. Littlefield. Are we to understand that you were engaged all the time after you began ? Mr. Overbeck. Practically so ; yes, sir. - Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Pomerene. Did you have a talk with Roy Morse? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Senator Pomerene. He was one of the game wardens ? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or a deputy? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you make any arrangement with him to look after campaign work ? Mr. Overbeck. Partially; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What arrangement did you make with him ? Mr. Overbeck. I did not make the final arrangement. The arrangement was made with Mr. Edmonds. I merely selected him, and he came down here. Senator Pomerene. Where was he located ? Mr. Overbeck. At Fond du Lac. Senator Pomerene. You gave him no money? Mr. Overbeck. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have you state a little more fully, if you please, what these various gentlemen to whom you gave this money were to do with it. Senator Pomerene. That is, give the conversation — what they said to you and what you said to them. Mr. Littlefield. Precisely; the substance of it. That is what I want to know. Mr. Overbeck. I asked Mr. Haney and Mr. White and Mr. Perry to take charge of the work in Kewaunee County and organize that county for Senator Stephenson; to see that literature was distributed; to see that in the towns where it was necessary teams were hired to bring voters to the polls; and to see that men were at the polls to call people’s attention to the fact that they were voting for Senator Stephenson. They assented. There was no disagreement between the parties. Mr. Littlefield. Was any of that money to be used for the pur- pose of making a canvass — that is, for people going about and pre- senting the qualifications of the Senator and urging his claims? Mr. Overbeck. They were to do that. They were to look after that; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Those three gentlemen? 15235 °— vol 1—11 53 834 HENRY OVERBECK. Mr. Overbeck. Those three gentlemen were to look after the entire canvassing of Kewaunee County. Mr. Littlefield. What was the arrangement made with Mr. Miner? Was that substantially the same? Mr. Overbeck. Yes; it was the same. Senator Pomerene. What was he looking after — what territory ? Mr. Overbeck. In portions of Door County that he was visiting. Mr. Littlefield. Was that where Mr. Miner resided? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Was this the same campaign when Mr. Miner was a candidate for renomination to Congress against Mr. Kiister- mann ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And Mr. Kustermann defeated him in the primary ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Senator Pomerene. What wa he to do with this money? Give us your talk with Mr. Miner. Mr. Overbeck. As he made his canvass throughout the county, the agreement was to divide the expense. He was to hire the work- ers, and he was to pay part of it and we were to pay part of it. Mr. Littlefield. Was this Congressman Miner who at one time was chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries ? Mr. Overbeck. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. That is all. You are excused. (Whereupon, at 4.30 o’clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, October 13, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m.) FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1911. Federal Building, Milwaukee, Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The names of R. J. Shields and M. J. Cleary were called. Mr. Cleary responded to his name, and the oath was administered to him by the chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Cleary, where do you live ? Mr. Cleary. Blanchard ville, Wis. The Chairman. What is your occupation ? Mr. Cleary. I am a lawyer. The Chairman. Mr. Cleary, through some confusion you have been summoned in place of a man bearing your name who lives at Superior. You will therefore be excused. Mr. Cleary; Very well; thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The secretary then called the names of A. O. Heyer, William G. Wheeler, and H. D. Peterson. Mr. Heyer and Mr. Wheeler responded to their names, and the oath was administered to them by the chairman.) CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 835 Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, my office is in this city, but a few steps from this building. I should like to be permitted to go to my office and remain until summoned. The Chairman. You may leave your telephone number at the desk with the secretary. You will be excused, and he will call you when you are needed. Mr. Wheeler. Further, Mr. Chairman, at the time I gave my testimony before the legislative investigating committee I left with them certain data and records which have never been returned to me. I understand those records are now in the possession of this committee. I should like to be permitted to inspect them. The Chairman. You will not be permitted to inspect them at this time; but you may indicate to the secretary the character of the records, and he will make an examination and see whether or not they are among the records which are in his possession. Mr. Wheeler. I do not care to inspect them in advance of giving my testimony, but I should like to have them so that I can refer to them when I give my testimony. The Chairman. The committee will pass on that question when they are identified. The committee has entered into an arrangement with the officers of the State to the effect that it will return to them all of the papers which they have left with the committee. The committee is not in a position to deliver up any paper that it has received from the State. Mr. Littlefield. The papers that Mr. Wheeler has in mind have been already identified by Mr. Essmann. Mr. Wheeler does not ask to have them placed in his hands; he simply wants to see them to refresh his recollection when he is placed on the witness stand. Mr. Wheeler. Yes. The Chairman. If they are at hand, they will be furnished you at that time. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, Mr. Eppling wishes to present a request to the committee. Mr. F. J. Eppling. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ascertain about what time my testimony will be heard, as representatives of my church will be here to listen to my testimony. The Chairman. I will have the matter examined into and see the nature of your testimony, Mr. Eppling, and let you know as soon as possible. TESTIMONY OF CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Wellensgard, having been heretofore duly sworn, was exam- ined and testified as follows: — The Chairman. Mr. Wellensgard, where do you live ? Mr. Wellensgard. Berlin, Green Lake County, Wis. The Chairman. Were you a member of the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Wellensgard. I was. The Chairman. When were you elected ? Mr. Wellensgard. In the fall of 1906 . The Chairman. Were you a member during the session of 1909 ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. 836 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. And you were a candidate during the primaries of 1908 ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. Does your legislative district consist of more than one county? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. Are you now a member of the legislature ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. What is your occupation ? Mr. Wellensgard. I am running a pickle factory and am inter- ested in farms. The Chairman. Were you engaged in that business at the time of the primary campaign in 1908? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. Whom did you support for United States Senator ? For whom did you vote in the legislature ? Mr. Wellensgard. Isaac Stephenson. The Chairman. On all ballots ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. During the time that you were a candidate for nomination at the primary, did you receive any money from Isaac Stephenson as a contribution for campaign purposes ? Mr. Wellensgard. During the primary? The Chairman. During the primary canvass. Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. You say you did not? Mr. Wellensgard. After th% primary. The Chairman. You did not receive any during the primary? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. When did you receive it ? Mr. Wellensgard. Along about the 5th or 6th of September. The Chairman. How much did you receive ? Mr. Wellensgard. $250.80. The Chairman. That was the total amount of it ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you receive that money? Mr. Wellensgard. For getting parties to circulate his nomi- nation papers; for distributing and putting up advertising; for auto hire (one auto hire), liveries, and to get parties to get out to the polls. The Chairman. When did you expend the money ? Mr. Wellensgard. During August and September. I could not give the exact dates. The Chairman. Did you expend any in September ? Mr. Wellensgard. Hold on; excuse me — during July and August. The Chairman. July and August ? Mr. Wellensgard. July and August; yes, sir. The Chairman. You did not expend any of that money in September ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. When you received it, it had already been expended by you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you present a statement or an account to Senator Stephenson or to his campaign managers ? CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 837 Mr. Wellensgard. I did. The Chairman. Por money thus expended ? Mr. Wellensgard. I did, upon request. The Chairman. Upon request ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I find in the record of testimony taken before the joint committee, on page 911. a letter signed by you, addressed to Rodney Sackett, which I will read: Berlin, Wis., September 3, 1908. Mr. Rodney Sackett, Milwaukee, Wis. Dear Friend: Inclosed please find my bill against Stephenson. I wish you would please see that they get it. I haven’t put in anything for cigars or what little I spent. Please let me hear from you. I beat Hitchcock by 347 majority. Yours, truly, C. C. Wellensgard. Did you write that letter ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you write such a letter ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. Is that letter a forgery ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. It was written by my son, but it was not dictated by me, and I did not sign it. The Chairman. Did you see it ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. Did you know that it was being written? Mr. Wellensgard. My son was taking off this account as I gave it to him, and I said, “ Write him a letter,” and he did. I suppose this is the letter; yes, sir. The Chairman. You told him to write a letter on this subject? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Exhibit 62 is received in evidence, and is in words and figures as follows, to wit: Berlin, Wis., September 3, 1908. Stephenson Campaign Committee, Milwaukee, Wis. 1908. July 5. Livery to Princeton $3. 00 6. Livery to Markesan ’ 3. 00 Aug. 20. Livery at Markesan , 2. 00 21. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 22. Livery at Markesan 2. 50 23. Livery at Markesan 2.50 23. Livery at Berlin 2.50 24. Livery to different parts of county 2.50 28. Paid out to help G. Burlingame and 4 men 30. 00 28. Paid to C Rosebrook, town of St. Marie, and 4 men 25. 00 28. Paid Bill Anglem, town of Green Lake 5. 00 28. Paid W. Burdick, town of Green Lake 5. 00 28. Paid 0. Schrader and men at Markesan 30. 00 28. Paid W. Malena, town of Seneca 5. 00 Sept. 3. Paid M. Respo, city of Berlin 3. 00 3. Paid P. Kresal, city of Berlin L 00 3. Paid Aug. Waslinski, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Steve Greager, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Neighbor, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Weir, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid J. Briskie, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid F. Bartow, city of Berlin 5. 00 3. Paid Joe Gosh, city of Berlin 5. 00 838 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. ' 1908. Sept. 2. Telephone bill $2.80 2. Paid Mr. Rossa, city of Berlin 4. 00 2. Paid C. Kisnaska, city of Berlin 5. 00 2. Paid Jack Grotta 5. 00 2. Paid H. Wilde, town of Manchester 5. 00 2. Paid E. A. Umbrei»ht, town of Manchester 5. 00 2. Paid E. Vaughn, Kingston, and men 25. 00 2. Paid Wm. Crook, Ripon 5. 00 2. Paid Nels Sorrenson, Mackford 5. 00 2. Paid Herman Ebbentroff, Mackford 5. 00 2. For automobile election day 15. 00 2. Paid Wilson for help on machine 2. 50 2. Paid postage 4. 00 Total 250.80 (Endorsed:) Paid, 9/5/08. C. C. Wellensgard. Did you give your son these items ? Mr. Wellensgard. I did. The Chairman. You dictated them to him? Mr. Wellensgard. I gave him the items of the account, not dic- tating the letter. The Chairman. Yes; I refer to the account. At pa<*e 911 there are six items for livery: “July 5, livery to Princeton, S3.” Were you campaigning for yourself at that time, when you went to Princeton ? Mr. Wellensgard. May I refer to the statement I rendered, or a copy of it ? The Chairman. Yes; there is no objection to it. Mr. Wellensgard. What was the date? The Chairman. The date is July 5: “Livery to Princeton, $3.” Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you go to Princeton? Mr. Wellensgard. I went from Berlin to the town of Seneca to get a party to circulate Ike Stephenson’s petitions. The Chairman. Were you then a candidate for nomination for the legislature ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, not exactly. I had not announced myself as a candidate at that time. The Chairman. You had not? Mr. Wellensgard. No. The Chairman. When you say “announced yourself,” do you mean officially or informally ? Mr. Wellensgard. I came out in the newspaper and announced myself as a candidate. The Chairman. When ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think it was on the 16th or 17th of July. It was in one paper, if I remember right, on the 16th and in the other on the 17th. The Chairman. When you went to Princeton on July 5 did you go in your own interest at all ? Mr. Wellensgard. No. The Chairman. You went entirely in Senator Stephenson’s interest ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On July 6, the next day, you have an item of “livery to Markesan, $3.” CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 839 Mr. Wellensgard. .Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you go to Markesan for? Mr. Wellensgard. The same purpose. The Chairman. On August 20; that was after you had placed your announcement in the paper, was it ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On August 20 there is an item of “ Livery at Markesan, $2.” Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you go to Markesan? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not say exactly what purpose. The Chairman. What county is that in ? Mr. Wellensgard. That is m Green Lake County. The Chairman. Is that the county that you represent in the legis- lature ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. So that is a home town ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir; that is a home town. The Chairman. You do not live at Markesan ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. How did you get to Markesan ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think, if I remember right, I went to Ripon by train, and hired a team and went to Markesan. The Chairman. This says “ Livery at Markesan.” Mr. Wellensgard. After I got there I hired the teams there at a livery for several days and went out through the country. The Chairman. Yes; you seem to have had the livery on the 20th, the 21st, the 22d, and the 23d at Markesan. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then you were making trips out into the country ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At $2.50 a trip. On what business were you trav- eling on that occasion ? Mr. Wellensgard. If I remember right, I was traveling there to see about getting teams and parties out on the primary election day. The Chairman. For what purpose ? Mr. Wellensgard. And also getting advertisements put up. The Chairman. What kind of advertisements ? Mr. Wellensgard. Ike Stephenson. The Chairman. Did you put up your own advertisements at that time ? Mr. Wellensgard. I did not have any up. The Chairman. Were you out canvassing for yourself at that time ? Mr. Wellensgard. Your honor, I can not sav that I did, because I was out at that time and everybody knew that I was out for reelec- tion. The Chairman. And you were merely driving around through your own county ? Mr. Wellensgard. I was out to see different men and different workers in Markesan, Manchester, Kingston, Marquette, and Mack- ford. Those w T ere the towns that I went through at that time, as I remember. The Chairman. You were on a general campaigning tour in vour own interest and in the interest of Senator Stephenson, were you ? 840 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Wellensgard. No; not exactly at that particular time. The Chairman. That covers a period of five days. Mr. Wellensgard. The first day, I think, covered the time going to Markesan, and I think I went out in the afternoon or in the evening, toward evening, and saw one party. The balance was around in that neighborhood ; and the liveries I hired at Markesan, because I did not know that there were any liveries in the other towns. The Chairman. Were you a supporter of Senator Stephenson’s before this campaign ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you always been a supporter of Senator Stephenson’s ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. I never voted for any other Senator. Mr. Littlefield. Did you vote for him in 1907? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were you then a member of the legislature? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. May I ask him another question ? Had you known him a long while ? Mr. Wellensgard. Not personally. Mr. Littlefield. You had known of him? Mr. Wellensgard. I had known of him; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. For a long wdiile ? Mr. Wellensgard. Oh, probably for 20 years. I would not swear positively. Mr. Littlefield. Excuse me for breaking in. The Chairman. Passing the items for livery for the present, on the 28th you have an item, “Paid out to help G. Burlingame and four men, $30.” Mr. Wellensgard. I beg your pardon; that was not for livery. The Chairman. I say, passing the livery items for the present. Mr. Wellensgard. Oh, yes; yes. That was for w 7 ork that he did in putting up his circulars and advertisements and circulating Ike Stephenson’s petitions. The Chairman. Not his petitions. Mr. Wellensgard. Circulating his petitions. The Chairman. On August 28 ? Mr. Wellensgard. I w r ould not swear to these dates as absolutely correct. The Chairman. You know the petitions had to be filed by August 1. Mr. Wellensgard. This account never came into my account — my expenditures. The Chairman. Were these men employed to do anything in your behalf, or to help your candidacy ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I never paid them a cent. The Chairman. Do you know whether or not they supported you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not; only I believe they were friendly toward me. The (hi airman. Do you know wdiether they were Stephenson men before this $30 was paid, or the arrangement made to pay it? Mr. Wellensgard. This man Burlingame ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How t long had he been a Stephenson man? CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 841 Mr. Wellensgard. That I could not say. The C hairman. When did you ascertain that he was a Stephenson man? Mr. Wellensgard. I ascertained that from him at the time of it, or before this time when 1 had seen him. He had a brother that lived up in Stephenson’s town, you know — Marinette— in the cigar business; and he had been up there and seemed to know Mr. Stephen- son personally. The Chairman. About the four men that were employed: Were they Stephenson men ? Mr. Wellensgard. That I could not tell you. The Chairman. You do not know whether they voted for Stephen- son or not at the primary ; do you ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I do not know. The Chairman. Where is Mr. Burlingame? Mr. Wellensgard. He lives on a farm about 3 or 4 miles out of Ripon, in the town of Brookfield. The Chairman. How far is that from Milwaukee ? Mr. Wellensgard. About 68 miles. I would not say exactly. Mr. Littlefield. What is his post-office address ? Mr. Wellensgard. His post-office address is Ripon, I think. It is a rural route. Mr. Littlefield. A rural free delivery route? Mr. Wellensgard. Rural free delivery; yes, sir. The Chairman. It says here, “Paid out to help G. Burlingame and four men.” That would be five persons. Was the money divided equally between those five persons ? Mr. Wellensgard. That I do not know. The Chairman. You paid it all to Burlingame? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. He was to look after that town. The Chairman. Did you leave the selection of those four men to Mr. Burlingame? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And did he report to you whom he had selected ? Mr. Wellensgard. He gave me the names at the time, but I did not take their names down. The Chi airman. Can you tell us the name of any one of the four men ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think there was a fellow by the name of Frost. The Chairman. Do you know him ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. Was he a Stephenson man ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Before this arrangement was made with him ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you give us the name of any other one of the four men ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir ; and I do not know that this man was included with these four men. That Mr. Frost I had seen personally in Berlin. The Chairman. Did you pay him any money? Mr. Wellensgard. Did I pay Frost any money? The Chairman. Yes. 842 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Wellensgard. I think not. The Chairman. He is not included, by name, in your account, I notice. Mr. Wellensgard. Well, I could not say as to that. The Chairman. Have you talked with Burlingame as to the identity or the character of these four men that he employed ? Mr. Wellensgard. Before that? The Chairman. At any time have you talked with Burlingame about it ? Mr. Wellensgard. I talked with him about it at the time of it. The Chairman. What did he tell you with reference to the char- acter of these men ? Mr. Wellensgard. He said they were good, responsible men; and I think I knew the men at the time of it, but I can not recollect the names he gave me. The Chairman. For what purpose were they employed by Mr. Burlingame ? Mr. Wellensgard. By Mr. Burlingame? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wellensgard. To get the voters out in their localities. The Chairman. You mean, to induce them to go to the polls and vote ? Mr. Wellensgard. The town of Brookfield is partly on the north side of Green Lake and part of the town is on the south side of Green Lake; and those voters living on the south side have to come to the east end of Green Lake and come over to the village of Green Lake to vote. Mr. Littlefield. What is the distance ? Air. Wellensgard. It must be 7 miles, maybe 8, around the end of the lake, to get over there. They were employed to take their teams and get out and get the voters over. The Chairman. There is no way of crossing by boat ? Air. Wellensgard. YYs; there is. The Chairman. There is a regular line of boats, is there not ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; not regular, I do not think. The Chairman. How far is it across the lake ? Mr. Wellensgard. I should think it is 4 or 5 miles. The Chairman. This account is very meager as to the purpose for which these men were employed; and I am, therefore, asking you with some particularity in regard to that. Mr. Wellensgard. Certainly. The Chairman. Because, as far as this account shows, their votes might have been purchased. Mr. Wellensgard. They were not, so far as I know; and there was no such instruction. The Chairman. That is all you know about it? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. The next item is $25, paid to C. Kosebrook. Mr. Wellensgard. Charles Kosebrook. The Chairman. “Paid to C. Kosebrook, town of St. Marie, and four men.” Mr. Wellensgard. That is for the same purpose. The Chairman. The statement in regard to the $30 item is equal'y applicable to the $25 item ? CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 843 Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. You have no more knowledge about the men than you have in regard to the $30 item? Mr. Wellensgard. Only this, that Mr. Rosebrook has told me since that he was willing to furnish the men’s names at any time if I wanted them. The Chairman. Did you have him give you the names? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. Where does Rosebrook live? Mr. Wellensgard. In the town of St. Marie. The Chairman. Do you know the purpose for which he paid money to those men ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think I do. The Chairman. What was the purpose ? Mr. Wellensgard. If you will let me explain this, I can explain it on the same basis as the other. The town of St. Marie is split up by Fox River. Part of it is on the north side of Fox River, and they have to come around and come across the bridge at Princeton and come over to the St. Marie town- house and cast their votes, and the men that he employed were living on the north side and had to go around by Princeton and over to the St. Marie townhouse and vote, and they hired teams, or took their teams, and brought these voters over there, and were paid for that purpose, probably. Mr. Littlefield. What is the distance? The Chairman. Do you know whether or not they paid cash for any purpose whatever to these men that they brought over to vote ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. I do not know, only what he told me. The Chairman. Did he tell you that he did or that he did not ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think he did tell me that he would have to pay them something to take their teams away from the field and from their work and come around there. He did not expect to get them for nothing. Mr. Littlefield. That is, the men that brought the voters ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes; the men that brought the voters. Mr. Littlefield. What was the distance ? The Chairman. Just a moment. I will yield to counsel in a moment. Mr. Littlefield. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get it right in the record at this point. That is all. The Chairman. What is the question? Mr. Littlefield. I simply wanted the distance these men had to travel. What was the distance they had to travel, Mr. Wellensgard ? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not come within a mile, perhaps, or 2 miles of it. I should say perhaps 6 to 8 miles. The Chairman. You say that he told you that he had to pay these men. To what men did he refer? Mr. Wellensgard. These four men, I suppose. The Chairman. He paid the four men? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. Were they electors? Mr. Wellensgard. I suppose they were. The Chairman. And did they vote for Stephenson ? 844 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you. The Chairman. Did you ask him? Mr. Wellensgard. Did I ask him? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. W ellensgard. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. You would not be willing to pay out money to men who would not vote for Stephenson, would you ? Mr. W ellensgard. We wanted to get the voters out. We were just as liable to get some of these voters as the next man. The Chairman. Y r ou wanted to get the voters out in order that they might vote for you ? Mr. Wellensgard. We wanted to get the general voters out throughout the county. The Chairman. Did these men that he brought over vote for you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you. The Chairman. Did you not inquire who was to vote for you and who was not ? Mr. Wellensgard. I presume perhaps they were favorable toward me. I don’t know. The Chairman. Your friend would not have spent your money to haul to the polls men who were going to vote against you, would he ? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you as to that. I do not sup- pose he would. The Chairman. You would not have given him money if you thought he was going to do that, would you? Mr. Wellensgard. That circumstance came up once before when the question arose about getting the voters out, and it was answered in this way: We want the voters out. We can not tell whether we get them or not. We will take our chances. The Chairman. Did you give no instructions to your representa- tive that he was to expend this money only to haul to the polls men who were friendly to you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think I did. The Chairman. Do you think he would haul men to the polls to vote against you ? Mr. W 7 ellensgard. No, sir; I do not think he would. The Chairman. He would not be much of a man if he did, would he ? Mr. Wellensgard. I would not consider it so. The Chairman. No. This man was your personal friend, was he not, who engaged these men to haul voters to the polls? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir; as far as I know. The Chairman. He was one of your supporters, was he not? Mr. Wellensgard. I think he was. The Chairman. You have no doubt about that, have you ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I do not think so. I do not think I have any reason to have any doubt about it. The Chairman. You think he would be quite sure that the men that he took to the polls to vote would be favorable to you ? Mr. Wellensgard Well, I do not know. The Chairman. Let us be perfectly candid about this, Mr. Wellens- gard. You are a man of public affairs and experience in life, and you can answer this class of questions without any evasion. Let us be perfectly candid. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 845 Is it not a fact that the men he employed to haul voters to the polls were men that he had confidence in as your friends ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Of course. That being true, you are equally con- fident, are you not, that they would not haul to the polls those who would vote against you ? Mr. Wellensgard. No. I do not think so. I think that they would probably haul anybody; any of their neighbors. The Chairman. Did they haul any of their neighbors ? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you. I do not even know whether they were at the polls, only from what I got from him. The Chairman. In regard to Senator Stephenson, would these men that you engaged to haul voters to the polls haul men there who were not friendly to Senator Stephenson. Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you. The Chairman. Would' you feel justified in spending Senator Stephenson’s money to haul men to the polls to vote against him ? Mr. Wellensgard. I beg pardon. That was not Senator Stephen- son’s money that I spent at that time. The Chairman. 1 am reading now the items from the account of the money which you did receive from Senator Stephenson on the 3d day of September. Mr. Wellensgard. No; I think it was later than the 3d. The Chairman. Let us see. Mr. Wellensgard. I think it was the 5th or the 6th, or somewhere along there, that I received the check. The Chairman. The letter in which you sent this is dated September 3. I can turn to the item and find out. Mr. Wellensgard. It was some time a few days after that. The Chairman. I have just found it here: Paid the 5th. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. Very well. That is indorsed by you as being paid ninth month, fifth day, 1908, C. C. Wellensgard. So the matter of one or two days is the only issue. Mr. Wellensgard. That is all. The Chairman. Would you feel justified in permitting Senator Stephenson’s money to be spent for hauling to the polls men who w T ere not known to be favorable to him ? Mr. Wellensgard. I had no ways or means to know. The men were hired for that purpose. The Chairman. Was it not your duty to know, if you undertoook to spend his money ? Mr. Wellensgard. It might have been my duty; but I had not seen these men or had any talk with them. The Chairman. That is evident. You hired another man to gather them up and employ them on behalf of Senator Stephenson. . Was it not your duty to know that none but Senator Stephenson’s friends were employed ? Mr. Wellensgard. They might have voted for me and not have voted for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. That is the point I was after. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know how they voted. 846 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. It may be that the hauling of these men to the polls with Senator Stephenson’s money inured to your benefit and not to his benefit. Is that true ? Mr. Wellensgard. That, of course, I could not say. The Chairman. They did not vote against you, did they ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know. The Chairman. You would have something to say to the man who hauled men to the polls to vote against you, would you not ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think that I saw this man Burlingame but once after the time that I was there to see him. I think I only saw him tw T ice during the primary. The Chairman. All I want, Mr. Wellensgard, is a perfectly candid statement from you, let the blame fall where it may. Mr. Wellensgard. I should be pleased to give that, as nearly as I can; but I do not want to make any mistake. The Chairman. If you were not a man accustomed to political cam- paigns and the things that pertain to them, I might be willing to accept the statement that you were perfectly guileless in this matter and did not know whether the money you paid out was spent in your behalf or not; but I want, now, to take this item of Burlingame, and find out about it. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. I understand he was your personal friend and supporter ? Mr. Wellensgard. He was a personal friend. I have known him, probably, for 12 or 15 years. The Chairman. He has always supported you when you were a candidate for the legislature, has he ? Mr. Welensgard. I think he has. The Chairman. You said to him: “Here is $30. Get some men to work at the polls.” Did you not? Mr. Wellensgard. Something of that kind. The Chairman. And Burlingame, being your friend and supporter, was expected by you to get none but friends of yours ? Mr. Wellensgard. Well, he got this money to circulate Ike Stephenson’s petitions over in that town. The Chairman. I think you will have to take that back, about cir- culating petitions. They had been filed nearly a month before that time. Mr. Wellensgard. I beg pardon, Mr. Chairman. I do not say that that is the day — that he got this money on that date. The Chairman. But you gave the date when you paid it. You say in your account, wmch you indorse, that you paid it on the 28th day of August, which was three days before the election. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think that is correct, because I am satisfied he got that along there in June or July; the latter part of July. The Chairman. Why did you not so state in your account? Mr. Wellensgard. If you will allow me to explain this, Mr. Chairman, I should like to do so. The Chairman. Let us hear your explanation. Mr. Wellensgard. This was right after the primary; and on primary day, as I was coming down the street, I met Rodney Sacket CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 847 The Chairman. That was the 1st of September. Mr. Wellensgard. And he had his grip, and was going to the depot to take the train to go to Milwaukee or Washington or some- where. As I was coming across the main street, he says: “ Chris., ” he always called me Chris., “I want you to send in your account, and what we owe you.” I said: “I do not know as I can.” I only sup- posed he wanted a detailed, itemized account, which I sent in the best I could. The next day I went to the pickle factory. I had been away, per- haps, all the months of July and August, and neglected my own business. The Chairman. To be elected to the legislature ? Mr. Wellensgard. Being away, and with other things to look after, I was very busy; and I went into the office and hunted up a small memorandum that I carried in my pocket, and I told my son to take this down and write a letter and send it in. The Chairman. You read it off to your son, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I did. The Chairman. These items seem to be consecutive here. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think there are any dates to those items. My son happened to put them down that way. The Chairman. Why would your son select particular dates upon which payments were made unless the memorandum showed it ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know. The Chairman. This is divided up with some evident degree of care. Two items are before you announced your candidacy. The rest of them are afterwards. They are not all on one day. For instance: August 20. The next item is August 21; the next item is August 22; the next August 23 — two items on that date; then the 24th. Mr. Wellensgard. I might have got down August when it should have been July. It might have been July instead of August. The Chairman. Why would you be making arrangements with men to work at the polls as early as July, when the Senator had not even filed the nomination papers, and you had not filed yours ? Mr. Wellensgard. I filed my nomination paper, I think, the latter part of July. The Chairman. You must have filed it on the 1st day provided by law, which was the 1st of August. Why would you be paying these men in July to do the work which would be utterly inappro- priate to be done at that time ? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not possibly swear to those dates as correct. The Chairman. You could not even know that he would file any nomination papers at that time, in July ? Mr. Littlefield. That who would, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. Anyone. Mr. Littlefield. I know; but, if you will excuse me, Mr. Chair- man, the only candidates in which Mr. Wellensgard was interested in any way, as the record discloses, were Senator Stephenson and him- self; and he was already starting out in Senator Stephenson's cam- paign. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you must inadvertently misappre- hend. I make that suggestion because it seems to me that it is 848 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. incredible that he could not have known that he was acting in the interest of Senator Stephenson after he engaged in promoting his candidacy. The Chairman. That will be a good argument from the testimony; but not before the testimony. Tell me, Mr. Wellensgard, how did you know that the Senator would file nomination papers in August ? Mr. Wellensgard. I supposed he had to, according to law. The Chairman. He might not have filed them. Were you spending money with Mr. Burlingame before Senator Stephenson filed his nomination papers ? Mr. Wellensgard. I was spending money when I got him to go out and circulate Ike Stephenson’s petition. I either paid it to him that day or promised it to him. The Chairman. I understand you have already testified — and I would suggest that you keep your memory pretty active here — that you paid these men for hauling voters around the fake and around the river, in the case of Burlingame. What voters were you hauling in July? Mr. Wellensgard. He was to do that work. The Chairman. When ? Mr. Wellensgard. On the primary day. The Chairman. That was in September ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes; but he had this money before the pri- mary day. He had circulated the petition, and also put up posters. The Chairman. Had you not better abandon that proposition, on the recollection of the facts — your claim that you paid this money in July ? Look at that account, and get your mind actively to work. Mr. Wellensgard. I would not swear to the date that I paid it. The Chairman. Why do you want to controvert the date set forth in your memorandum ? Mr. Wellensgard. I would not like to swear to it that it was in August, on the 28th of August, if it should have been some other date. The Chairman. If you paid it for the purpose you stated you did, the 28th of August was an appropriate time to be paying it. Why do you want to transfer the date back to an inappropriate time ? Mr. Littlefield. I object, if the Chairman pleases The Chairman. Objections do not lie to the form of any question by a member of the committee. * Mr. Littlefield. But you have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to my stating on the record my reasons for my objection? The Chairman. You may state them, but Mr. Littlefield. That is what I propose to do. I object to the assumption that the chairman makes that it was inappropriate to pay these men in advance for services to be rendered thereafter. The Chairman. The objection will be entered. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I want to go on the record as objecting to that, if the chairman will permit me to say so, as an unwarranted assumption in the question of the chairman. I think it is perfectly proper for him to pay the money in advance of The Chairman. We will not argue that now. Mr. Littlefield. I am putting my reasons on the record, and The Chairman. Counsel will wait until the ruling is made. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 849 Mr. Littlefield. May I not put my reasons on the record, Mr. Chairman ? The Chairman. No argument against a question asked by any member of this committee will be introduced into the record at all. Mr. Littlefield. May I state my reasons for the objection? The Chairman. Not in the shape of an argument. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman will permit me to finish the state- ment of my reasons ? The Chairman. Not in the shape of an argument. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. I will stop right there, then. The Chairman. Any member of the committee has a right to ask a question, and it is not subject to objection by anyone; not even by a member of the committee. Every member of the committee here is on an equal footing, and the peer of every other member. Mr. Littlefield. I have no question about that, Mr. Chairman. Do I understand that I am not to be permitted to complete the reasons for my objection ? The Chairman. No argument will be heard as to the admissibility of a question asked by any member of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. I take the ruling, then. I can not do anything else. The Chairman. Advantage can be taken of that in your brief, if desired; not here. I will repeat my question: Why do you seek to transfer the date of that item from the 28th of August to the 28th of July, or to any other date? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not seek to transfer it. I say I am not positive of the exact date that that money was paid to Mr. Burlin- game. The Chairman. We pass, now, to the item of “August 28, paid Bill Anglem” — “Bill” seems to be a proper name? Mr. Wellensgard. It should be William. The Chairman (reading): “Town of Green Lake, $5.” For what was that money paid ? Mr. Wellensgard. I expect that was for the same purpose, of circulating Mr. Stephenson’s petition. The Chairman. Petition for what ? Mr. Wellensgard. Petition for nomination. The Chairman. On the petitions for nomination, does it appear as to who circulated them? Mr. Wellensgard. I would not say as to that, that this man did circulate them. I could not remember, it is so long since; but he done work. He was a Stephenson man. The Chairman. Was he a supporter of yours? Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman please, I understood the ques- tion to be this: Whether the nomination papers are of such a character as to show who circulated the paper. I would like to have informa- tion myself in regard to that. That was the question, was it not ? The Chairman. The committee will investigate that matter by an examination of the papers. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to have the witness state if he knows about that. The Chairman. The witness said he did not know, as I under- stood it. 15235 °— vol 1—11 54 850 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Littlefield. I did not understand that he answered that. Mr. Wellensgard. It is so long since that I could not remember if he did. Mr. Littlefield. No. The question is whether the nomination paper shows the name of the party that circulates the paper. Mr. Wellensgard. It does. Mr. Littlefield. That is what was called for by the chairman’s question. Mr. Wellensgard. To my recollection, it does. The Chairman. I understood the witness to say, at first, that he did not know. We can ascertain that, of course, from the papers. Mr. Wellensgard. I think every nomination paper is signed and sworn to by the man by whom it is circulated. Mr. Black. There is an affidavit attached to it. The Chairman. And did William Anglem circulate a nomination petition for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think he did. The Chairman. And you think Mr. Burlingame circulated one; or any of the four men that he employed ? Mr. Wellensgard. Mr. Burlingame did. The Chairman. So that you think we will find the names of those men upon the nomination papers of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. We come now to another item, on the 28th: “Paid W. Burdick, town of Green Lake, $5.” What was that for? Mr. Wellensgard. He is a brother-in-law of Bill Anglem. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him $5? Mr. Wellensgard. Bill Anglem said that Burdick would circulate Senator Stephenson’s petition over there. He was keeping a grocery store at what they call the Summer Llouse. The Chairman. You refer now to the petition for nomination ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir; and he got $5 to hand to Burdick for circulating the nomination papers. The Chairman (reading): “August 28, paid C. Schrader and men at Markesan, $30.” For what purpose was that paid? Mr. Wellensgard. He circulated Stephenson’s papers or had them circulated in Markesan and the town of Manchester. The Chairman. That was all these men did, was it, and all that they were paid for? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. What else did they do ? Mr. Wellensgard. They circulated petitions and circulated the advertisements. I got men and teams to bring the voters to the polls. The Chairman. A part of those services, then, was rendered in July and a part in September ? Is that a fact ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much of that $30 was for services rendered in September ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know as to that. The Chairman. Have you your memorandum made at the time? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. What have you there, from which you are testifying ? CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 851 Mr. Wellensgard. This was taken from the statement that I sent to Mr. Stephenson’s headquarters. The Chairman. Who made out that statement ? Mr. Wellensgard. My son. The Chairman. In your presence ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. You examined it, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And is it correct ? Mr. Wellensgard. He said it was. The Chairman. Is it correct ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think so. The Chairman. Are the dates on that as I have them here? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then how can it be correct, if Mr. Wellensgard (interrupting). He took it from the testimony that I gave in the investigation committee at Madison. The Chairman. Oh, then it was not made up until after you had testified at Madison ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How could he take it from testimony you gave Mr. Wellensgard (interrupting). I think you will find these names in the testimony The Chairman (interposing). I know; but how could it be taken from the testimony at Madison, if it was not made up at that time? Mr. Wellensgard. I had the whole proceedings, the three vol- umes, in my office, bound the same as yours are. The Chairman. Yes. Then that is a mere copy of what we have before us, is it ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. He copied from that. The Chairman. This statement fixes the 28th of August as the day upon which Anglem and Burdick and Schrader were paid. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know as that date is correct. The Chairman. You do not know that it is correct? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think it is. The Chairman. Did you ever raise the question before ? Mr. Wellensgard. No. The Chairman. You went through the examination and cross- examination before the joint committee of the legislature of which you are a member, and did not call attention to this, or make any claim that these dates were incorrect ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think I did say that I was not sure they were correct. I think I so stated that I would not swear to that. The Chairman. On page 2104 you say: Mr. Burlingame was to do the same work; and he lived in the town of Brookline and the village of Green Lake is in the town of Brookline. These men also posted bills and circulars of Ike Stephenson; and in the village of Green Lake they were tore down as fast as they were put up; and Burlingame got $30 to see that cuts of Stephenson was put up as the rest of the gentlemen, whoever they were, tore them down. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Is that true, now ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. 852 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. That is what Mr. Burlingame got the $30 for, is it? Mr. Wellensgard. And to haul them out to vote. He did not get any more than $30. The Chairman. You say that Mr. Burlingame got $30 for that purpose. Did you pay him more than one $30 item ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. I think that I have his receipt for the money. The Chairman. What is the date of tJhat receipt ? Mr. Wellensgard. I got it here week before last, because that statement was mixed up, and I wanted to see him. The Chairman. Have you it with you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Produce it. Mr. Wellensgard (producing papers). I was mixed up on the amount, I think, at the time I gave my testimony in Madison, as to who got the $25 and who got the $30. For that reason I went over there and got these two receipts. The Chairman. You have two receipts here? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes; one from Mr. Burlingame and one from Mr. Rosebrook. The Chairman. This was written on October 5, 1911 ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That was about a week ago ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Who wrote the body of this receipt ? Mr. Wellensgard. What? The name of it? The Chairman. Who wrote it? Mr. Wellensgard. I think I did; in a buggy, in a rainstorm. The Chairman. You wrote it, and Mr. Burlingame signed it? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have put this in as a written statement? Mr. Wellensgard. I done that for this purpose: Because the testimony in Madison was mixed up, as to which one of the two got the $30 and which the $25 — to satisfy myself which one of the two got $30 and which the $25. The Chairman. Is this statement true, that you have written? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. This says you paid it for work done on election day. Mr. Wellensgard. Well, it was for certain work. The Chairman. You say this is true ? Mr. Wellensgard. They claimed to me that they went out and worked. That is all I know. The Chairman. But you have written, in your own handwriting here, that this work, for which you paid $30, was done on election day for Ike Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. Primary election. The Chairman. Well, that is an election. Mr. Wellensgajid. Part of it was for posting and part of it for circulating petitions. The Chairman. You may make the statement, but you really weaken your testimony when you do it. Mr. Wellensgard. That is what it was supposed to be for. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 853 The Chairman. You wrote this, then, within a week of the time you are now testifying ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. On October 5; about eight days ago. You, at that time, wrote this statement that you had paid him this money for four men’s work on primary election day for Ike Stephenson. That paper will be marked “ Exhibit 1” in connection with the testimony of Mr. Wellensgard. (The paper referred to was marked “Exhibit Wellensgard No. 1, October 13, 1911,” and reads as follows:) Brokelin, Wis., Oct. 5, 1911. Received of C. C. Wellensgard Thirty 00/ Dollars for serkelhton Petican & Posting & 4 mans worke at Pols Elejoun Day or Primery Day for Ike Stevens In 1908. Grant Burlingame. $80.00. The Chairman. I will now read a receipt which you have just handed me. The body of the receipt is in your handwriting, is it? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And the signature is in the handwriting of C. M. Rosebrook ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. This is dated “Oct. 5, Sant Marie, 1911.” Is that “St. Marie” ? Mr. Wellensgard. St. Marie, town of St. Marie. The Chairman (reading) : Received of C. C. Wellensgard $25 for circulating petition for Stephenson and work at primary in 1908, also posting, advertising, and distributing circulars, etc. — C. M. Rosebrook. Are the statements in that receipt true? Mr. Wellensgard. That is true. That is the way he gave it to me. The Chairman. You bring it here as the truth, do you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. He signed it that day. The Chairman. When did you pay the money for which these receipts were given ? Mr. Wellensgard. That was at the time this statement was given. My statement there was not clear at the time. The Chairman. Let me call your attention to something here, because I am not trying to catch you in any statement, but I am trying to get out of you the truth and to help you state it properly. This certificate of Rosebrook’s states on its face that a part of this payment was for “circulating petition for Stephenson and work at primary in 1908, also posting advertising, and distributing circulars, etc.” Some of those items might be appropriate before August 1, and others could not have been performed before August 1; for instance, “work at primary” could not have been done then. Mr. Wellensgard. He could not state exactly the date I paid him the money. The Chairman. So this $2.5 is made up of items some of which relate to work or things done by you before the filing of the papers and some after? Is that true? Mr. Wellensgard. I went there to these two men, to satisfy myself (if I had to swear to it) which one of them got the $30 and 854 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. which one of them got the $25. I do not know what the work was for, only that they circulated Ike Stephenson’s petition. The Chairman. The statement that you made at first, that Bur- lingame and Rosebrook employed men on election day, one of them to haul people around the lake and the other one around the river, is true, is it not ? Mr. Wellensgard. That is what they told me. The Chairman. And is not that what this sum of money was paid for — for men to haul men around the lake ? Mr. Wellensgard. This money is for all the work they did in connection with it. The Chairman. How much did those men charge for hauling men around the lake on election day? Mr. Wellensgard. I could not tell you. The Chairman. And how much did those other men charge for hauling men around the river on election day ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know. The Chairman. This receipt will be marked “Exhibit 2” in connection with the witness’s testimony. (The receipt referred to was marked “Exhibit 2,” and is in words and figures as follows:) Oct. 5, Sant Marie, 1911. Received of C. C. Wellensgard Twenty-Five 00 Dollars for Curculeting Petition for Stephenson & Worke at Primary In 1908, Olsow Posting Advertising & Distripeting cerkelers & coford. C. M. Rosebrook. $25.00 The Chairman. We will now go to Schroeder, on the 28th: “Paid C. Schroeder and men, at Markesan,” $30. Was that the same kind of work ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Again, on September 2, “Paid E. Vaughan, King- ston and men,” $25. Was that for hauling men to the polls? Mr. Wellensgard. That was for circulating petitions and getting parties out at the primary election. Mr. Littlefield. What is the last item the chairman inquired about? “September 2” in the print I have here comes after “Sep- tember 3.” The Chairman. I had merely gone to the item of September 2. Mr. Littlefield; What particular item did you have ? The Chairman. It is plain on the face of it that the items of “Sep- tember 3” precede the items of “September 2” in this statement. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Now you are inquiring about the item of “Paid E. Vaughan,” etc. ? The Chairman. Yes; the $25 item. For what did you pay E. Vaughan $25 on the 2d of September? Mr. Wellensgard. That “2d of September” is not right. The date there is not right. The Chairman. That is the day you paid him for work that he had done on election day; is it not ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; it can not be right, because this was after election, and he had this money before the primary. The Chairman. You say he did have it before ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 855 The Chairman. When did he have it ? Mr. Wei^ensgard. It was in harvest time, when he was stacking grain, that I was there at his place. The Chairman. Now we go to the next item, on September 2: ‘‘For automobile election day,” $15. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You charged Senator Stephenson $15 for the automobile on election day. Who used the automobile ? Mr. Wellensgard. A young fellow by the name of Wilson. The Chairman. What was he doing ? Mr. Wellensgard. Getting voters out to the polls — taking them over to the town of Berlin. Mr. Littlefield. In what town was this automobile used ? Mr. Wellensgard. It was used in the town of Berlin, and I think in the town of Seneca. The Chairman. It was just used for hauling voters to the polls? Mr. Wellensgard. There were two automobiles out that day. The Chairman. You have charged Senator Stephenson for one of them ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. This was not my own automobile, or anything of that kind. It belonged to a man by the name of Droopman; and I hired this man Wilson to run the machine. I think it is down here, “Paid Wilson for help on machine, $2.50.” The Chairman. There are several items on September 3 of sums of $5, $2, $4, $1, and $3. For what were those sums of money paid ? Mr. Wellensgard. They were paid for ward workers. The Chairman. What do you mean by ward work ? Mr. Wellensgard. To get the votes out to the polls. The Chairman. What kind of work ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know. The Chairman. What do you call “work at the polls?” What acts constitute “work at the polls?” Mr. Wellensgard. There are a good many of them out there that work in the quarry — quarrymen — and they come down there to work at the polls. Mr. Littlefield. What sort of a quarry ? Mr. Wellensgard. A granite quarry. The Chairman. What constituted “work at the polls ?” Mr. Wellensgard. They always have ward heelers that work around at the polls. The Chairman. Were all these men watchers ? Mr. Wellensgard. I presume they were. The Chairman. Were they? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know what they were doing. The Chairman. Was not some of this money paid to these men as wages for the time they lost when away from their work at the quar- ries ? Mr. Wellensgard. They all worked; all of these were there work- ing at the polls. The Chairman. Conceding that they were, did you not in this case pay some of these men wages for the time that they were away from their work at the quarries ? Mr. Wellensgard. They are not all quarrymen. I think that 856 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. Answer my question. I said some of them; I did not say all of them. Mr. Wellensgard. There is a fellow here by the name of The Chairman. Suppose you allow him to rest and answer my question, which is: Did you not pay some of these men wages for the time they were away from their work at the quarries ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; I do not think so. The Chairman. Do you know that the money was not paid them for that purpose ? Mr. Wellensgard. They were paid to go there at the polls and keep track of these fellows working there, and send teams after them to get them to come and work, to vote at the polls, to get the voters out. The Chairman. That does not answer my question. Was not money paid to some of these men I have indicated as compensation or wages for the time that they were absent from their work at the quarries ? Was it or was it not ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. They were paid to come there and The Chairman. You have repeated what they were to come there for. You say none of it was paid for that purpose ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Air. Littlefield. That answers the question. The Chairman. Money was paid by you in cash to those men? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. By you ? You paid it personally to them ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think so, with the exception of two or three. John Weir I do not think was paid by me. The Chairman. Steve Greager was paid by you; was he not? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was he not paid money in cash for being at the polls, away from his work? Mr. Wellensgard. He was paid for coming there and seeing that the voters got out of the fifth ward; and we had teams, busses, and automobiles there that day. The Chairman. What does he do — what work? Mr. Wellensgard. He looks over the poll fist and sees The Chairman. What was his occupation at the time, on election day? Mr. Wellensgard. He has got a small farm there; and he runs a thrashing machine, and he runs a hay press. The Chairman. And he left that work on that day, and received $5 from you for working at the polls ? Is that right ? Air. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What does Jack Grotta do ? Mr. Wellensgard. Jack Grotta owned a small farm down near Sacramento. I know he has moved to Berlin since; but whether he had moved to Berlin at that time, I could not state. The Chairman. He left his work at home, and received $5 from you for working at the polls; did he? Air. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he bring a wagon, or any vehicle in which to haul voters? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I do not think so. That was for the second ward. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 857 The Chairman. Did you keep the Stephenson money separate from your own in the campaign, when you were canvassing around the county? Mr. Wellensgard. I had none of it — none of Stephenson’s money at that time. It was my own money. The Chairman. You just paid these sums out of your own funds? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And charged them to Stephenson, and rendered an account? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How many votes did Stephenson receive in that county ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not remember. The Chairman. Did he have as great a majority as you did? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not recollect. The Chairman. Do you recollect that he had not? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I have those figures here, if the chairman would like to have them. The Chairman. If you have the figures there, just state them. Mr. Littlefield. I will state the respective votes, so that they can go right into the record now. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Wellensgard had 914 out of a total of 1,51 L Mr. Hitchcock had The Chairman. Suppose you give only the Stephenson and Wel- lensgard figures. Let us not confuse the matter. Just give those two. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have the whole thing go into the record. Mr. Stephenson had 330 in that county. I should like to have these figures go along with that, if the chairman please, so that they will all be right in the same place. Mr. Hitchcock, the candi- date in opposition to Mr. Wellensgard, had only 594. The other senatorial candidates had as follows: Mr. Hatton, 242 ; Mr. Cook, 407 ; and Mr. McGovern, 440. The Chairman. Now just repeat Mr. Stephenson’s vote. Mr. Littlefield. The Senator had 330, as against 914 for Mr. Wellensgard. Mr. Wellensgard had nearly two to one as against the other candidates. The Chairman. Did you contribute any money to the campaign fund in that county? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Wellensgard. Sixty dollars, I think — both years; both times. The Chairman. I notice here that it is stated as $50, but there may have been some other items. Mr. Wellensgard. I am satisfied I contributed $60. The Chairman. I was reading from page 2137, where that item occurs. Mr. Wellensgard. I would not swear to that positively. It is my recollection. Mr. Littlefield. What is that — in the election ? The Chairman. No; that is the campaign fund, I assume, in the county. I am eliminating a great deal of conversation that does not 858 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. pertain to the matter under consideration; and in coming to that item I merely made a passing inquiry in regard to it. Mr. Littlefield. If the chairman had the impression that that related to this campaign, I think he was in error. When I come to look on that page, it turns out that he contributed $50; but it was for La Follette’s primary campaign for President of the United States, which was apparently a different transaction from the one being investigated. The Chairman. Then we will withdraw that testimony and ques- tion. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. It should all be stricken out of the record, then, as I understand it. The Chairman. I read the question and the answer. I am passing over a great deal of controversy and discussions that were had, relating to extraneous matters. Senator Pomerene. How much money did you personally expend in this campaign? Mr. Wellensgard. In the primary? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Wellensgard. Two hundred and seventy-five dollars and some cents. I think that was the amount. Senator Pomerene. Did that include the amount of $250 and odd cents referred to here, for which you received payment from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. That was in addition to the $250 ? Mr. Wellensgard. That is in addition to the $250. Senator Pomerene. Was that the amount which you reported? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. When you were out employing these men, of course you were looking after your campaign at the same time you were looking after Stephenson’s? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think always that I was; no. I made some trips in the beginning of the campaign, in the primary, for Isaac Stephenson, before I ever did work for myself. Senator Pomerene. You do not mean to say that you would go out one day and work for Stephenson and another day and work for yourself ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; I do not mean to be understood that way. Senator Pomerene. When you would talk to a man in behalf of Senator Stephenson you would always talk with him on your own behalf? Mr. Wellensgard. It is naturally understood; perhaps there was something said about it, of course; there naturally would be. Senator Pomerene. You certainly did, did you not? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And when you would employ a man in behalf of Senator Stephenson you expected that he was going to work for you as well ? Mr. Wellensgard. I might expect it. Senator Pomerene. You did, did you not? Mr. Wellensgard. But I hired men to do my work. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 859 Senator Pomerene. You did not hire any one man for Senator Stephenson that you did not expect to vote and work for you, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Well, I do not know. Senator Pomerene. Yes, you know that. Mr. Wellensgard. I might have hired men to work for me that I did not hire for Ike Stephenson. Senator Pomerene. You did not employ any one to work for Sen- ator Stephenson that you did not expect to work for you, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Well, not necessarily. Senator Pomerene. Can you name anyone that you employed whom you expected to work or vote for Hitchcock, who was your opponent ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Then you did expect hhese men whom you employed to work and vote for yourself as well as for Senator Steph- enson; did you not? Mr. Wellensgard. I might expect it, but there was nothing said about it. Senator Pomerene. And when you arranged to have these several men haul voters to the polls you expected that the voters that would be hauled to the polls would vote for both you and Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. We did not draw any lines as to whom we drew to the polls. There were men in Berlin that ran automobiles Senator Pomerene. You did not expect any one who was hauled to the polls to vote against Senator Stephenson, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I have no way to know how they voted. Senator Pomerene. Nor did you expect any such person to vote against you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I never asked them how they voted. Senator Pomerene. Nor did you expect any such person to vote against you ? Mr. Wellensgard. That I could not say — how they voted. We got them to the polls whether they voted for one man or the other. Senator Pomerene. As a matter of fact, the men whom you em- ployed and to whom you paid money you expected to vote for and support both you and Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. I suppose they did. I do not know. But so far as who they were going to vote for was concerned, we did not draw any line in taking them into a bus or an automobile to go to the polls. Senator Pomerene. No; but you probably understood in advance for whom they were going to vote, did you not ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; I do not think that we knew half of them. Senator Pomerene. In answer to the chairman, you have raised some question about the correctness of the dates in this account. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Where did your son get those dates ? Mr. Wellensgard. I gave them to him from a memorandum book. Senator Pomerene. From a memorandum book ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You had these dates on your memorandum book, did you not ? 860 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know whether they were dated or not. I had this account on a memorandum book. Senator Pomerene. Did you not say that you got those dates from a memorandum book ? Mr. Wellensgard. From a memorandum book; yes, sir; but I might be mistaken in the date. I think I so testified in Madison. Senator Pomerene. Why would you have wrong dates in your memorandum book ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know. Sometimes you might make a memorandum wrong, or get the day of the month wrong, or get the date wrong. Senator Pomerene. I am not asking as to what I might do; I am asking you as to what you in fact did ? Mr. Wellensgard. I might do it. I do not know that these dates were absolutely correct, and I think I swore so in my testimony at Madison. Senator Pomerene. If the dates are not correct, are the amounts correct ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think so. Senator Pomerene. Why would you swear to the correctness of the amount and not to the correctness of the dates which you had in your memorandum ? Mr. Wellensgard. I would not swear positively to a cent in this account. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. The Chairman. Mr. Wellensgard, you, as a member of the legis- lature that elected Senator Stephenson in 1909, voted for him for United States Senator, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You did not refrain from voting on any ballot, did you ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think so. I think I voted on every ballot. I was living in Madison; I moved to Madison, and was there all the time. The Chairman. You made no statement when you cast your vote, as did some of the members when casting their votes, did you? You ‘just voted ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir; I think so. The Chairman. Is that true ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think so. The Chairman. You remember that some of the members made a statement in connection with their votes. You were not one of those members? Mr. Wellensgard. I might have made the statement that I was pledged to abide by the primary election. I might have done that. I came out with a statement. Mr. Littlefield. You say you did come out with a statement ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir; in three or four newspapers in my county. The Chairman. I am speaking of the proceedings in the legisla- ture. You undoubtedly took that position. You took the position from the standpoint of the entire State and not the county ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes, sir. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 861 The Chairman. Some members took the position that the electors of their county having indicated at the primary their choice for a certain candidate, they would be governed by the vote in the county and not in the State. Is that true ? Mr. Wellensgard. I made the statement to some of my constitu- ents — The Chairman. I am speaking now only of statements on the floor, I do not want to go into the outside field, or we would have all the conversation that took place that spring. Mr. Wellensgard. I think I made the statement that I agreed to abide by the primaries. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose the record will show whatever was done in that line — I mean as to statements made. I have not examined it. The Chairman. I have it before me. Mr. Littlefield. Then, of course, the chairman knows whether or not it does show. The Chairman. I wanted it in this record. I have it in another record. I want this witness’ testimony in regard to these things in the record that we are now making; and in order to get it there I must transfer it through the medium of the witness. Mr. Littlefield. We have no objection to the whole journal going in. I suppose later on it will probably go in. If the subcom- mittee does not care for it, we will put it in as far as we are concerned. Why not have this statement made — that we agree that the certified copy of the journal which is in the hands of the United States Senate may be treated as part of the record in this investigation, without further preliminaries ? The Chairman. At the proper time we doubtless will reach that agreement. We do not desire to put in the entire journal. It would be a useless encumbrance of the record. My questions to this wit- ness are not so much for the purpose of establishing the fact that he made this statement on the floor as for laying the foundation for the questions that I will later ask him. Mr. Littlefield. What I would say about that would be this: If from any point of view it be deemed material to have it appear in this case as to what was said or done during the progress of the voting, we should feel as though the best evidence would be the evidence that necessarily ought to be produced; and if it were thought to be material we should want the whole record to go in. I should not want to trust the infirm human memory upon any fact that is supposed to be important when the official record is obtainable. The Chairman. I recognize the rule that the counsel invokes. Senator Sutherland. Do you think the record kept by the secre- tary of the joint session, for example, would be the best evidence of what was said on the floor ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I think it would be the only evidence that is of any consequence. In the first place, I can not conceive how it is material at all, to get back to the fundamental proposition. But assuming now that there is a purpose involved in this hearing that I do not now appreciate and do not understand, I should say that if there be anything of an official character that is going to affect the integrity of these proceedings, it would be very extraor- 862 CHRISTIAN 0. WELLENSGARD. dinary for conversation between legislators to be invoked for the purpose of affecting the validity or the verity of a legislative record. I do not know how it can be material. Senator Sutherland. I do not know that it makes any particular difference in this matter, but it would occur to me that the best evi- dence would be the testimony of the man who made the statement, or those who heard the statement, rather than a record made by somebody else. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, in the absence of appreciating the significance of the testimony, I can not discuss it with very great intelligence. I say, my first proposition is that I can not conceive of any point of yiew from which it can be admissible at all ; but if the legislative proceedings are to have any weight here upon any issue, it seems to me that the proceedings themselves are the only evidence thereof. I never knew the court, when undertaking to pass upon the action of a legislature, to admit testimony about conversations between legislators as to what may have been said or done as having any relation to or any effect upon the verity of the proceedings. The Chairman. I can relieve counsel somewhat. The question is designed to develop a subject upon which the record is silent, and merely to show that this witness does not belong to the class that did express itself. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, in the absence of appreciating the full significance of the matter, I assumed that the chairman had a legiti- mate purpose in the inquiry. The Chairman. I wanted to show that the witness was not among those that expressed themselves at all. Senator Sutherland. I do not know whether counsel understood me, and I do not know whether or not the testimony as to what was said by any member of the legislature is material. But if it be material, it occurs to me that the testimony of the man who said it would be better evidence than the record of it, unless some law exists which requires the record to be kept and makes it evidence. For example, take the case of a witness who has testified upon the stand: The best evidence is the testimony of the witness himself, or that of somebody who heard him. A report made by somebody else, unless official and made evidence by statute, would be hearsay. Mr. Littlefield. All I can say about that, Senator, is simply this: I doubt very much whether we would disagree as to what were the . ultimate rules of law; and in the absence of knowing the special significance of the evidence I can not express a very intelligent opinion as to whether or not, in my judgment, that is a proper way of getting at it. Senator Sutherland. I thought you were objecting. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Mr. Littlefield. I was objecting. I was suggesting this Senator Sutherland. Let me state what I have in my mind. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Sutherland. I thought you were objecting to this wit- ness testifying as to what he said on the floor of the Senate, upon the ground that the official record of the proceedings there was better evidence than his statement. Mr. Littlefield. In connection with that — of course the Senator will bear with me — I was assuming that in some way the evidence CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 863 was intended to affect the verity of the legislative result. That was the hypothesis upon which I proceeded. I am probably entirely wrong; and if I am wrong in my premises my conclusions are equally wrong. From a false premise we get a false conclusion. The Chairman. I was merely developing a fact upon which the record is silent; that is all. The witness did not make any statement, and it was not sought to prove that he did. But as a preliminary to the question to follow, I desired to ask whether or not he did make a statement. The fact is that he was silent. Mr. Black. In connection with Senator Sutherland’s inquiry, I should like to call the attention of the subcommittee to section 10 of the constitution of Wisconsin, which requires each house to keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same, except such parts as require secrecy. Section 4135 of the Revised Statutes of 1898 of Wisconsin provides that — the printed copies of all statutes, acts, and resolves of this State, whether of a public or private nature, * * * and the journals of the senate and assembly, kept by the clerks of said houses, respectively, as provided by law, and deposited in the office of the secretary of state, including the printed journals of the previous legislatures there deposited, shall be admitted in all courts and places as sufficient evidence of the proceedings of the said houses of the legislature; and the printed journals of said houses, respectively, published by authority of law, shall be prima facie evidence of such proceedings. Senator Sutherland. That is quite true. The journal would be the best evidence of what the legislature did. But I do not think it would be the best evidence of what some member may have said in the course of a debate upon the floor of the senate, because I do not think a record is kept under the law of what everybody says on the floor of the legislature — that is, not an official record. The Chairman. It would require an act of the legislature to make the stenographer’s notes evidence of what occurred. We have in our State a statute which declares that the notes of the official stenographer shall have the status of the notes of the court. In old times, in my early practice of the law, the judge made the notes, and those notes were of certain binding force. Since stenographers came into general use in the courts, the statutes have provided that the notes of the official stenographer shall constitute the minutes of the court. The minutes of the court have a legal significance about which there is no uncertainty. They have a status in making up bills of exceptions. The minutes of the court were the minutes made by the judge at the time of the trial. If the legislature had provided for a record of the proceedings to have the same force and effect as the minutes of a court, we would appeal to that record. But the mere keeping of a journal is not equivalent to reporting the proceedings of a body. We are devoting a great deal of time to a question which is not very material, except as a preliminary question to a subject about which I desire to inquire of this member of the legislature. I had intended to keep the proceedings in the legislature entirely separate, and not to call witnesses as to those proceedings until after we had completed the investigation into the primaries. But I want to ask this witness a question in regard to the proceedings of the legislature on the day of the ballot in joint session at which Senator Stephenson was elected. 864 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman’s question, I take it, is directed to the 4th of March ? The Chairman. It is directed to that date — the day of the vote in the joint session of the legislature at which Senator Stephenson was elected. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, the question as to when the election actually took place has been a matter of very active discuesion. The Chairman. There was only one joint session of the legislature. Mr. Littlefield. There is a vigorous difference of opinion in regard to it; and I merely make this suggestion so that the witness will have it clear in his mind. Senator Pomerene. That is purely a legal question. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; but it has been discussed a great deal. The Chairman. There was no joint session of the legislature at the time to which counsel refers. There was a separate vote in the separate houses. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I am referring this witness to the vote in the joint session. Mr. Wellensgard, did you hear any member of the legislature say, upon the floor of the hall in which the joint session was held, that he had received money either to vote for Senator Stephenson, or as a gift, or to use in the primary or general election, or otherwise ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. You did not? Mr. Wellensgard. I never heard any such statement. The Chairman. You heard of it ? Mr. Wellensgard. I heard several rumors or statements. The Chairman. You have heard it sworn to, have you not? I am referring now to page 552 of the volume entitled “Senate Journal.” There are two volumes here denominated “Senate Journal, ” and they are entirely distinct from the volumes known as The Senatorial Primary Investigation of the State of Wisconsin. I am asking this witness if he heard of that statement. Mr. Littlefield. Let me be advised, Mr. Chairman, as to the situation: Is it the chairman’s understanding that the testimony which is contained in the volume entitled “Senate Journal,” which I hold in my hand — volume 2, part 1 — was taken in an open session of the senate ? The Chairman. I do not think I have any understanding on that question. This is certified to by the governor of the State. That is the primary basis of this investigation. Mr. Littlefield. The question of the chairman, as I understood it, was whether the witness had heard some man in the senate make this statement. The Chairman. That was not the question at all. It was whether he heard the statement made in the joint session of the legislature. Mr. Littlefield. I do not understand that this purports to be a record of anything that took place in a joint session or in a separate session. The Chairman. That would not affect the significance of the ques- tion. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to appreciate the significance of the question myself. As I understand it this testimony was taken before CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 865 a separate investigating committee consisting of three senate mem- bers. The Chairman. Yes; and it was certified to the United States Senate as a basis, in part, for the investigation. Mr. Littlefield. Then there is no misunderstanding between myself and the chairman. The Chairman. I am asking this witness, who was present and participating officially in the proceedings on that day, if he heard that statement. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I understand. The Chairman. Mr. Wellensgard, did you hear Senator Lyons say on the floor of the assembly that he had $100 “ to be good ” ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Black. Mr. Chairman, I think you must misunderstand the situation. That statement of Senator Lyons was not made on the floor of the assembly. The Chairman. I am reading from the text. Mr. Black. Very true; but that was testimony that was taken before a senate committee in a separate room. The Chairman. I quite understand that. This witness knows whether he heard him make that statement. That is all I am inquiring about. Mr. Black. I was under the impression that the chairman thought this testimony was taken in the assembly. The Chairman. I am inquiring whether this witness heard that statement made. If he did not hear it, no harm is done. I am antici- pating certain testimony that presumably will be given by the witness who testified at this hearing. Mr. Wellensgard, you say you did not at any time hear Senator Lyons say on the floor of the assembly that he had $100 ‘ ‘to be good” ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. The meeting of the joint session was in the hall of the house of representatives? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. The Chairman. I will now ask you where you sat in the house with reference to Senator Lyons’s seat during the joint session? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not know where Senator Lyons sat. I sat in my seat. The Chairman. I assume you did. You say you do not know where Senator Lyons was ? Mr. Wellensgard. No. The senate was generally over to the left from where I was sitting. The Chairman. Do you know of three members having absented themselves at the time the ballot was taken upon which Senator Stephenson was elected? Mr. Wellensgard. Not at the time the ballot was taken. I under- stood they were not there at roll call. The Chairman. I am asking you merely for the fact as to whether you know about it. Mr. Wellensgard. No. The Chairman. Then you do not know about it and you need not attempt to testify. Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir; I do not know the least thing about it. 15235 °— vol 1—11 55 866 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. Do you know anything in regard to a charge that $1,500 was paid to three members of the legislature to absent them- selves on the day on which the vote was taken that elected Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. The Chairman. You never heard of the charge? Mr. Wellensgard. I have heard it, or read it in the newspapers. The Chairman. You never heard of it elsewhere? Mr. Wellensgard. Why, it might have been discussed and T overheard it somewhere in the capitol. The Chairman. Did you not hear it in the halls of the legislature ? Did you not hear the statement made on the floor charging that $1,500 had been paid to procure the absence of three members of the legis- lature at that time ? Mr. Wellensgard. I might have heard it, but I do not know any- thing about the circumstances. The Chairman. I want your recollection of whether you heard it stated by any member in a speech on the floor? Mr. Littlefield. In a public statement. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not remember that I did, but still, F might. I can not recall it. The Chairman. Do you remember Mr. Domachowski, a member of the legislature ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes; I know him. The Chairman. In the halls of the legislature, where you served, did you hear that this member, Mr. Domachowski, had said that $1,500 had been offered to him to absent himself at the time the ballot was taken upon which Senator Stephenson was elected ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; I did not hear him say that. The Chairman. If you name should be hereafter connected with that statement would you then have anything further to say in regard to it ? Mr. Wellensgard. I have never heard him say that. The Chairman. You never heard it? Mr. Wellensgard. I did not hear him state it. The Chairman. You did not hear it stated on the floor that this had occurred? Mr. Wellensgard. I might have heard rumors around. The Chairman. If some of your fellow members should make a charge on the floor that the sum of $1,500 had been offered to a mem- ber to absent himself, do you not think you would have heard of it ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes; I heard of it, but I do not remember that I heard it on the floor. I might have been out in some com- mittee room. The Chairman. You say you might have heard it. Did you hear it ? Mr. Wellensgard. No; I have no recollection. The Chairman. You can shed no light on that question now? Mr. Wellensgard. Not that I heard it on the floor. I certainly know that he never made that assertion to me. The Chairman. I was not confining it to assertions made to you. was inquiring about assertions being made upon the floor within ur hearing. CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 867 Mr. Wellensgard. I was in the session, but I could not say where I heard it. The Chairman. Tell us what you know about it. Mr. Wellensgard. I have no recollection. The Chairman. No recollection at all ? Mr „ Wellensgard. No; only rumors. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion here ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. It seems to me that this is very clearly hearsay testimony. I have no objection to the chairman probing the recol- lection of the witness ; but I think the record ought not to be filled up with hearsay testimony. The Chairman. I have seen fit at this time to anticipate the testi- mony of other witnesses, so as to know whether or not I should want to keep this witness in attendance. Mr. Littlefield. Even so, I do not see how hearsay testimony should come in after that fact was developed. The Chairman. Testimony in regard to statements made upon the floor of a legislative body, made by a member thereof in the presence of other members, is not hearsay testimony when drawn from the member who heard it. It is the only evidence you can have, in the absence of a report of the proceedings officially made and provided for. If this member of the legislature heard another mem- ber state in his official capacity, while in a session of the legislature, that he had been approached and offered $1,500, it would be entirely coimietent to prove it by the testimony of the member who heard it. Mr. Littlefield. Then the chairman holds that a statement of that kind, made under those circumstances, is not hearsay ? The Chairman. It is not hearsay. That is, you may denominate it hearsay, technically, but it is not testimony that would be prohib- ited under the rule that prohibits hearsay testimony, because it is the only evidence that can be had on the question. Mr. Littlefield. I was not aware that the exclusion or the admis- sion of hearsay evidence depended on the question of whether or not that be the only evidence that could be found. I had supposed hearsay testimony was hearsay testimony, irrespective of the exi- gency of the case. My position is that there is no exigency that can transmute what would be hearsay testimony into competent testi- mony. The Chairman. That is an accurate technical statement; but such testimony is not prohibited as hearsay testimony. It is competent to receive evidence of statements made officially by officials in the presence of other officials, unless there be a law requiring a record to be made of the statement, and that that record shall be evidence. In this case there is no such law and no such record. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, I desire to place on the record our earnest protest against the admission of anything that can be legally denominated hearsay testimony. The Chairman. The objection will be noted. Mr. Littlefield. Especially applying it to testimony of this char- acter. I wish to have the record show that we very respectfully and very earnestly protest against the committee allowing any hear- say testimony in the case. 868 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. The Chairman. An opportunity will be given to the witnesses to testify as to statements made upon the floor by fellow-members in regard to their having been approached with bribes or offers of cor- ruption. Mr. Littlefield. I still maintain the legal proposition that that testimony is clearly hearsay; and I desire to continue my respectful and earnest protest against its admission. The Chairman. Do you desire to examine this witness ? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, yes. Is the chairman through with him ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Wellensgard, state a little more fully to the committee the character of business in which you were engaged in 1908. Were you connected with the Berlin Canning & Pickling Co. ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Is that a company that does canning and pick- ling in } T our vicinity ? Mr. Wellensgard. We do not do any canning now. We pickle Mr. Littlefield. How” large, relatively, is the business that it does ? Mr. Wellensgard. We have put up all the way from 3,000 to 30,000 a year. Mr. Littlefield. What would be the business of the company annually in dollars and cents ? Mr. Wellensgard. It would depend on the volume of goods that we sold. Mr. Littlefield. Say 30,000. What would that be ? Mr. Wellensgard. We are paying 50 cents a bushel or a dollar a hundred for them, for the smaller ones, or what we call the vat run. Mr. Littlefield. I do not want to go into this in detail, but sim- ply want to get the character of the business in which you are engaged, and your general situation as to the business. What would that aggregate for the annual output in round numbers ? Mr. Wellensgard. I should say all the way from $1,500 to $15,000. Mr. Littlefield. What interest have you in the company ? ML Wellensgard. I am at the present time practically the sole owner of it; the family is. Mr. Littlefield. Were you then a very large owner in it ? Mr. Wellensgard. At what time? Mr. Littlefield. 1908 and 1909. Mr. Wellensgard. I still owned it. Senator Pomerene. What is the purpose of this ? Mr. Littlefield. I simply want to show the character of the busi- ness in which Mr. Wellensgard is engaged. Senator Pomerene. Has he not gone far enough to show the character of his business ? Mr. Littlefield. As far as that is concerned, I also want to show about these farms. I am going to show, and try to have the record show, that there is not any very great probability that a man of his position would be in any way influenced by the $250.80 that he received in connection with this campaign so far as his vote is con- cerned. I was not intending to disclose my purpose to the witness; but that is what the purpose is. Does the Senator get my idea ? CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. 869 Senator Pomerene. Oh, yes; but I do not see that it has very much weight. Mr. Littlefield. That may be true. We can not tell how it may impress other men who may have to pass on this. I do not know what significance may be attached to it. Were you the owner of a number of farms in that vicinity? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. How many ? Mr. Wellensgard. I think I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 acres, or lacking a few acres of that number. Mr. Littlefield. Roughly stated, what are their values? Mr. Wellensgard. All the way from $5 to $150 an acre — or it was at that time. Mr. Littlefield. Did this $250.80 that you received from the managers of the Stephenson campaign have any effect upon the vote that you afterwards cast for Senator? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to state to the com- mittee what your vote would have been if you had not received any- thing from the Senator ? Mr. Wellensgard. It would have been the same. If Senator Stephenson had not got the majority, I should have voted for the other man — whoever got the votes in the primaries. Mr. Littlefield. You were publicly pledged, as I understand it, to stand by the result of the primary? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. ttt ' 1 1 standing, direct or indirect, received was in any way to affect your action in connection with the senatorial election ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I notice that there are nine items entered under the date of September 3. Without going into each of them in detail, state whether it is your recollection that those nine items that appear under date of September 3 were or were not all disbursed by you on that day. Mr. Wellensgard. I would not say all, but I think some of them were disbursed before that day. As I have stated before, I do not think the date there is exactly correct. These items were all dis- bursed by me. There may be one or two of them that are not; but so far as the date is concerned, I would not be sure. Mr. Littlefield. Under date of September 2 there are 13 items which would appear by the statement to have been disbursed upon the 2d of September. Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think they were. I think some of them were paid a few days before, or some time before. As to the dates, I would not be positive. Mr. Littlefield. So far as you are able to state, were any of the services that were rendered for the money that you have shown in this statement as being disbursed in the interest of Senator Stephen- son’s candidacy, services rendered in your interest in your campaign ? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think so. They may have voted for both of us, and then just for one of us. or any intimation sum of $250.80 that you 870 CHRISTIAN C. WELLENSGARD. Mr. Littlefield. What I want to get at is this: You made up this statement shortly after the primary election day? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not at that time you made the statement according to your best judgment of the disbursements you had made that were in the Senator’s sole interest, as distinguished from your own. Mr. Wellensgard. I did. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean that ? Mr. Wellensgard. I mean I made it out with that intention — to make it as fair and distinct as I possibly could. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Sacket before you rendered any active service in Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That, then, must have been some time prior to July 5, which was the date of the first item you have charged here, for livery to Princeton. Mr. Wellensgard. Sometime in the latter part of June. Mr. Littlefield. At the time that Mr. Sac&et had the conversa- tion with you, had you or had you not announced to anyone your intention of being a candidate in the coming primary for election to the legislature? Mr. Wellensgard. There might have been talk that I was running. I had not come out and announced myself. I might in general conversation have announced myself— that I might be a candidate; but I had not made up my mind for certain. Mr. Littlefield. Had you indicated that in any conversation you had with Mr. Sacket, so far as you remember? Mr. Wellensgard. I do not think so. I do not think I did. I had been approached sometime during the summer by some of my constituents to become a candidate, but I had not determined whether I would or not. Mr. Littlefield. Are we to understand, then, that so far as you know Mr. Sacket had no knowledge at the time you had the conversa- tion with him as to whether or not you were then intending to be a candidate ? Mr. Wellensgard. He had not, so far as I know. Mr. Littlefield. Did you expend any money in the interest of Senator Stevenson’s campaign for the purpose of bribing or cor- ruptly influencing any electors in the primary election? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Either directly or indirectly ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did any of these gentlemen whom you employed, whom you paid, and about whom you have testified, expend any money, to your knowledge, in bribing or corruptly influencing electors in the interest of Senator Stephenson in that primary election ? Mr. Wellensgard. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether you are able to state positively that the total sum of $250.80, an account of which you rendered to Mr. Sacket, was or was not paid in the interest of the Senator’s campaign. Mr. Wellensgard. Paid by me? CHARLES S. FRENCH. 871 Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Mr. Wellensgard. It was. Mr. Littlefield. Was it or was it not paid for that purpose? Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. You are excused. Senator Pomerene. Just one question: You have shown to the committee two receipts that you took on, perhaps, October 5. Mr. Wellensgard. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you take any other receipts about that time? Mr. Wellensgard. No. Senator Pomerene. That is all. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES S. FRENCH. Charles S. French, having been previously duly sworn, was ex- amined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. French. Lake Geneva, Wis. The Chairman. What is your business ? Mr. French. I am an attorney. The Chairman. How long have you been practicing your pro- fession in Wisconsin ? Mr. French. Since 1879. The Chairman. Did you support Senator Stephenson for nomina- tion as United States Senator in 1908? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive money from Senator Stephenson or anyone acting for him, for supporting him at that time ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. You say you did not receive any money? Mr. French. Not for supporting him. Perhaps I did not quite understand the question. The Chairman. Yes; that was the question. Did you receive money from Senator Stephenson, or his campaign managers, at all ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. French. For the purpose of expending it in his campaign in Walworth and Kenosha Counties. The Chairman. Did you expend it ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Have you an account of those expenditures ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you make an account of them ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. You received that money on August 18, did you not? Mr. French. About that time. The Chairman. $800 ? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. You received that from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. French. Yes. 872 CHARLES S. FRENCH. The Chairman. Did you receive any money during that campaign from anyone to support any other person ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. Was that the only campaign money that you had during the primary campaign ? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. Did you devote your time to campaigning for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What kind of work did you do ? Mr. French. I visited every town and village or city in the two counties, and in some instances I visited them more than once. The Chairman. You took part in the legislative campaign also, did you not ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. You have said, on a former examination, that it was necessary to expend money in the campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. I believe so. The Chairman. What constituted that necessity ? Mr. French. In our two counties there was such an indifference among the people that I knew, that it needed somebody to stir them up and get them to promise to come to the primary and bring some- body else. The Chairman. Is it a farming community ? Mr. French. To a large extent; yes, sir. The Chairman. When you say “ indifference,” you mean they did not care who was elected United States Senator ? Mr. French. Yes; they cared, but they did not think the votes were going to be enough to make much difference. The Chairman. Each man thought his vote would not make much difference; was that it? Mr. French. As nearly as I can express it; yes, sir. The Chairman. How much of that $800 did you pay out to others for their work ? Mr. French. All of it. The Chairman. You did not keep any for your own compensation at all ? Mr. French. For that, and for expenses. The Chairman. You paid your own expenses out of it ? Mr. French. I paid my own expenses out of it. The Chairman. How much did your expenses amount to ? Mr. French. That will have to be an estimate. There was the car; and usually from three to four with me all the while. The Chairman. An automobile ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Was it your own automobile, or did you hire it ? Mr. French. It was mine. The Chairman. And you took others along with you to assist in creating a sentiment in favor of Senator Stephenson, did you ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In what manner did you create that sentiment ? How did you go about creating that sentiment ? Mr. French. I do not know that I did. I tried to. CHARLES S. FRENCH. 873 I would go to a town, and I usually had an acquaintance with me who knew two or three prominent men in that town. We would go and visit these men, and have these men direct us to other men about the town whom we would go to see. The Chairman. When you visited them, did you just talk and argue with them in favor of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. I did not have to do that. They were all Stephenson men. The Chairman. You only visited Stephenson men ? Mr. French. That is all; yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you expend any of this money for treats ? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. Cigars or liquor? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. How much of it? Mr. French. I can not tell. The Chairman. Can you approximate it? Mr. French. I do not believe I can. The Chairman. Three hundred dollars ? Mr. French. Oh, no. The Chairman. One hundred dollars ? Mr. French. I do not believe so. The Chairman. Approximating a hundred dollars? Mr. French. I do not believe so. The Chairman. Where did you spend any money for treating to whisky or cigars ? Mr. French. You mean the locality? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. French. Genoa Junction. The Chairman. Is that a town? Mr. French. Yes; Powers Lake and Twin Lakes. The Chairman. Let us stop at Powers Lake a minute. How long did you stop there? Mr. French. On two or three occasions. The Chairman. Did you spend money for whisky and cigars there ? Mr. French. I do not know that I did ; but I presume I did. The Chairman. Can you name some place where you know you did spend money for that purpose ? Mr. French. Yes. I can not name the location; but it is a place about six miles from Kenosha, near Truesdell. It has no name except Truesdell, perhaps. The Chairman. How much do you think you spent there ? Mr. French. On the different occasions I was there, probably somewhere near $10. The Chairman. You say in your former testimony you gave a man named Edwards $30. Mr. Littlefield. To what page are you referring, Air. Chairman? The Chairman. Page 2401. The first page in the third volume. For what purpose did you pay Mr. Edwards $30 ? Mr. French. For devoting time to talking in Mr. Stephenson's interest and procuring some workers at the polls who would direct the attention of the voters to Mr. Stephenson's claims. 874 CHARLES S. FRENCH. The Chairman. You say you spent more than $30 with the ice house employees ? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. How did you spend that ? Mr. French. There were several ice houses there, and I got infor- mation, the best I could, as to the most available man who would visit his fellow employees and see that they would go to the polls and vote on primary election day; and to press Mr. Stephenson’s candidacy. The Chairman. You have accounted for about $35 oi $40 out of $800. Is that the nearest you can come to accounting for the money that you expended in that campaign? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. Account for some more, then. Mr. French. I spent about $10 or $15 in each of the precincts, I think, except four. Mr. Littlefield. How many precincts are there? Mr. French. I think there are 51 in the two counties. I may be wrong about that. The Chairman. Why was it necessary to spend $800 in Walworth and Kenosha Counties ? Mr. French. Because of the competition. The Chairman. How many votes did Senator Stephenson receive in those counties ? Have you your book there ? Mr. French. I can not tell you. Mr. Littlefield. We have it here. We will give it to you. Mr. Black. Do you wish me to state it? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; if you have it. Mr. Black. 875 in Kenosha. Senator Sutherland. Out of how many altogether? Mr. Black. I have just the Stephenson figures. I have not the entire number. Mr. Littlefield. I will have it for you in just a moment, Senator. Senator Stephenson had 1,010 ; Mr. McGovern had 662 ; Mr. Hatton had 683; and Mr. Cook had 1,047. Mr. Black. That is in Walworth County. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Senator Stephenson had a plurality of that county ? < Mr. Littlefield. No; not in Walworth County. Mr. Cook had a plurality. Cook had 1,047 and Stephenson only 1,010. Senator Pomerene. In Kenosha County there were 2,290 votes; Stephenson received 875; McGovern 802, Hatton 184, and Cook 428. Mr. Littlefield. He didTiave a plurality in Kenosha County. The Chairman. Did you render any account to any one for the expenditure you had made ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you keep an account? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. You did not have any memorandum at all, or destroy any in regard to it ? Mr. French. No, sir. CHARLES S. FRENCH. 875 The Chairman. If you had a client, who employed you to attend to his business, and gave you expense money, would you feel that you were treating him fairly to keep no account of the mannei of the expenditure ? Mr. French. No, sir. The Chairman. What difference is there in the rule obtaining with you in the performance of legal services for which you are paid and in the performance of political services for which you are paid ? Mr. French. I can not say that there is a difference. The Chairman. You do not think there should be any difference? Mr. French. No; I do not. The Chairman. You think you should have kept an accurate account of these expenditures? Mr. French. Yes; Ido. The Chairman. In the interest of good political morals? Mr. French. Yes. The Chairman. You did not think about it at the time? Mr. French. Oh, no. I did not think anything about it then. The Chairman. Did you pay any of this money for newspaper advertising ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. Can you give us any more complete state- ment as to the persons to whom you paid money than you have already given ? Mr. French. I can make it somewhat more complete, Senator. Senator Sutherland. Do that, then. Let us hear it. Mr. French. You mean to give the names of the persons to whom it was paid ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. French. I testified, I believe, that I paid over $30 there at the ice houses at Twin Lakes and Powers Lake; and I believe I left about $90 there. Senator Sutherland. You believe you left about $90 where? Mr. French. At the two lakes. That was to cover the expense of teams in getting voters to the polls Senator Sutherland. With whom did you leave it? Mi. French. I can not tell the names. They were not men that I knew, but men to whom I was directed by some acquaintance in the town. Senator Sutherland. You left it with a numbei of different people ? Mr. French. Oh, yes. Senator Sutherland. About how many? Mr. French. Well, this is not accurate, but I think that there were about four or five in the two different localities. Senator Sutherland. You mean you divided the $90 among four or five people ? Mr. French. No; I think I left about that much. Senator Sutherland. You divided it among them, did you not? Mr. French. Oh, yes. Senator Sutherland. That is what I said. Do you know how you divided it ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. In equal proportions ? 876 CHARLES S. FRENCH. Mr. French. Oh, no. I can not remember that, Senator. Senator Sutherland. You simply think that you left about $90 altogether ? Mr. French. Yes. Senator Sutherland. What was to be done with that ? Mr. French. They were to urge Mr. Stephenson’s candidacy, and especially to get their fellow employees to go to the polls on election day, and provide teams from the neighboring farms to take them there. Senator Sutherland. How did you come to leave $90 there ? Was any estimate made as to what it would cost? Mr. French. No; it was just a matter of my judgment or recol- lection. I think it was about that. Senator Sutherland. Do you remember anybody else ? Mr. French. Any other individual ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Can you give me the names of any individual to whom you paid money, whom you have not already mentioned ? Mr. French. Yes; I can remember two or three more. Senator Sutherland. Give me the name of one. Mr. French. One fellow was named Brownlow. Senator Sutherland. Where does he live ? Mr. French. East Troy. Senator Sutherland. How much did you give him? Mr. French. I can not tell. According to my best recollection, that it was $10. Senator Sutherland. $10? Mr. French. I think so. Senator Sutherland. For what purpose was that paid? Mr. French. For putting in his time talking for Stephenson, and being at the polls on election day. Senator Sutherland. For what purpose was he to be at the polls ? Mr. French. To call the attention of voters to Mr. Stephenson, and to solicit their votes for him. Senator Sutherland. Did you pay out any money for distribut- ing literature ? Mr. French. I think I paid out somewhere around ten or fifteen dollars to boys. Senator Sutherland. How much did you spend for cigars ? Mr. French. I can not tell that, Senator. Senator Sutherland. How did you distribute cigars ? Mr. French. I did not distribute cigars. Senator Sutherland. What do you mean? You just had them on hand ? Mr. French. Oh, no. When we went into a place where the crowd wanted cigars or drinks, why we went in and bought the cigars or the drinks; if there was anybody around, we invited them to drink, regardless of their political affiliations. We were strangers, anyway, and visited the saloon keeper about putting up lithographs, and asking him to see that they were kept there and not torn down. (Whereupon, at 12.30 o’clock p. m., the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.) CHARLES S. FRENCH. 877 AFTER RECESS. The recess having expired, the subcommittee resumed its session. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES S. FREN CE — Resumed . (By request, the reporter read the last few questions and answers.) Senator Sutherland. I think that is all. Senator Pomerene. With whom did you make your arrangements relative to what you did for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. With Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. Was anything said about keeping an account of your expenditures. Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or making any report to him ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you did not keep any account? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. And made no report? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Though you expended about $ 800 , I believe you said ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You gave some items of expenditure here. Did you charge for the use of your automobile ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Your services, then, were without any com- pensation other than to reimburse you for your actual expenditures ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You were never called on for any account as to those expenditures ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you put any part of this money in the hands of anyone else to expend for Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. French. I do not think so. Senator Pomerene. In other words, whatever money you dis- tributed you gave to the man who actually did the work or per- formed the services, and not to him as an agent to represent you in the distribution of that fund ? Mr. French. I think so, except possibly in the instance of Mr. Edwards down there. I believe I did ask him to get somebody to work at the polls. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edwards, where? Mr. French. That I referred to in my testimony before lunch. Mr. Littlefield. Did you state how much you gave Edwards ? Mr. French. $30. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any arrangements or make any arrangements with any of the candidates for the general assembly to perform services ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were you a candidate yourself? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you served in the assembly here ? Mr. French. No, sir. 878 CHARLES S. FRENCH. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all I care to ask. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. French, had you had any experience in cam- paigning upon lines similar to those in which you were engaged in the mterest of the Senator in this primary election ? Mr. French. No, sir; not very much. Mr. Littlefield. Had you to some extent? Mr. French. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Where you had occasion to disburse money in connection with creating an organization ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You had not had the disbursing of money before that. Do you know what the general practice had been with reference to keeping accounts or rendering detailed accounts under such circumstances ? Axe you familiar enough with it to tell us that ? Mr. French. No; I am not. Mr. Littlefield. As to the account in this instance: At the time, did or did it not occur to you that there was any necessity for your keeping a detailed itemized statement of your expenditures ? Mr. French. No, sir; it did not occur to me. Mr. Littlefield. It was not suggested to you, I take it, b} any- one ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was your failure to keep an itemized and de- tailed statement of your expenditures the result of a desire to con- ceal them or to cover up any expenditures ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. As I understand you, you found it necessary to create such organization as you had in 51 precincts? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And your estimate, from your best recollection now, is that in those 51 precincts you expended from ten to fifteen dollars ? Mr. French. Yes, sir; except in Lake Geneva. I did not expend anything at all there. Mr. Littlefield. You did not spend anything there? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Wliat was the character of the expenditure in the various precincts where you expended, according to your recol- lection, from ten to fifteen dollars ? What I mean now is, the purpose for which the expenditures were made. Mr. French. I engaged somebody to spend some time between the time that I saw them and primary election day, and also on primary election day, to represent Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Littlefield. They were going to spend some time between the time you saw them and the primary election day ; but what were they to do during that period ? That is, what did you expect them to do ? Mr. French. I expected them to visit with their friends and neigh- bors, and bring wSenator Stephenson’s claims to their attention and get their support. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any canvass or campaign being con- ducted in the territory that you covered in the interest of any other candidate ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. CHARLES S. FRENCH. 879 Mr. Littlefield. Were all the other candidates in there with their representatives and campaigners? Mr. French. I do not know that all of them were, but I think so. Mi . Littlefield. That is, Mr. Hatton and Mr. Cook and Mr. McGovern ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose you ran across evidences of their activity as you traveled about the country ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the men that you em- ployed were employed for the purpose of meeting this activity, and creating as much sentiment as they could in the interest of Senator Stephenson. * Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was the whole $800 expended in the manner you have described ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And, as you say, without making any charge for your own personal services, or for the use of your automobile ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you drive the machine yourself ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you expend any money duiing this cam- paign in the interest of Senator Stephenson for the purpose of either directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing any of the electors in the primary election? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money expended by any of the people to whom you intrusted money, so far as you know, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corrupting any electors in that primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever receive any information from any source about there that any such conduct had occurred ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Pomerene. Just another question or two: Did you discuss with anybody during this primary, or shortly thereafter, the necessity or the propriety of furnishing an account so as to enable the Senator to file with the secretary ol state an account of his expenditures ? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You never heard that discussed? Mr. French. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You knew as a lawyer, of course, that the statute required candidates to file accounts; did you not? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you that he could not very well file an account if you did not furnish him the information? Mr. French. No, sir; it did not occur to me. Senator Pomerene. Another matter: You spoke before lunch of the indifference that there was in your section with reference to this campaign. Do you remember that? Mr. French. Yes, sir. 880 GEORGE BEYER. Senator Pomerene. You thought that it was necessary to expend this money for the purpose of stirring up Stephenson sentiment in that community ? Mr. French. Stirring it up ; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You also spoke of the competition there was in that locality. Did you mean that? Mr. French. It was an ill-chosen word, perhaps;' “ exertion” would be better. Senator Pomerene. I was wondering how you would reconcile “competition” with “indifference.” Mr. French. I did not mean indifference on the part of the other candidates. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. • Mr. Littlefield. I do not suppose the representatives of the other candidates were unduly exerting themselves to create sentiment for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. French. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is the section where you were largely an agri- cultural section ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Almost wholly so ? Mr. French. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know but that we all have knowledge of this; but what is the 1st of September? Is that practically the harvest season ? Mr. French. A little past the harvest season. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. You are excused. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE BEYER. George Beyer, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows : The Chairman. Mr. Beyer, state your full name. Mr. Beyer. George Beyer. The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Beyer. At Oconto, Wis. The Chairman. What is your business ? Mr. Beyer. Heal estate and banking. The Chairman. Did you participate in the primary campaign of Senator Stephenson in the year 1908 ? Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive any money to be expended by you in that campaign ? Mr. Beyer. There was money sent to me. The largest part of it was through another party. It came from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. It came from Mr. Edmonds, did it ? Mr. Beyer. To me; yes. The Chairman. And you paid it out during the campaign, did you ? Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. To whom did you pay it and for what purpose ? Mr. Beyer (consulting paper). I paid to a man by the name of Hanson $10. The Chairman. For what purpose? GEORGE BEYER. 881 Mr. Littlefield. Give his full name, if you have it. Mr. Beyer. I have not got it. This is the original memorandum; I had it in my pocket as I made it. Mr. Littlefield. What is that ? Mr. Beyer. This is the original memorandum I made as I gave it out. The Chairman. Made at the time you paid out the money? Mr. Beyer. I gave it to him to work for the interest of Senator Stephenson in the primary. The Chairman. That is, to work for his nomination ? Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When did you receive that money ? Mr. Beyer. I got that about August 29, or right after that. The Chairman. When did you pay it out ? Mr. Beyer. He got this the day before the primary. The Chairman. Do you know what he expended it for? Mr. Beyer. I suppose he used that to get people to the polls to vote ? The Chairman. To haul them there in carriages or wagons ? Mr. Beyer. I presume he had to do that, too. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Name the next expenditure that you made. Mr. Beyer. I gave a man named Jones $20. He did the same thing. I think he had a couple of teams. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Beyer. Then there was another man named Harris, $5. The Chairman. For what purpose was that money expended ? Mr. Beyer. He was to do work, the same as the others. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Beyer. And to E. J. O’Kelleher I gave $20. He used that in the same way. I paid A. Richard $10 to be used in the same way, and I paid a man by the name of C. Schulze $5. I paid him for his day’s work. The Chairman. Of what did his day’s work consist? Mr. Beyer. Why, he got all the friends he had, and got them to the polls to vote for Senator Stephenson. Then there is Chris Classon, $5. Then I gave Louis Teneson $5. Then the same man came back and he said he had a friend that he wanted to help him, and I gave him $2, and that paid for his day’s work. And there is a fellow by the name of Borich who got $5, and a man by the name of Shallor, $5, and W. P. Cook got $250. The Chairman. What was that for ? Mr. Beyer. He made the arrangement with Mr. Edmonds and Mr. Edmonds was better acquainted with me than he was with Mr. Cook aqd he sent it to me. He first sent a $100 check, which I indorsed and gave to him, and afterwards there was $200 sent, and I gave him all but $50 of that. This other $50 I paid to these men in these small items. Then this man Jones, after he got done, came in and wanted $12.40 more, which I paid him, and then he had an order for a livery rig and the bill for that came to $1.50, and I paid that; and this was included in that. That made $360.90. The Chairman. Does that account for all the money that came into your hands ? Mr. Beyer. Yes; and $5.90 more. The Chairman. That you contributed yourself ? 15235 °— vol 1—11 56 882 GEORGE BEYER. Mr. Beyer. Yes. The Chairman. You do not know what Cook did with the money that you gave him ? Mr. Beyer. No; I could not say. The Chairman. You say at one place in your former testimony, “I paid W. P. Cook $300.” Mr. Beyer. No; $250. I first gave him $100 that came from Mr. Edmonds in one check. Mr. Littlefield. You gave him how much in all ? Mr. Beyer. $250. Mr. Littlefield. Does not your memorandum show $300 ? Mr. Beyer. Yes; but I gave him $250. The Chairman. What did Cook do with that money, or do you know ? Mr. Beyer. He got a rig and made a canvass through the counties, but how he used it I could not say. Senator Pomerene. Why did you keep an account of it? Mr. Beyer. I just kept it because I wanted to know where it went to. Mr. Littlefield. Perhaps the Senator would like to look at the original account. Senator Pomerene. I am very glad to see one. Mr. Beyer. It is not very artistic. Senator Pomerene. I do not care to ask any more questions. The Chairman. Does that account for the whole $400 ? Mr. Beyer. There was only $300 altogether, and that accounts for the whole of it and $5.90 more. Mr. Black. I understood the witness to say $400. Mr. Beyer. No; $300. Mr. Littlefield. $300 is all that you received ? Mr. Beyer. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And you actually disbursed a little in excess of that ? Mr. Beyer. Tes. Senator Sutherland. I do not understand that. Mr. Beyer, you gave Cook $300 ? Mr. Littlefield. No; $250. The Chairman. He gave him $300, and Cook gave him back $50. Mr. Beyer. Yes. The Chairman. He indorsed over a $100 check and a $200 check, and Cook gave him back $50. Mr. Beyer. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Did you render an account to anybody for that? Mr. Beyer. I was not asked to. No, sir; I did not. Senator Pomerene. You have always been prepared to furnish this ? . Mr. Beyer. Oh, certainly. Mr. Littlefield. Wdiat is your business, Mr. Beyer? Mr. Beyer. I am in the real estate and banking business. Mr. Littlefield. What position do you occupy in connection with the bank? Mr. Beyer. I am president of the Oconto National Bank. GEORGE BEYER. 883 Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the statements that you have made here in relation to these details are made after refreshing your recollection from memoranda made upon the envelope in which one of the checks came to you. Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Made by you at the time you made the dis- bursements ? Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. The envelope having upon it the postmark August 29, 1908. Mr. Beyer. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you pay, either directly or indirectly, to any elector, in the interest of Senator Stephenson in the primary election, any money for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influenc- ing his vote ? Mr. Beyer. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money paid by any of these gentlemen to whom you intrusted money, or to whom you °jave money as you have described, within your knowledge, to any elector for the pur- pose, either directly or indirectly, of bribing or corruptly influencing any votes for Senator Stephenson in that primary election ? Mr. Beyer. No, sir; not that I know of. Senator Sutherland. Mr. Beyer, I do not understand you. How much money did you receive from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Beyer. $300. Senator Sutherland. Your account here in the printed testimony of the joint investigation shows $400. Mr. Beyer. No. I accounted for JJ355.90. Senator Sutherland. Your account, which I find in the book on page 4448, Exhibit 471, says: “Received from Edmonds, $400. ” Mr. Beyer. That was a mistake. It was only $300. Senator Sutherland. “Paid W. P. Cook $300.” Mr. Beyer. That is wrong. Senator Sutherland. And then the others, which foot up alto- gether $400. Mr. Beyer. They must have made a mistake, because that is all there was. That is just as fresh in my mind as if it had been done this morning. All I got was $100 first and $200 afterwards. That made $300, and I paid out $350 and something. Mr. Littlefield. According to this, you paid out $350 and something ? Mr. Beyer. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That is $50 more than you received? Mr. Beyer. Yes. My recollection is now it is only $300. These amounts I have given here were paid. Senator Sutherland. The account shows that you paid Cook Mr. Beyer. $250. Mr. Littlefield. It shows here that you paid Cook $300. Senator Sutherland. It foots up $405.90. There can be no doubt about that at all. Mr. Littlefield. That is true. Senator Sutherland. Let me give him the amounts and you follow them: $300, $32.40, $10, $5, $20 Mr. Littlefield. He has not them in that order. 884 NORMAN L. JAMES. Mr. Beyer. I will tell you where the mistake is. These amounts foot up to $342 first, and then there was added to that $12.40 and $1.50 and that makes $350.90. Senator Pomerene. The testimony on pages 4390 and 4391 shows the questions that were asked of you from time to time and you seem to have based your testimony on that amount. Did you get $100 August 28 ? Mr. Beyer. Yes; about that time. Mr. Littlefield. There are two payments — one on August 28 and one on August 29. Senator Pomerene. August 29, $300. Senator Sutherland. I suggest that you look that over, Mr. Beyer, and let us know about it later. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; look it over carefully and see if there are any corrections to be made. We may be able to find the chack, and that will help. We will take this up this evening, Mr. Chairman, and see if we can find the check. The Chairman. Very well. You are excused for the present, Mr. Beyer. TESTIMONY OF NORMAN L. JAMES. Norman L. James, having been heretofore duly sworn, was exam- ined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. James. Richland Center, Wis. The Chairman. What is your business ? Mr. James. Lumber and agriculture. The Chairman. In what business were you engaged in 1908 during the primary campaign ? Mr. James. In lumbering and agriculture. The Chairman. Residing at the same place ? Mr. James. Yes. The Chairman. Do you hold any public office ? Mr. James. No, sir. The Chairman. Have you at any time ? Mr. James. Yes. The Chairman. What office ? Mr. James. I held the office of member of the assembly in 1873 and 1875, and I was in the State senate in 1885 and 1887. The Chairman. Since that time you have not been a member of the legislature ? Mr. James. No, sir. The Chairman. Was your brother a candidate for any office in that campaign ? Mr. James. He was. The Chairman. What office ? Mr. James. State senator. The Chairman. Was he elected? Mr. James. He was. The Chairman. Did you campaign in the interest of your brother ? Mr. James. Not particularly. The Chairman. Did you campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? NORMAN L. JAMES. 885 Mr. James. I did. The Chairman. Did you receive money for the purpose of making that campaign? Mr. James. I did not receive the money until after I had expended money of my own. The Chairman. How much money did you expend ? Mr. James. I expended between six and seven hundred dollars. The Chairman. From whom did you then receive the money ? Mr. JxiMEs. I received $300 from Mr. Edmonds on the 26th of August and $200 from Mr. Puelicher on the 10th of September. The Chairman. Did you receive any other money ? Mr. James. No, sir. The Chairman. Five hundred dollars, then, is all the money that you received from any person in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. James. That is all. The Chairman. Either before expenditure or afterwards ? Mr. James. That is right. The Chairman. What did you do for that $500 ? Mr. James. I kept that $500. I did not expend that. I expended money of my own. I had expended more than that. The Chairman. That is what we want to know. What expendi- tures had you made, and for what purpose? Mr. James. That is to say, you want to find out what I expended my own money for ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. James. I spent it to hire teams to canvass in the interest of Senator Stephenson, to put up posters and lithographs, and for but- tons and other printed matter that would be for his interest. The Chairman. How much money did you expend for those items ? Mr. James. I expended altogether between six and seven hundred dollars — not less than six and not over seven. I did not keep a detailed account. The Chairman. I find in the testimony of Mr. McMahon, at page 3908 of the record of the senatorial primary investigating committee, this statement in reference to a conversation about which he testified : Mr. Hambrecht. He has stated Mr. Edmonds wasn’t there. — A. Mr. Edmonds was not in the city. I got this later. Q. What did Mr. Edmonds state with reference to it? — A. Well, Mr. Edmonds said that he was not satisfied that the funds should have been turned over, to be used in Mr. Stephenson’s interests. Q. That who wasn’t satisfied? — A. Mr. Edmonds wasn’t satisfied; that Mr. Bancroft should have funds to be used in Mr. Stephenson’s interests in Richland County. Q. Did he state why? — A. Not exactly, I shouldn’t say. There wasn’t very much said about it. I simply heard that. Q. Heard Mr. Edmonds say that? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Hambrecht. Did he say it to you? — A. Yes, sir. Mr. Hambrecht. Did he give any other reasons than just the fact he wasn’t satis- fied? — A. Well, I don’t — I should glean, I don’t remember exactly the words that were said Q. The substance. — A. I should glean, or I understood from the remark, that he would prefer to have had those funds in some one else’s hands in Richland County. Q. Did he name Mr. James in that connection?— A. No. Mr. James was working under different conditions. Mr. James was getting his funds and his directions, etc., directly from Mr. Stephenson instead of being handled through the headquarters in Milwaukee. Is there any foundation for that statement ? 886 NORMAN L. JAMES. Mr. James. I had been a friend of Senator Stephenson for a great many years, and we had had a conversation about his being a candi- date for the Senate. I told him I would do what I could for him. The Chairman. But in regard to your getting your funds directlj from Senator Stephenson. Mr. James. There was no arrangement made for Senator Stephen- son to pay me any funds. The Chairman. Did you get any funds from him ? Mr. James. Not from him direct. I suppose this money from Edmonds and Puelicher was his mone^ . The Chairman. That is what was meant in regard to your getting funds from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. James. I presume so. The Chairman. I read further from page 3909, as follows: Mr. Ingalls. Is that of your own knowledge? — A. How is that? Q. Do you know of it yourself or did somebody tell you? — A. Mr. James told me. Q. Well, when you asked Mr. Bancroft to go to Milwaukee, had he up to that time consented to work for Seantor Stephenson? That is all of the testimony that I care to read. Then you explain that by saying that the statement that you got your funds from Mr. Stephenson was to be construed as your having received it through Mr. Stephenson’s agent ? Mr. James. I think so. Will you allow me to make a little expla- nation in regard to my conversation with Mr. McMahon ? The Chairman. Certainly. Mr. James. He came into my office a stranger, and represented that Mr. Edmonds had sent him out to look over the situation. While he was there a gentleman drove up with a team and said, “ 1 am ready to go ; ” and I gave him instructions where to go, and gave him some money. In a few moments another drove up, and I think there were four or five, and Mr. McMahon said to me, “How much money have they sent you from headquarters?” I said, “ Nothing.” “You do not tell me you are using your own money?” I said, “That is what I am doing.” He said, “But that is not right; they have funds for this purpose.” I said, “ Well, I am running this my own way.” He then asked about some others in town — I don’t remember the names — and I think I gave him the name of Mr. Bancroft, and the names of several others. I told him he had better go and interview them and find out what they were doing; that I was running the campaign in my own way. He said he was going back to Milwaukee, and he should tell Mr. Edmonds that he ought to send me out some money. I told him, “That is optional.” After he returned to Milwaukee Mr. Edmonds called me up on the phone and said that Mr. McMahon had told him that I was using my own money, and that he would send me a check for $300. I said, “All right.” He said, “Do you know how much you have expended ? ” I said, “I think about $360.” Either that day or the day following Mr. Puelicher called me to the phone and asked me if Mr. Edmonds had sent me a check. I told him that he had. He said, “ How much money do you think it will take to canvass Rich- land County?” I said, “I am not confining myself to Richland County; I am taking in that portion of the congressional district where I am pretty well acquainted, and I shall work in a portion of Vernon and Crawford Counties, Sauk, and Juneau.” I said I did not think it would take over $500 for the limit. “Then all you will NORMAN L. JAMES. 887 expect will be $200 more?” “That is all I will take. What more it takes I will put in myself.” He then said, “I will stand back of you for the $200.” I said, “All right.” After the election he sent me a check. I think he mailed me the check on the 9th. The polls closed on the evening of the 1st. The Chairman. What was the amount of that check? Mr. James. Two hundred dollars. The Chairman. How much money did you expend altogether on behalf of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. James. Not less than $600 and not over $700. I did not try to avoid or shirk any responsibility. I did not deem it necessary to keep account of my expenses when I was spending my own money. And had not Mr. McMahon come in my office at that time and noticed that I was giving some money out to men to do what I considered legitimate work I do not think I would be here to-day. The Chairman. You mean that you would not have rendered any account or received any recompense for the money you had paid out ? Mr. James. Not a particle up to that time. The Chairman. When you expended this money, are we to under- stand you had no expectation or being reimbursed ? Mr. James. I will tell you a little conversation I had with Mr. Stephenson. Mr. Stephenson said to me, “I understand that you circulated my nomination papers, or caused them to be circulated ?” I said, I did. The Chairman. When did he say this ? Mr. James. Mr. Stephenson said this between the 10th of August and the 17th. I was one of a party on a fishing excursion. Mr. Littlefield. A fishing excursion with the Senator? Mr. James. With the Senator. I left home on the 10th and returned on the 17th. It was during this time up there one evening, while we were around the camp, that he said, “I nave been informed that you have been to some expense in circulating my nomination papers. How much was it?” I said I did not make any account. He said, “Oh, that ain't right.” He seemed to be a little exercised and he made this remark, “I am able to pay ail legitimate expenses and I expect my friends to be reimbursed for all they pay out.” This conversation was not addressed particularly to me any more than it was to Mr. Van Cleve and Mr. ruelicher, who were sitting around there together. He spoke of “My friends.” He said, “I am willing and expect to pay legitimate expenses.” “What do you call ‘legiti- mate expenses r” The Chairman. Who said that ? Mr. James. I said to Senator Stephenson, “What do you call legitimate expenses?” He said, “I do not want my friends” — he always spoke of his friends, and he was not addressing me particu- larly — “I do not want my friends to spend any money for whisky; 1 do not want them to run a saloon campaign. And another thing, I do not like the idea of having a whole lot of heelers standing around the polls.” He says, “Stay off at a proper distance, and it will be perfectly proper — or for any of my friends to make arrangements for articles in the newspapers. If you do, make a contract to pay them advertising rates, and no more. If you get any printed matter, why, pay for it. If it is necessary to hire a man to do work, pay that man what he would earn if he was working at a trade or if he was working 888 NORMAN L. JAMES. on the farm.” He said, “I understand it will take some expense to canvass and to put up lithographs and other printed matter, but I do not want to buy any man’s influence.” He emphasized that very particularly. “What I want is to have my friends work so that at my age I will not' be criticized in this campaign.” With that under- standing I went to work. I did not expect Mr. Edmonds to send me a dollar, nor Mr. Puelicher; and I do not think they would have done it if it had not been for Mr. McMahon coming in just as he did, when I had arranged with parties to come in and help me run the campaign. The Chairman. Did you, expecting that Senator Stephenson would reimburse you, make expenditures in that expectation? Mr. James. I thought Mr. Stephenson would take my word, and if I should say some day to him, “I have expended money and I guess you had better give me a check for about $500,” I thought he would take my word for it without any question. The Chairman. And if he had not complied or sent you a check, you would not have complained, would you ? Mr. James. No, sir; I would not. The Chairman. In other words, you were willing, if necessary, to expend that much money in Senator Stephenson’s interest ? Mr. James. I was, because I wanted him to be elected. I had personal reasons for it. The Chairman. What were the personal reasons? Mr. JxImes. Because I thought he was the most able man to repre- sent us properly in the United States Senate from this State, from his experience as an agriculturist, as a manufacturer, and as a promoter of the industries. I thought that we needed him to take the place made vacant by Senator Sawyer. The Chairman. Vacated by whom? Mr. James. The place that was left vacant by Senator Sawyer, who afterwards died. The Chairman. You mean that he was a worthy successor of Sena- tor Sawyer ? Mr. James. Ex-Senator Sawyer. Yes; I should have said “Ex- Senator Sawyer.” Senator Sutherland. Are you an old resident of the State ? Mr. James. I have resided in the State since 1855. Senator Sutherland. What is your age ? Mr. James. Seventy-one next month. Senator Sutherland. What is your business ? Mr. James. Agriculture and lumber, principally. Senator Sutherland. Are you engaged in manufacturing lumber ? Mr. James. Both. I manufacture hardwood lumber, and buy and sell pine lumber in my retail yard. Senator Sutherland. And Senator Stephenson has also been more or less interested in that business ? Mr. James. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. How intimately have you known Senator Stephenson during all these years ? Mr. James. How long have I known him ? Senator Sutherland. How intimately ? How well? Mr. James. Very intimately; and he has always talked to me without reserve. NORMAN L. JAMES. 889 Senator Sutherland. You have been old friends? Mr. James. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Have you been in the habit of going off on fishing expeditions together? Mr. James. Oh, several times — four times, I think — I was up on the Escanaba with him. Senator Sutherland. And hunting ? Mr. James. Fishing. Senator Sutherland. I say, and hunting also, or just fishing ? Mr. James. No hunting. Senator Sutherland. You have known him ever since 1855? Mr. James. No; I have known of him since 1873, but not intimately until 1880. We wore delegates together at the national convention in Chicago in 1880; and from that time on we have been in pretty close touch with each other. Senator Sutherland. Are you a man of some means ? Mr. James. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. I do not ask you how much. Mr. James. I have enough to pay my bills as I go along. I have been “ pinched” three or four times, and I have always got out all right. Senator Sutherland. I am not undertaking to pry into your affairs, but I thought the question was legitimate. I simply wanted to know. Mr. James. I have always had plenty of means to transact my business. Senator Sutherland. You are not a poor man ? Mr. James. Oh, no; and I have always taken an active part in politics. That is, I have always had some man as a candidate that I was interested in. Senator Sutherland. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. I do not want to make an exception in favor of any witness, and that is the principal reason why I ask you these two or three formal questions, Mr. James: Did you expend any money iq this campaign for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors for the support of Senator Stephenson in the primary election? Mr. James. I did not. Mr. Littlefield. Did anybody, to your knowledge, that you had any connection with ? Mr. James. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. That is all. Mr. James. Do I understand now that I can be excused from any further attendance ? The Chairman. You are excused. Mr. James. I am at liberty to go home, am I ? The Chairman. You are at liberty to go home. The Chairman. Call Arthur Wilcox. (The name of Arthur Wilcox was called, but he did not respond.) The Chairman. Is R. J. Shields present? (The name of R. J. Shields was called, but he did not respond.) The Chairman. Call William G. Wheeler. 890 A. 0. HEYER. (The name of William G. Wheeler was called, but he did not respond.) Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Wheeler was going to come in response to a telephone call whenever you wanted him. He is an attorney right here in town. The Chairman. You had better call him now. In the meantime we will call A. 0. Heyer. TESTIMONY OF A. 0. HEYER. A. O. Heyer, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows : The Chairman. Is your name A. O. Heyer? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You have been sworn? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Heyer. Sheboygan. The Chairman. Did you take part in the senatorial campaign for Senator Stephenson in 1908? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What is your business ? Mr. Heyer. Publisher. The Chairman. Were you engaged in publishing a newspaper in 1908? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. In the English language ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive $500 from Senator Stephenson's campaign fund during that primary campaign ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what did you receive that money ? Mr. Heyer. I received that money for paying some of the bills that Mr. Edmonds had practically contracted for, or had some work done at Sheboygan and in Sheboygan County. The Chairman. What kind of bills ? That is, for what purpose ? Mr. Heyer. I have a little memorandum of them here. The Chairman. Yes; if you have a memorandum, please refer to it. Mr. Heyer (after consulting memorandum). He had some posting of lithographs and posters, and printing some sample ballots. The Chairman. Give the amounts of the items. Mr. Heyer. Forty-five dollars for the bill posting. The Chairman. Did you pay that out ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. Then, printing sample ballots, $24. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Heyer. Then, for advertising in the newspaper, $27.30. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Heyer. Then, printing, $47.50. Distributing sample ballots in city and county, $41.50; livery hire, $28.75; Automobile hire, $30; expense for going through county, $56; telephone, $4.20; workers on primary day, 15 precincts, $60.50; distribution of literature and organization, $74.50; expense incidentals paid to workers, $44.25. personal expense, $16.50. The Chairman. You have omitted the last item. Read that. A. 0. HEYER. 891 Mr. Heyer. No; I did not omit it — “A. O. Heyer, personal ex- pense” — The Chairman. Is there not an item after that ? Mr. Heyer. No. The Chairman. In the statement filed with the committee, Exhibit No. 10, before the senate committee, that is followed by this item: “ Expense, incidentals paid to workers, $44.25.” That is on page 753 of the senate hearings. Mr. Heyer. I have that. I think I read that; did I not? The Chairman. I did not hear you read it. Mr. Heyer. I have that; yes. The Chairman. I was following you down. Mr. Littlefield. That item in the memorandum he is giving pre- cedes the item of “A. O. Heyer, personal expense.” He changed the order. The Chairman. In the printed memorandum it is the last item. Was this printing at regular rates? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. All of these items were at regular advertising and printing rates, were they ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. “ Distributing ballots in city and county.” Did you employ others to do that ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And paid them that amount of money ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On what basis did you pay them ? Mr. Heyer. “Distribution of literature and organization, $74.50”: Do you mean that item ? The Chairman. I mean the $41.50. Mr. Heyer. Oh, yes. The Chairman. “Distributing ballots in city and county.” Mr. Littlefield. Sample ballots ? Mr. Heyer. Oh, yes. There were parties that were supposed to be in different towns to distribute the ballots. The Chairman. “Livery hire, $28.75”: For what was that ex- pended ? Mr. Heyer. That was part that I had paid out and part that the others had paid out who had gone out, sent to help in organization. That is distinct from organization. The Chairman. It is distinct from organization ? Mr. Heyer. Yes. I mean I kept that separate. The Chairman. And the automobile hire was for the same purpose ? Mr. Heyer. For the same purpose. The Chairman. ‘“Expense for going through county, $56”: What was the nature of that expense ? Mr. Heyer. The nature of that expense is that going through the county took several days, and it included meals and such things — stopping at hotels. There were several in the party that went along, all the time, at different places. The Chairman. Was any part of it expended for drinks or cigars at the bars ? 892 A. 0. HEYER. Mr. Heyer. There is not anything in particular, except when you stop at a hotel it is customary with your meals to buy cigars, or something like that. The Chairman No extraordinary expenditure ? Mr Heyer No; no. The Chairman. You did not make a saloon campaign? Mr. Heyer. No, we did not. The Chairman. “Workers on primary days, 15 precincts, $60.50”: What was that item expended for ? Mr. Heyer. That was expended on primary day. In some of the precincts in the country, where people would take voters to the polls, they received a few dollars; and then in the cities they distributed cards around that day, or saw that the voters got out. That was really the idea. The Chairman. “Distribution of literature and organization”: How do you account for that item, $74.50 ? Mr. Heyer. That item I account for because — I can explain that. When Mr. Edmonds was up there he had seen a number of parties, and we asked these parties whether they could not find out whether there was any sentiment for Stephenson, and find out who the par- ties were in his favor, and find out if there were objections, what they were, and to send in the names. These people worked before primary day and sent in names to the Milwaukee headquarters. The Chairman. Referring to your own expense item, “A. O. Heyer, personal expense, fare, and incidentals, $16.50”: That was money expended by you on your trip ? Mr. Heyer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What was that expended for ? Mr. Heyer. I had to go a few times to different places ; I had to go to Milwaukee, and had to go to other places, and that is about the amount that was spent. The Chairman. “Expense incidentals paid to workers, $44.25”: What was the nature of that item ? Mr. Heyer. That item was this: A number of workers in the different wards would come in and would say: “I went around, and I saw people and had a dollar expense,” or they felt they ought to have a little, and that is all put together in that item of $44.25. The Chairman. That was a summing up of small items? Mr. Heyer. Yes; postage and everything else. The Chairman. The witness is with you. Mr. Littlefield. Was any part of this money that was placed in your hands used for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any voters in the primary election campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Heyer. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any part of the money that you paid to these people, covered by the items that you have already explained, used by them, so far as you know, for the purpose of bribing or cor- ruptly influencing any electors in the interest of Senator Stephenson in the primary campaign ? Mr. Heyer. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Pomerene. You rendered no account of this to anyone ? Mr. Heyer. I did; yes. WILLIAM G. WHEELER. 893 Senator Pomerene. To whom ? Mr. Heyer. At the time when I completed the work, or before that, rather. The case was this: Mr. Edmonds really had somebody else up there to take care of his work, I guess; but then he said there was not anything done. When he was up there he got a few of these people together and said if they could do anything and had any legiti- mate expense — reasonable expense — he would stand for it. So dur- ing the campaign I came down and had these bills for printing and different things, and he said: “ Well, I will not bother with it; I will send you a check.” That was when we got up, I believe it was, to $200/ Then when we got all through, after he had sent me the other. About four weeks after the primary I had all the items with me and asked him if he wanted it, and he said, No; he did not care about it particularly. Senator Pomerene. That is, Edmonds said he did not care about it? Mr. Heyer. No. Senator Pomerene. You kept this memorandum for the purpose of giving it to him ? Mr. Heyer. Yes; if he wanted it. Senator Pomerene. But he did not care for it? Mr. Heyer. No; he did not. Senator Pomerene. So you retained it? Mr. Heyer. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And this corresponds with the account that you kept at the time, as these different items of expense were incurred ? Mr. Heyer. Yes. Senator Pomerene. That is all. The Chairman. The witness is excused. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. WHEELER. William G. Wheeler, having been previously sworn, was exam- ined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Wheeler, you have been sworn in this case? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where do you reside? Mr. Wheeler. 305 Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee. The Chairman. Were you engaged in the primary campaign of 1908 for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wheeler. I was. The Chairman. What part did you take in that primary ? Mr. Wheeler. I assisted in his campaign in various parts of the State. The Chairman. Tell us what you did. Mr. Wheeler. I had charge to some extent of the campaign in Rock County. I visited several of the other counties at different times. The Chairman. Did you receive money from the campaign fund for use by you in the campaign ? Mr. Wheeler. I received money. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Wheeler. $ 600. The Chairman. From whom did you receive it? 894 WILLIAM G. WHEELER. Mr. Wheeler. I do not remember, but it was from some one of Senator Stephenson’s campaign committee. The Chairman. What use did you make of that money ? Mr. Wheeler. I used $300 of it to reimburse myself for a similar amount that I had advanced in another county of the State. The Chairman. That is, that you had advanced for what purpose? Mr. Wheeler. For political purposes in Eau Claire County. The other money I spent. The Chairman. How did you spend it? Mr. Wheeler. I spent it to hire workers at the polls, for auto- mobile expenses, and traveling expenses of different kinds. The Chairman. Tell us how you expended some item of it. Mr. Wheeler. Some one item? The Chairman. Yes. I want to get an idea of what your idea of expenses may be. Mr. Wheeler. I paid $2 that I can recall to Joseph Garbutt, of Orfordville. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Wheeler. For working at the pblls on election day. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ working at the polls” ? Mr. Wheeler. Soliciting voters to vote for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. What was the process of soliciting voters? Mr. Wheeler. I do not know what process Mr. Garbutt adopted. The Chairman. How do you know that he performed that service ? Mr. Wheeler. Because he said he did. The Chairman. What did he say he had done? Mr. Wheeler. To me ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. I can not recall his language, but I know that he told me that he worked at the polls getting voters for Mr. Stephenson, or I should not have paid him. The Chairman. You just took his general statement that he worked at the polls ? You do not know whether it consisted in legitimate acts on his part or not, do you ? Mr. Wheeler. Why, nothing except as I know the man. The Chairman. Then you have no facts upon which you can base a statement ? Mr. Wheeler. I was not present at the polls. The Chairman. What was the largest item that you expended for Mr. Stephenson during that campaign? Mr. Wheeler. I could not state that as a matter of recollection. The Chairman. You can state some item that amounted to more than $2 ; can you not ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes; I can state several items that amount to more than $2. The Chairman. State some of them. Mr. Wheeler. I paid $36 in one item that I can recall. I paid $75 in another item. I paid something like $13.20 for another item. I paid $6 for still another item. The Chairman. Tell what those items were. Did you make any memorandum, or keep any account of them ? Mr. Wheeler. I did. The Chairman. Have you it? Mi*. Wheeler. No, sir. WILLIAM G. WHEELER. 895 The Chairman. Where is it? Mr. Wheeler. It is in the possession of this committee. The Chairman. Mr. Wheeler, we will pass you a memorandum that comes to us from the custodian of public property of the State. You will have to return it to him. Mr. Wheeler. It is my property. The Chairman. We do not want you to take that position, because the committee has received it with the understanding that it is to be returned. Do you want to use it to refresh your memory in testifying ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes. These are my private papers that I placed with the legislative committee upon their promise to return them to me. The Chairman. You will have to work that out with them. Mr. Wheeler. I can settle that with them, I suppose. The Chairman. Yes. You can refer to that for the purpose of accounting for the money which you expended on behalf of Senator Stephenson. I can probably shorten this very much by referring you to the testimony you gave from this source, and verifying it. Mr. Wheeler. It would not shorten it at all, Senator. The Chairman. Proceed, then. Mr. Wheeler. I issued checks as follows: To Joseph Garbutt, $2. To C. W. Clifford, $10. This item, as I recollect it, was for workers at the polls in the city of Evansville. A check of $36 The Chairman. You may give the dates, if you have them. You evidently have the dates. Mr. Wheeler. Of that item? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. Yes; I have. The Chairman. You give the date of the Clifford item here as August 28. Mr. Wheeler. August 28, to Clifford, $10. August 31, to Frank Mouatt, $36. The Chairman. What was that for? Mr. Wheeler. I shall have to refer to the stub account. It is put down for “ expenses.” That was for expenses incurred in traveling out around through the county, including automobile hire, and money that he paid to different persons. The Chairman. For what? Mr. Wheeler. For services to be performed prior to election day, or on election day; I can not tell which. The Chairman. You have his statement for that? Mr. Wheeler. I had his statement at the time. The Chairman. The next item is: “Self, $100.” Mr. Wheeler. That was for an amount of money that I drew out of the bank when I went out on a similar trip. I can not state the differ- ent items of that expenditure, except $25. I remember about how $25 was spent. The Chairman. How was that spent? Mr. Wheeler (continuing). Because I left that in the city of Beloit, and they sect receipts to me for that money. The Chairman. With whom did you leave it? Mr. Wheeler. I can not say positively. The Chairman. For what purpose did you leave it? 896 WILLIAM G. WHEELER. Mr. Wheeler. I left it there to be paid to find men in each ward to work for Senator Stephenson on election day. Senator Sutherland. On primary election day ? Mr. Wheeler. I think it was primary election day and before. The Chairman. I suppose the balance of it you spent for your personal expenses on your trip. Did you spend any portion of it for treats — liquors or cigars — to electors ? Mr. Wheeler. Of that money ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. Not any of Senator Stephenson’s money. The Chairman. No part of that $100? Mr. Wheeler. The money I received was more than exhausted in other ways. The Chairman. What other ways ? Mr. Wheeler. The ways, that I am stating now. The Chairman. The item here is “$100;” so we are merely accounting for it in the proper inquiry into this matter. When I ask you about liquor and cigars I refer to a class of expenditure which is generally known as “ bar-room campaign;” not to the ordinary, habitual drink that a man might take. Did you spend any of this in a “ bar-room campaign?” Mr. Wheeler. Any of this $600 ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. The Chairman. The next item is $6 to Jones. What was that for ? Mr. Wheeler. That was for the same kind of work that I have spoken of; workers at the polls and before the primary. The Chairman. Then “C. D. Salmon, $75.” Mr. Wheeler. That was for organization work in Beloit — getting men out, and rigs at the polls on election day. The Chairman. This was close up to election, was it ? Mr. Wheeler. It was all close to election. The Chairman. It would appear that “Clifford” was on August 28. Mr. Wheeler. The campaign in Rock County was very much delayed. The Chairman. “L. C. Whittet, $5.” Is that the same class of work ? Mr. Wheeler. “$3,” is it not? The Chairman. It is “ $5” here. Mr. Wheeler. $3, I think it is (examining memorandum). $3. The Chairman. This is evidently a misprint. “Gazette Printing Co., $18.50.” What is that? Mr. Wheeler. That was for printing circulars, campaign circu- lars, for use in Rock County and Eau Claire County. The Chairman. “Frank Mouatt, $19.50.” Mr. Wheeler. No; I think it is but $13.20. The Chairman. This print is wrong, is it? It says “$19.50” here. Mr. Wheeler [examining memorandum]. It is $19.50. The Chairman. You had already paid the same man $36 ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes. He was out on two occasions. The Chairman. “John Boyd, $6.” Mr. Wheeler. That was for work in the town of Lima. The Chairman. “Mr. Garbutt, $2.” Mr. Wheeler. That I have already stated. WILLIAM G. WHEELER. 897 The Chairman. That is the item that you selected first. The question which followed that statement by you before the legislative committee was — The receipts that you have here are for the distribution of some of the money rep- resented by these checks? Referring, I presume, to the checks that you have. A. Yes. For instance, here are $75 receipts, which cover the check to Mr. Salmon, and a letter from Mr. Salmon explaining the disbursements. Is that letter there ? Mr. Wheeler. That letter and the checks and the receipts are here, and likewise the check to Mr. Saunders. The Chairman. Will you read that letter, if it is there ? Mr. Wheeler. It is headed: “ Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Co., Beloit, Wis., September 1.” The year is not given. “My dear Wheeler: I inclbse bills in blank, which are correct.” I do not know what he means, “bills in blank.” Senator Sutherland. Does that mean “Beloit?” Mr. Wheeler. “Beloit,” I guess it is; I do not know. What is that word? It looks like “ blank.” Mr. Littlefield. It reads “blank.” 1 do not know what he means by it. Mr. Wheeler (continuing). “Which are correct. All the men and rigs were in the exclusive use of Stephenson. We did not mix any other candidates. We also had about as many more that were Stephenson and one or two other candidates. At this writing, 4 p. m., I predict 1,700 to 1,800 votes and that Stephenson will get 65 per cent. Very truly, C. B. Salmon. We should pay these men in the morning.” The Chairman. In regard to these papers, I will read into the record the conditions under which you left them, so that they will be in the record in this case also: Q. And these checks seem to aggregate about three hundred dollars? — A. A little over $300. Q. Have you any objection to leaving these checks and the receipts and the stub book? — A. No; I have no objection at all. You can have both stub books if you wish. Here is a stub for the $300 check on a different book. Now, in relation to the $3 to Mr. Whittet, I presume, in justice to Mr. Whittet I should say that I requested him to hire a man to work for Stephenson in Edgerton. That is enough to read to identify the transaction. Senator Pomerene. Did you render an account to Mr. Edmonds or to anyone else of this matter ? Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was any requested of you ? Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. The Chairman (to the secretary). Mr. Smith, those books will be returned; and we will let Mr. Wheeler settle the question of their possession with you at your desk. Mr. Wheeler. I desire to state that these expenses that are stated do not represent all the moneys that I expended. The Chairman. You may make the statement, if you choose. Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I made two trips to Eau Claire in the inter- est of Mr. Stephenson; and while I have no memorandum of the expense, I know that I made the two trips. I have ascertained what the railroad fare, the sleeping-car fare, and the hotel bill for one day 15235°— vol 1—11 57 898 WILLIAM G. WHEELER. would probably amount to. I made one trip to Superior and one to Ashland, and subsequently Senator Pomerene. From Milwaukee ? Mr. Wheeler. No; from Janesville, where I then lived. I was living in Rock County at that time. The two trips to Eau Claire, as near as I can now figure the expense, amounted to $33.68. The one trip to Superior amounted to $24.24. The one trip to Ashland amounted to $25.34. Subsequently during the legislative campaign I made one trip to Washington; and estimating the railroad fare and one day’s expense in Washington, that would be $70 more. The Chairman. Has counsel any questions to ask this witness ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Have you accounted for the detail of the $300? You say there was $300 of this sum that was for sums that you had advanced prior to receiving the money. Mr. Wheeler. No. It was advanced in one amount, to take care of the campaign in Eau Claire County. That was a check that I had sent to Eau Claire myself. Mr. Littlefield. To whom ? Mr. Wheeler. To Mr. Farr. Senator Pomerene. Give that name in full. Mr. Wheeler. F. R. Farr — F-a-r-r. Senator Pomerene. What is Farr’s address ? Mr. Wheeler. Eau Claire. Mr. Littlefield. What is the given name ? Mr. Wheeler. Frank. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose was he to use it? Mr. Wheeler. The same purpose that I used it for in Rock County. Mr. Littlefield. The $300, or the items that you have given, excluding the trip to Washington, for instance, exceed, I think con- siderably, the $600 that came into your hands. Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You received nothing, I take it, as compensation for what you did ? Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have already stated, I think, that you are a practicing attorney ? Mr. Wheeler. I am. Mr. Littlefield. How long have you been such ? Mr. Wheeler. Since 1887. Mr. Littlefield. How long had you resided in Rock County ? Mr. Wheeler. I was born there. Mr. Littlefield. And you continued to live there until within a year or two, when you moved to Milwaukee ? Mr. Wheeler. Until April 1 , 1909. Mr. Littlefield. So that up to that time you had been a continu- ous resident of Rock County ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not since your majority you have taken an active part in the political campaigns in that county, and are familiar with the details involved in an organization and in campaign work ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes. Since I was 22 or 23 years old I have been more or less actively interested in campaigns in that county. WILLIAM G. WHEELER. 899 Mr. Littlefield. Are you familiar with the methods in which campaigns are carried on, with reference to the ordinary details of organization ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes; I was familiar up to the time I left Rock County. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have you state for the informa- tion of the subcommittee, if you please, Mr. Wheeler, what in your judgment it would cost to legitimately and properly and effectively organize a typical, sample precinct for campaign purposes, for the purpose of getting out at the polls on election day the strength to which a candidate in the primary would be entitled ? Mr. Wheeler. Do you mean at a primary election ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I mean at a primary election. Mr. Wheeler. That expense would be largely different from the expense under the old system of caucuses. Mr. Littlefield. Explain why. Just give your reasons. Mr. Wheeler. Because under the primary system it is the cam- paign of an individual; and lie himself necessarily has to undertake the whole expense of organization. Under the old system of caucuses the delegates were elected and selected, ordinarily, without reference to the candidacy of any individual. The real campaign for the nomination commenced after the selection of the delegates, and personal interviews with the delegates were about all that was necessary. In the campaign as it is necessary under the primary, you must commence with the individual voter; and that makes neces- sary, if you are going to carry on an effective campaign, a canvass, a poll list, ascertaining not only the politics of the voter but his indi- vidual preference for the office in question. So if you are going to make a thorough campaign you must have this canvass. Mr. Littlefield. That is the kind I inquire about. Go right along and give the successive steps in the campaign. Mr. Wheeler. After you get this canvass of the voters, it is neces- sary, as I say, to interview the voter to ascertain his personal pre- ference, because it does not depend upon his party. It depends upon whether he is for or against the individual in question; and that must be ascertained. After you have ascertained those that are favorable to the candidate, it is necessary to use argument or effort with the remainder of the electorate of that precinct; and that must be followed up until election day. Then on election day it is neces- sary to get out the vote. The experience under the primary system so far as I have observed it is that it is more difficult to get the voters out to vote on a primary day than it is on an election day — very much more so, because on a primary day they come out not for the party, but for the individual. Mr. Littlefield. They do not have the party cohesion to draw them out ? Mr. Wheeler. No. That is lacking. Mr. Littlefield. Will you be kind enough to give the subcom- mittee, so far as you are able, a detailed estimate of what in your judgment it would cost in a typical precinct to perfect a proper, thorough, and effective organization and prosecute the campaign until the day of the primary election, to the end that you shall get out, so far as possible, the full strength of the candidate ? 900 WILLIAM G. WHEELER. Mr. Wheeler. I can not state that more than approximately,' because Senator Stephenson’s campaign was the only one in which I was concerned under the primary. But from my knowledge of what would be necessary, figuring that there would be about 200 voters to a precinct, probably, I should say that it would cost in the neighborhood of $20 to $25 or $35 to get that canvass in the first place. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along with the various elements. Mr. Wheeler. Then, you should have men working in the precinct in advance of election day — we have always found it necessary to have at least two in a precinct — to whom it is necessary to pay, usually, $10 apiece. Then, on election day, there should be two carriages for each precinct, and two men — one with each carriage — in addition to the driver. That would involve an expense of $10 for the carriages, probably, and $10 for the two men. Then, there should be somebody to check up the poll list — probably $3 for such a man. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not, in your judgment, that is a conservative estimate of the legitimate expenditure. Mr. Wheeler. I think it is. That does not include the distribu- tion of campaign literature that seems to be necessary. That would cost something in addition. It is customary under the primary law to do more or less posting of lithographs and more or less mailing of campaign literature. That would have to be an additional item. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not the estimate that you have made of what would be legitimate and ordinary expenses, in order to perfect a proper and effective organization, includes the expense of advertising in newspapers. Mr. Wheeler. It does not. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not it is a fact that newspaper advertising over the State generally is extensively engaged in by candidates before the primary. Mr. Wheeler. Yes; it is quite general. Mr. Littlefield. And I suppose the expense involved in such a campaign is measured simply by the extent to which the respective candidates see fit to avail themselves of that instrumentality ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the estimates that you have given do not include the expense of printing and circulating the general literature that is used in the campaign ? Mr. Wheeler. They do not. Mr. Littlefield. So far as it may be circulated through the mails ? Mr. Wheeler. It is not included. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you wLether or not the estimate that you have given is, in your judgment, based upon what would fairly be termed an average precinct in the State of Wisconsin, which con- tains, I think, something like 2,200 precincts? The Chairman. At that point — I do not know how far counsel contemplates carrying this Mr. Littlefield. I am all through. The Chairman. In the judgment of the subcommittee, it is not evi- dence. We have allowed it to run along to see what it would develop into. The witness can answer that question; but the subcommittee are of the opinion that it is not evidence in this case. WILLIAM G. WHEELER. 901 Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not the estimate that you have given is predicated upon what, in your judgment, would be an average precinct in the State of Wisconsin? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not any of the sums that were disbursed by you in Se**ator Stephenson’s interest in this primary election were disbursed, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in that primary campaign ? Mr. Wheeler. They were not. Mr. Littlefield. Were any of the sums that were received by others from you, so far as you know, used by them, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in that primary election? Mr. Wheeler. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Sutherland. I did not understand what you said would be the total expense in each precinct, Mr. Wheeler. My attention was distracted. Mr. Wheeler. It would probably be between $50 and $75. Senator Sutherland. Fifty dollars to $76 for each precinct ? Mr. Wheeler. If you organize thoroughly; yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. If you organized thoroughly, it would cost upward of $200,000 ? Mr. Wheeler. In the State ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. Yes. I think it does cost that now. Senator Sutherland. Then, if I understand you, under this direct- primary system it is not worth while for a man to aspire to the United States Senate unless he has a couple of hundred thousand dollars to spend ? Mr. Wheeler. Or unless he can advertise in some other way. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean to say that the people of Wisconsin are not sufficiently discriminating so that they can select the best man without having to advertise ? Mr. Wheeler. The primary system, Senator, does not always tend to bring to the surface the best men. That is, there is not the same opportunity for the people to get acquainted with the best men that there was under the old system. The Chairman. You mean, by the “old system,” when we were proceeding under a republican form of government, do you ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. Do I understand you to say that there is any reluctance on the part of the voters to go out to the primaries here ? Mr. Wheeler. There seems to be. That is, you do not get the vote out at the primaries. Since we have had the primary there is not the same vote that we had before. The vote is getting smaller instead of larger. Senator Sutherland. Then, the impression I have gained that under the direct-primary system the entire citizenship of the State was clamoring to get out and say who should be nominees on the ticket is a mistake ? 902 WILLIAM G. WHEELER. Mr. 'Wheeler. It does not seem to be the fact; because I think an examination of the vote will show that instead of getting larger it is getting smaller. Senator Sutherland. There is a smaller proportion of the vote cast at the primary than there is at the general election ? Mr. Wheeler. Oh, very much — very much smaller. Mr. Littlefield. The vote in the primary is decreasing ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes; the vote at the primary is decreasing, and the vote at the general election is decreasing. Senator Sutherland. If you can tell me, about what percentage of the vote which is polled at the general election is polled at the primaries ? Mr. Wheeler. I could not give you very much of an idea of that. Senator Sutherland. Then state the percentage of the registered vote. Mr. Wheeler. At the primary ? Senator Sutherland. At the primary. Mr. Wheeler. Frequently not 25 per cent. Senator Sutherland. Not 25 per cent ? Mr. Wheeler. I do not think so. Senator Sutherland. That is, you mean that 75 per cent of the registered voters refrain from going to the primaries at all ? Mr. Wheeler. I could not say as far as the State is concerned, Senator, but in some localities. Senator Sutherland. In your locality ? Mr. Wheeler. Where I formerly lived, do you mean — in Janes- ville, Rock County ? Senator Sutherland. Yes. Mr. Wheeler. I do not know anything about conditions in Milwaukee. Senator Sutherland. No; not in Milwaukee. I mean where you formerly lived. Mr. Wheeler. The vote on primary day is ordinarily very light as compared with the registration. I am satisfied that frequently it does not amount to 50 per cent of the registration. Senator Sutherland. Not 50 per cent of the registration, and sometimes less than that ? Mr. Wheeler. I should say so. Senator Sutherland. And part of this money, as I understand you, must be spent in order to advertise and excite the interest of the voters in the contest ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes. Of course the interest in the primary depends to some extent upon the candidacy of the individual. If it is somebody that the people are very much interested in, they will come out to the primary more generally than they will when they are indifferent, and the feeling of indifference seems to be on the increase. Senator Sutherland. That is all. The Chairman. The people are more ready to come out on their own account, without being solicited or driven out, to support their own choice, than they are to come out and support some person who has selected himself ? Is that true ? Mr. Wheeler. I think that is probably true. The Chairman. When the people’s selected representatives have selected, a candidate, they are more willing to take the trouble to F. J. EPPLING. 903 elect him than they are to elect some man whose chief recommenda- tion is that he wants the office ? Mr. Wheeler. I think that is true. I think also that the interest in the election is decreased because of the doing away with party councils, such as conventions. The Chairman. Doing away with organized government, in other words ? Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Senator, I think you like this man. The Chairman. The witness was interrogated as to his opinion on political situations. Mr. Littlefield. Yes, sir; and he answered with a very high degree of intelligence. Senator Sutherland. Do you not think it would stimulate the interest of the people if there were provided a few more elections than we have now ? We have the primary election and the general elec- tion. If we could work in a few referendum elections and recall elections, do you not think that would stimulate the interest of the people ? Mr. Wheeler. Possibly. I am not very much of an advocate of more than one election. TESTIMONY OF F. J. EPPLING. F. J. Eppling, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows : The Chairman. Your name is F. H. Eppling? Mr. Eppling. No, sir; F. J. Eppling. The Chairman. It is “F. H. ” in this record, do you reside ? Mr. Eppling. Sheboygan, Wis. Mr. Eppling, where The Chairman. Mr. Eppling. I temporarily. The Chairman. Mr. Eppling. I The Chairman. What is your occupation ? am at the present time in the insurance business, What is your profession ? was a clergyman. Were you a clergyman during the summer of 1908 ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Of what denomination ? Mr. Eppling. The Lutheran. The Chairman. Where were you located at that time? Mr. Eppling. Algoma, Wis. The Chairman. Did you participate in the campaign of Senator Stephenson for the United States Senate in the year 1908 ? Mr. Eppling. I did. The Chairman. Did you have an interview with Mr. Edmonds, representing Senator Stephenson, on the 27th of August, 1908 ? Mr. Eppling. I could not give any date. The Chairman. You did have an interview with him? Mr. Eppling. At various times. The Chairman. When was the first interview ? Mr. Eppling. I could not say as to the exact date. The Chairman. Did you, at that time, receive any money from him ? Mr. Eppling. At the first interview ? I did. 904 F. J. EPPLING. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Eppling. I did. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Eppling. $75. The Chairman. You can not give the date, you say? Mr. Eppling. I could not. The Chairman. How much altogether did you receive from him. Mr. Eppling. $400. The Chairman. For what purpose did you receive that money? Mr. Eppling. It was for the purpose of covering my expenses in helping to organize the various counties. The Chairman. What do you mean by the term “organize?” Mr. Eppling. To find somebody who is familiar with political work, to help to bring out the voters, to properly present the candi- date to the people. The Chairman. Did you enter upon that work ? Mr. Eppling. To some extent. The Chairman. How long did you engage in it ? Mr. Eppling. About six weeks. The Chairman. During that time you received these sums of money ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you pay any of that money to other people for working ? Mr. Eppling. Not at all ; not one penny. The Chairman. It was all for your services ? Mr. Eppling. Personal expenses and compensation. The Chairman. What class of work did you do? Mr. Eppling. I did not at first — it was not my intention to do any work at all. The Chairman. Then for what were you to receive the money ? Mr. Eppling. That is, you must take into view — which will be properly explained later — how I was drawn into this campaign. The Chairman. Please answer my question. How were you tc expend the money ? Mr. Eppling. For my personal expenses. The Chairman. What were you to do for the money ? Mr. Eppling. I was to look up certain parties in various counties who could do political work for Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Who were those parties ? Mr. Eppling. Mr. Werner Pflughoeft, in Taylor County; Dr. Frank, in Clark County; Mr. Bratz — an insurance solicitor — in Washington County; and another son of Mr. Pflughoeft, in Outagamie County. The Chairman. Those were the persons that you were to look up. Was any part of this money in the nature of a subscription to the church ? Mr. Eppling. Not at all. The Chairman. It was all for your personal compensation ? Mr. Eppling. Positively. The Chairman. And for work to be done by you ? Mr. Eppling. By myself personally. The Chairman. Who gave you the money ? Mr. Eppling. Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. All of it ? F. J. EPPLING. 905 Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you not receive any part of it from any other person ? Mr. Eppling. Not one penny. The Chairman. There is an affidavit in the report of the com- mittee, purporting to have been made by you. Are you familiar with the contents of that paper ? Mr. Eppling. I am. The Chairman. Are the statements therein contained true ? Mr. Eppling. In substance. The Chairman. In form ? Mr. Eppling. In form and substance. There are a few slight errors in there. The Chairman. Will you indicate wherein the errors are? Mr. Eppling. That my wife did some ' ‘stenographic ” work, which should be “secretary” work. She is not a stenographer. That is one that I recall. It was not an error by myself; it was an error The Chairman. No. I will call your attention to this statement in your affidavit: The $200 donation which he gave to my congregation was announced from the pulpit that the donation was made by a friend who did not want his name men- tioned, and only one in the congregation explicitly asked me whether Mr. Stephenson had made the donation, and I told him yes, but I told him I did not wish that such should be known among the congregation, since it was not given for any political purpose. Was that $200 in addition to the sums that you say you received? Mr. Eppling. I did not receive that for any political purpose. The Chairman. Is it in addition to the sums that you say you received ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That was paid on the 22d day of August, was it? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chasrman. That you considered a separate and independent donation ? Mr. Eppling. A donation. The Chairman. Did Senator Stephenson make any other donation to the church than that? Mr. Eppling. Not at all. The Chairman. I fold a 1 'Statement of the receipts and expendi- tures for the new church at Kolberg, Wis.” Was that your church? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The first item is, “Isaac Stephenson, $100.” Is that included in the $200 donation ? Mr. Eppling. It is. The Chairman. I find in connection with that a receipt which reads as follows: “Algoma, Wis., Aug. 15, 1908. Received of F. J. Eppling, one hundred dollars, donation for church. John Busch.” That was a donation made by you, was it? Mr. Eppling. No, sir. That included the $200. The Chairman. That is the $100 named in this statement, is it? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. Pardon me, Senator; I did not quite understand that question. The Chairman. Is that the $100 that is the first item in this list of expenditures ? 906 F. J. EPPLING. Mr. Littlefield. What page does your honor have ? The Chairman. Page 4610. Mr. Eppling. I can explain that in a few words. The Chairman. Do so. Mr. Eppling. Mr. Stephenson gave me $200 for my congregation, and he left at my disposal the way I should apply it. At that time a church was being built in Kolberg, and I gave $100 to Kolberg, and the other hundred dollars I gave to my church at Algoma. The Chairman. Was the receipt for $75 which you received from Max Wensel Mr. Eppling. Hensel. The Chairman. That should be Hensel ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, H-e-n-s-e-1. The Chairman. That is a mistake in printing, then. Was that a part of the Stephenson donation ? Mr. Eppling. Not at all. The Chairman. Why did you report it in connection with your affidavit or testimony ? Mr. Eppling. Not with the $200. It was for my personal expense. I was absent from my congregation and I had an assistant. I paid him $75 during that time, and he gave me a receipt for that, which I filed with Mr. Marsh, the chairman, who promised to return it, but it has not been returned. Senator Pomerene. Senator Marsh, you mean ? Mr. Eppling. Yes. The Chairman. So that all there is of this donation to you from Senator Stephenson is that he wanted you to go out and see certain parties, politically, in his behalf, and he paid you this money for doing it. Is that all there was of it ? Mr. Eppling. Not Mr. Stephenson. He did not ask me to do a thing, politically. Mr. Stephenson never asked me to go out and do any political work. The Chairman. Then Mr. Stephenson did not give you any part of this money ? Mr. Eppling. He gave me $200 for my church. The Chairman. Was that his own check? Mr. Eppling. That was his own check. The Chairman. That was the check drawn by his stenographer and signed by him and handed to you ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir; on the Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago. The Chairman (continuing). Which is referred to in the testimony in this case ? Mr. Eppling. Yes. The Chairman. That is the check that was given to you as a donation ? Mr. Eppling. Yes. The Chairman. The other money you received from Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Eppling. I want to make a statement here, if it is allowable. The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Eppling. The private secretary to Mr. Stephenson testified that this money was to be given to the Northwestern College. Senator Pomerene. Which money ? The $200 ? Mr. Eppling. The $200. And that is absolutely false. The Chairman. You mean that the stenographer was mistaken? F. J. EPPLING. 907 Mr. Eppling. Mistaken; yes. The Chairman. That testimony referring to this Northwestern institution is on pages 1962, 1963, and 1964. That is found in the testimony of Mr. Frank. I merely give that as a memorandum. Senator Sutherland. I want to ask about one statement in your affidavit. In your affidavit you say: Shortly before the campaign was closed I wrote to Mr. Edmonds that it was not my understanding and my wish to go in so deep, but since I had left it to him whether he thought my service was worth anything, and as Mr. Stephenson is a rich man and I am a poor one, thought he should give me what was fair for my services, and thereupon he sent me a check for $200. Does that correctly state what was done and your state of mind about it ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir; that correctly states the situation. The Chairman. State again the total amounts you got. Mr. Eppling. $400. The Chairman. $400 from Mr. Edmonds and $200 from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Eppling. That is not for any political The Chairman. Aside from the purpose. That was the money you received ? Mr. Eppling. $600 ? The Chairman. Yes, altogether. Senator Pomerene. Did you render any account for that ? Mr. Eppling. I kept track of every penny that I expended. Senator Pomerene. Did you render any account ? Mr. Eppling. I was not asked to do so. Senator Pomerene. You gave none to Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Eppling. I told Mr. Evans explicitly that 1 was willing to keep track of every cent that I expended. Senator Pomerene. When was that ? Mr. Eppling. At the beginning of the campaign. Senator Pomerene. About when ? Mr. Eppling. I went through a very severe illness and I can not remember any dates. Senator Pomerene. About when? How long before the primary, approximately ? Mr. Eppling. I should say about six weeks before the primary. Senator Pomerene. Where was that talk ? Mr. Eppling. That was up in his office; in Mr. Edmonds's office. Senator Pomerene. Is that the time you made the arrangement with him to do this work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Tell us just what was said at that time. Mr. Eppling. I said I could not identify myself with a campaign in which liquor and cigars and other questionable things were used; that I would not and could not afford to do that; that if I identified myself with that campaign at all it had to be a clean, honorable cam- paign, and that Mr. Stephenson deserved to be sent to the United States Senate. I told him that I was willing to give my services gratuitously. I did not ask fpr one cent; and I told him that if the campaign was not conducted in a clean way, if any of those whom I had suggested to Mr. Edmonds should try to extort money from him, he should report to me at once, and I would have nothing further to do with it. 908 F. J. EPPLING. Senator Pomerene. I had special reference to the matter of the accounting. You said that you had told him, at the beginning, that you would stand ready to account for every penny ? Mr. Eppling. Yes. Senator Pomerene. I ask you now to tell the committee what was said, having reference to that subject. What was said on the subject of that accounting ? Mr. Eppling. He said to me, “Your standing in the community is such that we do not require you to make a statement.” I did, how- ever, for my own sake, make a statement; and I expended more than I received. Senator Pomerene. That is, you kept an account/you mean? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you render a statement of that account to Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Eppling. I did not deliver any, but I can give you, in an off- hand way, the amount of money that I have expended. Senator Pomerene. Have you your original accounts ? Mr. Eppling. I have not, with me. I was sick most of last winter, and in moving my wife mislaid the document; but eventually I think I can find it. Senator Pomerene. You say you can give the items? Mr. Eppling. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Give those items, as nearly as you can. Mr. Eppling. $75 I expended for my assistant. I bought at one time a 2, 000-mile ticket at the Northwestern office. That was $40. In cash I possibly expended — I could not say to the exact dollar — $15; for stationery and stamps, approximately $6 ; for telephone and tele- graph, about twelve to fifteen dollars. •Senator Pomerene. The $15 item that you speak of was for hotel expenses ? Mr. Eppling. The hotel expenses were $30. Mr. Edmonds said to me at the time: “We are very much surprised that you do not need any more money. ” I explicitly told him I was not in it for any graft ; that I was there to help Hon. Isaac Stephenson as much as I could in a very modest way — to have him nominated at the primaries for election as United States Senator. Senator Pomerene. Did you give any of this money to anyone else for any work that he was to do ? Mr. Eppling. Not at all. Senator Pomerene. Did you employ anyone to do any work ? Mr. Eppling. I did, in a way. I selected those persons who had at one time worked for Mr. Stephenson and who felt very friendly to him, because in time of trouble he had helped them. Senator Pomerene. That is not an answer to my question. I have no objection to your stating anything you desire to say, but I asked whether you had employed anyone or agreed to pay them to work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Eppling. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. These men you speak of that you did ask were men who had received favors from Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Eppling. They were men who had received favors from Senator Stephenson at the time of the Peshtigo fire. Senator Pomerene. That was some years ago ? Mr. Eppling. Yes. F. J. EPPLING. 909 Senator Pomerene. They felt a kindly interest in Senator Stephen- son because of favors they had received from him ? Mr. Eppling. Yes; and the kind treatment he accorded them while they were in his employment. Senator Pomerene. Is there anything else you desire to say on that subject? Mr. Eppling. I can not say anything more at this time. (The witness was thereupon excused.) TESTIMONY OF ISAAC STEPHENSON— Recalled. Mr. Littlefield. With the permission of the committee, I desire to ask Senator Stephenson a question. Senator, Will you be kind enough to state to the committee the circumstances connected with the $200 item referred to by Mr. Eppling, so that they will have your version of the matter along with that of Mr. Eppling ? Senator Stephenson. I never saw Mr. Eppling until he came into my office. He wanted some money for Watertown — the Lutherans there. My secretary, Miss Stringham, was sitting at her desk, and she got up and went out. I told him I would not give Watertown anything, but I would give him $200 for his church at Algoma in memory of Senator Stebbins, my old friend, then dead. I gave him the $200. In the meantime, Miss Stringham came in, and I told her to make out a check for $200. She noted on the stub ‘ ‘ Watertown. ” It was a mistake. I did not give it for Watertown, and I did not ask Mr. Eppling to work for me at all. The Chairman. She was under the impression that it was given for the purpose under discussion when she went out of the room ? Senator Stephenson. Yes. It just happened that way. It was a mistake. And I will say, right here, as to those church matters, that I have been giving every week, sometimes every day, for a great many years; and I hope to be able to keep it up. The Chairman. That explains this matter. Mr. Littlefield. I was anxious to have that go in with the state- ment of Mr. Eppling, because it relieves him. ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OF GEORGE BEYER. Mr. Beyer, do you want to make a statement now ? Mr. Beyer. Yes. The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Beyer. George Beyer, having been previously sworn, testified as follows: Mr. Beyer. $400 was right, Mr. Chairman. Cook got $300. Then those small items that I paid out aggregate $105.90. That makes $405.90 that I paid out. Senator Sutherland. The statement in the printed testimony is correct, then? Mr. Beyer. Yes, sir. Is that all ? The Chairman. Yes; that is all. (The witness was thereupon excused.) TESTIMONY OF NIELS JOHNSON. Niels Johnson, having been previously sworn, testified as follows: The Chairman. What is your first name ? 910 NEILS JOHNSON. Mr. Johnson. Niels. The Chairman. Have you any other initial ? Or is your name just Niels Johnson ? Mr. Johnson. That is all; Niels Johnson. The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, what was your occupation during the summer of 1908 ? Mr. Johnson. I was deputy game warden. The Chairman. Under whom were you ? Mr. Johnson. J. W. Stone. The Chairman. The testimony before the joint committee of the legislature and before this committee indicates that Mr. Stone received $2,500 of a campaign fund for the nomination and election of Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Stone has testified before that joint committee that he gave you, out of that $2,500, a portion which he denominates, at page 1785, as about the ordinary amount. Did he give you any money out of that $2,500 ? Mr. Johnson. No, sir. The Chairman. Were you present at a meeting at Mr. Stone’s house one night during the session of that committee in which he asked you and others to sustain him in stating that he had given you a part of the $2,500. Were you present at that meeting? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Tell us what occurred there. Mr. Johnson. Well, he asked me in the afternoon up at the office, to come down to his house that evening, at 9 or 10 o’clock, that he wanted to see me. He did not state what for or anything. I went down there, and there was several other game wardens present. The Chairman. Who were they? Mr. Johnson. There was S. P. Richtman, from Fountain City; George Kingsley, from La Crosse; Frank Tuttle, from Oconomowoc; Harry Bowman from Genesee. I think that was all the game war- dens that were there. The Chairman. Were there any other persons there besides game wardens ? Mr. Johnson. There was a gentleman there by the name of Thomas. The Chairman. J. E. Thomas ? Mr. Johnson. Yes. The Chairman. A member of the legislature ? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. At that time ? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Tell us what Mr. Stone said to these persons who were piesent. Mr. Littlefield. I know what the chairman ruled before, but I would like to have the record show that we feel that that is not a proper subject for investigation, and has not any legal relation to the issue. I would like to have upon the record my formal objection to its introduction. The Chairman. That is, the use of the money by Mr. Stone ? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no. That we do not object to. But it does seem to us, if the chairman please, that the details of this “frame up,” which is what this is all leading up to, constitute a mate- rial fact, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, but for which the Senator is in no sense responsible. NEILS JOHNSON. 911 Of course, if the committee feel that it is legitimate and proper, we have nothing to say; but I have been hoping the committee would not find it necessary to cumber the record with that, because it seems to me it must necessarily embarrass us in connection with the Senator’s case. There is nothing in the record before the committee, if the chair- man please, that in the slightest degree involves anybody connected with Senator Stephenson except J. W. Stone with this discreditable “frame up.” I had hoped the committee would feel that it was not necessary to go into it. The way I feel about it, Mr. Chairman, is that I do not see how it can have any connection with the case. It simply discredits Stone. Stone must stand on his own feet, as far as that is concerned. In discrediting Stone, however, what I fear is that there can not fail to be drawn some inference— because it is in the record — that may embarrass us in taking care of the Senator’s rights. It is a discreditable circumstance, but I do not see how it estab- lishes any issue, one way or the other. If it comes in, it is in as a part of the record, and we have not the slightest thing to do with it, and yet the way I feel about it is that we are bound to be embar- rassed by it. I want the committee to see exactly how I feel about the matter. The Chairman. I think I owe it to the situation to state that Mr. Stone should have been on the witness stand prior to any such tes- timony, if it is introduced at all ; but Mr. Stone writes that his son is in some trouble and that it was necessary for him to go to the place where his son was in trouble, and quite an appeal was made to the chairman of the committee that Mr Stone be excused until Tuesday, which he stated was the earliest time that he could return. It is only because of concessions having been made to certain other witnesses who had court engagements and such engagements that appealed to the committee that we are at this hour inquiring into this question before Mr. Stone is put upon the witness stand. I fully realize the force of the suggestion of counsel, and the com- mittee will give it consideration, as will be seen in a moment. It seems to be conceded that this condition of affairs existed ; that this “frame up,” as it has been termed, existed. Mr. Littlefield. There is not any doubt about it. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds testified, and Mr. Sacket also, that J. W. Stone was paid $2,500, to be used in behalf of the Stephenson campaign. That fact is admitted. That he did not make a fair and proper application of that money will probably be conceded also; that he appropriated it in a manner different from that in which he had agreed to use it. Senator Pomerene. And testified that he did. The Chairman. And testified that he did. It may not be necessary to go into this matter. These facts being in the record will have just as much force as though they were brought out through a long process of the examination of witnesses; and there are five of these witnesses present now, ready to testify to this “frame up,” as it is called. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. I suppose it will be conceded that that frame up was actually made, and that it was made for the purpose of enabling Mr. Stone to make a statement that was false? 912 HUGH LEWIS. Mr. Littlefield. I understand that there is no question about that. The Chairman. And that it would then necessarily have to be con- ceded that Mr. Stone used this money for his own purposes, or appro- priated it to his own uses. Mr. Littlefield. Of course, Mr. Chairman, you can see that I do not want to take any responsibility for Mr. Stone. I have seen him, as he has been sworn here. I do not want to assume anything in advance, or to make any statement from him. I very frankly state that that seems to be the condition of facts developed. If, upon the examination of Mr. Stone, he undertakes to misstate it The Chairman. Then we would have to recall these witnesses. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. We have them subpoenaed here, and Mr. Stone will be here next Tuesday. Mr. Littlefield. I hope the chairman does not feel that I am unduly insistent about this. The Chairman. Not at all. Mr. Littlefield. We have our difficulties that we want to take care of, and we do not want to be loaded up with matters with which we have no connection. The Chairman. The usual hour of adjournment having arrived, the committee will adjourn until to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock. Whereupon, at 4 o’clock and 30 minutes p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, October 14, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14 , 1911 . Federal Building, Milwaukee, Wis. The subcommittee met at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pome- rene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The Chairman. The witness who was on the stand at the time of the adjournment will be excused from testifying to-day. He will remain in attendance until called again. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morgan — who, I think, has been subpoenaed— has just sent his card up to me, and I assume that he is present. I do not think he has been sworn. The Chairman. He has not been sworn. He is on the list of wit- nesses for to-day. He will be sworn. Mr. Littlefield. I think he wants to be sworn and examined to-day, if it is convenient. The Chairman. Yes, he will be. TESTIMONY OF HUGH LEWIS. Hugh Lewis, being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. State your place of residence. Mr. Lewis. Madison, Wis. The Chairman. How long have you resided there ? HUGH LEWIS. 913 Mr. Lewis. Forty years. The Chairman. What is your present occupation ? Mr. Lewis. I am a messenger in the House of Representatives in Washington. The Chairman. How long have you been there ? Mr. Lewis. Thirty-four years. Senator Pc^merene. At Washington, you say ? Mr. Lewis'! Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you are not at Washington performing those duties, your residence is at Madison, Wis. ? Mr. Lewis. With my family. The Chairman. Your family lives there ? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were a soldier during the War of the Rebel- lion, were you ? Mr. Lewis. I was. The Chairman. In a Wisconsin regiment ? Mr. Lewis. The Second Wisconsin Infantry. The Chairman. How long did you serve ? Mr. Lewis. I served until I lost my arm in that capacity. I con- tinued in the service until the end of the war. The Chairman. Colonel, you took part in the Stephenson cam- paign in 1908, did you ? Mr. Lewis. I did. The Chairman. Did you receive money from the Stephenson cam- paign committee for doing so ? Mr. Lewis. I did. The Chairman. Did you receive the money for your own services or to be distributed by you? Mr. Lewis. I received no money for my own services. It was dis- tributed in his interest. The Chairman. How much did you receive ? Mr. Lewis. Three hundred and sixty dollars. The Chairman. The record shows that on July 28 you received S300. Is that correct ? Mr. Lewis. I do not think it is correct. Mr. Littlefield. Two hundred dollars ? Mr. Lewis. Two hundred dollars. Mr. Littlefield. My notes show that it was $200. The Chairman. If you will turn to page 534 in Mr. Sacket’s testi- mony you will find that it is stated as $300. The witness will bring out the facts. I am basing the questions upon the testimony as printed. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. Where we may have made the error is that I took my notes of Exhibit 49. The Chairman. Further on the page the counsel will see what I refer to. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, yes; that is right. The Chairman. How much did you receive the first time ? Mr. Lewis. The very first time, $100. The Chairman. Yes. Then how much did you receive the next time ? Mr. Lewis. Sixty dollars. The Chairman. Then how much did you receive the next time ? 15235 °— VOL 1—11 58 914 HUGH LEWIS. Mr. Lewis. I think $200. The Chairman. Is that all the money you received? Mr. Lewis. That is all the money I received. The Chairman. What did you do with it ? Mr. Lewis. I spent it in just the manner that it was expected that I should. The Chairman. Just state how you did expend it. Mr. Lewis. My first work was to go into a locality where I had friends, and had formerly lived — in Columbia and Dodge Counties. My work was to get men to circulate nomination papers and find out who were the Stephenson men, the prominent men there, and advise with them how to get up their nomination papers — get the business men to get prominent men, Stephenson men, and so on and so forth, and advise with them in that way. That was about the first work. The Chairman. Can you give us the names of any of the men that you procured to work in that way ? Mr. Lewis. No; I could not. The nomination papers would show that. That is, allow me, Senator, the places that I was in were Cambria, in Columbia County, and Randolph, both in Dodge and Columbia — award in each one — Fox Lake, Beaver Dam, Juneau, and some towns close to them. In all those places I am well known. The Chairman. You paid some money to Mr. Ames, did you ? Mr. Lewis. I never paid a dollar to Mr. Ames. The Chairman. You never gave him any money to work with ? Mr. Lewis. No, sir The Chairman. I will correct that. You were paid by a check drawn by Edmonds to Mr. Ames ? Mr. Lewis. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you get all of your money from Edmonds directly ? Mr. Lewis. I think I got it from Mr. Puelicher. I am sure of it. The Chairman. To whom else did you pay money out of the money you received from Mr. Puelicher ? Mr. Lewis. Senator, it was my expense. If you will allow me right here, I will state that I made six trips to Milwaukee. The first time I went in response to a long-distance telephone call. I was with the governor in camp with the troops. I came here in response to a long-distance telephone call. Mr. Littlefield. What were you, a member of the governor’s staff ? Mr. Lewis. I was. I came here and saw Mr. Sacket and Mr. Puelicher, and they wanted me to take hold of Dane County. I had some experience in that line heretofore, etc. My health was not very good at that time, and I said I could not assume the responsi- bility of taking care of any territory. They were very sorry, and so on, and so forth, and asked me if I could name anybody. I said: ll I will look the ground over; I will go back home and come back here after I consult with Stephenson men in Madison.” I did, and the consequence was we selected Ames, and recommended Mr. Morgan — Mr. Morgan and Mr. Ames. I came here and recommended them, and they were selected to take charge of Dane County. I was not. I made four trips to Dodge and Columbia Counties at different times. The first time, as I have stated, I took the nomination papers and placed them in their hands, and so forth. Some of those nomina- HUGH LEWIS. 915 tion papers were given to me to be brought here; others were sent by mail. I made a week’s travel, or thereabouts, with an automobile and took Mr. Morgan with me part of the time; and then my back gave way, and I left Mr. Ames to take the automobile for the balance of the time that I had agreed to take it and pay for it. Right here I will say that I took an interest in the candidate for Congress in that district. He was an old comrade, an old soldier, and in his absence, when he was away, I had charge of his interests. In fact, I had the whole charge as far as Madison and its vicinity was concerned, for him. We hired men jointly that would take an interest in Rus- sell’s campaign and Mr. Stephenson’s campaign. Senator Pomerene. That is, Russell was your comrade, and a candidate for Congress ? Mr. Lewis. In the Army; yes, sir. I was paying his bills for him, of course with money separate from Stephenson’s bills — money of which I kept an account — and looking after his interests. I had the whole charge as far as Madison was concerned, and Dane County, for Mr. Russell; I looked after it, and had them going pretty well, although the headquarters of one of the candidates were in Madi- son — that is, for Senator. The Chairman. Colonel, let me ask you a question there: You received $150 from Mr. Russell, did you? Mr. Lewis. To pay his campaign; yes, sir. The Chairman. That was for the Russell campaign ? Mr. Lewis. That has got nothing to do with it at all. The Chairman. I find it in the Russell account in this testimony. Mr. Lewis. Yes; I can explain that. The Chairman. Let me ask you a question directly: Did you expend this money that you received from the Stephenson campaign fund in making a saloon campaign ? Mr. Lewis. Not one nickel. The Chairman. Did you pay any of this money to any person to secure his vote for Senator Stephenson, either at the primary or otherwise ? Mr. Lewis. Not one nickel. The Chairman. Did you pay money to any other person out of this fund that was to be used by him for the purchase or corruption . of votes in favor of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Lewis. Never. The Chairman. Did you pay money out of this fund to any other person that used it in a saloon campaign ? Mr. Lewis. No, sir. The Chairman. That is all. Senator Pomerene. Colonel, you had $360. What did you do with that? Mr. Lewis. In the first place, I paid my expenses, going around. Senator Pomerene. Approximately, what was the amount of your personal expenses, if you can give it ? Mr. Lewis. In making those six trips here, at the invitation of the committee, I came here and consulted them, for instance Senator Pomerene. You have already testified as to that. The question now is as to the amount of your expenses, as nearly as you can state it. Mr. Lewis. My whole expenses, from the first ? 916 HUGH LEWIS. Senator Pomerene. I mean, now, your personal expenses. Mr. Lewis. Yes. My personal expenses for railroad fare, hotel bills, and such things as that ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Lewis. Seventy-five or eighty dollars would cover the whole thing. Senator Pomerene. That would leave $190 ? Mr. Lewis. Then, again, I paid for a meeting that they wanted at Stoughton. There were no funds to pay for it, and I thought it was a good thing to have that meeting, and I paid for that. I remember the amount was $31.55 that I paid for a hall and the band and the bill posting. Then, in addition to that, there was the expense of the speaker who went there. I do not remember how much that was. It was only a short distance — 10 or 12 miles. Senator Pomerene. What else do you remember in the way of expenses ? Mr. Lewis. Then I paid for a hall, unfortunately, at Palmyra. The best recollection I have of that is that it was only $5. My best recollection is that on this occasion the speaker did not speak there, because the opposition stood at the door and said there was not going to be any meeting. I was not there myself, but that was the report, and when the speaker got there he had nobody to address. Mr. Littlefield. He did not have any audience? Mr. Lewis. No. That was part of the trick, you see. Mr. Littlefield. You hired the hall, but the speaker did not have any audience to address ? Mr. Lewis. That is it; and I paid for it. Then I took from here, in person, from headquarters, a satchel that Mr. Sacket bought me, which he paid for out of the fund — and I did not see that he put that in his items; but he bought me a satchel, and I took a lot of their literature home with me. It was pretty good stuff, and I had a pretty good list from previous campaigns. I had charge of Davidson’s campaign as treasurer, all over the State, two years before that, and I had a pretty good list. I thought it was a favored list. And I bought some stamps and mailed this matter. I could not give the amount that I spent for stamps. It would not amount to more than $25 for stamps, probably less. And I sent this matter out. Then they sent me by express a lot of literature here, pictures of the Senator, a streamer, and a lot of small cards, buttons, etc., and when we would go out with this automobile into a little place, I could not mail them myself, and I had to pay probably a couple of dollars or so for that. Senator Pomerene. Did you employ any men? Mr. Lewis. No. Senator Pomerene. Did you employ any men at all? Mr. Lewis. On this trip ? Senator Pomerene. On any of these trips, or out of this $360. Mr. Lewis. Only at election day. Senator Pomerene. How many men did you employ ? Mr. Lewis. We have got 12 precincts in the city of Madison. Senator Pomerene. For what purpose did you employ them? Mr. Lewis. To be at the polls and pass sample ballots to the voters, and solicit votes for Mr. Stephenson, to give them pictures, and to remind them to vote for Mr. Stephenson. HUGH LEWIS. 917 Senator Pomerene. And to bring in the voters ? Mr. Lewis. There was some of that done, by a carriage or two. Senator Pomerene. These men were employed to discuss the merits of Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Lewis. They knew all about it. Senator Pomerene. And his merits as a man? Mr. Lewis. Yes; as they passed in. They can not go, under our law, too close to the polls. They must keep at a certain distance. Senator Pomerene. Certainly; I understand that; but they were employed for the purpose of getting men to the polls and for the pur- pose of cultivating Stephenson sentiment throughout the community, were they? Mr. Lewis. Certainly. Senator Pomerene. How much did you pay them ? Mr. Lewis. 1 had, as I told you before, Senator, an envelope, one of these official linen envelopes on which I had jotted down memo- randa. This was a long time ago, of course, but I had on this envel- ope, on one side, the amount that I should charge against Stephenson, and the amount on the other side that I should keep separate for the rest of it. Senator Pomerene. You have lost that envelope, have you ? Mr. Lewis. Yes, sir. I have hunted for it ever since I was sub- poenaed here, but I can not find it. Senator Pomerene. You are not able to find it. Mr. Lewis. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Are you able to give the approximate amounts you paid to these men ? - Mr. Lewis. I think on the whole it would amount to — I do not want to be kept strictly to this Senator Pomerene. I understand that. Mr. Lewis (continuing). Probably $130. Senator Pomerene. How much did you give to each man ? Did you have any particular sum that you gave to each man ? Mr. Lewis. Some $5; nothing less than $5. Senator Pomerene. Some $10. Mr. Lewis. Some $10; and one man, I remember his name, I had to pay more, because he was a good worker. I had him before. He is a good mechanic and Senator Pomerene. What is his name? Mr. Lewis. I think his name is Johnson. He is a mechanic. Senator Pomerene. In Madison ? Mr. Lewis. He is in Madison now, and he is working up there. I think the last time I saw him he was working on the dome of the capitol there as a machinist. Senator Pomerene. I believe that is all. Mr. Littlefield. You may state, in just a word, about the $150 that you had to use in the interest of Mr. Russell. Mr. Lewis. I had more than that. Mr. Littlefield. You had more than that ? Mr. Lewis. Yes. The Chairman. That goes into the question of another candidate and Mr. Littlefield. I wanted to show that it had nothing whatever to do with this case. 918 P. F. DOLAN. The Chairman. That is admitted. Mr. Littlefield. You have already stated that, Mr. Lewis ? Mr. Lewis. Yes. It was more than $150. Senator Pomerene. As you would employ these men you would employ them to look after the interests of both Senator Stephenson and Mr. Russell ? Mr. Lewis. Exactly. Once in awhile I could not get them to act for both. Generally they would, however. Senator Pomerene. You tried to equalize the expense between the two ? Mr. Lewis. Yes; between the two. (The witness was thereupon excused.) (By direction of the chairman the names of the following persons were called as witnesses: P. F. Dolan, Henry H. Morgan, L. C. Haslam, G. C. Kolb, and George C. Dart. Messrs. Dolan, Morgan, and Cobb responded and were duly sworn by the chairman.) The Marshal. Mr. Dart was taken to the hospital day before yes- terday. The Chairman. Yes. He promised to come here this morning. I did not know whether he was present or not. TESTIMONY OF P. F. DOLAN. P. F. Dolan, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. State your place of residence. Mr. Dolan. Shawano, Wis. The Chairman. Did you reside there during the campaign of 1908 ? Mr. Dolan. I did. The Chairman. Did you participate in that campaign ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. On whose behalf ? Mr. Dolan. In behalf of Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. Who employed you to act for Mr. Stephenson ? Mr. Dolan. ]^r. Sexton. The Chairman. Where was the employment entered into ? Mr. Dolan. At Shawano. The Chairman. How much money did you receive ? Mr. Dolan. $400. The Chairman. From whom did you receive $400 ? Mr. Dolan. I can not say. I think it was from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Where did you receive it? Mr. Dolan. About August 26. The Chairman. Where ? Mr. Dolan. In Shawano. Mr. Littlefield. Is Shawano a county or a place ? Mr. Dolan. It is the city of Shawano, in Shawano County. The Chairman. How far is that from Milwaukee ? Mr. Dolan. About 140 miles. The Chairman. Was Mr. Edmonds there at the time you received that money ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. The Chairman. Was the money sent to you by draft or check? P. F. DOLAN. 919 Mr. Dolan. By draft. The Chairman. Payable to your order? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose was the $400 paid to you ? Mr. Dolan. To organize the county in behalf of Mr. Stephenson's campaign. The Chairman. What do you mean by organizing the county ? Mr. Dolan. Getting them to work and distributing literature. The Chairman. To do what work ? Mr. Dolan. To distribute literature and to hand out cards. The Chairman. When did you receive that money ? Mr. Dolan. I think about August 26, I am not positive as to the date. The Chairman. Just before the election? Mr. Dolan. Before the primary. The Chairman. Yes; before the primary election ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you do with the money? Give the items, if you can. Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir; I can. The Chairman. Just account for it, please. Mr. Littlefield. I would suggest, as the witness goes along, if the chairman please, that he not only give the name, but state what the particular individual was to do and did do, so far as he knows. The Chairman. You may do that, Mr. Dolan. Mr. Littlefield. State fully, right along, yourself, so as to save the necessity for separate questions. Senator Pomerene. What is that memorandum you have in your hand? Mr. Dolan. It is the report that I made to Mr. Edmonds on the 2d day of February. Senator Pomerene. Is it the original or a copy of it ? Mr. Dolan. It is a copy of the original. Senator Pomerene. A carbon copy? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You may proceed, taking up the items as you have them. Mr. Dolan. I paid for postage $27. Mr. Littlefield. What was that for ? Mr. Dolan. That was for sending out literature that I got from the office here in’ Milwaukee. Also some that we had printed in Shawano. Mr. Littlefield. Circulars, lithographs, and matters of that sort ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And some that you had printed there in Shawano ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. To the Shawano County Advocate, ■for printing, $18.50. To the Shawano Journal, $8. Mr. Littlefield. What sort of printing was that? Just go into the details of these items, briefly, as you go along, to save the neces- sity for asking separate questions. Mr. Dolan. We had them strike off some printed matter. I do not remember just exactly Senator Pomerene. Of which paper are you speaking now ? 920 P. F. DOLAN. Mr. Dolan. The Shawano County Advocate. It was pretty much the same in all of the papers, but we had some cards printed, too, and the Advocate printed those. Eight dollars and fifty cents was paid to the Shawano Journal, and to the Volkesblatte, $6. Then I paid D. H. George a check of $8.50 for doing work in the city. Mr. Littlefield. What kind of work ? Mr. Dolan. To get men to hand out cards at the polls on election day; and I do not know what else he did. And W. T. Zachow looked after the eastern part of the county; and I paid him $138. The Chairman. Give me that name in full. Mr. Dolan. W. Z. Zachow. Mr. Littlefield. Give his address. Mr. Dolan. Shawano, Wis. The Chairman. Proceed. Mr. Dolan. For auto hire, one day, $10. Railroad fare and hotel bills, $15. Mr. Littlefield. Was that your own individual expense? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Labor for addressing and stamping, $10. Mr. Littlefield. That was the literature that was sent out by mail? Mr. Dolan. Yes; that was the labor in connection with the posting of it. Men to hand out Stephenson cards on election day, $54. I paid them $3 apiece. There were 18 of them. The Chairman. Can you give the names of them now ? Mr. Dolan. I can give you the names of a few. The Chairman. Give us all that you can remember. Mr. Dolan. J. M. Robinson; his address is Gresham; Mont Bowman, same address; Charles Madison, Wittenberg; M. A. Sor- ley, Tigerton; D. F. Lightbody, Matoon; Julius Erdmann, Shawano; Harry McDonald, Burnham wood. I do not recall any more of them at this time. The Chairman. Proceed with the items on your memorandum. Mr. Dolan. Telephoning, $3.50. Those total $297. Then I paid $95.90 out for beer and cigars — a saloon bill. The Chairman. To whom were the beer and cigars delivered ? Mr. Dolan. The fellows that might be standing around in the saloons. The Chairman. Were they electors of the State of Wisconsin? Mr. Dolan. I suppose so. The Chairman. Did you personally make that expenditure ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Proceed with the next item. Did you report that expenditure to Mr. Stephenson, or to any member of his committee ? Mr. Dolan. I reported it to Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Mr. Edmonds paid that after you reported that item, did he ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. The Chairman. He had given you the money before? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You merely reported to him the manner in which you had expended it ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. The Chairman. After you had expended it. Very well; proceed. Mr. Dolan. That amounted to $392.90, leaving a balance of $7.10, for which I sent a check to Mr. Edmonds. P. F. DOLAN. 921 Senator Sutherland. I would like to know a little more in detail how you expended this $95.90. Mr. Dolan. The competition up in our country was quite strong, and I made a personal campaign, went to the different saloons, dis- tributed the literature, and bought drinks or cigars for the boys who were in there. Senator Sutherland. How did you go about that? Did you just call up the people and ask them to have a drink? Mr. Dolan. Yes; and then paid the bills. Senator Sutherland. And the cigars were taken in the same way, were they — or did you buy cigars by the box ? Mr. Dolan. They were taken in the same way. I did buy a few boxes of cigars that I took with me through the country, and when I drove out through the country I handed one out occasionally. Senator Sutherland. That was included in the $95.90? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Do you mean it was expended in this inci- dental way, in distributng literature ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Sutherland. Or did you go deliberately into the saloons for the purpose of spending money and inviting people up ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. But incident to your other work, as you went along, you would call people up ? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. Senator Sutherland. I do not understand that you carried on what is called a saloon campaign — that is, going from one saloon to another, and inviting people up to the bar? Mr. Dolan. That was not my intention. Senator Sutherland. That was not your main purpose in going to the saloon ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Senator Sutherland. What is your business? Mr. Dolan. I am in the real-estate business. Senator Sutherland. In what place ? Mr. Dolan. In Shawano. Senator Sutherland. I think that is all. Senator Pomerene. You gave a list of 18 men whom you employed and paid $3 per man. For what purpose were they employed? Mr. Dolan. We had cards made about 2J by 5 inches, and printed on them were the words “Vote for Isaac Stephenson for Senator.” I gave them to those men to stand around outside of the polls and distribute — to pass them to the voters as they went to vote. Senator Pomerene. They were to be the ordinary workers at the polls? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And it was a part of their duty, under their • terms of employment, to go out and get the voters and bring them in ? Mr. Dolan. No; they just stood at the polls. Senator Pomerene. And handed out these cards? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And talked up Stephenson sentiment? Mr. Dolan. I suppose they did. I do not know whether they did or not. 922 P. F. DOLAN. Senator Pomerene. You gave one man in Shawano $138. What was that for ? Mr. Dolan. He organized and looked after the eastern part of the county. There are 35 precincts. Senator Pomerene. When you employed him, give the committee the conversation which was held between you and him as near as you can. Mr. Dolan. I really did not employ him. When Mr. Sexton came to Shawano Senator Pomerene. What is Mr. Sexton’s first name? Mr. Dolan. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. He is in the list here. Senator Pomerene. Very well. He is a man who has figured in some of the other testimony. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I will give you his name right now so there will not be any question about his identity. It is T. J. Sexton. Mr. Dolan. I do not remember his initials. Mr. Littlefield. That is the man we have in the record here. Senator Pomerene. Very well. Tell us what conferences you had with him — what was said. Mr. Dolan. When he came there, he came up to my office to see me. I refused to go ahead with the work, I was busy, and did not have the time. He stayed around there a couple of days, I guess, and insisted on my doing it. I told him I would if he would get a man to handle the eastern part of the county, and also somebody to look after the city. I was quite well acquainted in the western part, and would do that work myself. We had talked the matter over a little, and it appeared he had talked with Mr. Zachow previous to this time; and he had asked me if it would be satisfactory if Mr. Zachow would take the eastern part of the county. I told him it would. After that Mr. Zachow came up, and the literature was sent to him. I think I expressed some of it to him at Cecil. He has a place of business in Cecil. Senator Pomerene. What is his business? Mr. Dolan. He is a man of varied interests. He is a banker and a mill man, a paper man and a merchant. Senator Pomerene. That is, a paper manufacturer? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Who is that — Mr. Zachow ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. He was to look after the eastern part of the county, and get men to hand out these cards. Senator Pomerene. What did you say? What was the conversa- tion between you and him ? Mr. Dolan. I don’t remember. Senator Pomerene. Give us the substance of it. Mr. Dolan. That was it — that he was to take the eastern part of the county and handle it. Senator Pomerene. Was there anything specific as to the manner in which he was to expend any part or all of this money ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why did you keep an account of your dis- bursements ? Mr. Dolan. I supposed I would have to answer to somebody, and I wanted to know what I was doing. P. F. DOLAN. 923 Senator Pomerene. Did you do that by direction of Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. That was your own idea as to the manner in which you should conduct this business? Mr. Dolan. I wanted to know when I got through with the $400, so that I did not put my own money into it. Senator Pomerene. And after you had expended this money, and found you had a balance of $7.10 on hand, you closed your account, and sent Mr. Edmonds a check for $7.10? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Was that made payable to his order? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. How did you get the $400? In what form did it come to you ? Mr. Dolan. I think it was a draft. I am not positive. Senator Pomerene. Who sent that to you ? Mr. Dolan. I do not know. I think it was Mr. Edmonds. Senator Pomerene. Was it sent by mail? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Was there a letter accompanying it? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Have you that letter? Mr. Dolan. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you it with you ? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember the substance of it? Mr. Dolan. No; I do not. He just said that he inclosed me a draft. I do not remember the substance of the letter. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. Mr. Littlefield. When you went into these saloons, when you were out upon these trips, and posted the literature in the interest of Senator Stephenson, did you get the permission of the saloon keeper to post that literature, or did you pay anything for the privilege of thus posting it ? Mr. Dolan. No; I never asked them to post it. I went in, and those that were there I bought a drink; and then, if I had cards in my pocket, I handed them the cards, or the literature, and went out. Mr. Littlefield. Did you post the literature in the saloons — the lithographs, etc. ? Mr. Dolan. Very often; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Then, as I understand it, the treating was sim- ply confined to this : As you would step in the saloon for that pur- pose, you would invite whoever happened to be in there to take a drink ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And you gave them cigars, as the case might be, and paid for them ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Was there any campaign conversation going on during the time ? Mr. Dolan. Why, I talked it whenever I had a chance; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You talked with everybody, you say? Mr. Dolan. Yes. That was what I was out for. 924 P. P. DOLAN. Mr. Littlefield. Urging the claims and interests of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You say the competition up there was vigorous. What are we to understand by that? Just give us a little detail about that. I want to know what you were up against. Mr. Dolan. Mr. Hatton, of New London, who was in the race for the senatorship at that time, has large timber holdings in the western part of Shawano County, and he has operated there for a number of years. Of course he has employed a great many men, and those men were strongly in favor of Mr. Hatton. I tried to overcome that sentiment as much as I could. Mr. Littlefield. Did you discover any evidence of activity upon the part of the friends of Mr. Hatton in that vicinity, as you were making your trip ? Mr. Dolan. Quite often; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Of what character. Were they making a cam- paign similar to that you were making ? Mr. Dolan. I never met anyone that was. I talked with men who had worked for him, and that were talking for Hatton. Mr. Littlefield. Are you more or less familiar with the methods of campaigning in that section of the country ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. What is the nature of the population out through there, as to its nationality ? Mr. Dolan. It is mostly German. Mr. Littlefield. The Germans are people, I suppose, that cus- tomarily and ordinarily drink their beer ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. As a matter of course. Is that true ? Mr. Dolan. Yes; those that I have come in contact with were always ready for it. Mr. Littlefield. And it is rather a custom of theirs, a practice, a habit ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. Did you at any time use any money that was in your hands to be used in the interest of Senator Stephenson, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly in- fluencing any electors in that section to support the Senator on the primary election day ? Mr. Dolan. Not one cent. Mr. Littlefield. Did anyone to whom you gave money, so far as you know — and that includes Mr. Zachow and any other gentleman to whom you intrusted funds for any purpose — use any of the money thus intrusted to them, to your knowledge, either directly or indi- rectly, for the purpose of bribing or corrupting any of the electors in that section on primary election day, in the interest of Mr. Stephen- son? Mr. Dolan. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did any information ever come to you that any- thing of that sort had been done ? Mr. Dolan. None. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. The witness is excused. H. H. MORGAN. 925 Mr. Littlefield. He is excused finally; is he? The Chairman. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Were you for Senator Stephenson before this arrangement was made between you and Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And how long had you been ? Mr. Dolan. From about the time he started to carry Bob La Follette, on, I think. Mr. Littlefield. That is quite a number of years. Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And from that time on you have been a friend of the Senator’s ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And a supporter of his ? Mr. Dolan. Yes. TESTIMONY OF H. H. MORGAN. H. H. Morgan, having been heretofore duly sworn, was exam- ined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Morgan, what position do you hold ? Mr. Morgan. I am at present assistant United States attorney for the western district of Wisconsin. The Chairman. Where do you reside? Mr. Morgan. Madison, Wis. The Chairman. How long have you resided there ? Mr. Morgan. A few days over 41 years. I was born there. The Chairman. Did you participate in the campaign of Senator Stephenson for the United States Senate in 1908? Mr. Morgan. I did; yes, sir. The Chairman. How much money did you receive to be expended during that campaign ? Mr. Morgan. $299, to the best of , my recollection. I received $299 from Mr. Stephenson’s Milwaukee representative. The Chairman. Who was that representative ? Mr. Morgan. E. A. Edmonds. The Chairman. When did you receive it ? Mr. Morgan. There is another sum that I would like to mention. The Chairman. I will ask about that. I have a memorandum before me. Did you receive that directly from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Morgan. I received it in the form of a Milwaukee check, as I remember it, sent by Mr. Puelicher. The Chairman. Payable to your order ? Mr. Morgan. To my order. The Chairman. When did you receive that check? Mr. Morgan. I fear I can not give the correct date without looking at some memoranda that I have. The Chairman. Look at your memorandum and state when it was made. Refer to it and then testify. Senator Pomerene. The memorandum to which you are now re- ferring is one that was made at the time ? Mr. Morgan. Yes. The 20th of August, 1908. The Chairman. What was the amount ? Mr. Morgan. Two hundred and twenty-six dollars. 926 H. H. MORGAN. The Chairman. Is that the sum that you say was received by draft or check ? Mr. Morgan. Mr. Puelicher’s draft or check; yes, sir. The Chairman. How did it come to be in an odd amount ? Mr. Morgan. Because I had asked Mr. Edmonds for that precise amount, giving him a detailed requisition, as I might call it. The Chairman. Did you state the purpose for which it was to be expended when you called for it ? Mr. Morgan. I did, in detail. The Chairman. Have you a statement there, or a copy of the communication ? Mr. Morgan. I have a copy of the first communication sent. A letter, I recollect, had been sent Mr. Edmonds, and I had decided that a trifle more would be used for a reason which I stated. The Chairman. Pass the additional item and refer us to the communication . Mr. Morgan. It is in the shape of a letter to Mr. Edmonds, dated August 7, 1908. The Chairman. Read the entire letter. Mr. Morgan. It was in reply to a letter that I had just received from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Have you the letter from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Morgan. I am not sure that I have that letter, but I probably have it. The Chairman. Just examine and see if you have it, and we will have that letter first. Mr. Morgan (after examining papers). I do not find that letter. The Chairman. You say you have not the letter ? Mr. Morgan. To the best of my recollection, I have not. The Chairman. Read your letter, and then make a search after- wards, when you are off the stand, for the Edmonds letter. Mr. Morgan. Yes. It is dated August 20, 1908. The Chairman. Is that the letter that refers to the odd sum of $226 ? Mr. Morgan. Yes. The Chairman. Just read that letter. Mr. Morgan. That refers to the receipt of it. It is as follows The Chairman. That is a letter that you sent to Mr. Edmonds in reply to one in which the check came ? That is the one we want first, the one in which you say you told him the specific purposes for which the money was required. Mr. Morgan. This seems to be the letter which I have here, it being a letter of August 7. The Chairman. Read the whole letter. Mr. Morgan. The letter is as follows: August 7 , 1908 . Mr. E. A. Edmonds, Milwaukee, Wis. My Dear Mr. Edmonds: Your letter of the 6th, inquiring about conditions here, is received. The real facts here are these: Dane County has probably been the scene of the hottest fights in the State during the late campaigns. No one living away from here can realize how bitterly the people are lined up — that is, purely on the La Follette proposition. The close La Follette leaders here, I honestly believe, will support Bryan. I know that several of them have so announced and I know that one in particular — a high appointee in the capitol — offered to bet that Bryan would carry the State. I tell you this that you may realize that the fight is fierce. Mr. A. It. Ames is good just as far as he can go. I am going to propose to cooperate with him in person and I am arranging to go out over the county next week in com- H. H. MORGAN. 927 pany with one or two of the best men 1 can pick out. As I have stated heretofore, the stalwarts are naturally suspicious of Senator Stephenson. This is not strange in the light of history. One of us on whom they rely have to guarantee the Senator’s posi- tion. We have to show that he is first and last a Republican and that he will stand by the President and will vote with the party. I have picked several splendid workers for the polls and by the end of next week will have a large area provided for. Mr. Ames will be glad to work with me, and will be valuable. The advertisement in the State Journal, calling attention to Senator Stephenson, cites the fact that he has been La Follette’s backer in the past. This advertisement works both ways. It will catch some La Follette men, while, on the other hand, it heaps a lot of work on us to keep the stalwarts right. This is natural, as you must see. Cook is making a fierce effort to get the stalwarts and improves all openings like these. We are planning to call an extensive meeting of stalwarts here so that these leaders can go to their respective localities and set things right. The Scandinavians of Dane County have been a great power and follow La Follette to the limit. The Hatton men, the leaders in particular, are without a doubt lining this nationality up as far as they can right on this proposition. We can appeal for Stephenson here on the following grounds: 1. Straight Republicanism. 2. Personal-liberty principles. 3. That Senator Stephenson attended every roll call of the Senate and every com- mittee meeting with which he was connected. (This last will refute the age objection sometimes raised.) I have a further idea and will put it as a proposition. In 10 days from this date I can get practically a complete and an absolutely up-to-date list of all rural patrons in the county and the entire polling lists of Madison and Stoughton. These wall include many Democrats. I recommend that envelopes be at once addressed to the above persons, in round numbers 8,000, and that the mailing be done on the 24th instant. There will be nothing lost by sending to a number of Democrats. It will create talk, and I know that many are going into the Republican primaries to support a personal-liberty assembly candidate. I further will ask to suggest a letter to be sent, submitting the same to you for approval. I can have all addressing done here and prefer to buy stamped 1-cent envelopes than to buy and stick stamps. There is a pencil mark over the “one” there [indicating]. I think that I changed it to “two,” this I am reading from being a carbon copy. Any other matter can be put in the envelope, too, as you may desire. I have taken this proposition up with a party who will guarantee to have all done and ready by the 24th. I estimate the cost as follows: Stamped envelopes, $88; addressing, $16; railroad fare in getting some rural lists that we have not in hand, $10; and about $50 for rent of room and pay for parties for making copies of rural lists. This aggregates $164, so I may safely say that I will guarantee to keep under $175. This is exclusive of the printing. You know what that is worth and you can have it done in Milwaukee or I can have it done here. Must be union work. The rural mailing I believe will be of great value and the city mailing will stir people up. Please consider this at your earliest possible convenience and let me hear, as the time is short. If I know by Tuesday morning, or better by Monday, I can get things under way before I go out into the county to supplement Ames’s work in getting men for the polls. Very truly, yours. The Chairman. You read that to account for the odd figures, $226, the amount of a draft. That amounts to only $164. Mr. Morgan. Yes. As I suggested, I saw Mr. Edmonds shortly after that The Chairman. Before receiving the draft ? Mr. Morgan. Yes. I made a number of trips to Milwaukee and explained to him, as I remember it, that I did not like to have matter sent out in Dane County in 1-cent envelopes; that I believed it ought to be sent in 2-cent envelopes, and all addressed on the typewriter, as it would receive better consideration from the ad- dressees; and I believe that difference in the cost of stamps prac- tically represents the difference in the requisition. 928 H. H. MORGAN. The Chairman. That would be $62. Do you think it made a dif- ference of $62 ? Mr. Morgan. I think it would have made about that, inasmuch as my lists were, I estimated, 8,000. I do not suppose I had counted the lists. I simply estimated them. Senator Sutherland. I notice in the letter that you advise send- ing out literature to Democrats, and say that a number of them will come into the Republican primaries. You meant by that that a number of Democrats would go into the Republican primaries and vote, so as to effect the nomination of a Republican ? Mr. Morgan. If the Senator will give me an opportunity, I can demonstrate that beyond a doubt by some returns that we have. Senator Sutherland. I ask you, first, whether that was what you meant ? Mr. Littlefield. That is, whether you meant that they would be likely to do that ? Mr. Morgan. Yes. As I say, there was a personal Senator Sutherland. One other question before you go to that: Then do you mean that those Democrats who would go into the Republican primaries to vote upon the question as to who should be the Republican nominee would support the Republican nominee at the polls, or would support the Democratic ticket at the polls ? Mr. Morgan. It would depend on whether or not they favored that individual. If they liked the man, they might vote for the Republican; otherwise they would vote for the Democratic ticket. I can explain that in this way : It often happened that the Demo- crats would simply have one nominee, one person standing as a candidate, while the Republicans would have a number. The Demo- cratic candidate would need but half a dozen votes or 10, or perhaps 20, votes in order to get on the ticket. The Democrats then, by coming into the caucus, would be able to vote for the candidate they selected, trying to pick out the weakest Republican candidate, whom they could beat with their man at the polls later. Senator Sutherland. In other words, the Democrats would go into the Republican primary and substantially dictate who the Republican nominee should be; and as they only had one candidate at the polls then, they would dictate the weakest Republican to run against the Democratic nominee ? Mr. Morgan. I can say frankly that I believe that has been done, and I believe I can demonstrate it by showing the returns of the vote at the primaries and the vote at the following election. The Chairman. Proceed with the next item of expense. I will ask you when you received any further sum of money than the $226 that you accounted for ? State it in your way. Mr. Morgan. At a later time I received $73; but I have no minute, no letter or memorandum of the date. However, my recollection is that both the check for $226 and the check for $73 were indorsed by me to E. W. Keyes, postmaster at Madison, inasmuch as a very large part of that sum was taken to purchase stamps at that time. The Chairman. Is it a fact that you went to the postmaster to purchase stamps, gave him checks in payment, and he gave you the change representing the difference between the amount of the check and the amount to be paid for stamps ? Mr. Morgan. Yes; it being Milwaukee exchange. H. H. MORGAN. 929 The Chairman. It is hardly worth while to spend time on that. That is $73. What other sum of money did you receive ? Mr. Morgan. Mr. A. R. Ames was in charge of the county. T^he county has about 80,000 population, 16,000 voters, and 67 voting precincts. The Chairman. What name is that ? Mr. Morgan. A. R. Ames, of Madison. The Chairman. Was he representing the Stephenson campaign fund ? Mr. Morgan. He was. The Chairman. And it was in that capacity that you did business with him ? Mr. Morgan. He had requested me to assist him. The Chairman. All right. Now go ahead. Mr. Morgan. Mr. Ames had been doing what he could to procure men to circulate literature. The Chairman. First, how much did he give you ? Mr. Morgan. He gave me $50. Col. Lewis, who has just testified, told me that he was about to make a trip to Columbia County in an automobile; and as he was a man rather aged, he asked me to go with him. I said I would. Mr. Ames had not been able to go to that part of the county. Because of the expanse of the territory, it was impossible for one man to do it. Having known Col. Lewis many years, I said I would be glad to go with him. Mr. Ames then said that there were some towns north of Madison — Waunakee, Dane, Morrisonville, Windsor, and De Forest — on the direct line to the city of Portage, in Columbia County; and he said he had arranged, through a Mr. Me Watty, of Waunakee — whose initials I can not give; he was then in the lumber or implement business at Waunakee — Mr. Ames told me that Mr. Me Watty was a very ardent stalwart, as he expressed it then, and had agreed to attend to the organization of the towns of Vienna, Vermont, Roxbury, and two or three adjoining towns. By “ organizing,” I mean that Mr. Ames said that Me Watty had arranged to get a man to attend the polls at each one of those places, they being The Chairman. Let us get at this perhaps more directly. You had this sum of $50 from Mr. Ames, and you are now accounting for the use you made of it ? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say, as I understand you, that you went on this trip in the automobile ? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where did you spend the money ? Mr. Morgan. I met Mr. McWatty at Waunakee, and said that Mr. Ames had asked me to speak to him. He said that was understood between him and Mr. Ames; that he was arranging to take care of the five towns. To the best of my recollection, I handed him approxi- mately $25 and discussed the use of it with him at that time. The Chairman. For what did you tell him to use it? Mr. Morgan. Those being country districts required the use of teams. The Chairman. Suppose we pass over the reasoning until after you have given the fact. 15235 °— vol 1—11 59 930 H. H. MORGAN. Mr. Morgan. To employ men with teams to bring voters to the polls, and, further, to pay the owner of the team, or some one to assist hiiji, to stand at or near the polls and deliver Mr. Stephenson’s cards to the voters, and call their attention to the fact of his candidacy. The Chairman. That is what you paid the money for ? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. The Chairman. Did he use it for that purpose ? Mr. Morgan. I have not direct proof that he did, except that the returns from those towns indicated that he did. The Chairman. Did he state to you at any time that he had used it for that purpose ? Mr. Morgan I have not seen him since. The Chairman. Then that rests upon the fact that you gave him the money for that purpose. To whom else did you give any part of this $50 ? Mr. Morgan. J. S. Parkinson, of Windsor. The Chairman. You gave him how much? Mr. Morgan. I gave him either $2.50 or $3. The Chairman. For what purpose ? Mr. Morgan. To hire a man to take his place in his store so that on primary day he could attend the primaries. He is a friend of mine, and I knew he was a stalwart. I knew he was for Mr. The Chairman. So that he could attend the primaries for what purpose ? Mr. Morgan. For circulating Mr. Stephenson’s cards, a bunch of which I handed him, and also to awaken Stephenson sentiment. The Chairman. By talking to electors ? Mr. Morgan. And arguing with them, and answering some of the arguments that had been circulated there against Mr. Stephenson. The Chairman. To whom else did you pay any part of this $50 ? Mr. Morgan. Peter Duppen. The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Morgan. Two dollars. The Chairman. For what duties ? Mr. Morgan. To leave his farm work and attend the primary, and circulate cards which I handed to him at that time. The Chairman. Was he a Stephenson supporter before you gave him this money ? Mr. Morgan. He so indicated to me. The Chairman. Did he tell you so ? Mr. Morgan. I can not say that he did, but The Chairman. Then you paid him the $2 as wages for attending the polls; did you ? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did he vote for Stephenson ? Mr. Morgan. I have no idea. The Chairman. He did not tell you ? Mr. Morgan. He did not; and I did not inquire. The Chairman. To whom else did you pay any part of this $50 ? Mr. Morgan. I paid to the editor of the Waunakee Index Senator Pomerene. What is his name, please. Mr. Morgan. I am unable to give it. It can be found in the Wisconsin Bluebook, under “The Waunakee Index.” H. H. MORGAN. 931 The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Morgan. My best recollection is that I paid him $6. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Morgan. Fox running Mr. Stephenson’s card, with an adver- tisement, in two issues of his weekly paper. The Chairman. What is the next item ? Mr. Morgan. The editor of The Morrisonville Times. I believe it is The Morrisonville Times — the name of the paper. The Chairman. What is his name ? Mr. Morgan. I am unable to give his name. The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Morgan. The same amount, for the same service. The Chairman. Give the next item. Mr. Morgan. To J. H. Purcell, of Madison. The Chairman. Who was he? Mr. Morgan. He was in the real estate business, and had desk room and offices connected with mine. The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Morgan. $10. The Chairman. For what ? Mr. Morgan. To hire a horse and buggy to go into the town of Fitchburg, where he used to live (going there Saturday and not returning until Monday) ; giving to him several hundred large posters bearing Mr. Stephenson’s lithograph, together with some advertising matter, to be posted around the town of Fitchburg and the corner of the town of Verona and the edge of the town of Madison and over into Dunkirk, if he could get that far. That was to pay for the rig and his board and lodging, and I imagine there would be nothing left for him; and I hardly think he expected to get anything for himself. The Chairman. What is the next ? Mr. Morgan. Thomas Moran, of Madison, $10 The Chairman. For what purpose ? Mr. Morgan. To make a similar trip to Windsor, De Forest, and Morrisonville, paying his expenses for that trip. The Chairman. What is the next item ? Mr. Morgan. On that trip the amounts that I have named aggre- gate, as I have footed them here, $62; but in my conversation with Mr. Edmonds at Milwaukee I remember stating that there were two or three men in Madison who I thought it would be wise to have take trips outside, giving him the estimated amounts of probably $10 each; and that accounts for the fact that there was some The Chairman. It accounts for the fact that you spent $12 more than you had ? Mr. Morgan. I probably contributed that at the time, and it was made up in the $73 check itemized afterwards. The Chairman. Did you receive any other money from the Stephenson campaign fund ? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely nothing. The Chairman. It appears in the testimony taken before the senate committee that you were charged with receiving $2,555 ? Mr. Morgan. That is a malicious falsehood, put into that by some one — I would be very glad to find out who. The Chairman. You did not receive any such sum? 932 H. H. MORGAN. Mr. Morgan. I did not ; no, sir. I have been reproached for it by people throughout the State; and it is an outrage. The Chairman. It is a statement contained in the record certified by the governor of this State to the United States Senate; and for that reason I have called your attention to it. Mr. Morgan. I appreciate that. I will say it got in there evi- dently through error, and I am perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in the matter. I never had it. Senator Sutherland. It is in the report ? Mr. Littlefield. That is a finding of the State solons. The Chairman. It is in the report of the committee. Mr. Littlefield. I have not read the evidence enough to know whether there is any foundation for the conclusion or not. The Chairman. We will not pursue it. I wanted to know whether or not it is true, and the witness says it is not true. Mr. Morgan. I can account for that, I believe, Senator, in a measure. The Chairman. Do so. Mr. Morgan. My recollection is that the testimony given before the Wisconsin Senate committee by some witness was to the effect that I had received $255 ; and by moving that up one decimal point you would have $2,550. That is the explanation I have made to my friends. It was not verified, however, before being printed and sent to the senate. The Chairman. In the record, however, it comes to the senate as one of the enumerated sums of money; and this witness was not called Mr. Morgan. I was subpoenaed, and answered my subpoena very promptly, and was on hand to be called at any time. The senators failed to call me. The Chairman. The memorandum shows that you did not testify before either of the former committees. Mr. Morgan. I was under subpoena and in attendance waiting to be called, and had my testimony ready. Senator Pomerene. The total amount you received was $299, was it ? Mr. Morgan. $299, from Mr. Edmonds, by Mr. Puelicher’s checks, and the $50 that Mr. Ames advanced to me for the special purpose. Senator Pomerene. And nothing more? Mr. Morgan. Nothing more; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. The Chairman. Has counsel any questions to ask of the witness ? Mr . Littlefield . Yes . You were cut short in your answer in relation to Mr. Duppen. When you were inquired of as to whether he told you he was for Senator Stephenson when you employed him, you said: “I can not say that he did, but,” and there your answer was cut off. If you desire to finish that answer, make such complete statement as you desire. Mr. Morgan. I had known Mr. Duppen for a matter of some years, and believed him at that time to be of the same political faction that I was a member of, and I assumed, from my conversation with him, that that would be agreeable to him. He took the matter up promptly and said he was glad to do it. H. H. MORGAN. 933 Mr. Littlefield. The sum advanced to him, I take it, was not a consideration for his support of the Senator ? Mr. Morgan. Not in the least; no, sir. He is a working man, a young man, and he had to leave his day’s work there on the farm. Mr. Littlefield. A man that you had known for a long time ? Mr. Morgan. I had known him; he is a very honorable young German. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Morgan, was any of the money that came into your hands used by you, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any voters in this primary campaign, in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely not, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money that was disbursed by you to these various people, so far as you know, used by any of them, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influ- encing any electors in that primary election campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Morgan. I never heard any intimation to that effect, and I believe it was not used for any purpose of that kind. Mr. Littlefield. You were having frequent conferences, as I understand, with Mr. Ames, who was a resident of Madison? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield, Who had formal charge of the Senator’s cam- paign ? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to ask you whether or not any of the funds that were disbursed by Mr. Ames, or any of the activities of Mr. Ames, so far as you know, were, either directly or indirectly, intended to bribe or corruptly influence any electors in that primary election campaign in the interest of Senator Stephenson? Mr. Morgan. They certainly were not; and I knew, to a great extent, what he was doing and what his friends were doing — what persons that he interested were doing. Mr. Littlefield. I think that is all, Mr. Morgan. Senator Pomerene. How long have you been assistant United States attorney ? Mr. Morgan. Since April 1, 1905. My term expired April 1, 1909, and I have been reappointed since April 1, 1909. Mr. Littlefield. Are you the assistant United States attorney in the same district where Mr. George Gordon is the United States attorney ? Mr. Morgan. I am; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. He is your superior ? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I think that is all. The Chairman. The witness is excused. Mr. Littlefield. Is Mr. Morgan allowed to go back to Madison ? The Chairman. Yes. Senator Pomerene. There was a letter that Mr. Morgan was to look for. The chairman requested that you look for a letter that you had received from Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Morgan. Will you kindly do so ? Mr. Morgan. Of what date ? Senator Pomerene. The one to which the letter you read was an answer. Mr. Morgan. I remember that letter, and I hope that I have it. 934 L. W. THAYER. Senator Pomerene. If you can find it, please send it to us. Mr. Morgan. I will; yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. C. W. Thayer will be the next witness. Come to the stand. Mr. Littlefield. Is that “C. W.” or “L. W.”? Mr. Thayer. “L. W.” The Chairman. It is “C. W.” on the memorandum, and it is “Edward B. Thayer” in Brown’s testimony, at page 116. We will ascertain the witness’s name in a moment. Mr. Littlefield. What name is it ? Mr. Thayer. “L. W.” TESTIMONY OF L. W. THAYER. L. W. Thayer, haying been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows : The Chairman. Mr. Thayer, where do you reside? Mr. Thayer. I reside at Ripon, Wis. The Chairman. How long have you resided there? Mr. Thayer. Twenty-three or twenty-four years. The Chairman. Did you receive any money in connection with Senator Stephenson’s campaign in 1908? Mr. Thayer. I did. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Thayer. $600. The Chairman. From whom ? Mr. Thayer. E. A. Edmonds. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Thayer. For the purpose of organizing the western half of Fond du Lac County, and taking up the work in Green Lake County. The Chairman. Did you use it for that purpose? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. All of it ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What do you mean by “ organizing ” ? Mr. Thayer. I mean to have men talk to the electors with reference to the qualifications of the candidate, to distribute literature, and to get out the vote. The Chairman. Then you paid out some of it to other men? Mr. Thayer. A large amount of it. The Chairman. How much did you pay out to others? Mr. Thayer. I wish to state to the subcommittee that I have no memorandum. The Chairman. Did you never have a memorandum of the sums paid out ? Mr. Thayer. Never. The Chairman. Or the persons to whom you gave money ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir; no memorandum whatever. The Chairman. Have you any memory on the subject? Mr. Thayer. It is very difficult — I doubt whether I could, except- ing guesswork, and that would be far-fetched. It was three years ago. The Chairman. Unless you have some recollection, we do not want guesswork. L. W. THAYER. 935 Mr. Thayer. I could give nothing except guesswork with reference to it. The Chairman. What do you mean by “guesswork” ? Mr. Thayer. I mean that if I were to designate somebody to whom I paid money, it might be an injustice to me and as well to the man that I claimed I gave the money to. The Chairman. So that you can not tell the subcommittee the name of any person to whom you gave money, or the amount of it ? Mr. Thayer. Only by guesswork. The Chairman. Let us see you try this guessing proposition. Mr. Thayer. All right. The Chairman. Make a guess now. Mr. Thayer. Well, I could say Wynne Scribner, of El Dorado. The Chairman. How much do you guess you gave him ? Mr. Thayer. Anywhere — I can not define the amount. The Chairman. What do you guess? Mr. Thayer. I might have given him $20; I might have given him $25. The Chairman. Might you have given him $100? Mr. Thayer. I would not guess that I did. The Chairman. You would not guess that? Do you guess that you might have given him $50 ? Mr. Thayer. I might have given him $50. The Chairman. Do you guess that you gave him any at all ? Mr. Thay t er. I suggested just now that I guessed probably I might have. The Chairman. You might have done it? You might have given some to some other person not named. Mr. Thayer. Very true. The Chairman. Does the fact that you might have done it afford any proof that you did do it ? Mr. Thayer. That w*ould be hard for me to determine in my mind. Mr. Littlefield. It seems to me that is rather a dialectical ques- tion, if the chairman please. The Chairman. I ask that for the purpose of testing his memory. Mr. Littlefield. I submit, if the chairman please, that that can not under any circumstances be evidence. The Chairman. The suggestion of counsel will be noted. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have my objection go on the record, if the chairman please. The Chairman. Counsel may state his objection. Mr. Littlefield. My objection is that that can not, by any possi- bility or under any known rule of evidence, be admissible. The Chairman: The objection will be noted. Proceed now and answer the question. The reporter will read the question. The reporter read as follows: The Chairman. Does the fact that you might have done it afford any proof that you did do it? Mr. Thayer. No positive proof. The Chairman. So that we are not to take the fact that you guess it as evidence that you did it? Is that it? Mr. Thayer. I would wish it to be on the basis of doubt. The Chairman. Doubt that you did, or doubt that you did not? 936 L. W. THAYER. Mr. Thayer. Because, it not being certain whether I did or not The Chairman. Doubt that you did make that payment, or doubt that you did not ? Mr. Thayer. I would say that I think I did. The Chairman. In this connection, repeat the total sum you received. Mr. Thayer. How is that? The Chairman. Repeat the total amount of money that you received. Mr. Thayer. I received $600. The Chairman. From Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. To be expended in the campaign? Mr. Thayer. In the campaign. The Chairman. What is your business? Mr. Thayer. My business? I am an owner of real estate. The Chairman. Did you have any knowledge of the laws of the State of Wisconsin at the time you were undertaking to perform this service ? Mr. Thayer. I had a knowledge in the way of the law that desig- nated what intimidation and bribery were, or the law that would define one’s action in campaigning. The Chairman. You say you had a knowledge? Mr. Thayer. I say I had a passing knowledge of it. The Chairman. Did you have any knowledge as to the require- ment that a candidate should file an expense account of all the moneys expended by him or used in his behalf ? Mr. Thayer. I had knowledge of the fact that a candidate, the principal, was supposed to file an account. The Chairman. How did you suppose he would file an account if you did not keep some kind of memorandum? Mr. Thayer. Since no request was made of me to keep an itemized account, I took it for granted that the candidate or the principal would file his account from office expenditures. The Chairman. You did not know whether or not a request would be made, I suppose, at the time you were expending this money ? Mr. Thayer. No. But my thought was that it was the general rule or custom to file the expense accounts not so closely in detail. The Chairman. Did you think the mere statement that the candi- date had paid you $600 would be a sufficient designation of the item ? Mr. Thayer. I thought, judging from the custom of filing reports, that it would. Mr. Littlefield. I did not get that answer. Mr. Thayer. I said, I judged from the custom of filing expense accounts that it would. The Chairman. How much of this sum of $600 did you keep for your own account? Mr. Thayer. A sufficient amount to pay my expenses. I can not define it. The Chairman. How much was it ? Mr. Thayer. I could not tell you. The Chairman. Can you estimate it ? Mr. Thayer. No, sii^ The Chairman. Was it $500? L. W. THAYER. 937 Mr. Thayer. No, sir. The Chairman. Was it $400? Mr. Thayer. I do not think so. I can not tell what it was. The Chairman. Might it have been $400 ? Mr. Thayer. I think not. The Chairman. Was it $300? Mr. Thayer. For my personal expense? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Thayer. It is hard for me to answer that question because of having no data. The Chairman. Might it have been $300 ? Mr. Thayer. That is a difficult question for me to answer under the circumstances. The Chairman. It might not have been $300, might it ? Mr. Thayer. It might not have been half that, and it might have been more. The Chairman. Where did you keep the $600 after you received it ? Mr. Thayer. The $600 ? Three hundred dollars of it I took with me. The Chairman. In cash, in your pocket? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You took it where with you? Mr. Thayer. I took it with me through the district, in traveling — in traveling throughout the district. The Chairman. Did you have any of that money when you got back home ? Mr. Thayer. I might have had some of it when I got home, because I got home quite often. The Chairman. How long were you on these trips ? Mr. Thayer. Sometimes I was away a day and a half or two days. The Chairman. How often were you away at all from your office ? Mr. Thayer. I was away pretty much all the day. The Chairman. What time would that be ? Mr. Thayer. I think I was two days at one time, if I remember right — it might have been more — on an automobile trip. The Chairman. Whose automobile ? One you hired or one you owned ? Mr. Thayer. I had one automobile that I can remember of having. One automobile I can remember ; others I do not remember, because I do not know the man who drove the automobile nor the owner, either. I hired it. One was Mr. Burgess’s automobile, of Kipon. The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Thayer. I can not recall the amount. I think I paid him for the use of his automobile. In fact, I am quite sure I did. The Chairman. You are not quite sure you paid him anything? Mr. Thayer. I think I was two and a half or three days in his machine. The Chairman. You are not sure that you paid him anything for it ? Mr. Thayer. I would not swear to it, because I have nothing to show in the way of a memorandum. The Chairman. In connection with your ordinary business, do you keep books? Mr. Thayer. I keep accounts; yes. 938 L. W. THAYER. The Chairman. Do you keep a journal of the business transactions in which you engage ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you depend upon your memory at all in business ? Mr. Thayer. Not generally. The Chairman. You generally make memoranda of business transactions ; do you ? Mr. Thayer. Yes. The Chairman. Have you any memoranda of business transac- tions ? Mr. Thayer. Not with me. The Chairman. Do the memoranda that you keep show cor- rectly all of the acts and things you do ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir. The Chairman. You trust to your memory, generally; do you? Mr. Thayer. There are some things that I do not, that are not recorded. The Chairman. If you make an engagement for a period five days ahead, at the time of making it do you make a memorandum of it or trust your memory ? Mr. Thayer. If I were going to be certain to be on time and keep that engagement I might make a memorandum of it. The Chairman. Did you go to any particular college or school when you were a young man ? Mr. Thayer. Nothing outside of the business college. The Chairman. Where was that ? Mr. Thayer. St. Louis, Mo. The Chairman. What was the name of it? Mr. Thayer. Jones’s Commercial College. The Chairman. How long did you go there? Mr. Thayer. Nine months or a year. The Chairman. In what year did you attend that college ? Mr. Thayer. I attended Jones’s Commercial College in 1876 or 1877. The Chairman. How many months did you attend it ? Mr. Thayer. I think about nine months. The Chairman. How much did you pay for your tuition there ? Mr. Thayer. I could not tell you. The Chairman. You say you can not tell me. Is it because you do not want to tell or because you do not recollect? Mr. Thayer. I would be very glad, Senator, to tell you if I could; but I could not tell you now. The Chairman. Have no recollection of what your education cost ? Mr. Thayer. I can not. I can remember the year, because that is something that became impressed upon my mind; but the amount that I paid I could not testify to. The Chairman. For whom did you vote at the first election at which you cast your vote ? Mr. Thayer. That is another thing that is impressed upon my mind because of the date. The Chairman. Do not remember whether it was a presidential or bielection ? L. W. THAYER. 939 Mr. Thayer. I can very easily remember by when I cast my first vote. The Chairman. When did you cast your first vote ? Mr. Thayer. I can tell you the candidate that I supported. The Chairman. Tell us in what year you cast your first vote. Mr. Littlefield. Then tell whom you saw when you walked up to the polls. Put that in, too. The Chairman. I will ask counsel to allow' this witness to depend upon his own memory. Mr. Littlefield. It occurred to me that that is a good detail to work in. * Mr. Thayer. I am unable, now, to tell the year. I remember the candidate, because that became impressed upon my mind. The Chairman. In what year were you born ? Mr. Thayer. 1854. The Chairman. You do not remember for whom you cast your first vote for President ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Who was it ? Mr. Thayer. Rutherford B. Hayes. Mr. Littlefield. I do not know whether that is a good selection or not. The Chairman. I am merely testing the witness’s memory. For whom did you cast your second vote for President ? Mr. Thayer. I could not testify. The Chairman. For whom did you cast your last vote for President ? Mr. Thayer. For President Taft. The Chairman. You have a distinct recollection of that vote? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir; I have a distinct recollection of that. The Chairman. Where did you cast it ? Mr. Thayer. I cast it in Eipon. / The Chairman. Has Ripon more than one precinct ? Mr. Thayer. Ripon has four precincts. The Chairman. At which precinct did you cast your vote ? Mr. Thayer. In the precinct in which I live — the fourth. The Chairman. You can remember those things, but you can not remember a single item of expenditure that you made out of this $600 ; can you ? Mr. Thayer. Nothing that I can give evidence positively about, as to what I expended. It would be guesswork to testify. The Chairman. Did you spend any of it for liquor or cigars ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir; I think I did. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Thayer. I could not say. The Chairman. Did you spend as much as $20 for cigars ? Mr. Thayer. I would rather consider it necessary to pay more than that in the territory. The Chairman. You think you did spend more than that ? Mr. Thayer. I would think so. The Chairman. Did you spend as much as $20, do you think, for whisky or liquors of any kind ? Mr. Thayer. I can not testify as to the amount. I know I spent some. 940 L. W. THAYER. The Chairman. Did you spend as much as S50 ? Mr. Thayer. Senator, I can not say, because I can not define the amount. The Chairman. You see, you are the party responsible for remem- bering — not the subcommittee. Do you remember? Mr. Thayer. No; I do not. Senator Sutherland. Can you not remember positively the name of a single individual to whom you paid money ? Mr. Thayer. Not to testify positively. Senator Sutherland. Irrespective of the amount? Mr. Littlefield. What is your best recollection ? Mr. Thayer. I can not, even on the basis of my best recollection, define an amount. Mr. Littlefield. The name, then ? Senator Sutherland. To how many different people did you pay money ? Mr. Thayer. I can only guess at that. Senator Sutherland. Then guess at it. Mr. Thayer. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Scribner, of Eldorado — I think I paid him some money. Senator Sutherland. No; to how many people altogether did you pay money ? Mr. Littlefield. The Senator wants to know now how many you paid money to, according to your best recollection. Mr. Thayer. I could not mention over three or four. Senator Sutherland. I have not asked you to give the names ; but how many in the aggregate ? Mr. Thayer. I spent money throughout the entire district — paid it to workers. Senator Sutherland. How many different people, altogether, in your best judgment ? I am not asking you to be accurate. Mr. Thayer. There might have been 30, 35, or 40. Senator Sutherland. Thirty or thirty-five different people ? Mr. Thayer. Yes. There are 41 precincts. Senator Sutherland. Can you not give me the name ©f one of those individuals to whom you feel reasonably certain you paid money ? Mr. Thayer. I can not, in the absence of a memorandum. Senator Sutherland. Not a single individual ? Mr. Thayer. Not a single individual. Senator Sutherland. Nor the amount you gave to a single indi- vidual ? Mr. Thayer. Nor the amount, in the absence of a memorandum. Senator Sutherland. Nor when you gave it? Mi*. Thayer. No; I could not. Senator Sutherland. Nor the purpose ? Mr. Thayer. Nor the purpose. Senator Sutherland. Nor the purpose for which you gave the money ? Mr. Thayer. I could not remember. Senator Pomerene. Were you sworn? Mr. Thayer. I was sworn; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you appreciate the solemnity of an oath ? Mr. Thayer. I do. L. W. THAYER. 941 Senator Pomerene. When you have been telling the subcommittee here that you do not remember these things, do you want us to under- stand that you are telling the truth about that ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you a wife? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember her name? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What is it ? Mr. Thayer. Her name is Rosette Thayer. Senator Pomerene. Have you any children ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. How many ? Mr. Thayer. I have three. Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to tell us that you would be intrusted with $600 to expend in a campaign, and at this time you are not able to give us the name of a single person to whom you gave any money ? Mr. Thayer. Three years afterwards, in the absence of any memo- randum, I claim that I am not able to. Senator Pomerene. How much of this did you keep for your own compensation ? Mr. Thayer. I think there was $50 in the end. Senator Pomerene. How do you remember that? Mr. Thayer. Because that was in the bank. That became impressed upon my mind. Senator Pomerene. Where was the rest of this money? Mr. Thayer. There was $600; $300 was left in the bank and $300 was taken out. That I found by the bank book. Senator Pomerene. What bank book? Mr. Thayer. My bank book. Senator Pomerene. You left $300 in the bank? Mr. Thayer. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Is that still there? Mr. Thayer. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. What did you do with it? Mr. Thayer. I drew on it — $100 at one time and $150 at another. Senator Pomerene. For what purpose ? Mr. Thayer. For organizing and using in the interest of Mr. Stephenson. Senator Pomerene. You remember that you did that, do you ? Mr. Thayer. I only remember it because I found that the checks showed it. Senator Pomerene. When did you look up these checks ? Mr. Thayer. I can not tell. It was not very long ago. Senator Pomerene. What was your occasion for looking them up ? Mr. Thayer. To find out, to see if I could not refresh my memory in some way or other. Senator Pomerene. Why did you want to refresh your memory? Mr. Thayer. Because I was sunpoenaed to appear before this com- mittee. Senator Pomerene. When were you subpoenaed ? Mr. Thayer. I can not give you the date. 942 T,. W. THAYER. Senator Pomerene. When, with reference to the time you received this subpoena, did you look up your bank book and checks ? Mr. Thayer. I presume not very long after. Senator Pomerene. How long ? Mr. Thayer. I could not say. Senator Pomerene. How many checks did you find ? Mr. Thayer. I found two. Senator Pomerene. To whom were they made payable ? Mr. Thayer. One was made payable to “Cash,” sent to me at the Northwestern Station, I think. Senator Pomerene. Sent to you ? Mr. Thayer. By the cashier in response to a telephone call of mine to send it to me. Senator Pomerene. Did he send you a check? Mr. Thayer. He brought the check, or sent it down, and I signed it there in the station. Senator Pomerene. And did he give you the cash then ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Who was the cashier ? Mr. Thayer. James L. Stone. Senator Pomerene. When did you get the next $100. Mr. Thayer. The next was $150, right afterwards — a day or two after that. Senator Pomerene. You have these checks yet, have you ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And you have your bank book ? Mr. Littlefield. Cashier’s checks ? How could he have cashier’s checks ? Senator Pomerene. He did not say “cashier’s checks.” Mr. Littlefield. I understood him to say that. Senator Pomerene. Lie said checks were brought down, and he signed them. I take it that they would be canceled and returned. Mr. Littlefield. Oh, yes; I got the idea they were cashier’s checks. Senator Pomerene. You did not say “cashier’s checks,” did you? Mr. Thayer. No, sir ; I did not. Senator Pomerene. I thought not. Mr. Littlefield. No; I misunderstood him, then. Senator Pomerene. Have you these checks or the bank book with you ? Mr. Thayer. I have. Senator Pomerene. Now ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Let us see them. Mr. Thayer. I think I have. I may be mistaken. [Producing book and cl iecks.] Senator Pomerene. On what date did you receive this money? Mr Thayer. I would have to refer to this. I can find it. Senator Pomerene. If you can refresh your memory, look at it and see when you deposited that $600. Mr. Littlefield. He did not say he deposited $600. Senator Pomerene. Yes, that is right; $300. Mr. Thayer. Three hundred dollars, I think, August 28, 1908 Senator Pomerene. Is that the day you received the $600 ? L. W. THAYER. 943 Mr. Thayer. I think I received it before that date. Senator Pomerene. How long before ? Mr. Thayer. I could not say. It might have been three or four days, or it might have been longer, before that. Senator Pomerene. Was that in cash or by check? Mr. Thayer. That was by check or draft. Senator Pomerene. The first check you hand us is dated August 31, 1908, and reads: “Pay to cash or bearer, $100.” I want to offer this check in evidence. (The check referred to was subsequently marked “Exhibit Thayer No. 3, October 14, 1911;” the other check produced by the witness was marked “Exhibit Thayer No. 2, October 14, 1911;” and the bank book produced by the witness was marked “Exhibit Thayer No. 1, October 14, 1911.” Said checks are as follows:) Exhibit Thayer No. 3, October 14, 1911. Ripon, Wis., August 31, 1908 . German National Bank pay to Cash or bearer one hundred dollars $100. I, W Thayer (German National Bank. Aug. 31, 1908. Ripon, Wis. Paid.) Exhibit Thayer No. 2, October 14, 1911. Ripon, Wis., September 2, 1908. German National Bank pay to Self or bearer one hundred and fifty dollars, $150. L W Thayer (German National Bank. Sept. 2, 1908. Ripon, Wis. Paid.) Senator Pomerene. Our records seem to show that you received this $600 on August 27. Mr. Littlefield. If the Senator will excuse me, please, our records show that the check was sent on that day. Senator Pomerene. I say, “seem to show.” Mr. Littlefield. Not that he received it ? Senator Pomerene. Just a moment, please, until I finish my ques- tion. I say, our records seem to show that this money was received about August 27. Do you recall now when you did receive it ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir; I do not. Senator Pomerene. Is that about the time ? Mr. Thayer. I can only judge by the time the deposit was made. I had an idea that I received it before that. Senator Pomerene. How long before ? Mr. Thayer. I could not say. Senator Pomerene. The second check you hand us is dated Sep- tember 2, 1908, for $150. Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Is that the date you received it from the bank ? Mr. Thayer. That is the date. Senator Pomerene. And the checks are drawn and dated as of the dates when you received the money ? Mr. Thayer. They must have been. Senator Pomerene. Have you not any other memoranda at home showing what was done with this money? Mr. Thayer. I have not, sir. Senator Pomerene. Or any part of it ? 944 L. W. THAYER. Mr. Thayer. Or any part of it. Senator Pomerene. Do you recall the names of any persons that you had working at the polls ? Mr. Thayer. I could not give positive evidence with reference to those I had working, because it is indefinite in my mind as to just who I did pay the money to. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember any Stephenson man down there in your county ? Mr. Thayer. There were a good many Stephenson men there. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember any one? Mr. Thayer. I mentioned Mr. Scribner’s name. He was a Stephenson man. Senator Pomerene. Do you remember whether you voted for Stephenson or not ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. I should like this witness to refresh his memory and be back here some day next week; and I should like him meanwhile to try to remember the names of some of these per- sons. Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. The Chairman. The witness will appear here on Wednesday at 10 o’clock. Mr. Littlefield. Are the members of the committee through? The Chairman. Yes; the witness is with the counsel. Mr. Littlefield. Had you been doing any work or disbursing any funds in connection with the organizing of this county ? What county was it — Dunn County ? Mr. Thayer. The western part of Fond du Lac. Mr. Littlefield. Had you been doing any work or disbursing any money in connection with the organization of Senator Stephenson’s campaign in the western part of Fond du Lac County before you received the check from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to say to you, Mr. Thayer — I think it may be proper — that in this examination I am giving you I do not know that I expect you to be able to make statements with absolute definiteness; but I want your best recollection at this time on all of the matters as to which I inquire of you. Do I make that clear ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. If you are not able to testify specifically to a particular matter, I want the best recollection you have about that matter. Do I make myself clear ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. With that understanding I will go on. Accord- ing to your best recollection, how long had you been at work in the campaign before you received the S600 from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Delayer. I should imagine it was two weeks, probably, pre- vious to that. Mr. Littlefield. Had you had a previous conference with Mr. Edmonds, or some one representing the Senator before you went to work ? Mr. Thayer. I had a conference with Mr. Morse at Fond du Lac. Mr. Littlefield. With whom? Mr. Thayer. Roy Morse. L. W. THAYER. 945 Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Morse is an attorney at Fond du Lac? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. A man who has been in practice there for quite a number of years ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Have you known him a long while? Mr. Thayer. I have been acquainted with him for quite a number of years. Mr. Littlefield. About how long? Mr. Thayer. Ten years, I should judge. Mr. Littlefield. Was it pursuant to a conversation with Roy Morse that you engaged in this work in the interest of the Senator in that part of Fond du Lac County ? Mr. Thayer. 1 had been through the district somewhat, previous to talking with Mr. Morse, in the interest of Mr. Lyons, who was then a candidate for the State senate. Then Mr. Morse, I think, came out and visited me at the lake, and asked me if I would not take part in the organization of Fond du Lac County, the western part. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Morse wanted to know if you would take a part in the organization of Fond du Lac County? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you or not agree to do so? Mr. Thayer. I agreed to do so. I was very much in favor of Mr. Stephenson, anyway, and wished to see him nominated. Mr. Littlefield. What did you first do? I should like to have you state to the committee in your own way, Mr. Thayer, what you first started to do, beginning there and going along in your own way, and just telling what you did do according to the best recollection that you are able to give now. Start right in. What was the first thing that you did after you had your talk with Mr. Morse ? Mr. Thayer. The first thing I did I visited some of the precincts in the different towns. Mr. Littlefield. Explain which precincts, to your best recollec- tion. Mr. Thayer. I think I first took a trip down over to Dartford, or Green Lake, rather, and from there to Markesan and Waupun. Mr. Littlefield. Did you take that trip with an automobile or with a team? Mr. Thayer. I took it with an automobile. Mr. Littlefield. Was it your own machine, or was it the machine of this other gentleman to whom you have referred ? I have forgotten his name. Mr. Thayer. It was the machine, I think, of the other man. In fact, I am certain it was. Mr. Littlefield. What was his name? Mr. Thayer. His name was Mr. Burgess, of Ripon. Mr. Littlefield. Burgess, of Ripon? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. I said that was the first. That might not have been the first. Mr. Littlefield. You are giving your best recollection about it, as I understand. Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You are not in danger of bein^ hung, drawn, and quartered if you are not able to absolutely recollect every specific 15235°— VOL 1—11 CO 946 L. W. THAYER. detail. All you are to do is to do the best you can, and give your best recollection. Do you understand me ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I take it that is a proper suggestion. Having that in mind, your best recollection is that you started out on the first trip with the machine of Mr. Burgess ? Am I right about that ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember who went with you on the trip ? Mr. Thayer. I think Mr. Burgess and I were alone. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Burgess, then, was driving his machine, I suppose ? Mr. Thayer. Driving his machine. Mr. Littlefield. Did you carry anything with you in the machine in the line of literature ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What was it ? Mr. Thayer. It was lithograph pictures of Mr. Stephenson, and the whole line of literature that was sent out by headquarters. Mr. Littlefield. Where did you get that literature ? Mr. Thayer. It was sent to me from the headquarters. Mr. Littlefield. Do you know whether it was sent by Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Sacket ? Mr. Thayer. I could not say. Mr. Littlefield. You started out with this machine with Mr. Burgess, loaded, I suppose, with this literature, and went through these towns that you have described ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What did you do when you went through these towns ? Mr. Thayer. I met various parties in the different precincts. Mr. Littlefield. You met various parties? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose did you meet them on this trip, when you were out with this machine, loaded with this literature ? Mr. Thayer. For the purpose of engaging these men to organize the different precincts. Mr. Littlefield. You say “organize the different precincts.” What did you do with the literature that you had in your machine when you met these men ? Mr. Thayer. It was handed out to them. Mr. Littlefield. Handed out to the men? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. For what purpose? Mr. Thayer. For the purpose of distributing it. Mr. Littlefield. Are we to understand that the men whom you saw in these various towns were distributing this literature without charge or cost to the Stephenson campaign fund ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir; they were compensated. Mr. Littlefield. Who hired them ? Mr. Thayer. I did. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able to give the names of any of these gentlemen whom, on this first trip, you employed to distribute this L. W. THAYER. 947 literature? Give your best recollection — not necessarily a guess; but I simply want you to give, so far as you can, your best recollection. Mr. Thayer. There was one man by the name of Schrader at Markesan. Mr. Littlefield. Schrader at Markesan — yes. Was there any other gentleman in the town of Markesan that you employed to distribute literature ? Mr. Thayer. I can not recall. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember the name of any gentleman that you saw in the next town ? Mr. Thayer. I saw a Mr. Brown at Brandon. Mr. Littlefield. Was Mr. Brown one of the men that you employed to distribute literature ? Mr. Thayer. I gave him literature, and he was to distribute it, I can not say whether I paid him or not. Mr. Littlefield. Now take the next town. Mr. Thayer. In the town of Waupun, I think Mr. Miklejohn. Mr. Littlefield. Do you recollect whether Mr. Miklejohn received compensation for his work, or whether he was doing it gratuitously ? Mr. Thayer. I am not certain about Mr. Miklejohn. Mr. Littlefield. Did you leave the literature with him? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were there any more than these three towns, according to your recollection, that you visited on this first trip ? Mr. Thayhr. Let me see. I went to Markesan, Brandon, and Waupun. I think those were the only ones on that trip. Mr. Littlefield. About how long did it take you to make that trip ? Mr. Thayer. That trip we made in one day. Mr. Littlefield. Who paid the expenses of the trip ? Mr. Thayer. I paid the expenses. Mr. Littlefield. Is that a rural section ? Mr. Thayer. Yes; a rural section. Mr. Littlefield. In that section of the State do we find the familiar institution known as the saloon on street corners ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is it or not a fact that the saloon is the place where the people in the vicinity gather to visit with each other ? Mr. Thayer. It is quite common in those places; people gather and congregate at such places. Mr. Littlefield. Did you put up any literature in any of these saloons ? Mr. Thayer. Quite a good many of them. Mr. Littlefield. What do you say ? Mr. Thayer. In very many of them. I left them there. Mr. Littlefield. What occurred when you were putting up litera- ture in the saloons, with reference to the people that you might see in the saloon at the time ? Mr. Thayer. We would go into a saloon with literature, and the first thing that would occur would be, probably, finding 10 or 15 people in there, to invite them. Mr. Littlefield. Invite them to what? 948 L. W. THAYER. Mr. Thayer. Either to a smoke or a drink. Mr. Littlefield. I do not understand that that is necessarily anything to be ashamed of in that section of the country ? Mr. Thayer. No. Mr. Littlefield. The saloon is quite a frequent incident? Mr. Thayer. Yes ; sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the habit of drinking beer is, I take it, more or less prevalent throughout there. Can you give the committee any approximation of the sum of money that you expended on that trip, either in the employment of these men to distribute literature, or in buying beer and cigars for treating the people that you hap- pened to find in the saloons when you entered them for the purpose of putting literature in the saloons ? Give your best recollection. Mr. Thayer. I can only do that in a general way. Mr. Littlefield. I only ask you in a general way, Mr. Thayer. Mr. Thayer. That might have cost me a hundred dollars. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean on that trip ? Mr. Thayer. It might have; because, you see, we passed through several precincts going from Markesan around up through to Wau- pun. It might have cost me that much, and it might not have cost me that much. But I am telling you it might have. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able now to remember the names of any other than the three men you have already given me that you employed to distribute literature ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How many trips of that character did you make during the progress of the campaign ? Mr. Thayer. I think I was out two days and a half in this auto that I speak of. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean on another trip than the one you have just described? Mr. Thayer. Yes; on the other trips. Mr. Littlefield. How many other trips did you make during the progress of that campaign, either in that automobile or in your own, according to your best recollection ? Mr. Thayer. I went by buggy quite a good deal, and with autos. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; either by buggy or otherwise? Mr. Thayer. I covered the district pretty well. Mr. Littlefield. How many election prqcincts were there in the district that you were to cover ? Mr. Thayer. Forty-one, I think. Mr. Littlefield. How much of your time did you spend after you began to do this work, between that and the primary election day ? Mr. Thayer. Practically all of my time. Mr. Littlefield. Did you employ men for any purpose other than the distribution of literature? If so, for what purpose? Mr. Thayer. I had men engaged to talk of the qualifications of the candidate and to get out the vote through their efforts. Mr. Littlefield. Are you able now, from your best recollection, to give to the committee the names of any of those gentlemen ? I am not asking you about the amounts you paid to them; but I want you to gi ve the committee from your best recollection, if you have any as to that, the names of any of the gentlemen you remember. L. W. THAYER. 949 Mr. Thayer. I have not. I was absolutely without memoranda, and when the primary campaign closed I regarded it as a closed incident. I have not been in the habit of keeping detailed accounts of campaigns. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand from the suggestion that you make now that you have been engaged in a similar manner in cam- paigns before ? Mr. Thayer. I have been; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Have you held public office? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What office? Mr. Thayer. That of assemblyman. Mr. Littlefield. When ? Mr. Thayer. I was elected to the assembly in 1892. Mr. Littlefield. The State assembly ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Were you elected to the senate at any time ? Mr. Thayer. I was; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You were elected to the senate? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. When were you elected to the senate ? Mr. Thayer. I was elected to the senate in 1894. Mr. Littlefield. Then you have been a member of the assembly and a member of the State senate ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever hold any other public office, elective in its character? Mr. Thayer. I was a member of the county board. Mr. Littlefield. What do you mean by that ? Is that what w r e call “ county commissioners’’ ? Mr. Thayer. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. That have charge of the affairs of the county ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How long did you serve as a member of your county board ? Was it in this county of Fond du Lac ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How long did you serve ? Mr. Thayer. I think eight years. Mr. Littlefield. Up to what time ? That is, when did you cease to be a member of the county board ? Mr. Thayer. I think I was a member of the county board at the time I was elected to the assembly, which I think was in 1892. Mr. Littlefield. Did you continue to be a member up to about 1900 ? Was your service as a member of the county board continuous ? Mr. Thayer. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I do not care to go into the details; but the effect of it is that for a period of at least eight years, whether con- tinuous or otherwise, you were a member of the county board ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Does the count}" board have officers — a chairman, a secretary, etc. ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What position did you hold in connection with the county board ? 950 L. W. THAYER. Mr. Thayer. I was chairman of the county board. Mr. Littlefield. For how long? Mr. Thayer. Two years. Mr. Littlefield. Was that in the latter part of your service ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Does it rotate ? That is, does the chairmanship go to the men that have been on the board for a longer period, or are they elected to it ? Mr. Black. They are elected. Mr. Littlefield. Then it is not a question of rotation, but a ques- tion of election to the chairmanship of the board ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. So that, as I understand you to say, the last two years of your service you were elected chairman of the county board ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. To go along a little bit further: You have already testified about employing men for distributing literature and for canvassing throughout that section, presenting the qualifications and the claims of the Senator. Is the committee to understand that there was or was not an active campaign going on in that section in the interest of either one or all of the other candidates for Senator ? What is the fact about that ? Mr. Thayer. Do you refer to the campaign of 1908 ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes, sir; I refer to the campaign of 1908, when Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Hatton were all candidates for the same nomination. My question is, Was or not an active campaign being carried on in that section in the interest of either or all of the three other candidates ? Mr. Thayer. There was considerable competition. Mr. Littlefield. Do you mean by that to say that there was an active campaign for either one or all of the other three candidates ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have stated that you employed men to distribute literature, and men to canvass the district in the interest of the Senator. Did you employ men throughout that section for any other purpose ? If so, what ? Mr. Thayer. For no other purpose, except, as I say, on the lines of distributing campaign matter, and to advocate the qualifications of the candidate. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have any men employed throughout the various precincts for the purpose of looking out for the vote on elec- tion day, canvassing on election day, and with rigs to get voters out ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. They were employed in the various precincts. Mr. Littlefield. By whom ? By you ? Mr. Thayer. Not by me directly, always; through others at times. Mr. Littlefield. Do you desire to be understood as saying that you had such men employed in substantially all the precincts ? Mr. Thayer. Not all of them. Mr. Littlefield. Not all of them. Are you able to give the com- mittee a reasonable approximation as to what you expended in that manner ? I am not suggesting that you make a guess, but that you give us, according to your best recollection, a reasonable approxi- L. W. THAYER. 951 mation. I do not expect you to state it to five or ten dollars, and tlie committee does not. What I want to know is whether you are able to give the committee an approximation of your best recollection as to what you expended in that manner out of the $600 in this campaign. You must understand, Mr. Thayer, that you are not required to state it to five or ten dollars, but to give the best recollection you have, and be candid about it. Mr. Thayek. I wish to be candid. Mr. Littlefield. I have not any doubt about it. Mr. Thayer. I am only sorry that I have not got concrete in- formation. Mr. Littlefield. I ask you to give your best recollection, and give the committee, so far as you can, an approximation of the sum that you authorized to be expended for the use of watchers and men around the polls in the interest of the Senator, or for getting men in to vote on tne primary election day, by rigs or otherwise. Just give the committee the best approximation you can. Mr. Thayer. You have reference to the entire district ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes, sir; the whole amount, now. Mr. Thayer. I should think it cost me anywhere from $250 to $300 for the entire district. Mr. Littlefield. That is the nearest approximation you can make ; is it ? Mr. Thayer. Yes, sir. I am not certain, of course. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have you, if you please, do the best you can to give the committee the names of as many men as you can who did that kind of work for you — that is to say, who watched around the polls and helped get voters out to the polls on primary election day. I do not ask you to give the specific amount you paid to each; but I should like to have you give the committee, so far as you can, the names of the men so far as you can remember them. Mr. Thayer. If I am requested to appear before the committee again Mr. Littlefield. I suppose it would be fairer to Mr. Thayer, if he is to come back again, to let him give the names at that time. The Chairman. The purpose of requesting the witness to appear again was that he might refresh his memory as to the persons to whom he paid money. Mr. Littlefield. The chairman will perceive, of course, what I want to do with the witness. I want to give the witness an oppor- tunity to do the best he can. The Chairman. If counsel is more fortunate than the committee in getting the witness to name them it may not be necessary for him to appear again. Mr. Littlefield. Then perhaps I will not pursue this line of inquiry further. But I wanted to do the best I could to give the committee all the information the witness had without waiting for it. The Chairman. It does not seem to the committee that it is worth while to waste time when the witness says he can not remember one of them. We have asked him to come back at a subsequent time. At this time, therefore, it might be passed over. Mr. Littlefield. I will not pursue that line any further, then. I will simply ask him this general question, with the expectation that 952 L. W. THAYER. later lie will refresh his recollection and give the committee the benefit of it: I will ask you, Mr. Thayer, whether or not any sum of money was expended by you in this campaign, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any voters or electors in that section to support Senator Stephenson at the primary election ? Mr. Thayer. Not a dollar. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money expended by any of the gentle- men to whom you intrusted money for the purposes you have de- scribed, within your knowledge, either directly or indiectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors in the primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Thayer. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. I think, with the suggestion the chairman has made, that that is all for the present. Senator Pomerene. At the time these checks were returned to you, were they accompanied by a memorandum giving the amounts of the several checks — a list of the checks ? Mr. Thayer. You have reference, Senator, to Senator Pomerene. When you had your book balanced and these checks and others were returned to you, were they accompanied by a memorandum, typewritten or otherwise, showing the amounts of the several checks returned ? Mr. Thayer. I think they were. Senator Pomerene. Have you that memorandum? Mr. Thayer. I have not — not with me; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Have you it at home? Mr. Thayer. I think I have. Senator Pomerene. I wish you would bring it with you, if you will, please. Mr. Littlefield. I would like to look at these checks and the bank book for a minute, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. He will be back here on Wednesday. Mr. Littlefield. There may be something about which I shall want to ask him. The Chairman. The two checks and the book will be marked as exhibits in connection with the testimony of this witness. (The book referred to was marked “Exhibit Thayer No. 1, October 14, 1911,” and the two checks were marked, respectively, “Exhibit Thayer No. 2, October 14, 1911,” and “Exhibit Thayer No. 3, Octo- ber 14, 1911.”) Mr. Littlefield. Before he goes I would like to have an opportu- nity to look at the checks. There may be something about them which I wish to ask him. The Chairman. Yes. I wish to get the other witness on the stand at this time, however. Mr. Littlefield. Very well. If I have any questions to ask Mr. Thayer I will call him back. The Chairman. Yes. (The name of William C. Haslam was called as a witness and he did not respond.) The Chairman. Have we any information concerning Mr. Haslam? The Clerk. He said he would be here and wanted to get off. I do not think he is far away. A. I.' HULBERT. 953 The Chairman. He does not answer to his name. (By direction of the chairman, A. I. Hulbert was called as a witness, and responded.) Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have Mr. Thayer remain in attendance until I have an opportunity to look at this account. The Chairman. He will remain in attendance for the present. Mr. Littlefield. May I be allowed to ask that he remain in attend- ance until I know that I do not care to ask him anything ? The Chairman. Except that he must have time to return home and make those examinations. Mr. Littlefield. I will see him before we get through with the recess. I merely want an opportunity to look over this account. I may want him to look up certain information. TESTIMONY OF A. I. HULBERT. A. I. Hulbert, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Hulbert. Barron, Barron County, Wis. The Chairman. The committee will now take a recess until 2 o’clock. (Whereupon, at 12 o’clock and 15 minutes p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o’clock p. m.) after recess. At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. TESTIMONY OF A. I. HULBERT— Resumed. The Chairman. Mr. Hulbert, how long have you resided in Barron ? Mr. Hulbert. Twenty- three years. The Chairman. What is your occupation ? Mr. Hulbert. I am a deputy game warden. The Chairman. Now ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes. The Chairman. Were you such deputy game warden in 1908? Mr. Hulbert. Yes. The Chairman. Did you take part in Senator Stephenson’s primary campaign in 1908 ? Mr. Hulbert. No; I do not think I did. The Chairman. You say you did not ? Mr. Hulbert. No. I say no, sir; I did not, in a way. The Chairman. Did you receive any money from Mr. Edmonds during that campaign ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Hulbert. I do not know. The Chairman. How did it come to you ? Mr. Hulbert. I can explain it to you, maybe. The Chairman. Suppose you do. Mr. Hulbert. When the campaign first started out I got a letter from Mr. Edmonds, I think, asking me to take charge of Barron County. I told him I could not do it; that I had all the work I could do, and was under civil service and could not do it. It went on from that time down until, I think it was, the 29th of August. Mr. Porter later on took charge of Barron County. 954 A. I. HTJLBERT. Mr. Littlefield. What name is that ? Mr. Hulbert. Mr. Warren Porter. I met him at Cameron. He is an old soldier, and was going to the soldiers’ reunion. He said he had Barron County fixed up all right, with the exception of the city of Barron. He wanted to know of me if I would not pay cer- tain parties that he had spoken to some money, to look after the polls in the city of Barron. He wanted to know if I would not do that for Uncle Ike. That is the way he mentioned it. I told him I had kept out of it so far, and I did not want to be mixed in it. He said, “Will you do it for me?’' and I said I would. So I paid different parties there a small sum of money out of my own pocket, which I was to receive from Mr. Porter when he got back. I did not expect any money. He went to Milwaukee. Senator Pomerene. Whom do you mean by “he” ? Mr. Hulbert. Warren Porter. He went to Milwaukee; and the the next day or so, or maybe two days afterwards, the check came from Mr. Edmonds. Whether he sent that or not I could not state. Mr. Littlefield. Whether who sent it ? Mr. Hulbert. Mr. Porter. Mr. Littlefield. Oh! Whether Mr. Porter had the $100 sent to you, you can not tell ? Mr. Hulbert. No. I got that check, and that is the way I got it. I can not explain it any other way than that. Mr. Littlefield. Go right on and state the parties to whom you paid the sums and the amounts. There is no objection to that, I suppose. Mr. PIulbert (referring to memorandum book). It is rather dim. I wrote it with a pencil. I took it down at the time I paid each one. You see, I expected to get my money from Warren Porter. I paid E. W. Pierce $5 and $2.50. The $5 was for working at the polls, as I understood it, and the $2.50 was for posting bills. He is a bill poster and did some posting of bills. I do not know just what it was. I paid John Webster $3. Mr. Littlefield. For what? Give the names and the amounts. State for what the money was paid. Mr. Hulbert. I could not tell you what it was for. Warren Porter told me who to pay. Mr. Littlefield. Oh! You were paying out these sums at the request of Mr. Porter ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. By virtue of an arrangement that had pre- viously been made by him ? Mr. Hulbert. I met him at Cameron. He was going away, and said he had not done it. Mr. Littlefield. He gave you these names and requested you to hand the men these different sums ? Mr. Hulbert. Pie did not tell me how much. He said to give them what they asked, but not to give over $5 to any one of them. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along. Mr. Hulbert. Tom Case, $2; Charles Wyckoff, $1; John Tim- blin, $2. Mr. Littlefield. Give their residences. Mr. Hulbert. All in the city of Barron. I paid “Chuck” Post $3. He lives a mile and a half from Barron, in the town of Barron. A. I. HULBERT. 955 He was to look after the polls, as I understood it. They hold their caucus in the city, in a hall, and he was to look after the polls there. That is what I understood from Porter. I paid Charles Miller $3. He lives about 9 miles from Barron, in a town there. I did not pay that until three or four weeks, probably a month, or maybe two months afterwards. I do not remember. I paid it later on. I phoned him. He told me to phone him, and I phoned him with regard to it. Charles Williams I gave 50 cents. Williams was a man that drove a team; that is, he drove a team to haul voters to the polls. I paid all but the men that drove the teams before I received any money at all, before I knew I was going to get any money, or had any idea of it. Mr. Littlefield. Have you finished the list ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What does it aggregate ? Mr. Hulbert. $24.50. Senator Pomerene. What is that amount ? Mr. Hulbert. $24.50. The Chairman. If counsel have gone over the items, I will go back to the primary. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. I will ask him this general question — whether or not those are all the sums that he did disburse ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you receive a check in an envelope from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Without any letter accompanying it at all ? Mr. Hulbert. There was a letter in with it. The Chairman. What did you do with the letter? Mr. Hulbert. I think I burned it up later on. The Chairman. Do you remember the contents of the letter ? Mr. Hulbert. As near as I can remember, I think the letter said: “I am this day mailing you a present which should have been mailed before, but was overlooked. ” The Chairman. Was that before or after the primary election ? Mr. Hulbert. I think I got that either on the 31st or on the 1st. That is as near as I can remember. The Chairman. You got it either the day before the primary election or on that day ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; I do not know which. I would not want to swear to that. The Chairman. Did you expend that in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. In whose interest did you spend it ? Mr. Hulbert. Fused that for myself; I kept it. The Chairman. You kept the $100 ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You did not pay out any of it at all? Mr. Hulbert. I paid out my own money, and that is the way I was reimbursed. The Chairman. Disregard the identity of the money. Did you pay out any money of your own in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? 956 A. I. HULBERT. Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When did you pay it out ? Mr. Hulbert. I paid it out, as I say, all but for the boys that drove the teams, before I got this money from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. How much, altogether, did you pay out before you got this $100 from Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. I would not state certainly whether I saw Mr. Post before that or not. He lives up in the country. The Chairman. Assume that you did. How much did you pay out ? Mr. Hulbert. About $3.50, as near as I can remember. The Chairman. Altogether? Air. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. $3.50? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; that is, if I paid Mr. Post before. The Chairman. What was the amount paid Mr. Post? Mr. Hulbert. $3. That would make $6.50, if I paid him after I got the money. The Chairman. So that this $100 more than reimbursed you for the money that you had paid out? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You had paid that money out in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s campaign, had you not ? Mr. Hulbert. I understood I was to pay that out for Mr. Porter, and that Mr. Porter w r as to pay me. I took it down here The Chairman. I mean, w T ere you working for Senator vStephen- son’s nomination? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. The Chairman. W T ere you friendly to Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir ; I was. The Chairman. You were not working against him; were you? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I was not. The Chairman. Whatever you did was friendly to him ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you received the $100 you kept it and counted it a present, did you ? Mr. Hulbert. I kept it; I did not know what else to do with it. The Chairman. The reason you have been questioned about this is because the Senate Committee, in its report, on page 2247, com- ments upon your having been paid $100. You are called for the pur- pose of explaining whether or not you received that to work for Sena- tor Stephenson. Were you already working for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you commence working for Senator Stephen- son after you received the $100? Mr. Hulbert. Maybe I do not exactly understand; but my understanding of this is that I had not been counted on to work in the campaign for anybody. I did not ask anybody The Chairman. Whom were you supporting? For whom did you vote? Mr. Hulbert. I voted for Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. When did you first make up your mind to vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. When he first came out. A. I. HULBERT. 957 The Chairman. Then you were a friend of Senator Stephenson’s ? Mr. Hhlbert. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You were not doing any friendly act in the interest of any other man’s nomination; were you? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I was not. Senator Pomerene. You spent $24.50 at the request of Porter? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; at the request of Warren Porter. Senator Pomerene. And then you spent $3 in addition to that ? Mr. Hulbert. No. Mr. Littlefield. That is part of it. Senator Pomerene. That is part of it ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Were you reimbursed by Porter? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. He did not pay me back at all. Senator Pomerene. So, with the $100, you had a balance then of $75.50? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Which was a present to you ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. From the time Senator Stephenson announced his candidacy you had been working in his behalf ? Mr. Hulbert. I did not understand it that way. Senator Pomerene. Were you ? Were you talking in his behalf ? Mr. Hulbert. I did not talk politics with anybody. Senator Pomerene. What did you get this $100 for? Mr. Hulbert. That is what I say — I do not know. Senator Pomerene. You do not know ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you often get presents of that kind ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. It is the first one I ever got, and I am sorry I got that. Senator Pomerene. You did go around and employ a number of these men, though ? Mi*. Hulbert. Yes, sir; at the request of Mr. Porter I did that. Senator Pomerene. What did you say to them when you employed them ? Mr. Hulbert. I told them just what Mr. Porter told me. He said that he had gone off in a hurry; he wanted to go to meet some of his company in Milwaukee, and he forgot to pay those bills and wanted me to pay them for him. I told every one of them I was paying those bills for Mr. Porter. Senator Pomerene. Was that before or after the primary? Mr. Hulbert. That was before the primary. Senator Pomerene. How long before ? Mr. Hulbert. I think it was — well, I met Mr. Porter in Hamburg, 6 miles from home, and he was then on his way to Milwaukee. I think that was on the 29th. I could not swear positively. Senator Pomerene. It was near the date of the primary? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You never asked Porter for the money after- wards, did you ? Mr. Hulbert. I spoke to him about it; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What was said between you ? 958 A. I. HULBERT. Mr. Hulbert. I do not know just exactly what there was said, but I spoke to him about the fact that he never had paid me that money yet, and he asked me if I did not get my pay? I said I got some money, but where it came from I did not know, or what it was for. He said: “If you are paid well enough, if you are satisfied, all right; keep still.” Senator Pomerene. “If you are satisfied, all right ” ? Mr. Hulbert. “Keep still” ; yes. Senator Pomerene. “Keep still” ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Why did he say that ? Mr. Hulbert. I do not know, sir. Senator Pomerene. When was that said ? Mr. Hulbert. That might have been a month and it might have been six weeks. Senator Pomerene. After the primary ? Mr. Hulbert. After the primary. As I understood it, as I remem- ber now, he went away on a visit somewhere. He went to the sol- diers’ reunion. Senator Pomerene. This was Edmonds who sent you this check for $100? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; as I remember it. Senator Pomerene. You had had some talk with him before, had you not? Mr. Hulbert. I never had any talk with Mr. Edmonds, any more than he wrote me a letter and asked me to take charge of Barron County. Mr. Littlefield. And you declined ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; I declined. I told him I could not do it. Senator Pomerene. And notwithstanding that fact he sent you $ 100 ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. I wish you would explain to us why he should send you $100. Mr. Hulbert. I can not do it, Senator. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any talk with Senator Steph- enson about this campaign ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do you know whose money this was ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I do not, any more than I supposed it was Senator Pomerene. You knew that Edmonds was the manager for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And that he had tried to employ you to look after Barron County ? Mr. Hulbert. He did, in the early part. Senator Pomerene. And that then you refused to do it; but after you had refused to do it you did take enough interest in it to go and employ these men and pay them ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. I did that much with the understanding that it was for Mr. Porter. Senator Pomerene. Did you render any account to anyone of this money that you had expended ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I did not. A. I. HTJLBERT. 959 Senator Pomerene. Were you ever called upon to render an account ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I never was. Senator Pomerene. You did not volunteer any? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. Referring to the memorandum that you have, did you make that at the time you made the payments ? Mr. Hulbert. I did; yes, sir. I did that so I could show Mr. Porter who I had paid and how much I had paid. I did not expect anything else, only to get my money back. That was all I wanted. Senator Pomerene. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. As I understand this, Mr. Hulbert, Mr. Porter was a man well known to you in that community ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. I knew Mr. Porter for a good many years. Mr. Littlefield. Did you, at the time you had this conversation with Mr. Porter, when he left this message with you, know that he was acting in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s campaign ? Mr. Hulbert. I did; yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. He had to go away on some business of his own ? Mr. Hulbert. He said he wanted to meet some of his company; yes. Mr. Littlefield. Precisely; he had to leave town on some business of his own. He gave you the names of these men? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. He did not tell you how much to pay to them ? Mr. Hulbert. He said not to pay over $5. Mr. Littlefield. Exactly. He gave you a limit of $5 ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you were to take the money and pay it to these men for these purposes, he giving you the names of the men ? Is that right ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; he gave me the names of the men. Mr. Littlefield. And all you had to do with it was simply to see these men and pay them not more than $5 apiece ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you gave them the sums that you have in mind here ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; with the exception of Mr. Littlefield. There may have been an item of $3.50 that you paid later; but if that was paid at the same time, you simply paid them the money at the request of Mr. Porter ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. Littlefield. And after that, did you know that Mr. Porter went into the headquarters and saw Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. I supposed he did; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Do not say what you supposed. Do you know ? Mr. Hulbert. No; I do not know whether he did or not. Mr. Littlefield. I thought he stated something like that. How many days was it after you had advanced this money at the request of Mr. Porter that you received a check from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. About two days, I think. Mr. Littlefield. About two days after ? Mr. Hulbert. Mr. Porter told me he was going to Milwaukee. Mr. Littlefield. Porter told you that he was going to Milwaukee? 960 A. I. HULBERT. Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How long was it after Porter told you that lie was going to Milwaukee that you got the check from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. About two days. Mr. Littlefield. About two days after that ? Mr. Hulbert. As near as I can remember. Mr. Littlefield. From that I take it you inferred, judging from what you said on your direct examination, that Mr. Porter had been to Milwaukee, and had seen Mr. Edmonds, and had told him what you were doing? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. I had an idea that that was what he had done. Mr. Littlefield. The next thing that you knew about it was that you got a check from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And the next thing that occurred was that a month or so afterwards you discussed it with Mr. Porter ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And Mr. Porter wanted to know if you had gotten money enough to reimburse you for what you had disbursed? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And you said you had? Mr. Hulbert. I said I was satisfied. Mr. Littlefield. And you had received more? Mr. Hulbert. I had received more. Mr. Littlefield. At the time you got this check from Mr. Ed- monds, so far as you know, neither Porter nor Edmonds knew how~ much money you had disbursed in this manner ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You had not seen Porter to make any report to him as to the precise amounts you had paid these men ? Mr. Hulbert. I do not think he came back for about a month, as near as I can remember. Mr. Littlefield. He left for Milwaukee, and you did not see him again for about a month ? Mr. Hulbert. No; he went to the soldiers’ reunion, and stopped to see his brother, I think, on the way. Mr. Littlefield. Who introduced this question as to the sums that you had advanced at Mr. Porter’s request when you saw him next after he left for Milwaukee — you or Mr. Porter, so far as you remember ? Mr. Hulbert. I would not w^ant to state that. I do not just remember about it. Mr. Littlefield. You are not quite certain about it? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I am not. Mr. Littlefield. But in any event, the subject matter was brought up between you ? Mr. Hulbert. I think I brought it up, but I would not be certain. Mr. Littlefield. You never have received anything from Mr. Porter on account of the sums that you paid out at Mr. Porter’s request ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; not a cent. Mr. Littlefield. You paid out, as you say, no other sums than those that you have indicated ? A. I. HULBERT. 961 Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; not a cent. Mr. Littlefield. You did no work in that campaign? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In the interest of Mr. Stephenson? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield You did no campaigning? Mr. Hulbert. No campaigning; no, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You did not discuss the question in his interest? Mr Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I understand you to say that you had been for him ever since his candidacy was announced? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. But you did not do any canvassing or discussing? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you solicit any votes for the Senator ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any of this money that was disbursed by you under these circumstances disbursed for the purpose of either directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing any elector in that primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; not by me. Mr. Littlefield. Were any of the sums that you paid to these men, so far as you know, used by either or any of them, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in that primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; not so far as I know. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever have any information that any such use was made of it ? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. Senator Pomerene. You were a game warden at the time, were you ? Mr. Hulbert. I was; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Was that the reason why you did not take an active part ? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. I was a game warden and under civil service, and not supposed to take any part in politics. Senator Pomerene. If you had not been a game warden, of course you would have been more active for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Hulbert. I think I should. Senator Pomerene. That did not prevent your accepting a present, did it? Mr. Hulbert. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I have heard a good deal about the civil service in connection with the game wardens. I do not know how much you may know about the law, Mr. Hulbert, but I should like to have you call my attention to the section in the law that prohibits a game warden from taking any active part in a political campaign. I have not been able to And it, but it may be that you can. Mr. Hulbert. I do not know that I can find it. It is in the civil- service laws, I think. Mr. Littlefield. Is there anything in the civil-service law except a provision that prohibits any official of the State of Wisconsin mak- 15235 °— vol 1—11 01 962 A. I. HULBERT. ing any assessment on other officers, agents, and employees of the State of Wisconsin? Do you know of any statute outside of that? Mr. Hulbert. I do not know that I do, but Mr. Littlefield. Is that what you refer to as this civil-service law that is talked about so much? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. A law that provides that no assessment, contri- bution, or advancement shall be collected by an official of the State of Wisconsin from other officers, agents, and employees? That is the law you mean, is it not? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. What section is it? Mr. Littlefield. We have it right here somewhere; and it has not any more to do with the political activity of these game wardens than the occupation of Orion. Senator Pomerene. I have not had an opportunity to consult it. Mr. Littlefield. I will get it for your honor. I want to see if this is really what these men had in their minds. I will read this, Mr. Hulbert, and see if this is what you had in your mind : No officer, agent, clerk, or employee under the government of the State shall, directly, or indirectly, solicit or receive or be concerned in any manner in soliciting or receiving any assessment, subscription, or contribution for political service, whether voluntary or involuntary, for any political purpose whatever, from any officer, agent, clerk, or employee of the State. Is that what you mean? Do you know anything of any other statute except that ? Mr. Hulbert. No; I do not know that I know of any other statute, but I know that we have been told that we were not supposed to take part in politics. Mr. Littlefield. This is the only law that you know anything about that relates to the subject matter? Mr. Hulbert. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. It is simply a statute prohibiting assessments. Senator Pomerene. That is all so far as you know ? Mr. Littlefield. That is all I have ever been able to find. That is what this committee predicates its very extraordinary conclusions upon. The Chairman. That is, the State senate investigating committee. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. The Chairman. Not this committee? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, no. I hope not. I do not suggest any such unfounded and utterly groundless reflection so far as this committee is concerned; but the solons that prepared this report are the men that have undertaken to warp and twist matters for the purpose of embarrassing these people who are the game wardens. The Chairman. I hope they will be before the committee. Mr. Littlefield. Yes; I hope so. There is no statute of Wiscon- sin that denaturizes even a game warden, or deprives him of his right as an American citizen to participate in a campaign. I under- take to state that as a matter of law. The Chairman. Is there any further examination of this witness ? Mr. Littlefield. That is all. I just wanted to find out what this bugbear was. WILLIAM C. HASLAM. 963 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM C. EASLAM. William C. Haslam, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Haslam, where do you reside? Mr. Haslam. Chicago, 111. The Chairman. Where did you reside during the summer of 1908 ? Mr. Haslam. Appleton, Wis. The Chairman. What business were you engaged in ? Mr. Haslam. Deputy game warden. The Chairman. Did you participate in the campaign of Senator Stephenson for nomination as United States Senator before the direct primaries ? Mr. Haslam. I did. Tbe Chairman. Did you receive money from Senator Stephenson or from his campaign managers for assisting in that campaign? Mr. Haslam. I did. The Chairman. How much ? Mr. Haslam. $626. The Chairman. When did you receive it ? Mr. Haslam. I received $200 in cash from Mr. Edmonds, at Apple- ton, in the fore part of August. The Chairman. August 13, was it not? Mr. Haslam. Somewhere along in there. The Chairman. When did you receive the next sum from him ? Mr. Haslam. I would not be able to give the dates. I think I received it in two different checks, in sums of $200 each. Mr. Littlefield. The first was in currency and the last two in checks ? Mr. Haslam. Yes; as my memory serves me at the present time. The third check that I received, for $26, was some time in September. Senator Pomerene. When you say “the third check’ ’ Mr. Haslam. That is the third check. Senator Pomerene. You got one sum in cash and two checks ? Mr. Haslam. Two checks of $200, and then $26 in a check after the primary. The Chairman. You mean two checks aggregating $200, do you ? Mr. Haslam. $200 each. Mr. Littlefield. $200 each; $400 altogether. The Chairman. So you received $626 ? Mr. Haslam. $626. The Chairman. For what did you receive that money? Mr. Haslam. To take charge of his interests in Brown County as his manager. The Chairman. What did you do with the money ? Mr. Haslam. I spent $426 for expenses incurred in carrying on the work there in Brown County; $200 I kept for myself. Mr. Littlefield. For your services? Mr. Haslam. For my services. The Chairman. How did you spend the $400 ? Mr. Haslam. I hired billposters, men to get me lists of voters in precincts, and men with teams in certain localities to bring voters to the polls, distribute campaign buttons and cards and literature. 964 WILLIAM C. HASLAM. The Chairman. Just a moment at this point. Mr. Hulbert will remain in attendance. He will be wanted as a witness on Tuesday after Mr. Stone has testified. I neglected to say that. Proceed with the statement as to how you expended this money. Mr. Haslam. For railroad fare and for eatables for myself, and expense incurred in that way — postage stamps, stenographers, sta- tionery, telephones, and telegrams. The Chairman. You rendered a statement of a portion of this money before the committee when you were examined, did you not? Mr. Haslam. I gave the statement from memory as nearly as I could call it to mind at the time. The Chairman. We have here Exhibit 453, page 3937, of items which you claim to have expended. This would seem to be made out by you. Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; I made it out from memory. The Chairman. From memory ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Are the items enumerated in that statement correct ? Mr. Haslam. They are. The Chairman. Have you any other items to add to those in the statement ? Mr. Haslam. Not one. The Chairman. This accounts for a little over $100 ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You kept how much for your own salary or expenses ? Mr. Haslam. $200. No; I kept that as my salary, and I used the other. The Chairman. For your salary ? Then you charged your expenses in addition to that; did you? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you got $626 in all? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you have accounted for about $426, have you ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; I think so. The Chairman. You say you expended that in the manner enumerated ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you expend any of that money for the pur- chase of liquor or cigars ? Mr. Haslam. I might say in that regard that I had this money in cash, and used it along. I might have bought cigars and I might have bought liquor for myself. The Chairman. You say you “might have done so.” Did you buy it? Mr. Haslam. I certainly must have, in a campaign of that nature. The Chairman. How much did you estimate that you expended for cigars out of that money? Mr. Haslam. Oh, perhaps — well, that is a pretty hard question. I may have expended $10; I may have expended $25. The Chairman. Not to exceed $25 ? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; no, sir. WILLIAM C. HASLAM. 965 The Chairman. How much did you expend for liquor or drinks? Mr. Littlefield. Beer? Mr. Haslam. Beer ? Oh, very, very little — very little. The Chairman. You did not make a saloon campaign of it? Mr. Haslam. My orders from Mr. Edmonds were not to make a saloon canvass, and I did not do it. The Chairman. Did you pay any elector of the State of Wisconsin any portion of that money to secure his support or vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Haslam. I did not. I might add that I used an automobile, and some days my bill for the automobile would run fifteen or twenty dollars, and then again it would run $5. Senator Pomerene. For whose automobile? Mr. Haslam. Mine. Senator Pomerene. It was your own automobile ? Mr. Haslam. No; one that I hired. The county is very long, and there are no street cars, and there is no railroad that cuts into those towns; and I went around to see that the literature that we had given men was posted and kept up — kept before the people. The Chairman. You were on a vacation as a State game warden at the time you were working for Senator Stephenson were you ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; I was off from duty. I did not work for the State, and did not accept any The Chairman. You owed no duty to the State during that time ? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I did not. The Chairman. You 1 p voucher for the month of the Mr. Littlefield. What is that ? That is a new one to me. The Chairman. You will find it at page 3975. Mr. Haslam. I was a delegate to the “rump convention. ” They called it the “rump convention” at Madison at the time the “half- breeds” and “stalwarts” split in convention, and part went to the Fuller Opera House and the others were in the gymnasium of the Wisconsin State University. The Chairman. Did that involve the expenditure of any money on your part ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Howmuch? Mr. Haslam. I entertained the delegates in meals and one thing and another — cigars, street-car fare up to the hall and back. The Chairman. How much did that cost you ? Mr. Haslam. Oh, I do not know. It might have cost me $20; it might have cost me $30. The Chairman. You kept no account of it? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I never did. The Chairman. How many days did you work for Senator Stephen- son during the campaign? Mr. Haslam. Thirty days; from the 1st day of August until the day of the primary. The Chairman. I think it says on page 3936 that you worked 31 days. I will check that up and see. Mr. Littlefield. You may have left out Sunday. “rump convention.” mean by that? 9GG WILLIAM C. HASLAM. Mr. Haslam. There are not any 31 clays in August, so I could not very likely work 31 days. What I did was to work from the first day up to the day of the primary. The Chairman. You had known Senator Stephenson a long time, had you ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, indeed, I had. The Chairman. Had you worked for him in times gone by ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, indeed. The Chairman. In what way ? Mr. Haslam. I shined his shoes for five years. The Chairman. I think you said you had been his bootblack, did you not ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you have been very much attached to him all your life, have you not ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, indeed. The Chairman. All your life ? Mr. Haslam. All my life. The Chairman. I notice on page 3954 a letter to Mr. Stone, written by you, in which you say: If it is possible, Mr. Stone, I would like to get a leave of absence for one month starting August 1 to September 1. I have not had a vacation since I went to work for the , and hope and trust that you may be able to see your way clear to grant this request, and thanking you in advance for your consideration of the same, I remain, Wm. C. Haslam. In response to that letter you got the vacation ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; I did. The Chairman. And entered on work for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you expend any money during that time, or at any time, for the purchase of any votes or for the influencing of any man to work for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Haslam. I did not. The Chairman. You talked for him? Mr. Haslam. I talked for him, day and night. The Chairman. You made it known that you were his friend, and that you were supporting him ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. The Chairman. That was the limit of your expenditure, was it ? Mr. Haslam. I wish to say, furthermore, that in my campaign in Brown County I ran across 89 men that had worked for Senator Stephenson, both father and son; and there was not one of the 89 that did not tell me, personally, that they were going to do all they could to elect Senator Stephenson. Never one man had a word to say, in any way, shape, or form, through the whole county, against Senator Stephenson. I sent those names, each one of them, to the headquarters in Milwaukee. I had a stenographer write the letter, and sent it in. The Chairman. This exhibit will be made a part of the record, and then returned to the State custodian. (The exhibit referred to will be found later in the testimony of Mr. Haslam.) Senator Pomerene. Did you render to any one any account of your expenditures ? WILLIAM C. HASLAM. 967 Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I did not. Senator Pomerene. Were you asked to? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I was not. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Edmonds had made the arrangement with you ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. Personally? Mr. Haslam. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Where was it made? Mr. Haslam. At Appleton, Wis. Senator Pomerene. What was said between you ? Mr. Haslam. I was talking with him, and told him I had known Uncle Ike Stephenson for a great many years; and he wanted to know if I would not assist in doing what I could for him, in bringing him before the people; and I said “ Yes; but I shall expect remuner- ation for it and my expenses.” He asked me what it would cost him, and I said to him: “I will do the very best I can. I will not spend any money foolishly, and I will go to work and carry on the campaign for the Senator.” And he said to me “Can you state any stipulated sum?” I talked it over for quite a while with him, as to what it might cost, taking the precincts, and the expense, and knowing what it would cost to go around through that territory ; I thought about $400, with $200 for my own. I stipulated that as mine. Senator Pomerene. $200 ? Mr. Haslam. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And he agreed to pay you that? Mr. Haslam. I will not say that he agreed to pay it. He said, “Then, that would be $600.” I said, “Yes; $600 ought to be able to carry on that campaign in a legitimate and right way.” Senator Pomerene. Did you make any account of your expendi- tures as they were incurred or paid ? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I did not. I would hire a man, for instance, to go out in the country and take bills out and post them up. I would pay him, then and there, for that. Senator Pomerene. Did you report to them the names of the men that you had employed ? Mr. Haslam. No, sir ; I did not. Senator Pomerene. You made no report of any kind with respect to the expenditures? Mr. Haslam. No. Senator Pomerene. You were never asked to make any report? Mr. Haslam. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You were a deputy game warden at the time you made this arrangement? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; I was not. I went to work and received my answer that I could have the vacation, and then I was, as I thought, a free moral agent, to act; and then I acted. Senator Pomerene. Your talk with Mr. Edmonds, then, was after you had received the chief’s consent to take a vacation ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And that was granted, and then, after the primary, you resumed your duties ? 968 WILLIAM C. HASLAM. Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. As deputy game warden wliat wages did you receive ? Mr. Haslam. I received at that time $2.50 per day and all expenses. Senator Pomerene. And you were about 30 days engaged in this campaign ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; I was. Senator Pomerene. For which you received $200 and your expenses ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. That is all. The Chairman. We have here the letter which I have read into the record. We have the original letter, the copy of which I read. It is Exhibit No. 454. Mr. Littlefield. What is that, Mr. Chairman? The letter to Stone ? The Chairman. Yes; the letter to Stone. I do not want it in the record twice, so that you do not need to read it now. Is that the letter that you wrote to Mr. Stone [exhibiting paper to the witness] ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; it is. The Chairman. Let the record show that the original letter was produced and identified by the witness. That will avoid the neces- sity for repeating the letter in the record. Mr. Littlefield. Did you read into the record the date of it, too, Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. I read it. Mr. Littlefield. Did you read the date ? Senator Pomerene. I think it was read. I am not sure. The Chairman. The date of it is July 28. Mr. Littlefield. Just have that appear; that the date was July 28. The Chairman. The account of expenditures, heretofore referred to during the testimony of Mr. Haslam, will be incorporated into the record. It is No. 453. (The paper just referred to was marked “ Exhibit Haslam No. l/ > and is in words and figures following, to wit:) Exhibit Haslam No. 1, October 14, 1911. This is a list from memory of money spent by me, William Haslam, of money expended by me in Brown County or any other county for to further the interest of Isaac Stephenson for United States Senator: A. W. Barber, Big Suamico, $5; Dr. Powell, Oneida, $5; Lehigfi Wheelock, Oneida, $5; Eli. Pelligrin, Howard, $20; Bert Varpneter, De Pere, $5; William Klaus, De Pere, $5; Morris Brennan, Morrison, $6; A. G. Buckman, New Denmark, $5; Adam Houghlighter, Preble, $10; John Hoagh, Wrightstown, $10; Jake Rose, Greenleaf, $10; Frank Kolowsik, Glenmore, $7.50; Charlie Gettleman, Green Bay, $5; George Cormiar, Howard, $5; Peter Deveroy, De Pere, $5. The balance of the money was expended in railway fares, railroad berths, street-car fare, automobiles, stenographer, postage, and other miscellaneous expenses incurred in a campaign of this nature. (Stamped:) “Exhibit 453, Edward H. Smith, official reporter.” The Chairman. Have you any questions to ask this witness, Mr. Littlefield ? Mr. Littlefield. Yes. WILLIAM C. HASLAM. 969 Mr. Haslam, how many of these 30 days in which you were engaged in this work were you driving about the country ? Mr. Haslam. Every day. Mr. Littlefield. This territory that you had in your charge has how many precincts ? It has 37 precincts, has it not, and a popula- tion of about 50,000 people ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. That is approximately so ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is it or not a sparsely settled section ? Mr. Haslam. It is; yes; certain quarters of it. Mr. Littlefield. Do I understand that you had to hire an auto- mobile for practically all of this time? Mr. Haslam. Very nearly all the time. Mr. Littlefield. And the hire for that you paid out of this sum? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You have given, so far as you can recollect, the names of the men to whom you paid money for services to be rendered ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What particular services were these men to ren- der, whose names you have given in this exhibit ? Mr. Haslam. Part of them were to put up posters around through the towns and distribute buttons, and to go out to gatherings of the people and post these posters up on the walls, and take care of them, in general, m that way; to see that they were kept up; and put up pictures in windows. Mr. Littlefield. Were any of them to render services in connec- tion with the getting of the vote out on the primary election day ? Mr. Haslam. Some of them were to take their teams and bring in those that were away back to the polls. Mr. Littlefield. State whether or not you endeavored to make such arrangements as were reasonably necessary in that regard over your whole 37 precincts. I mean, now, referring to getting the votes to the polls on primary election day. Mr. Haslam. It was not necessary, except in thinly populated por- tions. That was all. Mr. Littlefield. Did you do that in those portions ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, sir; in those only. Mr. Littlefield. Was there an active campaign being carried on in that vicinity in the interests of the other candidates ? Mr. Haslam. Yes, indeed. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money expended by any of the men to whom you paid money for services to be rendered in this campaign, to your knowledge, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing the vote of any elector in that pri- mary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. Was any claim of that kind ever made in that vicinity, to your knowledge? Mr. Haslam. No, sir; not to my knowledge. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. You will remain in attendance until after the tes- timony of Mr. Stone has been given, which will be on Tuesday. 970 GUSTAVE C. KOLB. TESTIMONY OF GUSTAVE C. KOLB. Gustave C. Kolb, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside. Mr. Kolb. Hillsboro, Wis. The Chairman. What county? Mr. Kolb. Vernon. The Chairman. Did you take part in the campaign for Senator Stephenson in 1908? Mr. Kolb. Very little. The Chairman. Did you receive any money during that campaign from anyone to be spent by you ? Mr. Kolb. Yes. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Kolb. S50. The Chairman. From whom? Mr. Kolb. From Mr. Stone. Mr. Littlefield. Give his full name, please. Mr. Kolb. J. W. Stone. The Chairman. When did Mr. Stone pay you this money? Mr. Kolb. Oh, I think it was about three or four weeks before the primaries. The Chairman. You were a deputy game warden at that time, were you ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Were you working as deputy game warden at that time? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Where did you receive the money? Mr. Kolb. I think in Madison. The Chairman. What did Mr. Stone say when he gave you that money as to the purpose for which he was giving it to you ? Mr. Kolb. To spend it for the interests of Senator Stephenson in his campaign. The Chairman. He just gave you general instructions? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. How did you spend it ? Mr. Kolb. I spent it for cigars and treats. The Chairman. All of it ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir; and in drug stores. Whenever I would drop into the saloons I would spend it. The Chairman. You say in drug stores? Mr. Kolb. In drug stores; yes. Whenever I would go into a drug store I would buy cigars, and whenever I would drop into a saloon I would buy beer, for instance. The Chairman. You made a saloon campaign of it? Mr. Kolb. Not necessarily. The Chairman. Well, leave out the word “ necessarily” and state whether or not you did. Mr. Kolb. I did not. GUSTAVE C. KOLB. 971 The Chairman. I will read your testimony given on the former examination : Q. Did you support him two years ago when he was a candidate? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Handle any money at that time? — A. No, sir. Q. How did Stone come to give you the money? — A. Well, he just simply gave me this money, and said I should use it for the interests of Mr. Stephenson. That is the way it was. Did you so testify ? Mr. Kolb. I think so. The Chairman. That was correct , was it ? Mr. Kolb. I think so. The Chairman (reading) : Q. What did he tell you? — A. To use it to the best of my ability. Q. And left that to you? — A. And left that to me. Is that correct ? Mr. Kolb. I think so. The Chairman (reading) : Q. What did you do with it? — A. I spent it. Mr. Hambrecht. How much? A. $50. That was correct, was it ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Then Senator Morris said: Q. Spent all of it? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How did you spend it all? — A. It didn’t take very long to spend it. I spent it with the boys around the saloons. Is that correct ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You say that now? Mr. Kolb. Whenever I went to the saloons I bought drinks and cigars for the boys. The Chairman. Where did you spend it; in what place? Mr. Littlefield. In what locality? That is what you mean, is it not, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kolb. In towns where I would drop in. The Chairman. What towns were they ? Mr. Kolb. Oh, they were towns — Elroy, Union, Camp Douglas — through that territory. The Chairman. What was your business then ? Mr. Kolb. The saloon business. The Chairman. Where ? Mr. Kolb. Hillsboro. The Chairman. How did you come to be traveling around ? Mr. Kolb. I would be traveling around as a game warden. The Chairman. You were traveling around as a game warden and you were in the saloon business ? Mr. Kolb. Yes. The Chairman. Did you spend any of this money in your own saloon ? Mr. Kolb. No, sir. The Chairman. Were you alone in the saloon business? Mr. Kolb. I have bartenders, sir. The Chairman. You are the proprietor ? 972 GUSTAVE C. KOLB. Mi*. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. When you were spending this money with the boys, as you have stated, did you tell them that you were favoring the election of Senator Stephenson '? Mr. Kolb. Oh, I just simply said, “Have a drink on Mr. Stephen- The Chairman. That is what you would say — “Have a drink on Mr. Stephenson”? Mr. Kolb. Yes. The Chairman. Then you would pay it out of this $50? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you always say to them, “Have a drink on Mi 1 The Chairman. Did you generally say that ? Mr. Kolb. Oh, once in a while. The Chairman. You do not call that a saloon campaign ? Mr. Kolb. I do not. The Chairman. Did you spend any of this money anywhere except in the saloons in the interests of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Kolb. And in the drug stores ? The Chairman. And in the drug stores To buy cigars ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. It was all spent for drinks and cigars ? Mr. Kolb. I think so. The Chairman. And either in the drug stores or the saloons ? Is that right ? Mr. Kolb. I think so. Senator Pomerene. Did you pay out any of your own money? Mr. Kolb. I could not tell. I think I probably did. Senator Pomerene. Then you kept no account ? Mr. Kolb. I kept no account; no, sir. Senator Pomerene. Did you contribute toward any funds? Mr. Kolb. For Mr. Stephenson ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Kolb. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. When you say “drinks,” what do you mean? Beer, whisky, or both ? Mr. Kolb. By drinks I mean anything a man would take, whether it was a temperance drink, or whatever it was — beer or whisky. Mr. Littlefield. What is that ? Mr. Kolb. Whatever a man may take — pop, whisky, or beer. Mr. Littlefield. As a rule, did the people where you were know that you were handling Mr. Stephenson’s money, or did they not know it ? Mr. Kolb. No, sir; only when I would call them up and tell them to have a drink on Mr. Stephenson. They did not know it was Mr. Stephenson’s money. Mr. Littlefield. That is all they would know about it ? Mr. Kolb. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. Was that your uniform custom, when you treated anyone? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. You would simply make that statement? son GUSTAVE C. KOLB. 973 Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. How did this occur? Was this while you were driving about the country ? Mr. Kolb. That would be about the territory that I generally worked. Mr. Littlefield. It was in the territory over which you traveled ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield And as you would strike one of these saloons on a crossroad ? Mr. Kolb. No; in a town. Mr. Littlefield. And whoever you happened to find there you frequently treated to drinks, as you have described ? Mr. Kolb. I always did. Mr. Littlefield. You always did ? Mr. Kolb. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. You mean in all the campaigns you have carried on ? Mr. Kolb. Whenever I was out. Mr. Littlefield. Campaigning or otherwise ? Mr. Kolb. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose that tends to contribute to the in- creased demand for the articles sold ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. What you mean to say is that that is your habit and custom whenever you have been out in the saloons ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Whether it is in a campaign or otherwise ? Mr. Kolb. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose it is not a very infrequent custom up in that part of the country, is it ? Mr. Kolb. It never was with me. Mr. Littlefield. As a matter of fact, it is the usual and ordinary thing ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And takes place dozens of times a day and more, too ? Is not that a fact ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is not that really, substantially, the method in which a large part of the business of these saloons is carried on ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. They would not have much business if it were not for that custom. Mr. Kolb. It is generally the visiting place in those small towns for the farmers. They are in the habit of visiting in the saloons. Mr. Littlefield. Yes. And the matter of your treating people that you found in a saloon was not at all peculiar, so far as treating was concerned, because that is practically going on all the time ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is that right ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And substantially all, or a large portion, of the people up in that section of the country drink beer, I suppose, do they not? Mr. Kolb. Most of them. 974 GEORGE W. DART. Mr. Littlefield. Did you use any part of the money that was handed to you by Mr. Stone for the purpose of either directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing any electors up there to vote in the primary election for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Kolb. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Littlefield. You did not pay any money to any other people ? Mr. Kolb. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Except as you paid it in the saloons for treats ? Mr. Kolb. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. And in drug stores for cigars ? Mr. Kolb. Yes, sir. The Chairman. You will remain in attendance, Mr. Kolb, until after the testimony of Mr. Stone is given. Mr. Kolb. May I go home to-morrow morning and then come back again ? The Chairman. Yes; that will be all right, if you come back Tuesday. Mr. Kolb. I am to come back Tuesday ? The Chairman. Yes. TESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. DART. Mr. Dart, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. State your full name to the reporter. Mr. Dart. George W. Dart. The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Dart. Montello, Wis. The Chairman. How long have you resided there ? Mr. Dart. I was born there. I have resided there for 50 years. The Chairman. Did you take part in Senator Stephenson’s cam- paign in 1908, when he was a candidate for the United States Senate ? Mr. Dart. Well, slightly. The Chairman. Did you receive money from anyone to be used during that campaign in his behalf ? Mr. Dart. Yes. The Chairman. How much did you receive ? Mr. Dart. $450. The Chairman. From whom did you receive it ? Mr. Dart. I received the first $50 from J. W. Stone. The Chairman. Who was Mr. Stone ? Mr. Dart. Mr. Stone was the State game warden. The Chairman. You were a deputy game warden, were you ? Mr. Dart. I was a deputy game warden ; yes, sir. The Chairman. How did Mr. Stone come to give you that money? Mr. Dart. He gave it to me to help Mr. Stephenson’s interests The Chairman. What did he tell you when he gave you the money ? Mr. Dart. I have forgotten the exact words. The Chairman. Did he tell you that it was to be used in Senator Stephenson’s behalf? Mr. Dart. Yes; something to that effect. The Chairman. Well, what did he tell you? Mr. Dart. That is as nearly as I could tell you now. It is quite a long while ago — to help Senator Stephenson what I could with it. GEORGE W. DART. 975 The Chairman. He told you you were to help Senator Stephenson as much as you could. Mr. Dart. With that money; yes. The Chairman. What did you do? Mr. Dart. That S50 T took and used to put a man out to put up lithographs. The Chairman. Did you pay him $50 for it? Mr. Littlefield. Give us the name of the man to whom you paid this money, if you have it. Mr. Dart. It was my son. The Chairman. What is his name ? Mr. Dart. George H. Dart. The Chairman. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Dart. The first time I think I gave him — I have forgotten just how much it was. I spent it all. I gave him a part of it, and then he took a trip around, and then I gave him the balance of it. The Chairman. So that you gave him the entire $50? Mr. Dart. Yes. He hired a rig and went around putting up lith- ographs and campaign literature. The Chairman. When did you receive any further sum of money for supporting Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Dart. I do not know just the date of it. The Chairman. Did you get $400 in a check from Mr. Edmonds ? Mr. Dart. Yes; I did. The Chairman. What did you do with the money ? Mr. Dart. I spent that. I put it out in different ways. The Chairman. Tell us how. Mr. Dart. Paying men to take their teams and turn out to fetch the voters on the primary day. The Chairman. Did you spend the entire $400 in that way ? Mr. Dart. No. The Chairman. How much of that $400 did you pay out to other people ? Mr. Dart. How much did I pay out for labor ? The Chairman. How much aid you pay out for any purpose ? Mr. Dart. I spent the $400. The Chairman. You paid it all out ? Mr. Dart. Sure. The Chairman. You did not keep any of that for vourself ? Mr. Dart. Oh, no, sir. The Chairman. To whom did you pay it ? Mr. Dart. I could not tell you all the names. The biggest pay- ment — The Chairman. It will be necessary for you to account for that $400 Mr. Littlefield. He was going on to say “the biggest payment,” and something else, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Yes; I heard him say it. I am instructing him as to what I want him to answer. Mr. Dart. I did not keep any memorandum of it at ail. 1 know the biggest payment I made was a payment of $50 to a man. The Chairman. To whom was that paid ? Mr. Dart. His name is Frank Field. 976 GEORGE W. DART. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give him that $50? Mr. Dart. To go up through the edge of Adams County and through the town of Douglas. Mr. Littlefield. I wish you would speak a little louder. It is impossible for me to hear everything that you say. Mr. Dart. This man had formerly lived over in the edge of Adams County, and he was then running a creamery at Mellenville, and was well acquainted all through there; and he was very much in favor of Senator Stephenson; so that I called on him. and met him at Pewau- kee, and gave him the $50, and sent him out through there to do what he could with his friends. The Chairman. What did he do ? Mr. Dart. I never got any report from him; he was a man that would do just what he agreed to do. The Chairman. Did he spend it in saloons ? Mr. Dart. There were not very many saloons up in that section. The Chairman. Did he spend any of this money in the saloons ? Mr. Dart. He might have spent a little, for all I know. I do not know what he spent it for. The Chairman. Did you admonish him not to do so ? Mr. Dart. Oh, no. I told him to put it in the best way he could; that he would know where to put it m and how. The Chairman. Did you expect him to spend it in saloons ? Mr. Dart. I did not know but what he might. That is customary through there, occasionally. The Chairman. Did you spend portions of this money in saloons ? Mr. Dart. Very little of it. The Chairman. I read from your testimony, page 4489: Q. What did you do with it? — A. Spent it. Q. How? — A. Every old way. Q. What is that? — A. Every way. Q. Tell us some way that you spent it? — A. Oh, I spent quite a lot of it in saloons. Is that true ? Mr. Dart. Well, I should not go past any of them, if there was anybody there I wanted to see. The Chairman. Is that statement true ? Mr. Dart. I could not say just how much The Chairman. I am not asking you how much. I am asking you if the statement which I have read to you from your former testimony is true. Do you say, now, that that statement is true ? Mr. Dart. Yes, that is true. I spent some in saloons. The Chairman. That is the answer, then. I proceed to read fur- ther from your testimony. Q. Do you know how much? — A. Spent quite a lot of it for putting up literature and all that. Every place I went to I spent money, extra. You put up some literature, did you? Mr. Dart. No; I did not put up any literature, myself. The Chairman. Did you pay others for putting up literature ? Mr. Dart. Yes. The Chairman. That is what you meant in the answer, is it? Mr. Dart. I suppose so. The Chairman (reading) : Q. Did you make any payments to individuals? — -A. Oh, yes, I gave them quite a little bunch of money. GEORGE W. DART. 977 Who were the persons to whom you gave “quite a little bunch of money V’ Mr. Dart. Oh, I do not know; I could not mention half or a quar- ter of them. The Chairman. Your answers are so indistinct that it is difficult to hear them. I will ask the reporter to read the answer. (The reporter read the last answer of the witness.) The Chairman. Mention some of the persons to whom you gave money. Mr. Dart. This man Field. The Chairman. You have told us about Field. Mr. Dart. A man by the name of Williamson. The Chairman. How much did you give Williamson? Mr. Dart. I think I gave him $10. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Dart. To go to see people around where he lived, in the town of Buffalo and Pewaukee. The Chairman. Name some other person. Mr. Dart. And Carter. The Chairman. Who is Carter ? Mr. Littlefield. What is Williamson’s given name? Mr. Dart. Leslie Williamson. Mr. Littlefield. State the given names of each of these men when you give the names. The Chairman. Who was Carter? Mr. Dart. Carter is a farmer; Johnny Carter. He lives in the town of Buffalo. The Chairman. How much did you give him ? Mr. Dart. Either $5 or $10. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give him this money? Mr. Dart. To go to see quite a bunch of the fellows over there, and to take his team and fetch them in on the primary day. The Chairman. Name another man. Mr. Dart. Quite a few around Westfield, around in there. Tag- gets was one. Mr. Littlefield. How do you spell that ? Mr. Dart. I can not spell it. I think his name is Herman. Mr. Littlefield. How much ? What is your best recollection ? Mr. Dart. I think it was $5. The Chairman. When you were paying out these sums of money, it was out of the larger sum ? The $50 had all been expended, had it ? Mr. Dart. Yes; the $50 was all gone. The Chairman. So that these are charges against the larger sum that you received ? Mr. Dart. Yes. The Chairman. Who is the creamery man to whom you gave $50 ? Mr. Dart. The creamery man is Field. The Chairman. For what did you give him $50 ? Mr. Dart. He was going to take a trip up through Adams County, in the edge of Adams County, around Big Springs. The Chairman. Why was he going to take a trip ? Mr. Dart. To see some of his friends up in there. The Chairman. To see them about what? Mr. Dart. In the interest of Mr. Stephenson 15235°— VOL l—u 62 978 GEORGE W. DART. The Chairman. What do you mean by “in the interest of Mr. Stephenson” ? Mr. Dart. He would talk it over with them, and get them to come out to the primary. The Chairman. What did he do with that money ? Mr. Dart. I suppose he spent it that way. The Chairman. Do you know what he did with it ? Mr. Dart. That is what I laid out for him. The Chairman. You were not with him ? Mr. Dart. No. The Chairman. Did any of these men to whom you gave money pay it out in your presence ? Mr. Dart. No; not that I know of. The Chairman. When you got this $400, where did you put it ? Mr. Dart. I put it in my pocket. The Chairman. Did you carry it with you until it was paid out or spent ? Mr. Dart. Yes. I put it in my pocket, and did not keep it in my pocket. It went until it was gone. The Chairman. How long did it take you to get rid of this $400 ? Mr. Dart. I think I must have got the check along about the 20th of August, some time. The Chairman. You spent it within 48 hours, did you not ? Mr. Dart. Oh no; up to the primary. It was all gone at the primary — before the primary. The Chairman. How much of this $400 did you have on the day before the day of the primaries ? Mr. Dart. I think I had it all in before that. The Chairman. You had it all in by the 25th of August, did you not ? Mr. Dart. I could not say exactly. The Chairman. On the 25th of August you had none of this $400 remaining, had you ? Mr. Dart. I had the most of it in in a few days, 1 know. The Chairman. You had most of it spent within two days? Mr. Littlefield. No. “A few days,” he said. Mr. Dart. No. A few days; three or four days. The Chairman. In two days ? Mr. Dart. I think the heft of it, probably in a couple of days. The Chairman. You say in the record before the legislative committee: Can you give us any idea how much you paid out for teams? — A. No, I couldn’t make an estimate on it, how it was divided up. Q. Don’t know whether a hundred dollars for teams, or less or more? — A. No; I couldn’t say as to that. I know I arranged it for what time I had as good as I could. Q. Did you spend this $450? — A. Every blasted bit of it; I think more. Did you spend more than the $450 ? Mr. Dart. I kind of thought at the time I did. The Chairman. Did you spend some of your own money ? Mr. Dart. I passed in a little of my own ; I thought I did. The Chairman. You were spending your own money the last three days of the campaign ; were you not ? Mr. Dart. The last three days? The Chairman. Yes. GEORGE W. DART. 979 Mr. Dart. When I got through, 1 thought I had spent some of my own money. The Chairman. Did you not say that you were working on your own money in the last three days? Mr. Dart. I think I did, some. The Chairman. Did you ever make any demand to be repaid that money that you spent during the last three days of the campaign ? Mr. Dart. No. Senator Pomerene. You rendered no account for any of this money, did you ? Mr. Dart. No; I did not. Senator Pomerene. Were you requested to furnish an account of your expenditures ? Mr. Dart. No; I think not. Senator Pomerene. How did you decide upon $400 as being the amount that you were to receive ? Mr. Dart. I received a check. Senator Pomerene. From Mr. Edmonds? Mr. Dart. The check was from Mr. Edmonds. The Chairman. Before you received the check, what was said about the amount that would be required for your purposes? Mr. Dart. I did not set any amount. There was a party came up there and talked it over, and wanted me to do something. I told him 1 was doing all I could for Mr. Stephenson. He thought that I might help out a little at some jdaces where I would be going. Senator Pomerene. You were a game warden at that time, were you ? Mr. Dart. Yes; I was a game warden at that time. Senator Pomerene. And you did that while you were performing your duties as game warden ? Mr. Dart. Yes. Senator Pomerene. How much of this money did you give out to other people for services ? Mr. Dart. I never divided it up. I never kept any track enough of it. I know I spent the whole thing. Senator Pomerene. Let us approximate it, if we can. Did you spend half of it for these workers ? Mr. Dart. I think more. Senator Pomerene. Did you spend three-fourths of it? Mr. Dart. Yes. Senator Pomerene. And the $100 you expended in the way of cigars and treating, etc. ? Mr. Dart. Yes, something like that. Every place I went into where there was a chance, I, of course Senator Pomerene. Can you give the name of anyone else, other than those you have given ? Mr. Dart. Oh, I could think of quite a few, I think, if I — — Senator Pomerene. What did you employ these people to do? What did you say to them ? Mr. Littlefield. He says he can think of quite a few, Senator. If there is no objection I wish you would put them right in there. Senator Pomerene. No; I should be glad to have the names. Mr. Littlefield. You said he could think of quite a few. State them. Give the names. 980 GEORGE W. DART. Mr. Dart. In the town of Newton, people by the name of Day — I paid them. Senator Pomerene. Give the full name and the residence, if you can, and the amount that was given them. Mr. Dart. You see, that is what bothers me — just the amount. Senator Pomerene. Give it as nearly as you can. Mr. Dart. But those people in there — I think I paid them from $3 to $5 apiece; some of them $3 and some of them $5. Mr. Littlefield. Give the names of all that you remember. Mr. Dart. There were two of the Days; just which one I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. Two Days ? Mr. Dart. I paid two of the Days; one was August Day, and the other one was — I forget his name. Senator Pomerene. What did you pay them for? Mr. Dart. To take their team and fetch in a bunch at the primary: fetch them in to the polls. Senator Pomerene. Was that any particular ‘ ‘bunch, ” or was it the voters generally in the precinct? Mr. Dart. They were at the corner of that township. Out in the country districts, you know, they are in bunches — the neighborhood. They were Senator Pomerene. Give us the names of somebody else. Mr. Littlefield. You were going to say “they were” what? Mr. Dart. They were all for Stephenson; but the trouble was we were afraid they would not come out, you know. They would not unless somebody took their team and fetched them in. Mr. Littlefield. And that is what you employed these two men for ? Mr. Dart. I thought that was the only thing to do. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along and give the Senator the names of all you can now remember. That is what you want, is it not, Senator ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Dart. In Harris ville there were four or five fellows there. I can not give the names. Senator Pomerene. Give the names of any of them. Mr. Dart. Albert Frank. Senator Pomerene. How much did you pay him? Mr. Dart. I think I paid for a box of cigars and gave him either $3 or $5. Senator Pomerene. Anyone else ? Mr. Dart. There was a miller there. Senator Pomerene. Before going to that, tell me for what you employed Frank. Mr. Dart. Frank was going to send out word to his brothers to come, be sure to have them come in to the primary. Senator Pomerene. You paid him $3 or $5 for that? Mr. Dart. I paid him about $2, I think. Senator Pomerene. You paid him $2 for that? Mr. Dart. Yes; and I bought a box of cigars to leave there so that lie could give the boys a cigar when they came in. Senator Pomerene. In addition to that, if I understand you cor- rectly, you paid him $3 or $5; and now you say $2. GEORGE W. DART. 981 Mr. Dart. I paid him for the box of cigars, probably S3, and paid him $2 to take a rig and send out after his brothers, to come in on the the primary day. Senator Pomerene. You spoke of a man by the name of Miller. Mr. Dart. No; he was a miller; I do not know his name. Mr. Littlefield. He was a miller by occupation ? Mr. Dart. He ran a gristmill. Senator Pomerene. Whom else did you employ ? Mr. Dart. A man that runs a sawmill there. His name is Lee, I think — oh, no; Smith. Senator Pomerene. What is his first name ? Mr. Dart. Theodore Smith. Senator Pomerene. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Dart. I think $5. Senator Pomerene. For what was that? Mr. Dart. That was to do what he could on primary day. Senator Pomerene. That is, to get in voters and talk up Stephen- son sentiment ? Mr. Dart. Talk it over; yes. Senator Pomerene. Anybody else ? Mr. Dart. There is one saloon keeper there. His name is Otto Giese. I think I paid for a box of cigars there. Mr. Littlefield. How much did you pay him ? Mr. Dart. Three dollars, or something of that kind. That is what they usually charged — about $3. Senator Pomerene. Anybody else ? Mr. Dart. Over in Crystal Lake — I can not remember their names, but I paid two or three different men there. Senator Pomerene. How much ? Mr. Dart. Three dollars and five dollars, each one of them. Senator Pomerene. The rate was from $3 to $5 ? Mr. Dart. Using their teams, you know, and bringing voters in. That is what I paid the most of them. Senator Pomerene. Can you give any of their names ? Mr. Dart. Let’s see. I can not think of that old fellow’s name. He has been chairman of that town for years. Senator Pomerene. Anyone else? Mr. Dart. Over to Neshkoro. Senator Pomerene. Whom did you employ there? Mr. Dart. A liveryman. Senator Pomerene. What was his name? Mr. Dart. His name was Scovey. Mr. Littlefield. What is his given name ? Mr. Dart. I think the name is Andrew. There are two brothers of them in the livery business. Senator Pomerene. How much did you give them ? Mr. Dart. I think I gave these fellows $10. Senator Pomerene. Did you employ anyone else ? Mr. Dart. I went from there over to Red Granite, and saw a lot of them up in Waushara County — quite a bunch. There are a lot of quarries up in there, and I stopped at all the quarries, and Senator Pomerene. Whom did you employ ? Mr. Dart. I do not know their names, all of them. 982 GEORGE W. DART. Senator Pomerene. How many ? Mr. Dart. Probably three or four at each quarry. Senator Pomerene. What did you pay them ? Mr. Dart. Three dollars to five dollars — $3 or $5 ; I do not know which. Senator Pomerene. Did you contribute any particular sum to a Stephenson fund ? Mr. Dart. A Stephenson fund ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Dart. No. Senator Pomerene. At no time ? Did you aid in the raising of any funds for the Stephenson campaign ? Mr. Dart. For the Stephenson campaign? vSenator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Dart. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You aided in disposing of them ? Mr. Dart. I spent what I got. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. Mr. Littlefield. Mr. Dart, have you given to the Senator the names of all of the men that you now remember to whom you gave sums of money for these purposes ? Mr. Dart. Oh, I could think of more than that. Mr. Littlefield. Go right ahead and give us the names of all that you can now remember. Mr. Dart. There were a few down in the town of Megan. There was John Wagner; T gave him $5; and a fellow by the name of Bill Ming, and Louis Zellmer. Mr. Littlefield. How much, if you remember ? Mr. Dart. Those fellows — either from $2 to $5. Mr. Littlefield. Go right along. Mr. Dart. There were certainly more than that, but I can not think of them. There is one man out in the township of Montello whose name is Callahan; I gave him $5. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember Scovey brothers ? Mr. Dart. I gave that — Andrew Scovey. Mr. Littlefield. Do you remember any others now ? Mr. Dart. No; not now. Mr. Littlefield. State whether the men that you employed in that way were or were not friends of Senator Stephenson. Mr. Dart. You bet they were, or else they would not have got anything. Mr. Littlefield. You spoke of some quarries at Red Granite. What quarries are those — granite quarries ? Mr. Dart. Yes; red granite, they call it. They crush stone and make paving mostly. There are a lot of workmen through there. There are several different quarries, Mr. Littlefield. They crush up stone for macadamizing roads ? Mr. Dart. Yes; they are shipping it everywhere, and making paving. Most of the foremen who were running those quarries— I knew all those fellows. 1 went in to see them, you know. Mr. Littlefield. When you were on this trip, were you using a carriage or an automobile ? Mr. Dart. No; I had a team. Mr. Littlefield. Did you have a team of }mur own ? GEORGE W. DART. 983 Mr. Dart. Yes; I had my own team; that I charged up to the State; and when I drove any nights, I paid that out of Stephenson money. Mr. Littlefield. During any part of this time were you discharg- ing any of your duties as game warden also ? Mr. Dart. All the time; every day. Mr. Littlefield. What were you doing as game warden during this time ? Mr. Dart. I forget just what the complaints were; but I was out on some complaints, protecting the game. Mr. Littlefield. I am not at all familiar with the method of business. You speak of complaints. What are those — complaints of violation of the game laws ? Mr. Dart. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. And when complaints are made, is it the duty of the deptuty game warden to visit the locality and investigate the complaint ? Mr. Dart. Yes; that is what we always tried to do. Mr. Littlefield. Is that one of the principal duties of the game wardens ? Mr. Dart. Yes; and to visit other places where you know of any violations. Mr. Littlefield. You yourself are on the lookout for violations, and then you take cognizance of complaints that are made to you ? Mr. Dart. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Is that right ? Mr. Dart. That is right. Mr. Littlefield. And do I understand that during the daytime you say you were engaged in your work as a game warden at this time ? Mr. Dart. Yes. When I put that $400 in 1 was out on a trip; I went around, I think, three or four days. Mr. Littlefield. You have given us, you say, all the details you can give in relation to the names of the men and the amounts paid — all that you can now remember ? Mr. Dart. Yes. I do not think I gave them all to you, but I can not remember any more. Mr. Littlefield. Are you confident that you disbursed the whole $400 ? Mr. Dart. Oh, yes. Mr. Littlefield. For those purposes? Mr. Dart. Oh, yes; I spent the money. I put it all in. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not, in disbursing this sum of money under the circumstances which you have described, you used any part of it, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or curruptly influencing any of the electors to vote on the primary election day for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Dart. Oh, no; no. Mr. Littlefield. I will ask you whether or not, so far as you know, any of the sums that were thus disbursed by you were used by the people to whom you disbursed the money, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors to vote for Senator Stephenson in the primary election ? Mr. Dart. No. 984 H. A. BOWMAN. Mr. Littlefield. That is all. The Chairman. The witness will be here on Tuesday. You are excused until Tuesday. TESTIMONY OF H. A. BOWMAN. H. A. Bowman, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Where do you reside ? Mr. Bowman. Genesee, Wis. The Chairman. Where did you reside during the year 1908? Mr. Bowman. Genesee, Wis. The Chairman. What position, if any, did you hold during that time ? Mr. Bowman. Deputy game warden. The Chairman. Did you support Senator Stephenson for the nomination at the direct primary ? Mr. Bowman. I did. The Chairman. When did you commence to support him? Mr. Bowman. As soon as he announced his candidacy, I think. The Chairman. Did } r ou receive any money from Senator Stephen- son’s campaign managers during the time that you were supporting him ? Mr. Bowman. I received $150 from the headquarters in Milwaukee and $1,250 from J. W. Stone. The Chairman. You received $150 about the middle of August ? Mr. Bowman. I think it was all received about that time; yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you do with the $150 that you received from Mr. Edmonds out of the Stephenson campaign fund ? Mr. Bowman. I think that was given to Robert Clark. The Chairman. All of it ? Mr. Bowman. I think so; yes, sir. The Chairman. Who was Robert Clark. Mr. Bowman. I am not sure whether he was a game warden at that time, or whether he quit shortly before that. Mr. Littlefield. Please give us the address of Robert Clark. Mr. Bowman. Palmyra at that time; but I think he is now in Fort Atkinson. Mr. Littlefield. Is that in Wisconsin? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give it to Clark? Mr. Bowman. To use in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s primary campaign. The Chairman. Were you instructed by Edmonds or anyone to give it to Clark ? Mr. Bowman. No; I do not think I was really instructed by Edmonds. The Chairman. Why did you turn it over to Clark ? Mr. Bowman. I had a talk with Mr. Edmonds about Jefferson County. He asked me if I knew any good worker in Jefferson County, and I think I remember mentioning the name of Mr. Clark. The Chairman. Then he really gave you the money to be paid to Mr. Clark, did he ? Mr. Bowman. That is the way I took it; yes, sir. H. A. BOWMAN. 985 The Chairman. So that you had nothing to do with the expending of that money ? Mr. Bowman. Nothing at all. The Chairman. You received from Mr. Stone $1,250. That was about the same time, was it not ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What did you do with the $1,250 received from Mr. Stone, or any part of it ? Account for it. Mr. Bowman. $125 was paid to E. W. Tuttle. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Bowman. In the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s primary cam- paign. The Chairman. Where? Mr. Bowman. Mr. Tuttle resides at Oconomowoc. The Chairman. Did you give him any instructions as to how the money was to be used ? Mr. Bowman. No; I gave him no instructions. I had a general talk with him in which I suggested — as a suggestion on my part — that it be used in keeping up the Stephenson literature, making lists of the voters that were Stephenson supporters, and seeing that the people were at the polls on primary day — that the voters on these lists got out. The Chairman. Do you know whether he spent any of it for drinks or cigars ? Mr. Bowman. I do not. The Chairman. Did you instruct him not to make a saloon cam- paign with it ? Mr. Bowman. I do not think anything was said about it. The Chairman. Did you ever hear that he had made a saloon campaign ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir; I never did. The Chairman. What kind of a man is he? Is he a man who would make a saloon campaign ? Mr. Bowman. I would not think so. The Chairman. What is his business? Mr. Bowman. He was a game warden. The Chairman. He was a deputy game warden, also? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What further sums did you pay out of that $1,250 ? Mr. Bowman. Three hundred dollars to Edwin Bissonette. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Bowman. Milwaukee. The Chairman. What is his business? Mr. Bowman. He is with the General Fire Extinguisher Co. The Chairman. For what purpose did you pay him that money ? Mr. Bowman. The same as Mr. Tuttle; to use in the interest of Mr. Stephenson’s primary campaign. The Chairman. In what way? Mr. Bowman. I had the same talk with him that I had with Mr. Tuttle. The Chairman. Just repeat the talk that you had with this party. Mr. Bowman. That he should use his best judgment in using it for Mr. Stephenson’s primary campaign — seeing that the literature 986 H. A. BOWMAN. was kept up, and making a list of voters that were favorable to Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Did you authorize him to pay it out to other people ? Mr. Bowman. I did not. The Chairman. Was this sum paid to Mr. Clark for his own use, or was it to be paid out to other people ? Mr. Bowman. Nothing was said about that. The Chairman. Do you know whether he did pay any of it out? Mr. Bowman. I do not. The Chairman. Did he ever make a statement to you about it? Mr. Bowman. He did not. The Chairman. Now, come to the last man, Mr. Bissonette. Was he to pay out any part of the money that you gave him ? Mr. Bowman. Not that I know of; no, sir. The Chairman. That was for his own services? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. He was to use it as he saw fit. The Chairman. He might keep it all for his own use? Mr. Bowman. There was nothing said by me as to how he should spend it in paying it out to others. The Chairman. Did you ever have any talk with him as to what he had done with that money? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. I do not know what he did with it. The Chairman. He never rendered an account? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. The Chairman. Have you given the addresses of Tuttle and Bissonette ? Mr. Bowman. Tuttle is in Oconomowoc, and Bissonette is in Milwaukee. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to have him state where Mr. Bissonette was expected to use this sum — that is, the locality, if he knows. Mr. Bowman. I do not think anything was said by me about that. The Chairman. Proceed and give the name of any other person to whom you paid any part of it. Mr. Bowman. C. W. Johnson. The Chairman. How much did you pay him? Mr. Bowman. Fifty dollars. Mr. Littlefield. Give his address, Mr. Bowman. Mr. Bowman. Oshkosh. The Chairman. For what purpose? Mr. Bowman. To use it in the interest of Senator Stephenson’s primary campaign. The Chairman. Was he to pay it out, or to keep it for his own services ? Mr. Bowman. I do not think I had any talk with Mr. Johnson as to whether he should keep it or The Chairman. Do you know what he did with it? Mr. Bowman. I do not. The Chairman. Did he ever render any account of it ? Mr. Bowman. He did not. The Chairman. Or did he ever tell you what he had done with it ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever ask him ? H. A. BOWMAN. 987 Mr. Bowman. No, sir. The Chairman. Can you name some one else to whom you paid a part of that $1,250 ? Mr. Bowman. C. E. Hitch oq. The Chairman. How much did you pay hm ? Mr. Bowman. Four hundred and fifty dollars. The Chairman. Where does he live? Mr. Bowman. At Marinette. The Chairman. What does he do ? Mr. Bowman. He keeps a hotel. The Chairman. W^hat hotel ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know what the name of the hotel is. The Chairman. Marinette is the home of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Did you ever have an account from him as to the manner in which he expended that money ? Mr. Bowman. T did not. The Chairman. You do not know how he expended it? Mr. Bowman. I do not. The Chairman. W hat instructions did you give him when you gave him the money ? Mr. Bowman. I did not give him any instructions. I had the same talk with him that I did with the rest of the fellows. The Chairman. Were you giving this money out pursuant to instructions that you had received ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. I received no instructions, with the excep- tion that I should use it in the interest of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Were you at liberty to give it to any person that you migh t see fit to give it to ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Can you name some other person to whom you gave any part of this money ? Mr. Bowman. John Jones. The Chairman. How much? Mr. Bowman. Twenty dollars. The Chairman. Where does he live ? Mr. Bowman. Genesee. The Chairman. For what purpose did you give him the money? Mr. Bowman. For putting up lithographs of Senator Stephenson and distributing literature. The Chairman. Can you name any other person to whom you gave any of the money ? Mr. Bowman. I do not recall any just now. The Chairman. What balance would that leave ? I have not made the addition. Senator Pomerene. That makes $945. Mr. Littlefield. It would leave about $805, roughly, as I get it. Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Bowman. I will state that The Chairman. What did you do with the $305 ? Mr. Littlefield. He was just going to say something, Mr. Chair- man. He said, “ I will state The Chairman. Wait until I ask him the question. What did you do with the $305 ? 988 H. A. BOWMAN. Mr. Bowman. There was another $100 paid to Robert Clark. He got $250. The Chairman. That made $250 to him ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. For what did you give him that $100? Mr. Bowman. To use in the interest of Senator Stephenson, and in the same way that I gave him the $150. The Chairman. Did you ever have any account from him of that money — the way in which he had expended it ? Mr. Bowman. No; I did not. The Chairman. To whom else did you pay any of the money? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember of paying any money to anyone else. The Chairman. That leaves $205. Did you keep that $205 for your own work or services ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. I spent some money. The Chairman. How did you spend that money ? Mr. Bowman. In traveling, railroad fare, livery rigs, meals, and cigars. The Chairman. What were you doing when you were spending that money ? In what business or occupation were you engaged ? Mr. Bowman. Deputy game warden. The Chairman. I understand that; but what were you doing? Were you traveling around, or staying at some one place ? Mr. Bowman. No; traveling around. The Chairman. You were traveling around where? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember just the places I went to now. The Chairman. Account for that $205 which you say you spent. Let us see how nearly you can account for it. Give the items. Mr. Bowman. Railroad fare and meals and cigars. The Chairman. How much do you estimate you spent for railroad fares ? Mr. Bowman. Possibly $25 or $30; that would be a guess. The Chairman. Did you spend some of it for hotel bills ? Mr. Bowman. Meals of people that would be with me, that I would pay for; yes, sir. The Chairman. How much do you estimate you spent for hotel bills? Mr. Bowman. Probably $20 or $25. The Chairman. Can you enumerate any other items? Were there items for drinks, cigars, treats ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. What would you estimate those items to amount to ? Mr. Bowman. Possibly $50. The Chairman. Can you account for any other portion of the $205 ? Mr. Bowman. Livery hire. The Chairman. Livery hire would amount to about how much ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know; maybe $30 or $40. The Chairman. Did you expend any portion of this money that you received, either from Mr. Edmonds or Mr. Stone, for the purpose of purchasing or corrupting any elector in the State of Wisconsin so as to procure his vote for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Bowman. I did not. H. A. BOWMAN. 989 The Chairman. You say, as you did before, that the money unac- counted for was used by you in making the campaign ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Mr. Bowman, the subcommittee will desire to examine you further in regard to a meeting at Mr. Stone’s house; but until after Mr. Stone has testified it is not desirable to call you. You will remain in attendance to be called. Mr. Stone is to be called on Tuesday; and after that you may be required as a witness. You will remain in attendance. Senator Pomerene. Mr. Bowman, why was it that you gave this sum of $450 to Mr. Hitchon ? Mr. Bowman. I had a talk with Mr. Hitchon, and I thought he was in a position to do some good work. Senator Pomerene. He was a brother of one of the game wardens ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. And Mr. Hitchon lived in Senator Stephen- son’s own home ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. You knew J. A. Van Cleve, did you not — the president of the bank ? Mr. Bowman. I knew him by sight. Senator Pomerene. You were in touch with Mr. Edmonds during this campaign, were you ? Mr. Bowman. I met Mr. Edmonds possibly three times. Senator Pomerene. Senator Stephenson was in his home county a goodly part of the time; was he not ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. And Mr. Van Cleve was there nearly all of the time ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. You knew that he had charge of the cam- paign in that county; did you not? Mr. Bowman. I did not. Senator Pomerene. You did not know anything about that ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You went into Senator Stephenson’s own home county and placed $450 there ? Mr. Bowman. I did. Senator Pomerene. What was that for ? Mr. Bowman. I had a talk with Mr. Hitchon; I thought he was in a position to do Mr. Stephenson some good in the northern part of Marinette County, and De Forest, and Florence. Senator Pomerene. What was his business ? Mr. Bowman. Mr. Hitchon’s ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Mr. Bowman. The hotel business. Senator Pomerene. And the saloon business ? Mr. Bowman. Yes. Senator Pomerene. How was he to use this $400 ? Mr. Bowman. To see that the Stephenson literature was kept up, and to get people to make lists of Stephenson supporters, and for men at the polls on primary day. Senator Pomerene. Did it not occur to you that Mr. Stephenson and his home friends could look after their own county ? 990 H. A. BOWMAN. Mr. Bowman. No; I did not think anything about it. Senator Pomerene. Did you receive the sum of $1,250 at one time ? Mr. Bowman. I did not. Senator Pomerene. In how many different payments did you receive it ? Mr. Bowman. I think I received it in three payments. I am not positive whether it was two or three. Senator Pomerene. Give the amounts and the dates. Mr. Bowman. I can not give the dates. I received $500 in the first payment, and the second payment I think was $500. Senator Pomerene. Where did you get that ? Mr. Bowman. I think it was paid to me in the city of Madison. Senator Pomerene. Who paid it to you ? Mr. Bowman. A. W. Stone. Senator Pomerene. In his office? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember where he paid it to me, whether in his office or some place else. Senator Pomerene. You testified before in this case, did you not ? Mr. Bowman. Yes. Senator Pomerene. Let me read you a portion of your former testimony : Q. When did you again see Mr. Stone? — A. Why, a few days after that, I don’t know just how long. Q. Where did you meet him then? — A. In the city of Madison. Q. Where? — A. Why, in the office, I guess; I don’t know where. Q. Then he gave you $750? — A. Yes. Q. Where did he pay you that $750? — A. I don’t remember where it was, I could not say. Q. How was that paid to you, in currency or check? — A. In currency. Is that true? Mr. Bowman. Yes. I do not remember whether it was $750, or whether he paid me $500, and paid me the balance later. Senator Pomerene. All of this money was paid to you in currency ? Mr. Bowman. It was. Senator Pomerene. Did he ask you to render any account ? Mr. Bowman. I would like to change that about the last payment. I think he sent me a check. Senator Pomerene. That is, the $750? Mr. Bowman. No ; I think it was paid me in two payments. Senator Pomerene. Did you not testify before that you received this $750 just as I have read your testimony? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember. Senator Pomerene. If you did so testify, was it true ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know whether he paid me in two payments or in one. Senator Pomerene. You evidently testified within three or four months after the expenditures were made. Is there any reason why your memory was not clear at that time? Mr. Bowman. No; I think not. Senator Pomerene. How do you account for testifying that you received this amount of $7%50 in one payment in his office ? Mr. Bowman. It seems to me now that it was paid to me in two payments. I am not positive. Senator Pomerene. What makes you now think that? H. A. BOWMAN. 991 Mr. Bowman. Because I think I got a check from Mr. Stone. I think the last payment was in a check. I know he paid me some money in Madison. Senator Pomerene. Was that his own check? Mr. Bowman. I think so. Senator Pomerene. On what bank ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know. Senator Pomerene. Where did you get it cashed ? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember that. Senator Pomerene. You received $1,250 from Mr. Stone, and he did not ask you to give any account of it. That is correct, is it ? Mr. Bowman. That is correct. Senator Pomerene. And you gave no account of it ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. To him or to anybody else? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. You paid $450 to one man, $125 to another,. $300 to another, $100 to another, $50 to another, and $20 to another, and you received no accounts for any of these sums ? Mr. Bowman. I did not. Senator Pomerene. And you never asked for them? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. During the time that you were campaigning, you were on duty as game warden, and receiving a compensation ? Mr. Bowman. I was; yes, sir. Senator Pomerene. A compensation of $2.50 a day and your expenses ? Mr. Bowman. $3.50. Senator Pomerene. And expenses. During that campaign, what did your expenses amount to ? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember. Mr. Littlefield. What do you have in mind, Senator — his ex- pense account as a game warden ? Senator Pomerene. Yes. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I want you to understand it clearly. What was your expense account as game warden during that time ? Mr. Bowman. I do not remember about the expense account. Senator Pomerene. Did you keep a separate expense account for the expenses incurred for Senator Stephenson? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Senator Pomerene. What expenses did you charge up to the State ? Mr. Bowman. My actual expenses that I thought should be charged up to the State ? Senator Pomerene. What were they? Mr. Bowman. Mileage and hotel bills. Senator Pomerene. You did not charge any mileage to the Stephenson account? Mr. Bowman. No; I did not. Senator Pomerene. Nor any of the meals ? Mr. Bowman. I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any livery hire at any time? Mr. Bowman. I did. Senator Pomerene. Did you charge that up to the Stephenson account ? 992 H. A. BOWMAN. Mr. Bowman. I did not. Senator Pomerene. Did you have any automobiles? Mr. Bowman. I do not think I did. Senator Pomerene. I think that is all. Mr. Littlefield. How long a time were you at work in this cam- paign ? That is, over what length of time did your activities extend ? Mr. Bowman. Two or three weeks — the latter part of August. Mr. Littlefield. If I understood you correctly, where you em- ployed a livery in connection with the services that you were rendering as a game warden, you would charge that as part of your expenses as game warden ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. In the case of the livery that was engaged by you in order to go about and do this work, to what fund did you charge it, or out of what did you disburse the charge ? Mr. Bowman. I disbursed it out of Stephenson money that I had. Mr. Littlefield. Can you give the committee any idea of the nature of the services that you were performing as game warden during this period ? Is your recollection distinct enough so that you can state what you were doing as game warden ? Mr. Bowman. I was looking after violations of the fish and game laws and attending to complaints wdien I received them. Mr. Littlefield. Is there any rule or understanding by virtue of which the game wardens work a specific number of hours a day ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir; none that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. That is, they do not have any limit as to hours ? Mr. Bowman. None that I know of. Mr. Littlefield. When you were in these various localities in connection with services you were rendering as game warden, do I understand that you were looking out for matters connected with this campaign, so far as you did look out for them ? Mr. Bowman. Yes, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Hitchon, after placing the money in his hands, as to the use that he made of it ? Mr. Bowman. I do not think I ever did. Mr. Littlefield. In what locality was Mr. Hitchon to expend his $450 ? State whether it was in the city of Marinette or in this terri- tory where he, as I understand it, formerly lived. Mr. Bowman. The northern part of Marinette County and in Flor- ence and Forest Counties, according to the talk I had with him. Mr. Littlefield. Was it your understanding or expectation that he would spend any of this money in the city of Marinette ? Mr. Bowman. I do not know. I did not say anything to him about that. I do not know. Mr. Littlefield. There was no talk about his spending any money there ? Mr. Bowman. There was not. Mr. Littlefield. You expected him to spend the money in the sections that you have described ? Mr. Bowman. I did. Mr. Littlefield. How far were they from the city of Marinette ? Mr. Bowman. Fifty or seventy-five miles. ARTHUR NELSON WILCOX. 993 Mr. Littlefield. Was Mr. Hitchon formerly a resident out there, or was he acquainted out there ? Mr. Bowman. He was very well acquainted there. Mr. Littlefield. Was any of this money expended by you, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corrupting any electors in the primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any money expended, so far as you know, by either of these gentlemen to whom you gave money, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any of the electors in that primary election in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Bowman. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. I find in my notes here (if the committee will excuse me for calling attention to it specifically) an entry of “General, August 31, $20/’ purporting to have been disbursed to } t ou. Do you have any recollection of that item ? Mr. Bowman. No; I never received any such amount. Mr. Littlefield. The only sum that you received from Mr. Edmonds is the $150 ? Mr. Bowman. Yes. Mr. Littlefield. And the balance of the funds you distributed you received from Mr. Stone ? Mr. Bowman. That is correct. The Chairman. You are excused for the present. As has been already stated, you will remain in attendance. TESTIMONY OF AETHER NELSON WILCOX. Arthur Nelson Wilcox, having been heretofore duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: The Chairman. Mr. Wilcox, were you one of the election inspectors of the third precinct of the third ward in this city at the election in 1908? Mr. Wilcox. No, sir. The Chairman. Of what were you an inspector ? Mr. Wilcox. When? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wilcox. In the campaigns before that. I do not remember just what they were. The Chairman. Were you an inspector of any kind in connection with the election, primary or direct, in 1908? Mr. Wilcox. I do not believe I was. The Chairman. Do you not know whether you were or not ? Mr. Wilcox. In fact, I was not an inspector of election. The Chairman. It is charged here that you were an inspector. Mr. Littlefield. Where does the chairman find that ? The Chairman. On page 2243 in the report of the investigating committee. You swear that you were not an inspector, as stated, of the third precinct of the third ward in the city of Milwaukee, or in any place during that election ? Mr. Wilcox. I am quite sure I was not an inspector at that time. I had been before and was also chairman of the ward; but I am not 15235 °— vol 1—11 63 994 ARTHUR NELSON WILCOX. positive whether I was an inspector at that time. I am quite sure that I was not. The Chairman. You had been at a previous election ? Mr. Wilcox. Yes; I had been inspector up there for eight or ten years. The Chairman. How were you selected as inspector ? Mr. Wilcox. Through the ward chairman. The Chairman. Who did act as inspector in your ward at that time ? Mr. Wilcox. I think John Lavin, Charley Winters, and Pat Shanley were inspectors in that precinct at that time. The Chairman. Did you receive $100 from the Stephenson cam- paign fund, during the Stephenson campaign, or at all ? Mr. Wilcox. No; I received $50. The Chairman. From whom ? Mr. Wilcox. From Mr. Knell. The Chairman. Mr. Knell was the manager of the campaign in this city for Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wilcox. Yes. The Chairman. It is specifically charged here that Arthur Wilcox of the third precinct of the third ward was paid $100 in the Stephen- son campaign. Mr. Wilcox. No, sir. The Chairman. You are the Arthur Wilcox referred to; are you? Mr. Wilcox. Yes, sir. The Chairman. And you say you were paid $50 by W. R. Knell ? Mr. Wilcox. Yes. The Chairman. For what purpose were you paid $50 ? Mr. Wilcox. I was asked to furnish the names of six men, two for each precinct in the ward. There are three precincts in the ward; and I paid them $5 for that day, for primary day, to hand out cards and do what they could for the election of Senator Stephenson. The Chairman. Then you did disburse $50 in behalf of the Stephen- son campaign at that primary election ? Mr. Wilcox. I did, sir. The Chairman. And you were not an officer or in any position connected with that primary election ? Mr. Wilcox. No, sir. The Chairman. Does the office of election inspector expire with the day of the election, or does it continue until the next election ? Mr. Wilcox. You are generally appointed for two years. The Chairman: When were you appointed ? Mr. Wilcox. I can not say really when I was appointed, but I had lost the chairmanship before that. The Chairman. The inspectorship ? You were appointed inspector for two years. Mr. Wilcox. I was not inspector after I lost the chairmanship. The Chairman. Why ? Mr. Wilcox. There was another man who got the chairmanship of the ward, and naturally he appointed somebody else. The Chairman. Is that a political appointment, or is it one under the laws of the State ? Mr. Wilcox. It is under the laws of the State. ARTHUR NELSON WILCOX. 995 The Chairman. If you were appointed an inspector for two years, do you mean to say that a change in the political chairmanship of the ward would affect your appointment ? Mr. Wilcox. Yes; the chairmanship changes every two years also. The Chairman. Is the chairmanship an appointment under the statutes of the State, or is it a political appointment ? Mr. Wilcox. It is an appointment under the statutes of the State, I believe. The Chairman. Who makes the appointment ? Mr. Wilcox. The precinct committeemen. The Chairman. They appoint the chairman of the ward ? Mr. Wilcox. The precinct committeemen are elected by the voters of the ward, and they in turn elect a chairman of the ward. The chairman of the ward then appoints inspectors, and they are con- firmed by the mayor and the council of the city. The Chairman. You were such inspector unless your loss of the position of chairman affected your position as inspector? Is that true ? Mr. Littlefield. Oh, I think the chairman is mistaken about that. The Chairman. I am asking the witness, and he can answer. Mr. Wilcox. I do not believe I quite understand you, Senator; but I received the appointment of inspector and clerk of election at different times for the last eight or ten years, and then for one time I was elected ward chairman, and still held the position of inspector. The Chairman. Could you hold both positions under the law ? Mr. Wilcox. Yes. The Chairman. What do you receive as evidence of your appoint- ment as inspector ? Mr. Wilcox. You receive a notice from the city clerk. The Chairman. Have you examined the records of the city clerk’s office to ascertain whether or not you were inspector during the period immediately preceding the direct primary election on the first of September, 1908? Mr. Wilcox. I have not; but I do not think it would be right to act for anybody and at the same time be an inspector of election. The Chairman. That will be conceded. Had you not better inspect the records and see whether or not you were ? Mr. Wilcox. Probably I better be sure; but I am quite sure I was not inspector of election at that time. The Chairman. Will you inspect those records and ascertain whether or not you were inspector of election, and if you were not, who was ? Mr. Wilcox. I can do that; certainly. The Chairman. Also, when your term of office ceased, and who succeeded you. Mr. Wilcox. Yes. The Chairman. We will excuse you from the stand at this time, in order that you may be able to ascertain those facts definitely. You may return here on Monday. Mr. Littlefield. I should like to ask him a few questions before he goes. Senator Pomerene. Have you the notice that you received from the clerk ? 996 ARTHUR NELSON WILCOX. Mr. Wilcox. Oh, no. Senator Pomerene. What do you call it — a commission ? Mr. Wilcox. It is just a notice that you have been appointed and have been accepted by the mayor and the council. They vote on that and approve of it. Senator Pomerene. That is all. Mr. Littlefield. Did you spend any of the money that was placed in your hands on that day, or any part of this sum placed in your hands, for the purpose, either directly or indirectly, of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors in that precinct on primary day in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wilcox. No, sir. Mr. Littlefield. Was any of that money used, so far as you know, by the men to whom you paid it, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors on that pri- mary election day in the interest of Senator Stephenson ? Mr. Wilcox. Certainly not. The Chairman. You will be called again after you have ascer- tained these facts. Mr. Littlefield. I suppose he may bring that record in, and when the committee see the record you may not want to examine him at all. The Chairman. Examine the record, so that you will be prepared to make a responsible statement here under oath as to the facts. Mr. Wilcox. On Monday? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Wilcox. Very well. The Chairman. The committee has just been advised of the death to-day of Mr. Justice Harlan, of the Supreme Court of the United States. As a mark of respect to the distinguished life and services of the late justice, the committee will stand adjourned until Monday morning at 10 o’clock. (Whereupon, at 4 o’clock and 10 minutes p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, October 16, 1911, at 10 o’clock a. m.) DIGEST-INDEX. LIST OF WITNESSES, [Including affidavits filed.] Page. Alexander, Walter, lumber manufacturer, Wausau, Wis., testimony of 1286 Ames, Allen Russel, Madison, Wis., testimony of 1181 Atwood, Davis, one of the editors of the Janesville Gazette, Janesville, Wis., Bancroft, Levi H., elected attorney general in 1910, Richland Center, Wis., Barber, Whitman A., farmer, Sheboygan County, Wis., affidavit of 1996 Bell, Merton J., lumber business, Minneapolis, Minn., testimony of 1864 Beyer, George, president of the Oconto National Bank, Oconto, Wis., testi- Bissonette, Edwin S., contractor, Milwaukee, Wis., affidavit of 1996 Black, W. E., member of the law firm of Cary, Upham & Black, Milwaukee, Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of - 592 Bowman, H. A., deputy game warden in 1908, Genesee, Wis., testimony of. . . 984 Boyle, Louis C., station agent of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Co., Brady, Charles E., lawyer, Manitowoc, Wis., testimony of . 1278 Bratz, William C., insurance agent and mayor of We3t Bend, Wis., affidavit of. 2127 Brown, Harry J., son-in-law of Senator Stephenson and cashier of Stephenson National Bank of Marinette, Wis., testimony of 438 Calkins, L. A., practicing lawyer, Green Bay, Wis., affidavit of.... 1998 Clark, Robert B., traveling salesman, Fort Atkinson, Wis., affidavit of 1999 Clary, T. L., railroad conductor, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1883 Cook, Wirt EL, lumber and timber business, Duluth, Minn., testimony of 1353 Cowie, Robert S., Whitehall, Wis., testimony of 1097 Cox, Lemuel B., farmer, Onalaska, Wis., affidavit of 2000 Curran, John D., hotel keeper, Stevens Point, Wis., affidavit of 2000 Dart, George W., Montello, Wis., testimony of 974 Davies, D. EL, State treasury agent, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of..... 1403 Dee, George E., editor and proprietor of the Chippewa Herald, Chippewa Falls, Wis. , testimony of 1218 Dolan, P. F., real estate business, Shawano, Wis., testimony of... 918 Domachowski, Joseph A., member of Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, testi- mony of 1546 Dormady, Patrick, sheriff of Ashland County, Ashland, Wis., affidavit of 2001 Dresser, Lester S., Minneapolis, Minn., formerly of St. Croix Falls, Polk County, Wis., testimony of 997 Eastman, O. A., Platteville, Wis., affidavit of 2029 Edmonds, E. A., print and wrapping paper manufacturer, Appleton, Wis., Eppling, F. J., insurance business, Sheboygan, Wis., testimony of 903 Essmann, William L., superintendent of public property, testimony of. . 696, 740, 806 Everett, J. W., newspaper business, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1585 Farr, F. R., attorney at law, Eau Claire, Wis., affidavit of 2002 Farrell, John T., directory publisher, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1441 Fenelon, James, former member of the assembly, Ripon, Fond du Lac County, Wis., affidavit of 2091 Fenelon, William, affidavit of 1929 Flint, R. J., United States marshal for the western district of Wisconsin, Meno- monie, Wis., affidavit of 2030 I XI DIGEST INDEX. Page. Frank, J. Henry, practicing physician and surgeon, Neillsville, Wis., affidavit of 2003 French, Charles S., attorney, Lake Geneva, Wis., testimony of 871 Gehbe, Frank, dentist, Manitowoc, Wis., affidavit of 2125 Gordon, George H., United States attorney for western district of Wisconsin, La Crosse, Wis., testimony of 741 Haley, Daniel, lumber business, Duluth, Minn., testimony of 1554 Hambright, Charles M. 2 Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1063 Hamilton, Archibald, inspector at the primary election of 1908, Milwaukee, Wis. , testimony of — . 1923 Hanson, Joseph T., pension attorney and circuit court commissioner, Mauston, Wis., affidavit of 2004 Harper, James H., fire insurance business, Duluth, Minn., affidavit of 2126 Haslam, William C., Chicago, 111., deputy game warden at Appleton, Wis., during 1908, testimony of . 963 Heyer, A. O., publisher, Sheboygan, Wis., testimony of 890 Hines, Edward, lumber business, Evanston, 111., testimony of 1567,2084 Homibrook, Henry C., superintendent of N. Ludington Co., Marinette, Wis., testimony of 1857 Hoyt, M. A., editor of the Milwaukee Daily News, Milwaukee, Wis., testi- mony of 1590 Hulbert, A. I., deputy game warden, Barron County, Wis., testimony of 953 Husting, Paul O., member of Wisconsin Senate, testimony of 1903, 1933 Hyzer, E. M., attorney of record before joint investigating committee of Legis- lature of Wisconsin, testimony of 1018 James, David, State senator of Wisconsin in 1909, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of 1755 James, Norman L., lumbering and agriculture business, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of 884 Johnson, Neils, deputy game warden during summer of 1908, testimony of 909 Kates, C. W., superintendent of Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad, Wells, Mich., testimony of 1861 Keller, Ulysses C., Baraboo, Wis., testimony of 1058 Kelly, John T., member of the bar, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 2036 Kelpinski, Leo. S., inspector of election in 1908, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of. 1899 Keyes, Jerry F., railway conductor, Madison, Wis., affidavit of 2005 Kingsley, G. L., manager of a branch of the John Glenn Brewing Co., Albert Lea, Minn., testimony of 571 Knell, William R., manager of Stephenson primary campaign in Milwaukee County in 1908, testimony of 1757, 1962 Kolb, Gustave C., Hillsboro, Wis., testimony of 970 Lambeck, Arthur H., connected with Stephenson headquarters in 1908, testi- mony of 1822,1876 Leuch, Peter F., member of the Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1417 Lewis, Hugh, messenger in House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.; resides Madison, Wis., testimony of 912 Littlefield, E. C., counsel for Senator Stephenson, statement of 6 Lyons, E. H., member of Illinois State Senate, Fond du Lac, Wis., testimony of. 1387 MacLean, R. E., lumberman, Wells, Mich., testimony of 1848 McGill, Leroy E., lawyer, Ladysmith, Wis., testimony of 1274 McGillivray, James J., mayor of Black River Falls, Wis., testimony of 1249 McMahon, Edward M., general agent for the Northwestern Mutual Life Insur- ance Co., Madison, Wis., testimony of 1023, 1795 Marsh, Spencer M., chairman of both State senate investigating committee and joint investigating committee at time of investigation of election of Senator Stephenson, testimony of 1101 Meloy, F. C., dentist, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1884 Meyer, Richard, jr. , banker, Lancaster, Wis., affidavit of 2005 Miner, Grant L., Richland Center, Wis., testimony of . 1283 Morgan, Earl J., son-in-law of Senator Stephenson, Oshkosh, Wis., testimony of. 1734 Morgan, H. H., assistant United States attorney for the western district of Wis- consin, Madison, Wis., testimony of 925 Morley, Calvin E., ex-assistant sergeant at arms, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., resides Viroqua, Wis., affidavit of 2006 Morris, Thomas, lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, testimony of 1129 Morse, Roy L., attorney, Fond du Lac, Wis., testimony of 1204,1215 DIGEST INDEX. Ill Page. Murphy, Lawrence, broker, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1965 O’Connor, D. J., practicing physician, Appleton, Wis., testimony of 817 Orton, Robert E., banking business, Darlington, Wis., affidavit of 2008 Overbeck, Henry, real-estate business, Sturgeon Bay, Wis., testimony of... 830,2091 Patrick, L. S., testimony of 1294 Pearson, C. L., State senator of Wisconsin in 1909, farmer, testimony of 1582 Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of 652, 698 Pestalozzi, H. R., jeweler, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1887 Peterson, H. L., Sturgeon Bay, Wis., testimony of 1292 Peterson, Lewis W., hardware dealer, Dorchester, Wis., affidavit of 2009, 2023 Pflughoeft, Werner, farmer, Medford, Wis., affidavit of 2010 Piper, Herbert J., practicing attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., affidavit of 2010 Pollock, Edward, editor and proprietor of the Teller, Lancaster, Wis., testimony of 1070 Powell, W. W., newspaper man, Kalamazoo, Mich., testimony of 1583 Puelicher, J. H., cashier of Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, Wis., testi- mony of 128 Purtell, Thomas M., State fire marshal, Madison, Wis., testimony of 1201 Ramsey, Thomas F., deceased, testimony of, given before joint investigating committee of the Legislature of Wisconsin 2113 Reed, Roy E., attorney, Ripon, Wis., testimony of 1926 Reese, John M., president of the Dodgeville Chronicle, weekly newspaper, and president of the First National Bank of Dodgeville, Dodgeville, Wis., affidavit of 2011 Regan, M. J., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1674, 1695 Remold, Fred W., insurance agent, Kenosha, Wis., affidavit of 2012 Reynolds, Thomas, member of Wisconsin Assembly from Door County, 1908 and 1909, testimony of 1235, 1258 Reynolds, Thomas F., banker, Oconto Falls., Wis., affidavit of 2013 Ring, Merritt C., Neillsville, Wis., testimony of 1258 Riordan, D. E., Eagle River, Wis., testimony of 774 Rogers, Edward J., express agent of American Express Co., Dodgeville, Wis., affidavit of 2014 Rosenheim, Adolph, saloon keeper, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1885 Rowe, Ralph H., produce dealer, Waupaca, Wis., affidavit of 2017 Russell, C. H., Berlin, Wis., testimony of 1192 Russell, Charles C., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1833, 1863 Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of 152, 374, 440, 1804, 2063 Salmon, C. B., president and treasurer of Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Co., Beloit, Wis., affidavit of 2015 Sanderson, Thomas H., attorney at law, assistant sergeant at arms of senate of Wisconsin in 1909, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1639 Sattler, D. W., president of the Western Casket Co. and the Western Casket and Undertaking Co., Chicago, 111., testimony of 2089 Sells, Max, district attorney for Florence County, Wis., in 1908, testimony of.. 1021 Shields, R. J., treasurer of the Harper-Shields Agency, insurance, real estate, etc., Superior, Wis., testimony of 1390, 1712, 1872 Smith, Addison T., statement of 1215 Smith, Herbert H., real estate and insurance business, Hartford, Wis., affidavit of 2015 Sommer, W. J., shoe business, Superior, Wis., testimony of 1710 Souther, Frank T., inspector on street work, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of . . . 1653 Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of 23, 909, 2103 Stevens, L. H., banker, Lancaster, Wis., testimony of 1295 Stone, John W., Minneapolis, Minn., testimony of 1313 Stover, James H., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1593 Stringham, Miss Mary F., secretary to Senator Stephenson, Marinette, Wis., testimony of 1812 Sturtevant, John L., Wausau, Wis., affidavit of 2016 Thayer, L. W., owner of real estate, Ripon, Wis., testimony of 934, 1752 Tilton, Lester, Chicago, testimony of 1090 Towne, Silas R., member of legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Lavalle, Wis., testimony of 1407, 1470, 1734 Turrish, Henry, lumber business, Duluth, Minn., affidavit of 2031 Tuttle, Emery W., mason and bricklayer, Oconomowoc, Wis., affidavit of 2016 \v DIGEST INDEX. Page. Upham, H. H. J., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1972 Van Cleve, John A., in real estate and banking business, Marinette, Wis., tes- timony of 136, 568 Van Houten, J. W. B., testimony of 1212 Walsh, James F., land and timber, Duluth, Minn., testimony of 1561 Watrous, Paul J., secretary of the industrial commission at Madison, also in newspaper business, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1595 Wayland, Chellis C., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 725, 1492 Wellensgard, Christian C., runs a pickle factory and interested in farms, Berlin, Wis., testimony of 835 Wells, Jabez H., hotel keeper, Portage County, Wis., affidavit of 2018 Wheeler, William G., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 893 White, Richard J., traveling salesman, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1324, 1339 Wilcox, Arthur Nelson, gas fitter, election inspector in 1908, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 993, 1894 Winsor, William F., president of State Bank of Mauston, Mauston, Wis., affi- davit of 2019 Wood, Harry W., private detective, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1602, 1877 Wyseman, Arthur J., practicing lawyer, Manitowoc, Wis., affidavit of 2019 Zimmerman, Fred R., member of legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, testimony of 1504,1516 INDEX A. Page. Advertising, newspaper, or purchase of editorial influence, as to statute on the subject of 356, 357 Affidavits, filing of; order made by the committee 1514, 1515, 1516, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693, 1694, 1932, 1933, 1963, 1994, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2029, 2083, 2084, 2091, 2125 Alexander, Walter, lumber manufacturer, Wausau, Wis., testimony of 1286 Age, 62 1290 Campaign managers, did not furnish them a statement; had no connection with them 1290 Counties covered by me, Marathon and Lincoln, number of precincts in.. 1291 Memorandum book I have with me contains items that are made up in accounts produced; was kept by cashier in my office 1291 Money, none spent by me or as far as I know by men to whom I intrusted it for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors 1291 Republican national convention in 1908, was only Taft delegate to, from Wisconsin *. . . . 1 292 Statement of cash items drawn and expended by me 1287, 1289, 1290 Statement of expenses of Stephenson primary election campaign in Lin- coln and Marathon counties; items explained 1287, 1288, 1289 Stephenson, did not render him an itemized statement of expenditures; just gave him the total amount 1290 Stephenson, have been acquainted with him over 25 years 1290 Stephenson, I spent my own money during primary and later he gave me a check for $588.30 to reimburse me 1286, 1287 Stephenson primary campaign, participated in 1286 Ames, Allen Russel, Madison, Wis., testimony of 1181 Account, did not render one of my expenditures; was not asked to 1190 Account of expenditures, itemized, aggregating between $300 and $400 given 1184,1185,1186 Campaign, day I had agreement with Edmonds, I took a bundle of nomin- ation papers, a quantity of campaign buttons, literature, lithographs, and everything used incidental to a campaign and got home and went to my desk and wrote letters and telephoned and got everybody busy that I could with respect to nomination papers; distributed and got lithographs posted; circulated buttons and got advertisements into city and village papers; talked Stephenson’s cause everywhere 1189, 1190 Campaign of 1908, I was not a candidate; did not take part in candidacy of anyone for legislature 1189 County superintendent of schools for four years 1189 Dane County, had charge of campaign for Stephenson there in 1908; size of; have taken an active part in every campaign there for 40 years 1181, 1182, 1189 Edmonds, I told him I must keep within the law; that I would do nothing but straightforward work; that I could not go in saloons; he said, “We just want you to do a straightforward campaign for the Senator out in Dane County ” 1190 Edmonds, made contract with him; he was to pay me $500 for my services and I was to pay all my own expenses, railroad fare, livery and automo- bile hire, and hotel out of that; conversation when hired 1183, 1188, 1189 Hilsenhoff, Hans, Madison, received a check of $50, August 14, to indorse over to him; that is the check that represented the difference between the amount 1 accounted for and the amount I received 1182, 1187, 1188 v VI DIGEST INDEX. Ames, Allen Russel, Madison, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Madison, rebident of, for 22 years 1181 Money, received about $900 altogether in primary campaign from Edmonds and Sacket; unable to say how much from either one; amount and date of different payments to me; how disbursed; disbursements largely by Morgan, H. H., assistant district attorney, on August 11 was going up in northwestern part of county, 30 miles from capital; I handed him $50 to pay some workers up there 1185 Nomination papers, began circulating them when I received $200, July 15. . 1182 Receipts, comprised in Exhibit Ames 1, tabulated 1186, 1187 Receipts, Edmonds said to take them, and I went to the trouble to make out receipts and mail them as I mailed the money or the check, and asked people to sign and return them; I do not think one-third of them did. 1186, 1190 Stephenson, supported him following the announcement of his candidacy. . 1188 Sum of $200 received July 15 was part of my compensation 1183 Workers, $350 received August 8 was to pay them; basis of arrangement with Edmonds was to pay $5 a precinct; could not get men in Madison to work at polls for $5; had to pay some of them $10; it averaged, I think, $8 over the county; men not only worked at polls, but circulated nomination papers, gathered names, and posted lithographs; some men not paid until Atwood, Davis, one of the editors of the Janesville Gazette, Janesville, Wis., work, and travel in and throughout the county of Janesville; several trips made by automobile 1995 Age, 37 years 1995 Band of music, engaged at time of visit of Stephenson to Janesville; ex- penses of, $20 1995 Campaigns, experience in previous; states campaign carried on for Stephen- son in Rock County one of the cleanest ever conducted there 1995 Cards and campaign literature, distributed at the polls on primary day; men employed 1995 Conveyances engaged for use at the polls in and about Janesville 1995 Expenses, legitimate, in connection with work done in primary campaign, assured by headquarters at Milwaukee would be paid; received $150; no part of for services 1995 Janesville, Rock County, Wis., residence for past 10 years 1995 Janesville Gazette, supporter of Stephenson prior to work done for in the primary campaign 1995 Madison investigation, not called as witness at 1995 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 1995 Poll workers, none employed unless at the time of employment they were supporters of Stephenson; distributed between $40 and $50 for work done by precinct workers; names of some given 1995 Primary campaign, in the early part of August, 1908, requested to do what work in, he could; activity covered period of 30 days 1995 Saloon campaign, special instructions given by headquarters at Milwaukee that in no event should it be conducted; instructions complied with, so far as he knows 1995 Statement of expenses, never called upon to furnish itemized.. 1995 Stephenson, supporter of, prior to doing any work for in the primary cam- paign 1995 Stephenson, vote of, in Rock County; had a majority over all other candi- dates 1995 Telephone service, large expense for 1995 DIGEST INDEX. VII B. Page. Bancroft, Levi H., elected attorney general in 1910, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of . 701 Account of expenditures made in behalf of Stephenson, I did not keep one; did not render one to Puelicher, Edmonds, or Stephenson 708, 719 Candidate at direct primaries in 1908 for nomination for assembly from Richland County; presume I had announced candidacy during month of June, 1908, or prior thereto, but I can not tell you exactly as to that time 701,702 Custom, long prevalent, for candidates to be represented by teams and transportation in effort to get voters to polls 723 Democrats absent when Stephenson was elected by legislature; I never had any talk with anyone who pretended to have talked to any of the three on the subject; I think I referred to the matter in a joking way with Ramsey or Towne two or three months afterwards and they were some- what indignant, and it was turned off into a joke 719 Edmonds, I did not see him when I came to Milwaukee in response to request; I was telephoned two or three times, and I finally stated I would come on Saturday; I came to Milwaukee and went to Stephenson head- quarters expecting to meet him and was informed by somebody that he had been called to Appleton, and that I was requested to go see Puelicher at Marshall & Ilsley Bank, and I did so 704 Francesco, George, traveling salesman or expert in farm machinery; paid him from $40 to $50 in cash; I paid him on several different occasions; his business was traveling around putting out literature and seeing peo- ple, and I paid the livery bills and paid him for his services; he put out several buggy loads of Stephenson lithographs and placards 710, 711 Joint session, I was present when Stephenson was elected; did not know that three Democrats were absent at the time; heard somebody talk about it afterwards; did not attract my attention at time as that was a frequent occurrence; I do not know of any circumstance that would enable committee to find out why they were absent 718 Legislature, I have been there two terms; once immediately preceding this term; when elected, I have no recollection of sending any telegram announcing my election 712, 713 Literature, I received several thousand lithographs and placards; buggy load after buggy load went out, and they were instructed to nail them up in every available place; on all railroads, crossroads, cheese factories, creameries, etc., in the county; every dollar except that given Mehaffey went for livery bills and expenses for these men who went out, and their per diem for posting up that literature 710, 722, 723 Liverymen to whom I paid bills for men I sent out named Daniel Berger, Philip Smith, and Wade Hampton; I can not recollect the amount, but I presume their books would show it; it would account for the balance of the $250 or more 722 McMahon, my statement before joint committee that he was an entire stranger and called at my office in Richland Center saying he had been requested to call on me with regard to campaign and amount of money necessary is correct; think he called on me a week or 10 days before July 31; my statement that he returned to Milwaukee the same day and soon after I was telephoned to by Edmonds and requested to come to Mil- waukee is correct; told him there were other candidates, and I was a can- didate myself and I could not antagonize their forces 703, 704, 721 Maxwell, Thomas. Richland Center, employed in office of Republican Observer; I paid him on several different occasions because he was sent in various directions; sent him to a home-coming in village of Cazenovia; paid him at least $40, and think there were some other sums paid him; sent out to nail up pictures; recommended by G. L. Minor; paid him some time in August after my nomination papers were filed 710, 711, 712 Mehaffy, George, Richland Center, I paid him $100; I did not ask him to render an account; I never knew what he did with the money; he was a personal friend of mine and knew a great deal more about how to do F olitical work than I did; knew how to approach people and so on, so that just, gave it to him with the general statement that I wanted him to do what he could for Stephenson; he was not the kind of a man who would accept a dollar for his service; was wealthy and of high character 709, 710, 717, 718, 723 VIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Bancroft, Levi H., elected attorney general in 1910, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Memorandum, I did not make any of expenditures at the time 708 Men employed, sent for them to come to me ; some of them came to my office; there were not to exceed from 6 to 10 that 1 made arrangements with; I do not know whether these men supported my nominations; I did not examine my nomination papers to see if their names were on them; I did not tell them Stephenson was furnishing the money; I was acquainted with all of them 709, 711, 712, 713 Minor, G. L., recommended Tom Maxwell to me; presume he knew I was a candidate for the legislature 711, 712 Money : For Stephenson campaign all laid in a separate compartment in my safe, and that specific money was paid out in paying these bills; was all dis- bursed in month of August; all paid out in my office, in city of Rich- land Center, to best of my recollection; did not carry any of amount on my person, except to carry it to Richland Center 708, 709, 716 How disbursed, my testimony before joint legislative committee correct as follows: Most of it paid in larger amounts to people who were in- structed to see certain men in the towns or find men who would do the work, who would agree to look after Stephenson’s interests, and assist in getting voters to polls, and I personally know of one or two instances where men were got who were opposed to me, but were Stephenson men; I personally disbursed some of it in the same way; every dollar of $250 disbursed by me and more in bills I had to pay afterwards 707 My testimony concerning its use before joint legislative committee, cor- rect as follows: I can conscientiously say I was very scrupulous in the use of that money; I did not deposit a dollar of it to my personal account in either bank; my personal campaign expenses were paid by check, and this committee are privileged to have my checks and bank books of both banks during that period 722 None of Stephenson campaign fund in my hands used for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters 723 Paid out of my own pocket in addition to $250; most that I disbursed was per diem and livery hire in posting Stephenson literature, and in connection with it I said: “Now, get all the boys you can out to the polls on primary day”; some of them came around to me after the primary and felt that I ought to pay them for their services, and there was one or two livery bills after the $250 was gone; I asked no ques- tions, but paid the bills 708 Spent in excess of that received from Stephenson, I do not think I spent to exceed $25; where it appears in my testimony before joint legisla- tive committee that I spent $100 in excess, I was mistaken; I spent more than $100, but I did not spend it in the primary 708 Names of men to whom I paid money not given to joint legislative commit- tee, for a personal reason which was that I did not propose to answer any of Senator Husting’s or Senator Marsh’s questions unless I took a notion to; the men never did object to my giving their names; only reason I refused to answer was the question of feeling between the members of the com- mittee and me 715, 716 Nomination papers, I did not circulate them in my own behalf; I did not canvass my constituency for nomination prior to filing of papers; I can not give date I signed them, very likely the same day they were filed; circu- lated by friends in various townships of county; I could not give you the name of any one person now, but I could furnish you the papers with their names attached 701, 702 Offices held, prior to 1910, district attorney, county judge, and member of assembly from Richland County, 1908-9 701 Primaries, I carried the county by between three and four hundred; A. L. Hatch was other candidate for Republican nomination 714 Privileged witness, I do not recall saying that I was one; but undoubtedly I did, because it appears in my testimony before joint legislative com- mittee; but I had nothing in mind, because I not only was not priv- ileged, but I went there and requested the privilege of testifying 719 DIGEST INDEX. IX Page. Bancroft, Levi H., elected attorney general in 1910, Richland Center, Wis., tes- timony of — Continued. Puelicher, conversation with him as given in my testimony before joint legislative committee, as follows, substantially correct: I said my method would be to put a little money in each town and get some active indi- vidual; I explained to him ours was a dairy county, that Cook was friendly with dairy people, and that there was every indication he would carry it; said to him my idea would be to get a man in each precinct to be at factories to talk for Stephenson, find out who his friends were, and have an agreement with them to take voters to polls 704, 705 Puelicher, conversation with, in report of my testimony before joint legis- lative committee, as follows, is correct: My experience was that men did not want to do work without compensation; he estimated then that $250 would cover my proposition of putting $10 in a precinct, and asked me to take charge of it; I expressed reluctance, because when I manage anything I like to take an active, open interest, and in this case I could not; he expressly stated he wanted it understood that not one dollar of this was for my personal campaign 706 Puelicher, I do not think I made the statement to him, as in report of my testimony before joint legislative committee, that at least $10 should be spent in each precinct; I told him that I thought $10 would be all suffi- cient for each precinct; I do not say that I did not make that statement when I testified, but that I do not think I made it to Puelicher; that was a sort of slip of the tongue there 705, 706 Puelicher, John H., cashier of Marshall & Ilsley Bank; I received $250 from him; he stated it was on behalf of Stephenson; I think I received it July 31; I was asked by telephone to come here, and I came down and went over to the bank in response to the message; I went to Stephen- son’s headquarters in Milwaukee and was sent over to see him; we went out to lunch together for perhaps two hours and talked over campaign generally 703, 704, 707 Report as to what was done with the money and to whom it was paid, I never made one to Puelicher or anyone else in charge of Stephenson campaign, because I was never asked to 716 Statute, requiring filing of itemized statement of expense account, I knew it required Stephenson to give the date, the person to whom, and the purpose for what all sums above $5 were expended; I understood this statute required not an account of what I did with his money, but what he did with it; there has been no adjudication on the subject in this State; my personal opinion is that it has not been evaded by me, and that there is nothing in the law that says his agents shall file an account; it says that he shall do it 720, 721 Stephenson, Senator: As a member of legislature I voted for him on every ballot, both in 1907 and 1909 717 Been his friend for 10 or 15 years; I had supported him before in 1907; I think I was responsible for his election and supported him after- wards 721 Did not meet him any time prior to August 1, 1908, and discuss with him his nomination; I did not receive any money from him prior to September 1, 1908, to be used by me in forwarding his nomination.. 702 How elected by legislature; there were very few ballots taken when there were not some absentees; there were a number of ballots taken when if all of Stephenson’s friends — that is, who were voting for him consistently — were present he would have been elected; finally there came a day when there were some absentees and there were enough Stephenson men present so that he had a majority and was elected; afterwards there was talk that certain three Democrats were absent; that is all rumor 718 Present January 26 when he received a majority of the votes of the assembly for office of United States Senator; journal shows that on same day he received a majority of votes in the State Senate; result would have been same on joint ballot if parties who instigated this investigation had not gone to certain members and induced them to vote against him on first day of joint ballot 724 X DIGEST INDEX. Pag©. Bancroft, Levi H., elected attorney general in 1910, Richland Center, Wis., tes- timony of — Continued Stephenson money, not a cent used in my own campaign; I took it very reluctantly, simply because I was a supporter of Stephenson and a friend and did not like to refuse 723 Speaker of the house, I was elected as a member of the legislature after the usual contest; there were some half dozen candidates up to night of the Republican caucus, and at that time I think they all withdrew with exception of George Scott; I was elected in the caucus as the Republican candidate to be voted for in open session and I was elected; continued to be speaker throughout the proceedings as a result of which Stephen- son was elected to United States Senate 716, 717 Sum of $250 sufficient, why I thought so as explained in testimony before joint legislative committee; my experience has been that you can get a man to do conscientious work for a moderate compensation and that the payment of any more than that will give you poorer work than if you give him what his services are worth 714 Testimony before joint legislative committee that I was approached by managers of other candidates is true 714 Vote at primary, with all of the money that was spent by the four candi- dates for United States Senator and the various candidates for State, legislative, and county offices, we have never had out 50 per cent of the vote and seldom 40 per cent 723 Wood, L. C., placarded the city of Richland Center and villages of Lone Rock, Gotham, and Twin Bluffs; I probablv paid him $10 or $15, maybe $20 * 712,713 Barber, Whitman A., farmer, Sheboygan County, Wis., affidavit of 1996 Age, 57 years 1996 Campaign committee, received from, in all $300; expenditure of $171.50 actually expended, detailed; balance, $128.50, retained to cover per- sonal expenses and to compensate him for his services 1996 Men employed to assist in the campaign at the polling places, and other- wise, were Stephenson supporters at the time of their employment 1996 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 1996 Primary campaign, at all times a supporter of Stephenson in; devoted about three weeks’ time traveling about Sheboygan County posting, or causing to be posted, literature, lithographs, and campaign material, interviewing many friends, and advocating election of Stephenson by interviews, persuasion, and argument 1996 Sheboygan, county of, resided in during all his life 1996 Bell, Merton J., lumber business, Minneapolis, Minn., testimony of 1864 Absence of members, Shields said it was an easy matter to keep certain members out while the vote was being taken; said “Lots of fellows had their hand out,” or something of that kind 1865,1866 Brule, moved from, to Minneapolis about two years ago 1866, 1867 Crownhart, Charles, talked with him and wrote him a letter about my con- versation with Shields; do not remember time of conversation with, but it was on a train between Minneapolis and St. Paul 1869, 1870, 1871 Paulson, L. C., my partner, first mentioned my conversation with Shields to him 1868,1869 Shields, do not know whether any one heard my conversation with, in West Baden 1868 Shields never stated he was an enemy of mine; we have been friendly; have been on opposite sides in politics; had political controversy with, m primary election of 1906 1870, 1871, 1872 Shields, Robert J., have known 12 or 15 years; saw him in West Baden, Ind., in February or March, 1910; talked with him there on the subject of the election of Senator Stephenson 1864, 1865 Shields told me he was in Madison to help to elect Mr. Stephenson; that he got a special train to bring some member of the legislature to Madison; said it was an easy matter to keep certain members out while the vote was being taken; said he “helped get Uncle Ike get elected”- : fixed it up,” “pulled it off,” or “got it through”; said “Lots of fellows had their hand out, ” or something like that 1865, 1866 West Baden, Ind., had conversation with Shields there relative to the election of Senator Stephenson ; went there for treatment. . 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868 Wilkinson, arrived in West Baden a few days after I did 1867, 1868 DIGEST INDEX. XI Page. Beyer, George, president of the Oconto National Bank, Oconto, Wis., testi- mony of 880, 909 Account, did not render one to anybody; was not asked to; have always been prepared to furnish one 882 Borich, paid him $5 881 Classon, Chris, paid him $5 881 Cook, W. P., got $300 from me; he arranged with Edmonds, but Edmonds sent money to me; he got a rig and made a canvass throughout counties, but how he used money I can not say 881, 882, 883, 909 Hanson, paid him $10 August 29; suppose he used it to get people to polls to vote 880, 881 Harris, paid him $5 to get people to polls 881 Jones, paid him $20 to get people to polls; I think he had a couple of teams; came back and wanted $12.40 more, and I paid him, and he had a livery bill that came to $1.50, and I paid that 881 Money not paid out for purpose of bribing or corrupting electors 883 Money received from Edmonds in all $400; paid out $405.90 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 909 O’Kelleher, paid him $20 to get people to polls 881 Richard, A., paid him $10 to get people to polls 881 Schulze, C., paid him $5 for his day’s work; he got all the friends he had to the polls to vote for Stephenson 881 Shallor, got $5 881 Statements based on memoranda made upon an envelope in which one of checks came to me, bearing postmark of August 29, 1908 ; memoranda made at time of disbursements 883 Stephenson, I supported him in primary campaign of 1908 880 Teneson, Louis, paid him $5; he came back and said he had a friend that he wanted to help him, and I gave him $2 to pay for his day’s work 881 Bissonette, Edwin S., contractor, Milwaukee, Wis., affidavit of 1996 Age, 37 years 1996 Bowman, Harry, of Genesee, received $300 from, for personal expenses and services; understood was furnished by Stephenson campaign head- quarters, distributed by him; claims $150 for compensation for services; balance expended in paying personal expenses, for travel, hotel bills, entertainment, cigars, telephone, and correspondence 1997 Campaign work done in the city of Milwaukee, Cudahy, South Milwaukee, Watertown, and Oconomowoc during primary contest for Senator; wide acquaintance in places mentioned; met great many people and friends and advocated Stephenson’s election 1996, 1997 Milwaukee, resided in for past 8 years 1996 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person ' 1997 Statement of expenditures, never called upon to furnish itemized; never occurred to him to keep an accurate account 1997 Stephenson, supporter of, prior to engagement. 1997 Black, W. E., letters turned over to the committee by 2098, 2099, 2100 Black, W. E., member of law firm of Cary, Upham &‘ Black, Milwaukee, Wis., and counsel for Senator Stephenson, statement of 1254, 1788 Box ; gave instructions to have it taken back to Wells from Marinette after joint committee had finished, when McMahon was again called to stand and testified in relation to it before Senate committee on May 6 (1909) . 1791, 1793 Box had been opened at Marinette 1791 Box, I was not asked for any information on subject by Wisconsin senate committee. 1793 Box, instructions that nothing in should be destroyed or tampered with. 1255, 1791 Box of papers, first knew of 2d or 3d of March, 1909; at that time it was at Marinette 1255,1789,1792 Box or contents, not called for by legislative committee 1255 Box remained at Wells, Mich., until shortly after April 2, 1909, when McMahon testified in regard to it having Ibeen prepared for shipment to Marinette; thereupon I ordered the stuff brought back to Marinette, so that I would be in a position, if called upon, to produce it 1791, 1793 Edmonds, have not talked with him with respect to whereabouts of papers; so far as I know had no knowledge of existance of papers when he was on stand 1256,1257 XII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Black, W. E., member of law firm of Cary, Upham & Black, Milwaukee, Wis., and counsel for Senator Stephenson, statement of — Continued. Files, my information and belief is that no papers have been taken from, since they left the Stephenson headquarters here in Milwaukee 1794 Lambeck, only know he shipped box to Marinette through McMahon’s testimony; presume it was sent to Stephenson 1256 MacLean, R. E., manager of I. Stephenson Co., at Wells, had Russell meet him at Menominee, 4th of March, 1909, and convey my instruc- tion to him; I am informed he went over (to Marinette) and got the cor- respondence and took it to Wells; he took it from the files that had been taken out of the box and were in Miss Stringham’s office at Mari- nette 1255, 1256, 1790, 1792 McMahon, knew that he testified correspondence had been gone over and selected from before shipped; understood it was separation of Edmonds’s personal matters 1794,1795 Papers, object in sending them to Michigan, not because I feared there would be anything damaging to Stephenson’s case, but that a lot of cor- respondence from all over State, written by various people (although I did not know exactly what it was), might contain things that would cause trouble; did not think this correspondence should be produced before Senate committee, to be made use of in harassing these various people 1256, 1792, 1793, 1794 Russell, C. C., sent him to Wells, Mich., second day after present investi- gation with instructions to get all of that stuff and get it down here. . 1255, 1789 Russell, went to Wells 9th of March (1909); made an examination of cor- respondence, which was then at Wells, having been taken up there on the 4th or 5th (by McLean) . . . . 1792, 1794 Russell, when I discovered from cursory examination that correspondence was mixed up, I gave him instructions to get the stenographers and have it arranged alphabetically and put back in files in order, which he did; instructed him to remove nothing 1790 Sacket, knew within a day or two that papers were over at my office, but not before he was on the stand; so far as 1 know, had no knowledge of existence of papers when he was on stand 1256, 1257, 1794 Stephenson, first connection with in relation to campaign, was after it had closed and a day or two before investigation began at Madison; had no connection with his headquarters in campa ; gn; members of my firm have been attorneys for, for years 1788, 1789 Stephenson, was in Washington at time I had box sent from Marinette to Wells, Mich., and I did not confer with him at all 1255 Stringham, Miss, Stephenson’s secretary, told me about papers in box at Marinette - - 1789, 1792 Trunk contains correspondence, poll lists, and mailing cards, in fact, all that was contained m box to which McMahon testified 1254, 1255 Trunk, when it came to our office, was first time I saw it; reached our office October 10 (1911) by express directly from Wells; it was locked and the key was given to me; unlocked it in presence of Russell; did not make anything more than cursory examination of papers at time; remained in our office until produced here 1255, 1256, 1789, 1790, 1792 Wisconsin senate committee, represented Stephenson in a legal capacity before 1794 Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testi- mony of 592 Alyward, John A., told me about things charged in eleventh specific charge; lives at Madison; got information for statement in that charge in his office the night he telephoned Tilton and then, also, subsequently when he showed me the letter in answer to that telephone message; I was hunting for information on which to make these charges and I went to him to inquire about a suggestion he had made in some speech, and this letter and telephone were result of call; that is only information I have that an offer of $500 was made to Tilton 627, 628 Austin, H. E., is Democrat, residing in township of Hickory Grove; is a cheese dealer; he told me that Stevens had seen him and wanted to get his support for Stephenson; Stevens did not tell him Stephenson offered him money or anything of value 621, 622 Bribery statute, doubt if it should be qualified by use of words “corrupt payment”; it must be construed 640,641 DIGEST INDEX. XIII Page. Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Bribery statute, I construe it to mean that the mere payment of money to an elector by a candidate for the legislature as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to the primary election, whether paid in good faith or corruptly, should be a violation of the statute; I think it forbids employment of campaign manager or anyone appointed to conduct cam- paign having an unlimited amount of money at his command 639, 640 Bribery statute, passed in 1897 ; one providing for filing of expense account not passed until 1905 641, 642 Campbell, Henry C., made statement on which I based sixth specific charge against Stephenson in city of Milwaukee, January 24, 1909; was one of the editors of the Evening Journal; met him by an appointment made through William Powell, reporter on Journal, at Plankinton Hotel; made statements to me of things that had been brought to him as a news- paper man, not on his own information; I think he stated source of his information, but I do not remember it; is a Republican; not in favor of Stephenson . . 608, 609, 610, 611, 630 Candidate, in my opinion, might make payments to an elector of a sum not beyond what he ordinarily earns in his business or calling; the doing of actual work might be permissible; but when a sum in excess of that is paid, then it partakes of the nature of bribery 640 Charge as to $250,000 in first specific charge against Stephenson based upon information from Edmonds that he had charge of $106,000, or thereabouts, and from deductions made by me from editorials and statements in the Free Press 599 Charge that I made, that Stephenson and his agents offered money to editors other than Pollock, I can not give a single instance in which that would be true; I had no personal knowledge and no specific information on which to base the charge when I made it 624, 625 Charge that three Democrats were paid to absent themselves from last joint legislative convention, I did not make any investigation of it; I think the senatorial committee did, and am not certain but that the joint committee did; investigation was public and whatever they did is printed in record 638 Charges, I drew them up in my room in the city of Madison after my return from Milwaukee 647 Charges made by me at preceding session of legislature, not taken up at last session of legislature; we considered only the resolution of Senator Husting, together with report of senate committee; specific charges not taken into consideration in drafting my resolution that eventually went to United States Senate 633 Claim that Democratic members of legislature absented themselves at time Stephenson was elected; I recognize that that was the fact; I do not know anything about it only from what was reported around the legislature. . . 637 Conference of Republican members, taking up legislative program, held night prior to time I asked that my substitute resolution referring charges to United States Senate be returned to judiciary committee; I explained it would be best to return resolution before it interfered with any legis- lative program; was last conference in regard to charges 636, 637 Conference with regard to pressing charges against Stephenson had with Senator Husting, Senator Morris and myself, Senator Sanborn, and Senator Klezka; Senator Klezka is a member of committee that reported resolution; should add Senator Linley, a member of judiciary committee. 636 Conferences in regard to pressing charges against Stephenson have been generally with Senators Morris and Husting, because of their familiarity with proceedings; they are about the only ones who have conferred upon this subject 636 Democrat, as a matter of personal knowledge I do not know of any Demo- crat to whom Stephenson either personally or through his agents paid money 620 Democrats, absent when Stephenson was elected were: Assemblymen Towne, Farrel, and Ramsey; absent from last joint convention; it was reported that they had walked out with intention of making a sufficient number absent to give Stephenson the election; I know there was a rumor they had been paid to do it; I have no personal knowledge of it. . 637, 638 XIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Eastman, I have known him greater part of my life; I think he is a man of character and standing in his community; I could not say he has a good reputation for truth and veracity; I do not know that he denied the testimonv I gave before joint committee; I did not read his testimony. . 645, 646 Eastman, 0. A., met me in Madison and asked me not to use my influence for an investigation, because there was a meeting at Platteville, where he was present with some Cook supporters, and that they had changed to Stephenson and that he got money for changing; said he got money from the Stephenson people; did not say which one 618, 619 Editor of Appleton Crescent, did not talk with him about editorial state- ment as contained in sixth specific charge; never saw him; did not write him, as I neither had the time or money to make an extended investigation; did not telephone him; had no reason to believe that he was not a reliable man 615 Editorial, produced to sustain ninth specific charge, because Bishop is a Democrat and he wrote the article; I do not remember that it was written prior to time I filed charges 621 Edmonds, gave me information that he had charge of $106,000 or thereabouts to disburse in campaign for Stephenson, as his manager; his statement that he had charge of this fund was basis for first specific charge against Stephenson; he gave me no facts about expenditure of money; I based charge upon payment of money to him for him to disburse 598, 600 Eighth specific charge against Stephenson, that is only a general charge and intended to give the committee, if appointed, an opportunity to make a thorough, wide examination; no information directly; am not prepared to give any statement of facts within my knowledge upon which I made charge - - . 620 Election of Stephenson, I was present in the joint assembly; I do not remember for whom I voted on the last ballot 637 Eleventh specific charge, based upon public speeches made by John A. Ay 1 ward, Democratic candidate for governor, and upon a letter from Tilton to Aylward - 626 Fifteenth specific charge against Stephenson, I examined the secretary of state’s files, or had the proper clerk examine them, and found no expense account; I do not controvert that the date indorsed upon the expense items is correct 630, 631 Fifth specific charge against Stephenson, based upon statement of Henry C. Campbell, of Milwaukee 608 Filed a return as a candidate in 1898; showed that I spent just a few dollars; think it was for postage; I had no opposition in the primaries 645 First specific charge against Stephenson, I made it; based it upon infor- mation gained from E. A. Edmonds and upon speeches made by John A. Aylward, Democratic candidate for governor; considered things charged therein to be a violation of section 4542b of statute, as Stephenson paid money to an elector, Edmonds 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 601, 602 First two specific charges, do not characterize expenditure of money as having been corrupt or unlawful, except by way of reference to the sec- tion of the statute; why so drafted 638, 639 Fourteenth specific charge against Stephenson, I have no personal knowl- edge of the facts set forth in; recollect Henry C. Campbell told me the things stated therein 630 Fourth specific charge against Stephenson, I have no knowledge of the facts therein only as conveyed to me by James A. Stone in his letter in evidence; I have no personal information on which I based charge. . . 606, 608 Free Press, it was generally understood that Stephenson owned the great majority of its stock; my knowledge as to Stephenson’s ownership in, when I filed specific charge No. 1, was gained only from libel suits against Free Press, which developed who were the stockholders 599 Governor was never directed to send resolution to United States Senate; the secretary of state was directed to send certain documents to United States Senate and the resolution that I drafted specified these documents. 634 DIGEST INDEX. XV Page. Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Hambright, I did not have a statement from him upon which I based fifth specific charge; I did not know him; do not now; have learned nothing about him; have no knowledge as to money being paid by Stephenson or his agents, directly or indirectly, to him; I have no opinion of what amount “large sums of money ” designated in charge as paid him would be 612,613 Hatton, I supported him for the Senate in primary campaign; was a Repub- lican - - - 611 Husting resolution, was one providing for investigation without naming specific charges; was defeated 631 Investigation, I started machinery of it in motion absolutely on my own volition; without any more specific instances than I have disclosed; in so doing absolutely not used by any man or organization for purpose of making attack on Stephenson 635 Journal, opposed to Stephenson; I had not been cooperating with, in opposition to Stephenson; classified as nonpartisan 610, 647 Law, I have been practicing since Sept. 1, 1896, in the city of Boscobel. . . 635 Legislature that elected Stephenson early in March adjourned about June 17; no attempt made in that legislature to refer charges to United States Senate 638 Letter from Lester Tilton to John A. Alyward read from record of testimony before joint legislative committee 626, 627 Members of legislature instrumental in pressing charges against Stephenson; Senator Morris, La Crosse; Senator Marsh, Neillsville; Senator Husting, Maysville; and, I think, Speaker C. A. Ingram, Durand, of the assembly; names are of those who have been active 635, 636 Milwaukee, I had come to the city to investigate before making the formal charges in full - - 609 Morse, Roy, I have no personal knowledge of his receiving money as charged in sixth specific charge; I do not know that testimony, undisputed so far, shows that he was paid $450 out of campaign funds, and that that is all he received, and that the expenditure has been accounted for 613, 615 My object in preparing a substitute resolution when the matter was already before legislature, Stephenson had been elected by the legislature and it had gone beyond the jurisdiction of the legislature; we could not revoke his election 634,635 Ninth specific charge against Stephenson, that is a general charge, I had in min d rumors in reference to two Democrats at that time; had no personal knowledge of facts on which I based charge; got information on which charges were based from an editorial by Mr. Bishop in the Bloomington Record, a Democratic paper, published at Bloomington, Wis.; rests also on statement of Mr. Stevens 620, 621, 623 Nominated at direct primary election in September, 1908 593 Office, did not hold any, in 1908; elected to, in November, 1908 592, 593 Part I took in securing a reference .of investigation to the United States Senate by the present Legislature of Wisconsin, Husting resolution sub- mitted to judiciary committee of State senate, of which I was chairman; I took matter up with Senator Husting as to some parts I suggested should be changed, which was agreeable to him; I merely redrafted the substance of the resolution and put in resolves for the submission to the United States Senate of this whole question 632, 633 Pollock, Edward, editor of Lancaster Teller, mentioned in editorial claim- ing that Democrats were purchased by Stephenson, upon which ninth specific charge was based, is a Republican 621 Pollock, Edward, told me that some one offered him money; I do not know what the sums were; he did not tell me who offered it to him 623, 624 Reason for my filing specific charges against Stephenson, the legislature having defeated the Husting resolution to make the investigation without specific charges, and it being stated by members of the committee they would not make any inquiry or vote for an investigation without specific charges, I therefore concluded to file the specific charges, with the idea it would bring about an investigation; I thought it was my duty toward public to see that matter was investigated 611, 644, 649 Republican, I am now and was one then 611 15235°— 11 ii XVI DIGEST INDEX. Page. Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Resolution as corrected, which became subject of inquiry, was drafted by myself, and I presented it to the committee late in the session of 1911; it was brought out upon floor of senate and was put over from time to time at my request and finally sent back to our committee; no investigation in State legislature based upon it; merely related to reference of matter to United States Senate; I do not think resolution purports to refer spe- cific charges 634 Resolution introduced by Senator Husting and substitute amendment thereto introduced by the judiciary committee of the State senate, with letter of transmittal from Blaine 649, 650, 651 Reynolds, Thomas, assemblyman from Door County, told me that he had received pay, but that he did not consider that it was a violation of any law; said he received money to work for Stephenson from Stephenson personally 628,629 Second specific charge against Stephenson, based upon violation of section 45426 of statute; Edmonds having stated he had $106,000 to be disbursed through him, I could only conclude it was to be disbursed to individuals, and if any amount of it were paid to an individual to do something in the primary election and paid as a valuable thing, it violated statute; charge based upon my interpretation of law rather than knowledge as to char- acter of disbursements 602 Senator, my position was not to support anyone in the legislature until the investigation was closed; I cast my vote on the several days for various men — all Republicans 611, 612 Seventh specific charge against Stephenson; made on information from Ste- vens and Eastman; I have no personal knowledge that either of them used the money for any purpose 616, 619 Sixteenth specific charge against Stephenson 631 Sixth specific charge, I have not examined the testimony to ascertain if only $450 has been paid; I take the chairman’s statement for that; and that information can be corrected, as $450 instead of $1,000 — a pretty close guess 616 Sixth specific charge against Stephenson, my best recollection is that that was contained in an editorial published in the Appleton Crescent, Apple- ton, Wis.; I do not seem to have the editorial and do not believe it was produced before the other committee; I did not have time to ascertain upon what editorial was based; I am quite positive editorial stated $1,000 as sum paid to Morse; did not make charge under oath 613, 616 Specific charges against Stephenson, I have no personal knowledge and did not have when I filed them, that the primary nomination or election of Stephenson was obtained by the use of large sums of money corruptly and illegally used; I have no other charges to make based upon facts within my personal knowledge; no other charges than mine were filed or made basis of examination into validity of Stephenson’s election 631, 632 Specific charges, based upon a public belief of the general charges taken as a whole, that the election was obtained by the methods set forth in the charges 642 Specific charges, I made them irrespective of whether I had sufficient evi- dence to sustain them; wholly with object of having an investigation... 644 Statute, in regard to bribery in connection with caucus, section 45426; statute providing for punishment of same, 4542a; extending provision of this act to primary elections 600, 601, 602 Statute, section 45436, in connection with testimony as to twelfth specific charge 629 Statute, with regard to bribery, section 4478, 4478a, and 4479 604, 605 Statutes, mentioned in charges, I can not state positively whether there has been any judicial construction of them by the local courts 644 Stephenson, as member of State senate in session commencing in January, 1909, I participated in investigation affecting his election; I presented a substitute resolution and filed specific charges 593 Stephenson, I do not know personally whether or not it is true he or his agents paid to an elector of the State of a different political opinion any money 623 Stephenson, I have no personal knowledge of any facts touching his nomi- nation or election which would challenge the validity of either of them. 635, 643, 644 DIGEST INDEX. Blaine, John J., State senator from sixteenth district of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Stephenson, I was opposed to him both in the primary and subsequently. Stevens, I have known him since early in the nineties; I think, generally speaking, he is a man of character and standing in his community; I will not say he has a good reputation for truth and veracity; I do not know how much of the testimony I gave before the joint committee he denied; I did not read his testimony Stevens, L. H., said that he was going to be paid more than $5 a day and ex- penses for working for Stephenson and “picking” off Hatton and McGov- ern men; would get men to work for Stephenson instead of Hatton and McGovern; he said he would pay them for their services; I do not know what services he meant; I do not know whether he did pay money to other persons 617,618 Stevens mentioned Austin when he was talking to me; said he had been try- ing to get him to work for Stephenson; said he was hiring all the people he could; I do not know whether he tried to hire Austin; he said he wanted to know of me about Austin; I told him he was a Democrat; he said he knew it and he could not get him 622 Stone, James A., his letter to me as printed in record of joint legislative committee; original letter was delivered to legislative committee; I read a copy of it to committee; there were eliminations in copy as I read it, which referred to a subsequent campaign of a public man in this State and I considered had no relation to investigation 607, 608 Stone letter, recollect I handed it to the chairman in Madison; it had the date upon it then; I have not seen it since; I do not know whether I handed it to Mr. Marsh, chairman of the committee, or to the committee; so far as I know it must be in possession of committee; I do not know how he came to write me the letter; never talked with him about charges before he wrote it 647, 648 Tenth specific charge against Stephenson was the result of having read an editorial in the Lancaster Teller and talked to Mr. Pollock, the editor; motive for making charge, holding the position of State senator, I thought it my duty; I did not expect to sustain it from my own knowledge; I could not; I had a strong belief on which to sustain it 623, 624, 625, 642, 643 Term commenced in January, 1909, and expires in January, 1913 592 Third specific charge against Stephenson follows and was based on same information I had in reference to charges 1 and 2; it was to be inclusive; based upon section 4478 of statute which defines bribery differently from sections covered in first two charges, and I put that in as a conclusion, so that that section would be covered; section 4478 uses the word “cor- ruptly” and that is why I used it in this charge; have no knowledge of any specific acts upon which to base the charge of bribing and corrupting. 603, 604, 605, 606 Thirteenth specific charge, based upon information received from Henry C. Campbell, of Milwaukee; I did not investigate the facts to ascertain whether they were with foundation; I have no personal knowledge that E. M. Heyser or Max Sells did the things charged in; Campbell did not claim to know the facts; recollect he said W. D. Connor, of Marshfield, had given him the information; I do not know whether Connor knows the facts 629,630,643 Tilton, Lester, I do not know that any sum was paid to him as charged; I saw a letter from him to Alyward; I only knew him by reputation as someone living in Neillsville at that time; I did not know him; I did not have a conference with him 626, 627 Twelfth specific charge against Stephenson, mean by it that he had paid » money to candidates for the assembly and senate as candidates Written documents, declined to furnish them to committee, by reason of fact they were at home in my office safe; I have given committee every- thing that was in office safe; comprised of a letter from Stone and data where I took down the statements of parties, and I guess the Teller edi- torial Blaine, John J., letter to, dated January 22, 1909, in regard to investigation of Stephenson Blaine, John J., statement made by, before this committee in regard to Eastman conversation, not made by, before the joint investigating committee. 2027, 2028, 2029 628 648 1480 XVII Page. 610 646 XVIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Bowman, H. A., deputy game warden in 1908, Genesee, Wis., testimony of 984 Account^ Stone did not ask me to make one of $1,250; I gave no account of it to him or anybody else; I received none for sums I paid out; I did not ask men for them 991 Bissonette, Edwin, with General Fire Extinguisher Co., Milwaukee, paid him $300; told him he should use it in his best judgment for Stephenson primary campaign — seeing that literature was kept up, and making a list of voters that were favorable to him; he was to use it as he saw fit; I do not know what he did with it; he did not render an account; nothing said by me about where he should use it 985, 986 Campaign, my activities extended over two or three weeks, latter part of August 992 Clark, Robert, I am not sure whether he was a game warden at that time, or whether he quit shortly before that; lived at Palmyra; I gave him $150 to use in interest of Stephenson ; Edmonds asked me if I knew any good worker in Jefferson County, and I think I remember mentioning the name of Clark; I do not know whether he paid any of it out; he did not make a statement to me; paid him another $100 984, 985, 986, 988 Edmonds received $150 from him about middle of August; I think that was given to Robert Clark 984 Expenses, as game warden, did not keep account of it separate from ex- penses incurred for Stephenson ; charged mileage and hotel bills to State and not to Stephenson; livery hire in connection with services as game warden charged to State in connection with campaign work disbursed out of Stephenson money 991, 992 Game warden was on duty as one and receiving compensation at the time I was campaigning; received $3.50 a day and expenses; do not remember what my expense account as game warden was at that time; duties as. . 991, 992 “General, August 31, $20,’ ’ I have no recollection of that item; I never re- ceived any such amount 993 Hitchon, C. E., in hotel and saloon business, Marinette, home of Stephen- son; I paid him $450; I did not have an account from him; do not know how he expended it; I had a talk with him and thought he was in a posi- tion to do some good work in northern part of Marinette County; he was to see that literature was kept up, get people to make lists of Stephenson supporters, and get men at polls primary day 987, 989, 992 Johnson, C. W., Oskosh, paid him $50 to use in interest of Stephenson’s primary campaign; I do not know what he did with it; he did not render an account 986 Jones, John, Genesee, paid him $20 for putting up lithographs of Stephen- son and distributing literature 987 Money, did not spend any portion of it for purpose of purchasing or corrupt- ing any elector; so far as I know, none spent that way by men to whom I gave money 988, 993 Money, I received no instructions as to use, with the exception that I should use it in interest of Stephenson; I was at liberty to give it to any person that I might see fit 987 Stephenson, commenced to support him as soon as he announced his candi- dacy 984 Stone, J. W., I received $1,250 from him about the middle of August; in three payments; I received $500 in first payment; and the second pay- ment, I think, was $500; I do not remember whether it was $750, or whether he paid me $500 and the balance later; I think the last payment was a check; I know he paid me some money in Madison 984,990,991 Sum of $205, spent in traveling, railroad fare, livery rigs, meals, and cigars; spent possibly $25 or $30 for railroad fare; spent probably $20 or $25 for hotel bills; spent possibly $50 for drinks, cigars, and treats; spent, may * be, $30 or $40 for livery hire 988 Tuttle, E. W., Oconomowoc, I paid him $125; had a general talk with him in which I suggested that it be used in keeping up Stephenson literature, making lists of voters who were his supporters, and seeing that the voters on these lists got to polls primary day ; I do not know whether he spent any of it for drinks or cigars; I would not think he was a man who would make a saloon campaign; he was a game warden 985 Van Cleve, J. A., I knew him by sight; did not know he had charge of the campaign in Stephenson’s home county; did not occur to me Stephen- son and his friends could look after that county 989, 990 DIGEST INDEX. XIX Page. Boyle, Louis C., station agent of Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Co., Viroqua, Wis., affidavit of 1997 Age, 55 years 1997 Campaign fund, received from, sum of $125.80, part of the $500 sent to Morley for use in Vernon County; disbursed same, $20 for personal expenses in travel, and $105.80 in securing precinct workers and distributing litho- graphs, etc., in and about the county; precinct workers paid by check, which were destroyed by fire; names of few precinct workers given; Campaign in Vernon County carried on for less expense than any previous campaign within his knowledge 1998 Campaign work done for Stephenson in primary contest in Viroqua and county of Vernon, in company with Calvin E. Morley, working with him and separately, at the request of Edmonds and Morley; no particu- lar instructions given; used own judgment 1997 Madison investigation, not called as witness at. ... .* 1998 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influenc- ing or bribing any person 1998 Statement of expenses and disbursements, never called upon for itemized . . 1998 Stephenson, supporter of, before he did any work for, and not on account of any employment 1997 Vernon County, 33 precincts in 1998 Viroqua, resided in about 32 years past 1997 Brady, Charles E., lawyer, Manitowoc, Wis., testimony of 1278 Affidavit, filed with legislative investigating committee: Account of expenditures, as nearly as affiant can recollect the facts, grouped in round numbers 1282 Assembly candidates, Ledvina and Wehrein, talked to by affiant on subject of senatorial contest, stated they would support nominee of primary 1283 Balkansky, David, paid $10 or $15 for work and expenses of trip through county 1282 Chairman of Republican county committee, not at time of becoming interested in Stephenson primary campaign; later elected 1280 Compensation, affiant did not ask or receive any of any kind for services primary campaign 1282 Crocker, Arthur, Manitowoc, paid $15, as affiant remembers, for two days’ woik and livery hire and expenses for trip through county 1282 Daily News Publishing Co., paid $20 for advertising space 1281 Draft for $500 cashed by affiant; used in campaign for postage to dis- tribute liteiature; for 1,000 personal letters sent to Republican voters in county; for copies of poll lists sent to Milwaukee; for lists of influential workers; for telegraph and telephone expenses; for advertising; and to various workers; personal expenses of affiant not paid out of sum; no part spent in interest of assembly candi- dates............ 1281,1282 Edmonds, invitations received by affiant in early part of August to visit at Milwaukee headquarters and consult in regard to campaign in Manitowoc County; went to Milwaukee and met him; affiant informed him he was doing work for Stephenson and stated he would not accept compensation and did not wish to handle money and had tacit agreement with that Dr. Gehbe should assume control of man- agement of campaign in said county 1280 Edmonds, some time after conversation with in Milwaukee, affiant received a letter from Stephenson headquarters containing a draft or check for $500, with request that money be used according to his Edmonds, when offered itemized account kept during campaign, said he would much prefer not to take it so long as he had not received such statements from all other persons similarly situated; R. J. White of Milwaukee present during conversation 1282 Gehbe, Dr. F. H., draft of $200 received from headquarters indorsed over to; affiant never received any part of and has no knowledge of what use was made ofXit Husting, Paul 0., member of Wisconsin Senate, testimony of — Continued. I'age. Stevens, L. H., arrangement between Stephenson’s managers and him to have Lancaster bank made one of the State depositories, charged in report as a clear violation of law, refers to bribery law 1915 Stone, charge in report that he and several of deputy game wardens entered into an agreement whereby Stone was to and did testify falsely in the investigation with reference to disbursement of $2,500 received from Stephenson campaign fund, came under violation of bribery and perjury statutes; he was never prosecuted; committee recommended prosecution of those who committed perjury 1915 Testimony, concluded taking in May, 1909, I think 1904 Titus, do not know where he is now; have not seen him since legislature adjourned some time in July, 1911 1956 Trunk, think witnesses should be examined to explain whether there was an opportunity to remove papers that should have come before Wiscon- sin senate committee . 1944, 1945 Tuttle, E. W., witness before joint committee, think his testimony would be cumulative 1937 Wagner, do not believe his testimony in regard to the “frame-up”, pur- suant to which three Democrats were met at Plankinton House and bribed to remain away from legislature; we stated we did not believe it and a statement to that effect was published within 36 hours after the testimony was taken; as far as testimony before our committee was con- cerned there was no evidence of facts testified to by him 1918, 1919 Wagner, Frank T., former witness, do not think it would add to enlighten- ment of this committee to reexamine him 1937 Wells, J. H., witness before Wisconsin senate committee, know of nothing outside of what he testified that would shed further light on questions under consideration 1937 Wisconsin Legislature, tenure of members and session of 1905, 1906 W T yseman, Arthur J., witness before joint committee, have no intimation as to any further facts to which he might testify 1937 Husting, Paul O., telephone message sent to, about Hines appearing before committee 2084 Hyzer, E. M., attorney of record before joint investigating committee of Legis- lature of Wisconsin, testimony of 1018 Blaine’s specific charge No. 13 wholly without foundation of any kind . 1019, 1020 Chicago & North Western Railroad, was attorney for, in 1908; I never heard of any concerted effort among its officials to aid Stephenson campaign 1019, 1021 Nelson, E. F., former assemblyman, prior to primary election of 1908 I did not contribute or agree to contribute free services, as an employee of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., for the purpose of defeating his candidacy for nomination for assemblyman, as charged in specific charge No. 13; I never could imagine why that charge was made; I do not think I ever heard of him or his campaign; I never had any correspondence or conversation with anybody on subject 1019, 1020 Sells, Max, attorney, who lives in Florence, was not associated in any way with me in practice of law; some years before that he had been local attorney for North Western Road at Florence; did not have any con- versation or correspondence with him on subject of Nelson’s candidacy. 1019 Specific charges by Blaine, I have no information that can throw any light on them 1021 Stephenson, I appeared for him before joint investigating committee; - presume T made an opening statement in his behalf before committee. . 1018 Stephenson’s campaign, had very little to do with it; I was one of Ste- phenson’s attorneys at that time — a member of the firm of Cary, Ilpham & Black; had recently become a member; he was frequently at the office, and I was thrown much in contact with him; many people from various parts of the State came to office to see him, and I heard more or less talk about campaign; that is all I had to do with it, and that is strictly nothing; never received a dollar for services in connection with his campaign; had nothing to do with expenditures of campaign 1020, 1021 LXX DIGEST INDEX. J. Page. James, David, State senator of Wisconsin in 1909, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of 1755 Absentees, knew of none except Mr. Scott 1757 Grand Army of the Republic, am member of 1756 Pairs, was paired with Mr. Scott on 4th of March; he was an anti-Stephen- son Republican; was paired only on the question of the vote for Senator Stephenson 1755, 1756 Scott, paired with, on 4th of March, 1909; he had to go home on account of sickness in his family, and I had to be away two or three days; was paired with merely on the vote on Senator Stephenson, not on the ques- tion of a quorum 1755, 1756 Voted for Senator Stephenson consistently; did not support him in the primary 1757 James, Norman L., lumbering and agriculture business, Richland Center, Wis., testimony of 884 Brother was candidate for office of State senator in 1908 campaign; I did not campaign in his interests particularly ; he was elected 884 Edmonds, called me up on phone and said that McMahon had told him I was using my own funds and that he would send me a check for $300; asked me how much money I had expended and I said, “I think about $360 ” 886 McMahon, came into my office a stranger and represented that Edmonds had sent him down to look the situation over; while he was there men drove up with teams and I gave them instructions and money, and he found out I was using my own money; he said be was going back to Milwaukee and tell Edmonds he ought to send me some money 886 Money, how expended; I spent it to hire teams to canvass in the interest of Stephenson, to put up posters and lithographs, and for buttons and other printed matter 885 Money, I did not expect Edmonds or Puelicher to send me a dollar, and I do not think they would have if Mr. McMahon had not come in just as I was arranging with parties to help me run campaign 888 Money, I did not receive any until after I had expended money of my own; received $500 and expended between $600 and $700; received $300 from Edmonds August 26 and $200 from Puelicher September 10. 885, 887 Money, none spent by me or others, within my knowledge, for bribing or corruptly influencing electors 889 Public office held, was member of assembly in 1873 and 1875 and I was in the State senate in 1885 and 1887 884 Puelicher, called me to phone and asked me if Edmonds had sent me a check ; I told him he had ; asked me how much it would take and I told him I was working in counties where I was well acquainted and I did not think it would take over $500 for the limit; he said, “Then, all you need will be $200 more?” and I said, “That is all I will take; what more it takes I will put up myself”; after the election he sent me a check for $200 886,887 Stephenson, Senator: Conversation with on fishing trip, addressed to Van Cleve, Puelicher, and me; he said, “I am willing and expect to pay legitimate ex- penses; I do not want my friends to run a saloon campaign; I do not like the idea of having a whole lot of heelers around the polls; what I want is to have my friends work, so that at my age, I will not be criticized ” 887, 888 Have known him intimately and he has always talked to me without reserve; have known him since 1873 and intimately since 1880. . . 888, 889 I campaigned for him in 1908 884, 885 I have been his friend for a great many years, and we had a conversa- tion about his candidacy, and I told him I would do what I could for him; there was no arrangement made to pay me any funds; I did not get any funds directly from him 886 I thought he would take my word, and if I should say some day to him: “I have expended money and I guess you better give me a check for about $500,” I thought he would take my word for it without any question; if he had not sent me a check I would not have com- plained 888 Wisconsin, have resided in State since 1855 888 DIGEST INDEX. LXXI Page. Johnson, Neils, deputy game warden during summer of 1908, testimony of 909 Meeting at Stone’s house during session of joint legislative committee, he asked me to come there that evening at 9 or 10 o’clock, and I went, and there were several game wardens present — S. P. Richtman, from Fountain City; George Kingsley, from La Crosse; Frank Tuttle, from Oconomowoc; and Harry Bowman, from Genesee; J. E. Thomas, a member of the legis- lature at that time, was there 910, 911, 912 Stone, J. W., did not give me any money out of $2,500, as he testified before joint legislative committee 910 Journals of the Senate of Wisconsin for January 26, and the joint convention from January until March 4, inclusive, to be incorporated into the record. . 861, 2024 K. Kates, C. W., superintendent of Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad, Wells, Mich., testimony of 1861 Box, saw papers and everything taken out of, and put in gunny sacks 1861 Gunny sacks, taken to Wells and put in shed in rear of my house; think there were four; were well filled; remained in shed from some time in May, 1909, to October, 1911; noticed they were there in same place, one time when looking for some storm windows 1861, 1862, 1863 MacLean, went with, on trip from Escanaba to Marinette, some time in spring of 1909; only one that spoke to me about going; intended to drive down during day, but something interfered, so went down at night; was not requested to take papers to 1861, 1863 Papers, no one told me was important for them to be gotten to Wells quickly; knew something of nature of, after seeing them, but not before; learned from MacLean what were about; no one disturbed after being put in shed; no one knew they were there 1862 Russell, helped to remove papers from shed 1863 Stephenson, Senator, president of Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad 1861 Keller, Ulysses G., Baraboo, Wis., testimony of 1058 Blaine, John J., fourth specific charge by him is absolutely false 1059 Edmonds, after I had sent him list of names of Stephenson men, I got a letter or telephone message from him asking me to come to Milwaukee; I came down and he wanted to know about conditions in Sauk County; asked me if I could not go up and put out the literature and I told him I could; nothing was said about payment while I was there 1060 Edmonds, after my trip through Sauk County telephoned me to come back to Milwaukee; asked me how much trip had cost me; I had been out a week or nine days and told him probably around $40 or $50; asked me if I had got the check he sent me; I told him I had not received any; had not gone to Baraboo where my mail was; asked me to take charge of Sauk County campaign; told him I could not carry it for Stephenson but that I could bring him in second; told him cost would not exceed $300; he told me to go ahead 1060, 1061 Edmonds, I wrote him myself and told him about conditions in Sauk County and that Stephenson literature was not up; gave him a list of Stephenson men and said that if he would send literature to them they would see it was put up; did not ask him to send me a dollar 1060 Expenses of, items given 1062 Game warden, I was one for a couple of months without any compensation in September and October, I think, 1908, after primary campaign; I might have been appointed sometime in August, but it had nothing to do with the campaign 1059 Keyes, ran across him in a hotel in Baraboo; introduced him to the railroad men; asked me if I was one of Stephenson’s local managers; I told him I was not, but was a supporter; told him I had been over Sauk County on a business trip and that I knew there was very little work being done; asked him if he had any posters, that I was around and would like to put them up 1059 Money, I received $50 first; and when the campaign was practically over I told Edmonds what I had expended and it amounted to $150; I received $200 in all 1061 Money, I spent none, and so far as I know persons I employed spent none for purpose of directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing voters 1063 LX XII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Keller, Ulysses G., Baraboo, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Offices held, was clerk of the court for six years and deputy sheriff for two terms 1058 Posters, I had never heard from Edmonds or Sacket or anyone connected with campaign, but there had been a bunch of posters sent me; put Saloons, I did not spend a nickel of Stephenson’s money in; if I spent any in a saloon I spent my own; none spent that way in Sauk County 1061 Sauk County, have resided there practically all of my life 1058 Sauk County, I took a pair of horses and drove right through the county, and I would get some fellow and give him 50 cents or a dollar to post and distribute literature and I would stay there until he had done it; I would talk in behalf of Stephenson and find out who was for him and who against; and I reported to Edmonds every night, giving the names of the people 1060 Stephenson, I have always been for him 1059 Towne, was not in my district; I think I did support him a little for the assembly; I was over in his district a day or two; it was only for personal reasons; lie was not a Stephenson man ; I did it of my own accord 1061,1062 Workers at polls, how employed, some of them got a box of cigars, and a whole lot of them did not get anything; they were personal friends of mine 1062 Kelly, John T., member of the bar, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 2036 Edmonds, after election, when headquarters were closed in Plankington House, met him day he was going away from Milwaukee to his home in Appleton; spoke to him about returning money he gave me; said to never mind; would talk about it later; never saw him after that 2037 Edmonds, at close of primary spoke to him; it seemed our arrangement concerning meetings had fallen through, and I felt I had not given value for the money received; he said, “That is all right; we shall need some more meetings during the campaign for the election” 2037 Edmonds, mailed check for $500 to him, think on 11th of February, 1909; came back to me; stated his accounts had been turned in and it was all right 2037 Edmonds, sent for by on 6th of August, 1908 who desired me to make some addresses for Stephenson in the campaign ; willing to make few speeches without any compensation ; said he would like to have all the time I could give; figured it out then, it was only about 15 or 18 days; gave me check for $500 without stating anything concerning amount of compensation I was to have for these addresses 2036 Free Press, wrote a communication after Stephenson announced his can- didacy in June, that was published in, on the 29th of June, 1908, announc- ing my support of Stephenson 2036 Meetings, during campaign for the election made three addresses; one at Chilton, one at Marshfield, and one at Marinette; paid my own expenses. 2037 Meetings, two held in the primary campaign at which I was present; one in West Allis; well attended, at which I made an address; another at North Milwaukee, poorly attended; meetings turned out to be a failure, and no more were held 2036 Milwaukee, resided in about 25 or 30 years 2036 Overbeck, during campaign for the election Edmonds told me to report to him, who would have charge of the speakers 2037 Kelpinski, Leo S., inspector of election in 1908, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of. 1899 Boden, Frank H., told me that Senator Stephenson is too old to be in the Cook, Boden told me I should support him and I hired a man named Louis Cook, worked for, in the primary of 1908; think my former testimony in regard to his carrying the ward was incorrectly reported 1900, 1901, 1902 Inspector of election, acted as such in the primary election of 1908. 1899 Money, received $55 from Richard White to go out to a church picnic and spend it; went from bar to bar and to ice cream stands and told every- body to come on and have a drink on Senator Stephenson; this was about two weeks before the primary; distributed cards and literature .... 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 White, Richard, received $55 from, to spend at church picnic 1899, 1900, 1901 DIGEST INDEX. LXXIII Page. Keyes, Jerry F., railway conductor, Madison, Wis., affidavit of 2005 Age, 48 years 2005 Campaign committee, received from, $276.20, exhausted in compensation for services, amounting to $200, and in payment of personal expenses, for transportation, hotel accommodations, and incidental expenses 2005 Campaign work done at request of campaign committee at Milwaukee; de- voted about two months, prior to primary day, and traveled into vari- ous parts of State, circulating nomination papers and interviewing his friends in different cities and presenting to them the merits of Stephen- son and reasons why he should be nominated; part of work was to put up lithographs, to circulate campaign material, cards, buttons, etc.; paid expenses when assistance was required 2005 Compensation by agreement was $25 per week for services, and in addi- tion was to receive legitimate traveling and hotel expenses, which were paid to him from time to time as work progressed 2005 Madison, resided in, past 48 years 2005 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2005 Statement of expenses, never called upon to furnish itemized 2005 Kingsley, G. L., manager of a branch of the John Glenn Brewing Co., Albert Lea, Minn., testimony of 571 Brown, Frank, paid him $50 for a campaign fund for Gov. Davidson 578 Deputy game warden of Wisconsin from June, 1908, until January, 1909; paid per diem with expenses in addition; lived at La Crosse at the time 571, 589 False statement of Stone, did not intend to let it stand before committee; did not volunteer to go before committee; think I would have gone be- fore committee voluntarily, if I had not been subpoenaed, because I would not want anyone to state that he gave me that money when he did not; can not remember about facts of agreement, in advance, that he might state it. . . 581 “Frame up,” did not disclose it to anyone before I went on witness stand; testimony I gave and acts I performed in connection with, all done in city of Madison 589, 590, 591 Legislative committee, I was anxious they should have the knowledge in relation to the frame up; did not tell because it had already been told; I was told by Senator Morris that they knew all about it; I did not tell him one way or the other what I knew about it 590, 591 Meeting at Mr. Stone’s house, held somewhere around midnight, during investigation of joint legislative committee; attended by Mr. Stone, myself, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Richtman. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tuttle, and Mr. Thomas, who was an assemblyman; held at Madison 573, 581 Perjury, I have never been prosecuted for conspiring to commit; do not know of anyone present during “frame up ” who has been prosecuted for; do not know who was district attorney of county in January and Febru- ary, 1909 591 Statement of Stone that he had paid me $200 or $250 was talked abuur; you could hear it on the streets everywhere; I was approached by friends who asked about it; I told them I did not get it; did not tell them any- thing about the agreement; do not remember anybody in particular to whom I talked 586, 587 Stephenson, not engaged to do political work for during time I was deputy game warden; did not receive any money to be spent in his behalf during that time; did not work for him for the Senate or for his nomination ; did not assist in raising or contribute to a fund to promote his nomination 572, 578 Subpoena served upon me to appear before joint committee, do not remem- ber whether I know about it before it was served; I think I had heard it was going to be issued a day or two before; do not remember from whom heard 586 Stone, did not tell him I would not stand for the arrangement because I do not think I fully realized at that time just what it meant, until after it was over with 588 Stone, J. W., State game warden, testimony of, before joint committee of legislature that I received a part of a fund of $2,500 given him for political work for Stephenson is not true; he did not give or authorize anyone to give me money at any time for any purpose 572, 577, 578 LX XIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Kingsley, G. L., manager of a branch of the John Glenn Brewing Co., Albert Lea, Minn., testimony of — Continued. Talk at meeting at Mr. Stone’s house was about the fact that he had to account for a sum of money and he wanted me to assume $200 or $250 and Mr. Johnson the same amount and Mr. Richtman about $150; he wanted to testify that he had given it to us, but the understanding was that we would not be put on the stand to testify to that fact; I think he said he had to testify what he had done with this money; I think we agreed to do it with understanding we need not testify 573, 576, 578, 579, 580, 582, 583, 584, 585 Testimony given by me before legislative committee, as read, is true 592 Testimony of Stone before joint legislative committee, as read by chairman, not true in any part; I mean in regard to money; I did not notice about the circular letter- do not know anything about that . . 577, 585, 586 Testimony of Stone before the committee, did not pay any attention to it; saw in newspaper that he testified he gave me that money; I went before the committee when they subpoenaed me and testified that he did not; denounced it as untrue 580, 587, 589, 590 Time, between date of conference with Stone and date when I was called upon to testify before committee, can not tell how much intervened 582 Klumb, H. A., reason for his not appearing as witness 1932, 1933, 1963 Knell, William R., manager of Stephenson primary campaign in Milwaukee County in 1908, testimony of 1757, 1962 Account, all I got was a check book; do not know how amounts were de- posited to my credit; did not get a pass book; understand they opened it, but I did not get it; believe first credit was $500, just to pay rent and for a few little printin Account, I kept on leai bills. 1780 pencil memorandum slips; after my report was made to Stephenson and O. K’d by his managers, paying me the differ- ence between what I had been allowed and what I had spent, I destroyed the slips, because I thought I was through with the matter 1759 Age, just passed 51 . . . 1784 Bills, receipted ones filed with report to Sacket; believe joint committee had them; those found in box produced are the ones; think they are all there; pertain to printing and some to automobile hire and livery; think they cover all items on first sheet of statement I gave. 1762, 1763, 1777, 1782, 1783 Campaigns, engaged in work of carrying on, since 1888 1787 Cleary, Morris, paid him and another man by the name of Klumb together $450 in sixteenth ward and adjoining railroad sections for organizing, by hiring precinct men and primary day workers, distributing literature, and in a general way enhancing interests of Stephenson; did not have an accounting from them; they estimated what it would take before I gave them the money 1962, 1963, 1964 Compensation, received none for services in campaign s 1784 Delegate from fifth congressional district to last Republican national con- vention 1787 Disbursements, total, $12,103.21; credited back $216.60; leaving actual amount of disbursements, $11,886.61 1765 Edmonds: had nothing to do with in regard to campaign except social calls. 1757 Election inspectors; safest record of their appointment is return to county clerk, in his office; have to sign their names there night of primary, as I remember; how appointed 1761, 1762 “Expense on account of organizing,” how incurred; was the daily expense; when I would invite parties out for dinner or luncheon, that was included there; were all expenditures of less than $5 and would not 'have to be accounted for under law; made entry of at end of every day; should not estimate money spent for drink and cigars at over 10 per cent of amounts thus classed 1763,1764 Former testimony, by my statement that I could have accomplished as much if I hadn’t put the $11,000 into Milwaukee, if the other candidates hadn’t put any in, I meant I had to meet the fight of other candidates. . 1774 Hamilton, Archie, work that he did was in twelfth ward, and I had no knowledge that he was an election inspector 1761, 1762 Kelpinski, Leo F., did not know he was an election inspector; he did not not say so to me; brought to me as man who would do efficient work among Polish people; when I heard he had been accepting compensa- tion from Cook people, severed connection with him immediately; that was probably four or five weeks before the primary 1761, 1762, 1786 DIGEST INDEX. IjXXV Page. Knell, William R., manager of Stephenson primary campaign in Milwaukee County in 1908, testimony of — Continued. Klumb, paid him, together with Cleary, $450 in sixteenth ward and adjoin- ing railroad sections for organizing 1962, 1963, 1964 Men employed, how paid, did not ask any of them for statement of expendi- tures; about 75 per cent of were personal followers; employed none who I did not feel satisfied was a Stephenson supporter; think I employed some who were indifferent; instructions to; kept close tab on; never heard of their using money corruptly 1766, 1778, 1780, 1781, 1787, 1964 Men employed, instructed them to “never mention opponents, because every time you do you advertise them” 1774 Milwaukee County, organized as I never organized it before; did not over- look any wire that I could get a hold of and pull 1765 Milwaukee County campaign, had complete charge of management of 1757 Money, all paid out in primary election; after that was over I was through. 1765 Money, none spent in county of Milwaukee for purpose of bribing or corrupt- ing any elector to vote for Stephenson 1767, 1787 Money, received total of $11,886. 61 from Stephenson’s representatives in that campaign; disbursements in excess of amount received, $11,600, were $286.61; got a check for that some time along in October, I think it was, from Puelicher 1758, 1765 Novotny, Tom, item of $150 paid to, as ward manager in eighth ward; did not ask him for a statement of expenditure 1765, 1766 O’Connor, William, gave him $500 to look after fourth ward, in particular the colored vote and the railroad vote adjoining in eighth ward; think greater part of money was spent for that purpose; suppose he paid himself out of it 1963 Pay roll, started with less than $100 a week and ran up in the last week, I think, to about $170; had some 10 or 12 people working there; names of some given; do not remember names of stenographers; all got from $6 to $20 a week 1764,1785,1786 Postage stamps, bought in post office in this city 1763 Public positions held in Milwaukee, in detail 1784 Puelicher, by arrangement with him had charge of campaign; he was the money end of it 1757, 1758 Puelicher, conversation with, when he asked me to take charge of campaign; I said: “From experience I have had it may cost anywhere from $7,500 to $15,000;” he said: “$15,000 is a good deal of money; I wish you would run it for less than that;” I said: “I will if I can;” he said: “We will agree on an account for $10, 000, and if that should be exhausted before the campaign is over, come over and see me; I will open an account for you” 1779,1780 Rosenhein, A., saloon keeper, paid $345 to, for ward work; covered seven or eight precincts. 1766 Sacket, had nolhing to do with my campaign 1758 Saloon campaign, never made one and did not permit it in this instance, explained 1779 Saloon keepers hired because they were men who had been active in city politics and had influence 1766, 1767 Sarrass, Greek manager, why given more than Hebrew manager 1765, 1786 Sheriff of Milwaukee County during 1908 campaign; how I handled cam- paign with reference to office of sheriff; received salary of $5,000 a year of mine; none of them 1780, 1784, 1785 as; had about 40 deputies who were appointees did any active work in interest of Stephenson . . . Statement of Milwaukee County expenses in Stephenson primary cam- paign, 1908; with explanation concerning ward workers attached, giving names, addresses, occupation, and amounts of money paid to each; also number of voting precincts in Milwaukee County 1767-1774 Stephenson, did not know him in campaign at all; had no dealings with him; was directly representing him 1758 Stephenson, it was necessary to spend $11,000 to get up the organization I got up, and get as many votes as we possibly could; judging from vote he got, I should say the money did not have a great deal of influence; I ex- pected three times the vote he got; got about one-fifth of vote of Mil- waukee County; cost him $2 a vote 1775, 1776, 1777 LXXVI DIGEST INDEX. Page. Knell, William R., manager of Stephenson primary campaign in Milwaukee County in 1908, testimony of — Continued. Stephenson, was my personal choice for Senator before I saw Puelicher; felt like a lot of others felt, that it was a base ingratitude when he wanted something for himself he should be denied it, when he had contributed so liberally to put others in possession of what they wanted ; was a half- breed myself; do not take orders; that is main reason why I supported him; met him a number of times and every day at Chicago convention in 1908, to which he was delegate at large from Wisconsin 1781 Ward workers, item of $5,833 for, in original statement to Stephenson, legis- lative committee wanted itemized; asked them for time to sit down and itemize the amount, and did so by sitting down and taking ward after ward and consulting with the manager I had in that ward ; why marked “Knell” on back in lead pencil; is attached to account of expendi- tures 1760, 1765, 1786, 1787 Wauwatosa, town of, paid farmers $10 and $15 apiece there to furnish con- veyances primary day and get farmers to booths 1767 Wilcox, Arthur, says he got only $50; I have got him down for $100; I may be mistaken on amount; take his word for it; was introduced to me by chairman of third ward; had no idea he was an election inspector and do not think he was; tells me he was not 1760, 1761, 1762 Wilson Detective Agency, had them watching mails because we had 80,000 or 90,000 letters with the stamps on them, and I thought it might be a good idea to see that they got into the post office and were not destroyed before they got there 1765 Witness before joint committee, but not before Wisconsin senate committee. 1758 Workers, all wanted to be paid for the work they did, not for their votes; would say “Why should we work for nothing for a man reported to be worth $30,000,000? ” had about 400 in county; do not know whether they all voted for Stephenson; heard some reports that men who got money from me did not vote for Stephenson 1776 Kolb, Gustave C., Hillsboro, Wis., testimony of 970 Account, I did not keep one 972 Business, I was in saloon business at Hillsboro when I was traveling around as a game warden; did not spend any of the money in my own saloon. . . 971 Custom for me to treat whenever I was out campaigning or otherwise; usual and ordinary custom in that part of the country 973 Money, I did not use any of it for purpose of directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing electors; did not pay any to other people except for treats — 974 Money spent for cigars and treats; whenever I would drop into a drug store I would buy cigars, and whenever I would drop into a saloon I would buy beer, for instance ; my testimony given on former examination that I spent it with the boys around the saloons is correct; spent in towns through that territory; all spent that way .. . 970, 971, 972, 973 Stephenson, when I was spending his money with the boys, I simply said ‘ ‘ Have a drink on Mr. Stephenson ” ; would pay for it out of the $50 ; I did not contribute toward any funds for him 972 Stone, J. W., paid me $50 about three or four weeks before the primary when I was working as deputy game warden to spend in interests of Stephen- son’s campaign 970 L. Lambeck, Arthur H., connected with Stephenson headquarters in 1908, testi- mony of 1822, 1876 Box, in which papers were put; about 2 feet high and 3 or 4 feet long; do not know who brought it in office; was in general charge of packing, helped by office boy; shipped by express to Hon. I. Stephenson, Mari- nette, Wis 1822, 1823, 1824, 1826, 1827, 1830 Box, saw again in warehouse in Marinette; did not see contents; do not know whether it had been opened 1825, 1826 Edmunds, of Stephenson committee, occupied offices at headquarters 1823 Files, letter, in offices, large case used by all; about half dozen regular- letter books; did not take any letters from; did not see anyone take out certain letters for Mr. Edmunds 1827, 1830 DIGEST INDEX. LXXVII Page. testi- 1827 Lambeck, Arthur H., connected with Stephenson headquarters in 1908, mony of — Continued. McMahon, was in and out of office; do not remember of helping to pack box.. Materials, put in box; from outer and inner offices; anything that could be used; letter scale; wire baskets; do not remember any loose correspond- ence going in 1823, 1829, 1830 Memoranda, containing data pertaining to campaign or statements of accounts of expenditures or disbursements, do not remember of putting any in box; unless was in letter files or in some package thrown in.. 1826, 1827 Office, had desk in outer, at headquarters; would be in, most of day 1832, 1876, 1877 Papers, around headquarters, after primaries; gathered up and sold as junk; did not destroy or sell any correspondence, records, cards, or see any destroyed or hear any instructions about destroying 1831, Plankinton House, headquarters of State central committee; two cases containing cards sent from Marinette here . 1826, Puls, in outer office, where I had my desk 1832 Sacket, occupied offices at headquarters; all letter files kept in his office; frequently in and out during day; had nothing to do with expense mem- oranda he kept; worked in office with, not more than one hour a day; could have destroyed cards without my knowledge 1823, 1832, 1876, 1877 Stephenson, Senator, telephone conversation with, about sending lists of workers, poll lists, and county and city directories to 1828, 1829 Stephenson campaign committee, about headquarters of; assisted in gath- ering up papers, letters, documents, and placing them in box, without anyone’s instructions to do so the week after primaries 1822, 1824, 1826 Legislature of Wisconsin: Findings of, not in evidence; are the status of an indictment 296,2025 1832 1828 Law requiring each house to keep a journal of proceedings. 863 Report submitted to, on March 18, came with papers from governor of Wisconsin to the United States Senate 322,323 Resolution No. 58, relating to investigation of the primary and general election of 1908 and the election of United States Senator in 1909 2, 3 Letters transmitting money to workers, etc 2100, 2101 Letters turned over to the committee by W. E. Black 2098, 2099, 2100 Leuch, Peter F., member of the Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Milwau- kee, Wis., testimony of 1417 Business, attorney; admitted to the bar in 1908 1417, 1423, 1424 Candidates, can not give the names of all I voted for; perhaps 8 or 10; voted for McGovern, Scott, Estabrook, Hoffman, Stephenson, and In- gram 1431,1432 Davies, David, asked me to vote for Stephenson 1419 Davies, on the 1st of March, 1909, when the majority of the Republican members and Democratic members stayed out of the joint committee, about 10 o’clock, Mr. Davies asked me to come out of the chamber; and he then told me that there was a plan on foot to stay out of the joint con- vention 1417, 1418, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1430, 1431, 1439, 1440 Davies said, “I have authority to tell you that you can have anything you want if you will stay in there and vote. You don’t have to vote for Mr. Stephenson, but just simply stay in there and vote. ” I told him that was equivalent to voting for Stephenson, and I would not do that; voted for a friend of mine, Mr. Hoffman 1418 Davies, testimony of, to the effect that he had no conversation with me with reference to my remaining in the session or leaving the session, is not true 1421 Do not know, except from members and newspapers, about the occurrence of three Democratic members of the legislature absenting themselves at the time of the election of Senator Stephenson 1418, 1419 Educated in the Milwaukee public schools, the high school, and in Mar- quette College; went to law school 1425 Ingram, do not know that he was leading a filibuster against the election of Senator Stephenson; never talked to me about obstructive tactics to prevent election of Senator Stephenson 1427, 1428 Kleczka, Senator, told him about my conversation with Davies, probably the next day, or the day after that; was the first man I stated it to 1440 LXXVIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Leuch, Peter F., member of the Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Milwau- kee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Kleczka, walking with me when I met Davies; heard Davies say to me, “I want to talk to you a minute” 1428, 1429 Stephenson, was not engaged in a filibuster to prevent the election of; my desire was to prevent his election until the committee authorized to investigate the charges preferred against him could report 1419, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424 Stephenson, voted for, on third or fourth ballot in joint convention, after Blaine charges had been preferred; reasons 1432-1439 Zimmerman, a member of the house, told him about my conversation with Davies 1440 Lewis, Hugh, messenger in House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.; resides Madison, Wis. ; testimony of 912 Ames, I never paid him any money 914 Columbia and Dodge Counties, my first work was to get men to circulate nomination papers and find out who were Stephenson men, the promi- nent men there, and advise with them how to get up the papers; I made four trips to two counties at different times and made a week’s travel with an automobile and took Morgan with me part of the time, and then my back gave way and I let Ames take the auto for the balance of the time I had agreed to take it 1 914, 915 Dane County, Sacket and Puelicher wanted me to take hold of it; my health was not good and I said I could not assume the responsibility; they asked me if I could name anybody; I said: “I will go back home and come back here after I consult with Stephenson men in Madison,” and the result was I recommended Mr. Morgan and Mr. Ames, and they were selected to take charge of Dane County 914 Employed men, only on election day; at 12 precincts in city of Madison; to be at polls, pass sample ballots, solicit votes for Stephenson, and bring voters in; probably paid them $130; paid some men $5, none less than that, and some $10; paid one man more; generally got them to act for both Stephenson and Russell; expense equalized between the two. 916, 917, 918 Expenses, personal, I made six trips to Milwaukee at invitation of com- mittee; $75 or $80 would cover expenses for railroad fare, hotel bills, and such things 914, 915, 916 Johnson, mechanic at Madison, I had to pay him more than $10 to work at polls election day, because he is a good worker 917 Literature, I had a pr some stamps and rnailec 915 914 ^ood list from previous campaigns, and I bought matter I had brought home with me; did not spend more than $25 for stamps; they sent me by express a lot of litera- ture, pictures, streamers, buttons, etc., and when we were out in auto- mobile in a little place, I could not mail them myself, and I had to pay a couple of dollars or so for that 916 Madison, resident of 40 years, when not at Washington performing duties; family lives there 913 Money, received from Stephenson fund, not spent in a saloon campaign; did not pay one nickle to any person to secure his vote; never paid any to any other person to be used by him for the purchase or corruption of votes Money, received none for my own services; received $360 — first time $100, next time $60, and the next time, I think, $200 913, Palmyra, my best recollection is I paid $5 for a hall, but the speaker did not speak because the opposition stood at the door and said there was not going to be any meeting 916 Puelicher, I am sure I got all the money from him 914 Russell, was an old comrade and a candidate for Congress; I had charge of his interests as far as Madison and Dane County were concerned; we hired men jointly that would take an interest in Russell and Stephenson campaign; I was paying his bills for him with money separate from Ste- phenson bills — money of which I kept an account — and looking after his interests; I had more than $150 to use for him 915, 917, 918 Sacket, bought me a satchel, which I took from headquarters and which he paid for out of the#funds, to take literature home with me 916 Soldier during War of Rebellion in Second Wisconsin Infantry; served until I lost my arm in that capacity; continued in service until end of war 913 DIGEST INDEX. LXXIX Page. Lewis, Hugh, messenger in House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., resides Madison, Wis, testimony of — Continued. Stephenson campaign, took part in in 1908 Stoughton, paid for a meeting there; paid $31.55 for a hall and band and the bill posting; in addition there was expense of speaker Littlefield, E. C., argument before full committee Blaine charges made after election, January 26, of Senator Stephenson. . . Certificate under which Stephenson took his seat in the United States Senate not based on proceedings of two houses separately; based upon what was alleged to be a subsequent election on 4th of March, 1909 Counsel for Senator Stephenson, statement of Election, result not declared by presiding officer of joint session January 29, 1909 . Governor of State of Wisconsin, certified fact of vote but not of election... Investigation of election not authorized by Senate resolution to go beyond election by legislature; unconstitutional to investigate primary election; ruled upon 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Nomination and election, Wisconsin statutes recognize differentiation be- tween 15 Stephenson, elected by the Wisconsin Legislature to be a Senator of the United States January 26, 1909; objects to introduction of testimony in relation to, subsequent to January 26, 1909 8, 44 Lyons, E. H., member of Illinois State Senate, Fond du Lac, Wis., testi- mony of 1387 Direct primary, not in favor of 1389 First elected in 1908; first time I served as senator; at present senator; rep- Haight, did not receive $100 from, during time I was in legislature 1388 Stephenson, campaigned and voted for 1389 Stephenson, did not receive money from managers of, or any one represent- ing him 1388 Thayer, L. W., did receive $100 from, during campaign; handed it to me in person; was a check issued by State central committee; do not remem- ber who signed check; received it about two weeks before election; think I made statement on floor of senate that I received $100 “to be good”; Zimmerman testified that such statement was made; money was for own personal use 1388, 1389 Thayer, want to correct senatorial committee’s report wherein I am quoted as saying Thayer opposed me 1389, 1390 Thayer, said committee could afford to give me $100. I said “I do not want your money.” Was not paid $100 for “being good” 1390 Vote of, no money ever paid me had any effect on 1390 M. MacLean, R. E., lumberman, Wells, Mich., testimony of 1848 Box, first knew of, in spring of 1909, when went to Marinette to get; found too cumbersome, so put contents in gunny sacks and took away in auto- mobile to Wells; did not examine contents at that time; saw there were some letter cases and papers; size of a shoe box. 1848, 1849, 1850, 1854, 1855, 1857 Box, when found in warehouse, was nailed up; went after at night, simply to save time - 1855, 1856 Files, took letters out of, and left on shelf; later on put letters back in and put them where I had found them on shelf in outer office 1851, 1854 Gunny sacks, contained lot of papers, letter files, cards, etc.; put in loft of Mr. Kates’s shed, same night we got them; knew contents were documents of some kind, relating to campaign, but did not know value of 1849, 1851, 1855, 1856, 1857 Hornibrook, superintendent of the Ludington Co., at Marinette; showed me box to take; was in charge of warehouse that night, was only person I saw there; told had returned suit case of papers to Stephenson’s office. . 1849, 1850, 1854 Kates, superintendent of Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad; connected with Senator Stephenson in business way; my next-door neighbor; asked to take me down to Marinette in automobile, to save time 15235°— 11 vi 913 916 2166 8 9 6 8 9 7, 8, 1857 LXXX DIGEST INDEX. Page. 1855 MacLean, R. E., lumberman, Wells, Mich., testimony of — Continued. Letters and letter files from Stephenson’s office put in box at warehouse, I think, could not swear to 1854, Russell, phoned me again to come down to Marinette for box of papers; to meet him at Menominee; had packages for me to bring home; met at hotel about 11 o’clock; wanted me to go over to Marinette next morning and get papers and take to Wells; said someone would be at office to give me papers; followed instructions of 1848, 1851, 1852, 1856, 1857 Russell, showed where letters were in suit case; did not see what he did with reference to examining, sorting, or separating; did not give any separate bundle of papers 1853 Stephenson, Senator, am representative for in business at this place; presi- dent of Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad 1848, 1857 Stringham, Miss, did not see when went for box; at office when went for papers, showed me which to take; was away on vacation when I took papers back again 1850, 1854 Suit case, brought full of letters and papers from Marinette; could not bring files in; belonged to me; this episode came first; took home and put in window seat; left there until took back again to Stephenson’s office; papers put in just as they came out of files 1851, 1852, 1853, 1854 Time, elapsed between getting suit case of letters and contents of box, about a month; could not fix date positively, some time in spiing of 1909 1851, 1852, 1855 Transportation, between Wells and Marinette, medium of, good State road, about 60 miles; direct railroad connecting; by water but in roundabout way 1849,1850 Trunk, have not seen contents of; did not help to pack 1855 McCordic, as to his appearing before committee 1993, 1994 McCordic, telegram received by committee saying that in interview about con- versation in his office with Cook and Wisconsin men he made no statement indicating a personal knowledge on part of Cook of any of matters discussed; his (Cook’s) entire statement was a hearsay one and so understood by all present 1941 McGill, Leroy E., lawyer, Ladysmith, Wis., testimony of 1274 Account, did not render one; was not requested to at any time 1278 Arrowsmith, Fred, said he had expended for teams and day’s work some.- thing like $20, as I remember it; paid him after the primary was over by check 1275 Dresser, L. B., received $25 from 1274 Edmonds, received $200 from him at one time and $250 at another time, I believe 1274 Fee, as an attorney, retained $175 1276 Memorandum of disbursements, did not keep one, although at the close I could have given a pretty close account Money, all except the $175 retained spent for purposes of organization and legitimately getting out vote; none spent by me or as far as I know by those to whom I intrusted it, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influenc- 1277 mj Rusl 1277 electors County, procured poll list of; employed some one to do it; do not remember name of; recollect I paid $5 to; traveled through county and made a campaign for Stephenson just as I would for myself; expense items incurred; employed workers at polls; estimate $5 as expense per precinct . 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277 Stephenson campaign of 1908, received $475 to be used in; used partly for expenditures and partly for services; devoted nearly entire month of August to it 1274, 1277 Stephenson nomination papers, gave some directions at time they were being circulated and from that time on 1275, 1276 McGillivray, Jam.es J., mayor of Black River Falls, Wis., testimony of 1249" Account, did not render one to committee; they did not ask for one 125$ Black River Falls, recently destroyed by flood; my own place of business wrecked ]254 Business, I am a lumber manufacturer 1250 DIGEST INDEX. LXXXI Page. Mc&illivray, James J., mayor of Black River Falls, Wis., testimony of — Contd. Campaign, as carried on by me, took teams and visited farmeis in country and talked for Stephenson; carried buttons, banners, and literature with me and enlisted other men to work when I found they were willing to support him; made speeches 1250, 1251 Edmonds, called me to Milwaukee, I think, and something happened so he had to go to Appleton and I talked to Puelicher and some other gentlemen. 1253 Edmonds, sent me $600 at one time in check, accompanied by letter; have not the letter; it said to use money as I saw fit in Jackson County, as I remember 1249, 1250 % Election law of Wisconsin, I do not think it requires in detail statement of persons to whom campaign money is paid, purpose for which paid, and amount paid 1251 Jackson County Bank, Black River Falls, deposited money from Edmonds in my general account there 1250 Memorandum of money spent; every night when I came in, I would put down the money spent; have no names and dates attached; items of given; total of $599.65; that leaves 35 cents, which I returned to Steph- enson by check or draft, to make up $600 1251, 1252, 1253 Money, not paid by me, or as far as I know by men to whom I paid it, for bribing or corruptly influencing voters 1254 Offices held, member of legislature 4 years and member of senate 12 years; have not been a member of either house since 1905 1249 Poll workers, employed them and hired some to get their teams and take men to polls; did not pay any to go to polls and vote 1253 Stephenson, supported him in primary contest of 1908 1249 Testimony before joint legislative committee, mistake made in small amounts given men; I called up men and asked them if amounts given were correct; found a few mistakes and immediately came down before senate end of committee and corrected it 1252, 1253 Treating, I did not buy liquor or beer, but we did not want to feel we were too big to treat a man to a cigar or meal; treated thrashing crews to cigars and pie 1252 McMahon, Edward M., general agent for the Northwestern Mutual Life Insur- ance Co., Madison, Wis., testimony of 1023, 1795 Account, I filed an account of everything; kept an itemized account of my expenses and turned them over to office at end of campaign 1026 Age, 27 1023,1024 Box, containing campaign correspondence and records, I do not know what was done with it; last time I saw it was in vault at headquarters in Wells Building on September 5, I believe; I do not remember whether it was nailed up; I was asked about it by legislative committee; I have not heard what became of contents 1045, 1046, 1047, 1796, 1797, 1799, 1802, 1803, 1804 Cigars, I spent some money for; probably close to $20 1026, 1027 Correspondence, I was present at headquarters when it was disposed of; it was classified and boxed up; by office boys and myself; Edmonds and Sacket were in and out while we were doing it; Lambeck and I were asked to classify it; when campaign closed there was a raft of material, poll lists, nomination papers, and correspondence and a lot that was simply wastebasket stuff; Edmonds retained his personal correspond- ence; it did not go into box; campaign letters and carbon replies put in box 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1795, 1796, 1800, 1801, 1802 Correspondence in relation to State depository for Stevens’s bank with headquarters, I do not know what became of it 1042 Dart, George, Montello, Marquette County, I made arrangement with him. 1050 Edmonds, E. A.: Kept a small file, a box of cards; contained a list of names of managers; think they were put in the large box with campaign records; some of papers on his desk retained by him and some put in this box; do not know whether his memoranda of expenses was put into box 1054, 1056, 1800, 1801 Reported to him I thought I had convinced Stevens he should sup- port Stephenson 1037 lxxxii DIGEST INJJEX. Page. McMahon, Edward M., general agent for the Northwestern Mutual Life Insur- ance Co., Madison, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Edmonds, E. A. — Continued. Started to pack correspondence in box by his direction; told me to separate his own private correspondence of any kind that he con- ducted with his friends throughout the State; he said “Take out the correspondence with these certain men;” I do not remember the names of the men; told Lambeck and me box was to be shipped to Marinette according to instructions he received from Stephenson.. 1045, 1046, 1797, 1798, 1799 Think he took up matter of State depository for Stevens with James Frear, secretary of State; I do not remember his having telephoned Frear from headquarters; conversation took four or five minutes; matter talked over generally; I remember only one incident of telephoning, but I have a faint recollection of some correspondence between them; saw letters; do not know where they are 1041, 1042 Told me he had taken up the matter of making Stevens’s bank a State depository with Frear and Gilbert and others who had giving out of favor; I do not think I reported my conversation with Stevens about State depository when I came to headquarters first time after having talk; I do not think he actually did anything about it until about the middle of the campaign, when he mentioned it to me 1028,1030,1039 Expenses, I think I got less than $300 for traveling expenses; had about $20 left 1025,1026 Financial connection with campaign, received about $200 expense money — four items of $50 each — and $300 for compensation; at end of campaign there was a small amount of expense money that I had not used out of the $50 advanced; I took it up with Sacket; it was less than $10 or $15; whether I retained that in adidtion to $300 I am not sure Frear, James, secretary of State, I understood he was opposed to Stephen- son’s nomination; was a La Follette man 1042, Headquarters, understanding was I was to work there, when first engaged; I was there doing general office work all the time I was not out in the State; I was a little over a month traveling and a month at headquarters; first month I was traveling more than at headquarters 1024, 1037, James, Norman, I made arrangement with him to look after work of get- ting our votes and crystallizing sentiment in Richland County; he was not to receive compensation for his time 1049, Lambeck, Arthur, lived in Milwaukee at that time; do not know where he is now; had been assistant private secretary to Stephenson, as I under- stand it; was asked, with me, to classify correspondence. 1043, 1044, 1796, Lancaster, I think I was there either two or three times during the cam- paign; it was all during the first month of the campaign; I do not know whether it was in July; it might have gone into August Larson, C. O., got him to take charge at Port Washington; did not pay him any money; agreed with him that he was to make arrangements at head- quarters 1025, Larson, Dodgeville, Iowa County, I made arrangement with him Managers employed, my arrangements with, we figured out what it would cost to get nomination papers circulated, to advertise Stephenson through- out the vicinity and to get the vote out primary day ; I talked matter of compensation over with them, got their idea of it, and reported it to Edmonds; average paid to $100 a month in addition to expense money for organizing; we figured on $5 a team for carrying; all arrangements with closed by Edmonds 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, Money, not spent by me, or as far as I know, by men with whom I made arrangements, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters.. Port Washington, Ozaukee County, went there to find out whether there was any Stephenson sentiment; interviewed several leaders; got Mr. Larson to take charge Puelicher, I made preliminary arrangement with him; I happened to be the Marshall & Illsley Bank and he asked me what I was to do in the sum- mer time; told me he thought he would want to see me again. When he did after a con versa tionhe sent me to Sacket 1023, 1024, Puelicher, I received first $50 from him, I believe; it was for expenses on a trip out into the State 1053 1052 1017 1050 1800 1035 1049 1049 1051 1053 1025 1052 1024 DIGEST INDEX. LXXXIII Page. McMahon, Edward M., general agent for the Northwestern Mutual Life Insur- ance Co., Madison, Wis, testimony of — Continued. Sacket, I do not know anything about cards on which he kept accounts; never had occasion to overlook details of work he was doing; knew nothing about his desk or records 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1799 Sacket, I turned over my account books to him; spoke to him about them, and he was of the opinion they had been turned over to the Wisconsin legislative committee 1026, 1027 Salary, I think I was employed two months at $150 a month; did not receive it until after the primary, September 5; I went to work in office at $75 a month ; went out through State after that and my salary was increased to amount that made $300 for two months’ work 1026, 1027, 1036, 1053 State depositories, I knew the method of having them granted; that there was a commission for that purpose; never discussed law in regard to, with Edmonds, Puelicher, or Sacket 1030, 1031, 1038 Stephenson, I do not remember to have ever reported to him or anyone representing him, that I had a talk with Stevens about getting him the State deposits, before he agreed to support Stephenson Stephenson campaign, connected with in summer of 1908 Stevens, L. H.: After he commenced working for Stephenson, I ran across him on a train down in that section of the State when he was doing his work. . At time of first conversation with, I understood he had been a strong “half-breed”; that was early in the campaign and at that time a “half-breed” to my mind was a Stephenson man; said then he had not taken any stand; when I left there I did not know whether he would associate himself with Stephenson campaign or not; I do not believe he hesitated very long as to stand he would take; I was of the opinion he thought Stephenson should be the choice 1031, 1032, 1034, 1035, 1051, 1052 Banker, first conversation with, at Lancaster; I knew his family well; went to his bank and we talked about general business conditions and I suggested with no idea of his connecting it with Stephenson campaign, that he try to secure a State depository; I said when I went back to Milwaukee I would try to procure the influence of Edmonds; but it was not his influence as chairman of Stephenson committee; can not fix date of conversation 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1038 I do not remember the exact amount of money placed in his hands by the campaign committee 1029, 1048, 1049 Letter from, to headquarters asked what progress Edmonds was mak- ing along line of securing State depository; that was after he had agreed to take up Stephenson interests; I think Edmonds at that time took up the matter and advised him he was doing what he could; through fact that currency was short he had to stay in bank instead of getting out over the territory and that was chief thing he was hammering on and taking up with Edmonds; amount of deposit never mentioned 1039, 1040 Second conversation with, I went back a week or 10 days after first visit; I think he told me then for first time, that he would make an arrangement to support Stephenson ; told him I had mentioned mat- ter of securing him a State deposit to Edmonds; told him that with the friends that Edmonds had and the friends of the people who were interested in Stephenson’s campaign, they ought to be able to get it for him 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037 Stevens’s bank, I did not know it had been made a State depository until I happened to see it in the testimony that the committee forwarded to the United States Senate with their report 1038, 1039 University of Wisconsin, I was finishing my course there in spring of 1908; attended law school there in fall of 1908 1023 Voght, Ed., Sheboygan, arranged with him to work for Stephenson 1049 Vote, my first one, I think, was in local spring election of 1908 1024 Wiseman, Arthur J., Manitowoc, arranged with him to work for Stephen- son 1029 1023 1037 1049 LX XX IV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Marsh, Spencer M., chairman of both State senate investigating committee and joint investigating committee at time of investigation of election of Senator Stephenson, testimony of 1101 Advertising, I would not think insertions in interest of Stephenson paid for at regular advertising rates would be bribery 1106 Blaine, John J., I was present as a member of joint committee when he filed the specific charges against Stephenson 1103 Bribery and corruption, I think it was a corrupt expenditure to place a hundred thousand dollars in the hands of managers and to permit them to distribute it without any instruction as to how it was to be spent and as to keeping of accounts; the fact that numerous witnesses came upon the stand who had spent hundreds of dollars in campaign and were un- able to tell us to whom they paid that money indicated they did not want to tell 1106, 1107, 1128 Campaign of 1908, took an active part in; made a very few campaign speeches 1101 Dee, George, Chippewa Falls, my recollection is that $375 was paid him; we examined him a long while and did not find out for what purpose; but before he received the money he was opposing Stephenson and after he received it he was favoring him; think that was shown by copies of editorials he published; his testimony was that it was for advertising purposes; he gave us his rates and, figuring liberally, at his regular rates I think there was about $60 worth done; think Ring paid him part of it 1104, 1105, 1106, 1124, 1125, 1126 Election of Stephenson by legislature at Madison, I was present when vote was taken; know Ramsey and other members were absent; do not know why they were except what I learned from testimony; there would have been no election if they had been present and had voted for their party candidate; they were Democrats 1119 Election of United States Senator by legislature in 1909, I did not vote for anybody in ballot in senate; voted for various people in the joint assem- bly in March; can not recollect how vote stood in separate session of senate 1101, 1102 Failure to file an expense account as required by statute, we considered that as one little circumstance indicating that there was not a frank and open attitude on the part of candidate and his managers so that the people might know how the money was spent; did not consider it one of strong reasons why election was invalid 1106 First specific charge, my opinion is and was that it was sustained as to manner in which money was spent; there was no finding that he spent $250,000 1104,1127 French, of Lake Geneva, I think was paid $800; I think was supporter of Cook earlier in campaign 1118 Hatton, supported him at the primary 1102 Investigation, efforts of Stephenson and his managers and newspaper, the Free Press, to prevent, taken into consideration 1128 Lancaster Bank, illustrating testimony relating to promises, we took into consideration 1128 McGillivray, ex-Senator, committee took into consideration his testimony with regard to employing men to go to the polls 1118 Member of State senate in 1909; elected in 1906 1101 Milwaukee expenditures, recollect it was something like $11,000; we chal- lenged all of it so far as it was placed in the hands of the manager without any directions as to how it was to be expended and because of the manner in which it was expended, to which Knell testified, as to employment of men to go to polls and work 1118 Money, I considered it spent corruptly when it resulted in influencing voters so that they voted differently from the way they would have voted if the money had not been spent 1104 Report of senate committee, comprised of three members, not completed until January, 1911; my term of office expired before it was adopted, but not before it was made; I think it was made to the governor and to the legislature; understood it was the basis of the governor’s communication to the United States Senate 1117, 1122 DIGEST INDEX. LXXXV Page. Marsh, Spencer M., chairman of both State senate investigating committee and joint investigating committee at time of investigation of election of Senator Stephenson, testimony of — Continued. Report of senate committee, written by Senators Morris, Husting, and my- self; we divided up the work and each of us wrote some of it; I could not tell what part I wrote; do not remember what parts were alloted to Morris or Husting; last saw it in capitol at Madison; I signed it and left it in hands of Morris and Husting with understanding that it was to be pre- sented to governor immediately; think McGovern was governor 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123 Resolutidh under which we were acting required investigation of whole senatorial campaign in the primary; think campaign conduct of other candidates was not same kind as Stephenson’s 1128, 1129 Specific charges, entered into an investigation to determine whether or not they would be sustained by testimony; my opinion was and is that some of them were sustained and some of them were not 1103 Stephenson, felt it our duty to investigate his whole campaign and deter- mine whether money had been spent corruptly or for purpose of influenc- ing voters; we did not confine ourselves in the examination to the Blaine charges 1104 Stone, James A., Reedsburg, Wis., I recall my letter to; think it was offered in evidence at the examination before the joint committee 1102 Vote, withdrawn day preceding election of Stephenson by legislature, I do not remember that distinctly; I know there were situations like that arising along there, but I wouid not be able to testify about that par- ticular matter 1123, 1124 Wagner, who testified before committee that he saw a transaction in which certain members of legislature received money, at which Puelicher was present, my information is that he testified falsely and was prosecuted for perjury and paid the penalty; as a member of committee I did not attach any importance to his testimony, independent of the criminal prosecution; all the members of the committee considered it false. . 1119, 1120 Wellensgard, in testimony before joint committee said he paid men $3 or $4 for going to vote; was a member of assembly; I do not know whether our recommendations were broad enough to call him to account for it; so far as I know prosecuting officers never took any steps for that 1107, 1115, 1116, 1117 Meloy, F. C., dentist, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1884 White, Richard, said to me, “I did get some money; I have got to have money to go oilt and tell the good qualities of the old gentleman, and he had many” 1884,1885 Meyer, Richard, jr., banker, Lancaster, Wis., affidavit of 2005 Age, 54 years 2005 Campaign committee at Milwaukee, received from, $500; $300 expended in procuring assistants in the south assembly district of Grant County to look after the posting of lithographs, circulating literature, and travel- ing of assistants; poll workers procured by assistants; also livery hire and conveyances 2006 Campaign work done for a considerable period prior to primary day and on primary day in circulating and causing to be circulated literature, and the posting of lithographs, and traveling in and about the county visiting his friends and generally advocating the cause of Stephenson . 2005, 2006 Lancaster, resided at during all his life 2005 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2006 Personal expenses, $50 retained to cover 2006 Persons, employed none unless they were Stephenson supporters 2006 Phillipson, Leo, $150 given to, for traveling about north assembly districts of Grant County circulating literature, putting up posters, and inter- viewing voters and providing poll workers 2006 Services, received practically nothing for 2006 Stephenson , at all times a supporter of, and personally anxious to see him nominated 2006 LXXXVI DIGEST INDEX. Page. Miner, Grant L., Richland Center, Wis., testimony of Cigars, spent $2 or $3 for Men employed, names of given ; money paid to between time it was sent me three days before the primaries, I think, and primary day; not original memorandum; jotted down coming here on train 1285, Miner, E. S., candidate at that time for nomination to Congress, is another man Money, none spent by me, or as far as I know by men to whom I intrusted it, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters Richland County, paid money out there principally for men at the polls and teams to get voters to polls; some paid for auto hire and livefy hire; $15 or $20 average paid out per precinct 1284, Statement of expenses, did not render one; not asked for one 1284, Stephenson, did not pay any person for supporting or voting for Stephenson campaign in 1908, received $300 or $350 to be expended in; do not recollect just the amount; paid out all but $15 or $20; I have that; did not keep it for my services; did not render services to amount to anything; they sent me this money and I did not commence to work until two or three days before the primary; money paid out in sums from $5 to $20 1284, Witness, did not testify as, in this investigation before either Wisconsin committee Morgan, Earl J., son-in-law of Senator Stephenson, Oshkosh, Wis., testimony of Advertising and printing, item of $550 fer, was a total sum; had bills for between $400 and $500 of it; made up balance from memory; included item of $150 for postage Baseball association, donated either $100 or $125 to; was to create good feeling 1742, Batke, Emil, Oshkosh, paid $20; put in considerable time putting up advertising matter and worked at polls Benedict, Ernest, made a trip along the Wolf River towns in Stephenson’s behalf and was paid a per diem for his services and his hotel expenses; aggregated $87.15 1744, Bolter, Herman, Oshkosh, paid $15 for a special trip to a small place, I think it was Boyce city to put up advertising matter; paid $5 a day for his time and expenses Boyson, paid $15 to cover expenses of his boat and taking electors to polls . 1746, Campaign committee had nothing directly to do with work I had in hand; did not report to them in detail Chase, John, paid him $45 for a per diem of $3 and expenses for canvassing for Stephenson and putting up lithographs; lives at Oshkosh Chautauqua grounds, gave $100 for a fountain in; never have seen it; there wa$ one put in at the time. Cigars, $200; they were handed out to workers to be distributed; used as advertising matter; each one wrapped in paper by itself on which was printed: “Never swap horses in middle of the stream” and “Vote for Uncle Ike;” think we were asked for fully as many cigars as we dis- tributed voluntarily 1743,1747, Crawford, E. G,., my brother-in-law; paid him $125 to cover his expenses to Ripon and for putting up advertising matter there and for engaging workers in different precincts there; paid $50 additional to cover his personal expenses during two months prior to the primary election and for advertising that was put up and work for Stephenson. . 1743, 1744, 1747, Daily Northwestern, Oshkosh, paid $125 for paid advertising space; it was page or half-page advertsing with a picture of Stephenson Davis, George, $40 paid to was for a special trip into one of the neighboring counties, putting up advertising and advancing Stephenson’s candidacy. Derber, E. J., Black Wolf, paid $5 to cover his expenses on primary elec- tion day . Edmonds, telephoned several different times in reference to campaign; item of $25 for that Edwards, R. H., Oshkosh, paid $100; was at that time connected with our company, Morgan & Go.„ in lumber business; made several trips through the county and adjacent counties and put up advertising matter and that was to cover his expenses. .. 1750, 1283 1284 1286 1284 1286 1285 1285 1284 1285 1284 1734 1741 1743 1750 1748 1750 1749 1747 1749 1743 1748 1751 1742 1749 1749 1748 175] DIGEST INDEX, LXXXVH Page. Morgan, Earle J., son-in-law of Senator Stephenson, Oshkosh, Wis., testimony of — Continued. General organization work, $1*,100, that took in all other expenses aside from those that came under the head of general advertising and public dona- tions and two or three hundred dollars spent for workers primary election day, expended for different workers to carry on Stephenson campaign; out of that sum I personally gave money to at least 25 men 1744, 1746 German newspaper, paid about $20 or $25 to 1741, 1742 Gruenewald, town of Clayton, $15 paid to, for team and work at polls 1750 Items of which I kept an account amounted to $2,300 1740 Johnson, Rice Lake, sent him $25 to pay for his services in putting up some advertising matter 1747 Johnson, Winchester, $10 paid him for use of his team, as I remember, on primary election day and for his services at the polls 1750 Kane, August, paid $125 to cover his services during July and August 1744 McDonald, William, Oshkosh, paid $25 for work for Stephenson 1750 Manning, F. M., paid $44.25 for canvassing; connected with insurance company at Oshkosh 1748, 1749 Manzer, William, Oshkosh, paid $25 to put up some advertising matter and he put in considerable time prior to 1st of September in Stephenson’s behalf . . 1750 Memorandum book of certain portions of disbursements, after having read from it before joint committee, I tore it up and threw it in waste-paper basket in my office at Oshkosh; can not give date I destroyed it; was not original memoranda, but tabulation of items on slips of paper 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1745 Mershwa, George, Oshkosh, paid $20 for work for Stephenson 1750 Money, did not spend any, for purpose of bribing or corrupting any elector; so far as I know none spent that way by men to whom I intrusted funds... 1745,1751 Organization work explained; men paid for time at polls and for teams and to haul voters to polls; not for their time in going to polls 1746 Oshkosh “home-coming day,” donation of $200 to, think I was actuated in making that contribution by fact they had received a similar contribution, as I was given to understand, by Cook 1742, 1743 Peterson, Chris., Oshkosh, paid $15 for work for Stephenson 1751 Slips of paper, on which I kept memorandum of different amounts I spent, kept in a drawer in my desk; copied them into the book after I was called to testify before investigating committee at Madison; kept adver- tising items on and some bills that had been rendered from time to time; slips not made at time I made payments; destroyed after campaign was finished .*1 1739, 1740, 1741 Stephenson, matter of my having spent any money on his behalf was entirely voluntary on my part; there was no thought of my asking him to reimburse me at any time and I did not expect it at the time I was expending the money ; it was only after he stated to me very emphatically that every cent that had been expended during his campaign was to be put into, his expense account, that report was made' to him of what I had spent. r . 1745,1747 Stephenson, received $2,550 from him first part of November, after cam- *’ ’ paign was over; had expended it in his behalf during primary campaign; did not render him an account; merely told him, in answer to a request which he made, the total amount that I had expended 1734, 1735, 1739 Traveling expenses, $125, money was spent in traveling in connection with campaign 1743 Williamson, town of Nekimi, $15 paid to, for team and work at polls 1750 Winnebago County, expenditures distributed largely over; Oshkosh is dounty seat of 1746 Winneconne, paid $10 to a man in town of; can not recall his name ; r he was to put up some advertising there and work on primary election day . 1749, 1750 Witness before joint legislative committee t 1734 Workers on primary election day, did not keep an accurate account of money paid to; estimated that expense as closely as I could in makinh up my total report, largely upon memory; think those items amounted to from $200 to $300; names of five at Oshkosh who received $5 each given 1740,1744,1751 LXX XVIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Morgan, H. H., assistant United States attorney for the western district of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., testimony of 925 Ames, A. R., was in charge of the county; he gave me $50; how I expended it in detail 929, 930, 931 Democrats, would vote at Republipan primaries, explained 928 Edmonds, asked him for $226, giving him detailed requisition; copy of letter written him August 7, 1908, telling specific purposes for which money was required; amount asked for in letter, $164, came up to $226; when in conference with him it was decided to send literature in Dane County out in 2-cent instead of 1-cent envelopes 926, 927, 928 Gordon, George, I am assistant in same district where he is United States attorney .-***. 933 Keyes, E. W., postmaster at Madison, my recollection is that both the check for $226 and for $73 were indorsed by me to him, inasmuch as a large part of sum was was taken to purchase stamps at that time 928 Money, I received $299 from Edmonds, by Puelieher’s checks; received draft for $266 from Puelicher, August 20; at a later time I received $73; received $50 from A. R. Ames 925, 926, 928, 929, 932 Money, none used by me or, so far as I know, by those to whom I disbursed it for directly or indirectly bribing or corruptly influencing voters 933 Stephenson, I participated in his campaign in 1908 925 Testimony before Senate committee that I was charged with receiving $2,555 is a falsehood; my recollection is that the testimony given before the Wisconsin Senate committee by some witness was to the effect that I had received $255, and by moving that up one decimal point you would have $2,550; that is the explanation I made to my friends; it was not verified, though, before being printed and sent to the senate 931, 932 Wisconsin Senate committee, I was subpoenaed and answered promptly; the senators failed to call me 932 Morley, Calvin E., as to taking original memorandum book from the affida- vit of 1646 Morley, Calvin E., ex-Assistant Sergeant at Arms, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., resides Viroqua, Wis., affidavit of 2006 Age, 68 years 2006 Book containing original entries of expenditures marked “Exhibit A”... 2007 Boyle, Lewis C., handled campaign and campaign fund with him; gave him $125.80 2007 Campaign headquarters at Milwaukee, received from, $500; $200 sent back after primary campaign closed 2007 Campaign work for Stephenson in Viroqua and Vernon County during pri- mary contest, at request of Edmonds, who gave no particular instructions, except told to use own judgment, and they wanted to carry on a clean campaign and make the expenditures as judicious as possible and not to expend any unnecessary moneys, and no moneys should be expended excepting for legitimate purposes 2006 Disbursements of $174.20, itemized; kept in memorandum book, which contains originals entries; submitted for inspection 2007 Madison investigation, did not appear as witness at 2007 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2007, 2008 Precinct workers, instructions given to; none employed unless they were supporters of Stephenson at the time of employment 2007 Statement of disbursements, never called upon for itemized 2007 Services, made no charge for 2007 Stephenson, supporter of, at all times and prior to work in campaign 2006 Viroqua, resided in', about past 52 years 2006 Morris, Thomas, lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, testimony of 1129 Blaine resolution, I testified before joint investigating committee, I voted for it because specific facts had been set up; I considered it, and not the charges, started investigation; charges were filed and resulted in- the adoption of the resolution 1130, 1131 Caucus and primary election law, I testified before joint committee I con- sidered both binding, if fairly and honestly conducted 1130 Chicago, Titus, Husting, and myself went separately to; met there, I think, at Great. Northern Hotel in the morning about 10 o’clock; I think I went down on the Milwaukee line; do not remember whether we discussed object of trip in lobby of hotel; from there went to McCordic’s office in Rookery Building 1145, 1146, 1147 DIGEST INDEX. LXXXIX Page. Morris, Thomas, lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Committees, senate and joint, continued sessions at Madison after election of Stephenson; being in possession of information that Shields came from Washington with money to influence election of Stephenson, record shows no evidence of effort to run it down, but members of senate com- mittee tried to get witnesses and could not; do not know whether members of senate committee communicated Shields matter to house committee; I know I did not 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172 Conversations, before I went on errand to Chicago, held, I think, with Senator Husting, Senator Owen, Senator Sanborn, and I think I talked with Mr. Van der Cook, reporter on a Milwaukee paper, but whether it was before I went or after I came back I am not certain; talked with Blaine; may have talked it over with several other senators 1145 Cook, W. H.: Asked us to withhold information given us until such time as he gave us permission to disclose it; feel it my duty to disclose it now, irre- , spective of that agreement; his reasons for keeping it secret 1136, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156 Conversation with,, about 1st of June, 1911, was between time com- mittee had filed its report and the time when legislature adopted the resolution recommending that the United States Senate investigate the matter 1136,1140,1142 Conversation with, in Chicago, occurred a very short time after he was a witness before Helm committee; I do not know whether he had testified before the Lorimer committee of the United States Senate then 1150,1175,1176 Discussed the disappearance of Shields when he was subpoenaed by the joint committee and claimed to know where he was, in fact, at that time — hidden in a Chicago hotel; I do not remember if he stated where he got that information 1157 Had conversation with on train when I was going home from Chicago and he was going to Duluth; Senator Husting present; do not think I had a conversation alone with him 1138 Hines’s partner in lumber business, conversation with about 1st of June in McCordic’s law office in Rookery Building, Chicago, at which Senator Husting and Assistant Attorney General Titus, of Wisconsin, were present, about deal between Stephenson and Hines, whereby he said approximately a hundred thousand dollars was raised for purpose of securing Stephenson’s election in the legislature; and that Shields knew all about it; said sum was used to keep Democrats away from joint session and for special train that brought Reader out . . 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1142, 1153, 1159, 1160, 1176 Promised to use his influence with Shields and to get him to come for- ward and tell about the whole thing; I have never seen him since; he agreed to write to McCordic and McCordic was to write to Titus and let him know result of interview with Shields; recollect I heard from Titus that he did write McCordic saying Shields had gone to Canada . 1138,1179 To whom McCordic referred is same one over whom controversy took place in Lorimer case 1151 Crownhart, C. H., chairman of industrial commission, Madison, was asked, as I understand it, by Saunderson how much the progressives would be willing to pay to have charge that three Democrats received money to absent themselves from legislature worked out by a detective, claiming information was here in Milwaukee and that he knew who had it; re- fused to pay for services of a detective; have talked with him since United States Senate committee was appointed 1134, 1135, 1163 Crownhart, first heard from him that Shields had been to Washington to see Stephenson and probably come back with money 1169 Hambrecht, was one of the assembly members of joint committee 1130 Hatton, I expended no money for him among voters; testified before joint committee with reference to spending senatorial candidate’s money; I thought it wrong, and that if I had it to do over again I wouldn’t spend that $25 for him; I think it is wrong now, but the record shows that the money was spent for printing bill and postage 1167, 1168 Hatton supported him m campaign, but not in senate 1131 Husting, have discussed incident of trip to Chicago with, to-day 1146 xc DIGEST INDEX. Page. Morris, Thomas, lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, testimony of — Continued. Husting, I have discussed conversation at Chicago with him several times; we discussed what to do about it; we were anxious to get it before the legislature if we could Husting, Senator, was my associate on investigating committee Husting resolution, testimony before joint committee that I voted against it because no specific cases of fraud wore set up Kittle, William, of Madison, conveyed to me same information that Saun- derson gave Crownhart, and I refused to pay for services of a detective; I talked with him several times at Madison and at my home in La Crosse 1135,1163 Lieutenant governor, I preside over senate as; journal would show my absence, but not where I was 1145 Marsh, chairman of senate committee, I concur with his statements as to the reasons for the findings; but I have other reasons for concurring with findings 1131,1132 Marsh, Senator, I think he knew about conversation in Chicago with Cook and rumors with reference to Shields bringing blank check from Washing- ton ; I do not know whether I talked it over with him at time investigat- ing committee was in session 1177, 1178, 1179 Member of Senate of State of Wisconsin in 1908 from thirty-second district. 1130 Memorandum book of expenses, I always carry one; I do not remember whether I made any entry of my expenses on this trip to Chicago 1143, 1144 New information, I have had some since the investigation which would tend to throw new light on the matter 1132 Report made by committee of three senators, I joined in it 1131 Saunderson, assistant sergeant at arms of senate at time Stephenson was elected; have not talked with him personally, understand that he was informed by another party here in Milwaukee, whose name I do not know, that part of money went to three Democrats who walked out of joint session; is an attorney; informed that he had this information by Kittle 1134,1139,1173,1175 . Shields, Cook said he went to Chicago and insisted on being paid $15,000 by Hines for his services at Madison; that there was a dispute about it; that he returned to Duluth to talk matter over with Cook’s partner; that partner went with him to Chicago and it was settled by Hines giving him, I think, $7,500 and a certain line of fire insurance; I have never seen him; Cook got this information from his partner and, I think, from Shields 1137, 1138, 1157, 1168, 1176, 1177 Shields, Robert, Superior; informed he went to Washington just before election in legislature and saw Stephenson and came back with money, which I understand was in the form of a blank check; our committee sub- poenaed him and he disappeared; left the State; we were never able to obtain his testimony; got information concerning blank check first in letter from Kittle; information reached me since matter has been with United States Senate; I did not know it when I went to Chicago 1134, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1172 Stephenson, I withheld my vote from him while the charges were being investigated, intending to vote for him if it showed he received the nomination fairly; never did vote for him 1131 Stephenson, senate committee tried to subpoena him and he would not come 1172 Titus, came to me and said he had a friend in Chicago, McCordic, an attor- ney, who had talked with Cook, and that Cook had some information with reference to election of Stephenson by legislature; introduced Husting and me, in Chicago, to McCordic, who sent for Cook 1137, 1141, 1144, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152 Titus, his physical and mental condition extremely poor during last year and a half 1179 Wagner, man indicted and convicted of perjury; this man that Saunder- son is supposed to have talked with claims that that transaction to which he testified really took place, as I understand it; personally I never attached any weight to that testimony 1139 1156 1140 1130 DIGEST INDEX. XCI Page. Morse, Roy L., attorney, Fond du Lac, Wis., testimony of 1204, 1215 Account of my expenditures, did not render one to anyone connected with campaign 1211 Blaine, John J., sixth specific charge by; statement therein that Stephen- son or his representatives paid me sum of $1 ,000 is not true; only possible foundation of charge is receipt and expenditure of the $700 to which I have testified 1204, 1207 Check of $450, never got one; can not account for statement that I did, except as I inquired from Mr. Black in regard to it down before the inves- tigating committee at Madison, and I think he told me that the check showed it was not $450 but $250, and that the $200 charged up at that time went to Edmonds for some other purpose 1205, 1206, 1207 Downey, James, North Fond du Lac; paid him $90 to organize his village in interest of Stephenson; did not report to me he spent it that way; I know certain men that he employed ; do not know what he paid them . 1208, 1209 Drankus, James, paid him $15 to be used in the fourth ward 1209 Edmonds, second payment of $250 came from Milwaukee with a note signed by him; can not give date 1205, 1206 Fond du Lac, have been resident of, for 10 years 1204, 1218 Green Lake County, made two trips in east end of 1208 Kinney, John, paid him $10 to do work in city of Fond du Lac in interest of Stephenson 1209 List of names of men to whom I paid money left at Madison with some one connected with investigating committee; asked me to do so by vote; in absence of, small items paid a few workers given from memory 1212, 1215, 1216, 1217 Memorandum of my expenses during campaign, I was not able to find that; I had a tablet upon my desk in my office, in which I put down the amount of money I had spent, when I came back from a trip 1207 Men to whom I gave money did not render any account to me as to method of their expenditures; presume they spent part of it in treating, although I have no personal knowledge as to that 1210 Money, all paid out except what I kept for my own services; paid to differ- ent people for their services and to distribute to others in working for Stephenson in Fond du Lac County; partly for workers at polls and when I found a man of some influence was in favor of Stephenson I got him to put in some time and I paid him for that time; do not think any was spent in paying men to go to polls : 1210 Money, how expended, paid $200 to men outside of the city of Fond du Lac in the county and about $200 in the city of Fond du Lac; I paid $50 for advertising, stamps, putting up posters, and distributing literature; and $150 for my personal expenses in going around the city and county in the interest of Stephenson 1207, 1208 Money, I received in all $700 from Stephenson fund 1205 Money, none used by me and to my knowledge none used by those to whom I paid it for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors 1217 Morgan, Earle, Oshkosh, son-in-law of Stephenson, had first talk with in reference to campaign; either had a telephone message or letter from him stating he heard I was working for Stephenson; telephoned later and asked me to organize down there; told him I could not; gave him some names; next thing I knew Overbeck came down 1211 Moriarity, Pat, paid him $15 to do work in city of Fond du Lac in interest of Stephenson 1209 Morse, E. A., Antigo, I do not know anything about sums of money received by him in campaign; is Congressman from that district now 1217 Murray, George, paid him $60; went around through the southern and eastern towns and carried literature with him and employed poll workers there 1209 Murray, James, paid him $20 to use in the north wards of the city of Waupun, Fond du Lac County; do not know whether he used it in interest of Stephenson 1 1209 Offices held, district attorney for Fond du Lac County from 1901 to 1905; city attorney of Ripon 1204 Organise, defined, to so arrange matters that votes can be gotten out for the candidates — to advertise the candidate and advertise what he stands for. 1209 xcn DIGEST INDEX. Page. Morse, Roy L., attorney, Fond du Lac, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Overbeck, first had a conversation with, at Fond du Lac in my office; asked me to organize Fond du Lac County; talked over amount required; said that committee or somebody had decided that $700 could be sent up to me 1211 Practicing attorney, have been since 1896 1218 Puelicher, received first $200 from him in city of Milwaukee to organize Fond du Lac County in interest of Stephenson primary campaign; paid out all of that to others; did not render an account of it; received it on second Saturday before the primary; in cash 1205 Saloons, I presume I stopped at them on my way around the county and bought for the different ones who were there; out of $150 expense money I spent in going around the county should not say more than $25 alto- gether was spent that way 1210 Services, I arranged with Overbeck or Puelicher, I think Puelicher, to receive $25 a day for my services in that campaign; they said they should not spend in Fond du Lac County more than $700, and I could take my $25 a day out of that; I did not deduct that much, because the campaign required more than would be left; I had, when I got through, about $90 for my own services 1207, 1208 Third payment of $250 received two or three days before the primary 1206 Williams, D. O., my law partner, gave him $15; think he spent most of that in work he had done while I was out of the city 1209 Murphy, Lawrence, broker, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1965 Bribery, did not think Vandersee’s proposition as to securing services of Pestalozzi was in the nature of 1965, 1966, 1967 McGovern, Postalozzi said he was identified with his campaign; I did not suggest that he drop him (McGovern); Pestalozzi did not say he was em- ployed by 1965, 1969, 1971 Money, Vandersee mentioned $1,500 or $2,000 as being the sum to be paid to Pestalozzi if he should secure the Italian vote in the interest of Senator Stephenson 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 Pestalozzi, talked with him about trying to organize the Italian voters in the State in the interest of Senator Stephenson; never offered him any money with the intention of bribing him to support Senator Stephenson; did not consider the proposition of Vandersee in tee nature of a bribe 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 Pestalozzi told me he was identified with tee McGovern campaign; did not suggest to him that he drop McGovern 1965, 1969, 1971 Vandersee, Frank, asked me to try to interest Pestalozzi in the Stephenson campaign; said he (Pestalozzi) would be paid for it; did not consider his proposition in the nature of a bribe; think tee sum mentioned was $1,500 or $2,000 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 Vandersee, gave me impression that he had authority to make the proposi- tion which he did as to securing tee services of Pestalozzi 1970, 1971, 1972 N. Newspaper advertising or purchase of editorial influence, as to statute on the sub- ject of 356, 357 O. Objections by counsel for Stephenson, notice taken of, bv subcommittee 575, 576, 1103, 1118, 1127, 1128, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1140, 1525 O’Connor, D. J., practicing physician, Appleton, Wis., tesimony of 817 Account, I made it out myself; it was written with a pencil; I do not know where the statement is; do not remember whether or not I left it in Way- land’s office; I can remember there were items of expense for cigars and liquor and automobile hire and moneys expended on an auto trip through- out the county 818, 819 Automobile trip through county one afternoon, spent $15 for auto hire; did not pay any money to persons; spent $135 that afternoon for drinks and cigars; I did not drink on trip; did not see anyone drunk; character of trip in detail; was gone about 12 hours; covered 150 or 160 miles; visited about 80 saloons 820, 821, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830 DIGEST INDEX. XCIII Page. O’Connor, D. J., practicing physician, Appleton, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Cigar bill of $52 or $62, purchased immediately after returning from Mil- waukee before receiving Edmonds’s letter; I think it was latter part of July; I gave them around to men in that county; some of them distributed in my office; there were about a thousand cigars, and I returned either 350 or 450 to drugstore where I bought them; testimony before joint legislative committee, as read, is correct 819, 820, 821, 826, 827 Edmonds, arranged with him six or seven weeks before the primary in Mil- waukee; I received a letter from him previous to my visit; I was to go around the county, interest the different people in Stephenson’s campaign, and put up some literature; I was to have $500; after I returned home I re- ceived a letter from him “ to call the deal off ” ; I do not know why he can- celed agreement 817, 818, 819, 825, 827 Edmonds, asked me the day I was there what I thought it would cost to make a thorough campaign of Outagamie County; I told him a great deal more than $500; he thought $500 would be about enough to spend up there with what they were going to spend through Way land; he limited me to that amount and I said I would do what I could with it 826 Money, how expended, read from testimony before joint legislative commit- tee; testimony correct 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825 Money, I did not use any for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters; no one expended any for me 829 Outagamie County, I made a canvass of it for Stephenson in primary cam- paign of 1908 817 Sherman House, at Appleton, I bought some cigars in addition to $62 worth; bought some liquor there; it was just treating as I would go in there and find somebody there; town people drank with me; that was during time of this primary; bought a supper costing about $1.60 there for driver and myself day of auto trip 823, 824, 826, 827 Stephenson, stood for him as candidate on automobile trip; not because I received money from Wayland; I had supported him before; had always known his family 822,823 Sum of $307, I spent about $1.60 of it for food and $305.40 for an automobile and for whisky and cigars 826, 827 Sum of $307.30, I received it some time after the primary; I had expended that sum out of my own pocket on account of Stephenson campaign; I rendered an account and the account was paid; think it was a check signed by Edmonds 818, 825 Wayland, I brought my account to his office and he asked me what the amount was; I told him, and I had down what it was for; he said he would take it up with Edmonds and I would get paid 818, 819 Wayland, renewed arrangements with him; he stated he was representing Stephenson; he told me to continue to do what I could for Stephenson’s election, and when I got through he would pay me what money was expended 818 Orton, Robert E., banking business, Darlington, Wis., affidavit of 2008 Edmonds, E. A., under date of August 13, 1908, received check for $1.50 from, reimbursement for expenses in having banners posted in the inter- ests of Stephenson 2009 Edmonds, under date of August 27, 1908, received sum of $300 from, accord- ing to agreement previously made with, the money to be used in organiz- ing the various voting precincts in Lafayette County in the interests of Stephenson 2008 Money disbursed, with the exception of payment of $100 to William Wilson, believes none disbursed in the nature of a bribe or for unlawful purposes; as to money paid to Wilson, has no knowledge as to what purpose it was put by Wilson 2009 Statement of expenditures in detail; made from memorandum book kept during primary campaign; book now in his possession; items explained; never rendered any statement to any representatives of Stephenson; has no recollection of having been asked for any; in all cases in the past where he has handled money for others for campaign purposes an account- ing has always been made 2008,2009 xcrv DIGEST INDEX. Page. Overbeck, Henry, real estate business, Sturgeon Bay, Wis., testimony of. . 830, 2091 Campaign, I was at work during practically all of the campaign; was in Milwaukee part of the time and part of the time throughout the western part of the State 833 Crandall, paid him $20 or $30 for distributing literature in Door County. . 831 Democratic members who absented themselves from joint session of legis- lature March 4, so far as I know no consideration was paid them or any promise or agreement made them to procure their absence 2094 Door County, I sent three or four poll workers from three to five dollars apiece in different towns at different times, but the names I can not recall. . 832 Edmonds, assisted him in general campaign of 1908 throughout State; knew that he sent out circular letters to candidates for assembly and senate to find if they needed assistance ; knew he received a great many responses ; do not know to how many he sent aid 2092, 2093 Edmonds, left Madison some time before 1909; left matter in my charge; think he went to Washington on some tariff matters; furnished me with funds I disbursed during that time, $513; after campaign was over, some time about middle of March, gave me $300 as compensation. . 2093, 2094, 2095 Edmonds, recollect that during progress of general campaign when he was chairman of State central committee, he received a communication from chairman of Door County committee requesting a contribution and say- ing that Reynolds had serious opposition and they needed help ; inquired of me what I thought about it; advised him to send it directly to Reynolds instead of chairman 2092 Game warden, I was formerly the State warden; not at time of 1908 primary. 832 Haney, John L., manufacturer of veneer, Kewaunee, I paid him $110 to be used in hiring teams to bring people to the polls and to hire men to check up and see who go to the polls and to call their attention to voting for Stephenson 831, 833 Jesson, on Washington Isle, I sent him $10 for looking after that polling place 831,832 Legislature of 1909, was in attendance upon in the interest of Stephen- son; kept tab upon members and kept track of their presence and ab- sence and things of that kind 2091, 2093 Members of legislature, a usual thing for them to pair during Stephenson contest 2092 Miner, E. S., Sturgeon Bay, I paid him $100; was then a candidate for Congress; was not nominated; was a former member; paid him to get men and teams for poll work; looked after portions of Door County that he was visiting; defeated by Kiistermann in primary; as he made can- vass throughout the county the agreement was to divide the expense; he was to hire workers and he was to pay a part of it and we were to pay a part of it 831,834 Money, I did not spend any to pay or compensate electors to vote for Stephenson; did not use any for purpose of bribing or corruptly influ- encing electors; to my knowledge none used for that purpose by people to whom I gave money Money, none paid or agreed to be paid by me, or to my knowledge by anyone, to any member of assembly or senate for influencing his vote in interest of Stephenson Money was to be expended in Kewaunee and Door Counties and in pay- ing my personal expenses; no part of it for salary for me Morse, Roy, I had a talk with him; he was not a game warden or deputy; I selected him, and he made arrangement to look after campaign work with Edmonds; was located at Fond du Lac; I gave him no money Pair between Assemblymen Ramsey and Fenelon, I arranged it through Mr. Reed Pair’ between Senator Randolph and Assemblyman Daub; I did not arrange it; in talking over list of absentees, I learned that both were absent and had arranged a pair between themselves 2091, 2092 Perry, M. W., in manufacturing, business at Kewaunee, paid him money for work in Kewaunee County 831, 833 Political promises or agreements, none made by me or by anyone, to my knowledge, to any member of assembly or senate as a consideration or for purpose of influencing any vote in interest of Stephenson 2094 832 2094 831 833 2093 DIGEST INDEX. XCV Page. Overbeck, Henry, real estate business, Sturgeon Bay, Wis., testimony of — Con. Reed, called him up morning of March 4 and asked him to see Fenelon and try to arrange a pair or to have Fenelon telegraph Ramsey and ask him to pair with Fenelon; called him up later to ascertain if telegram had been sent Ramsey and he informed me that it had been 2093 Stephenson, after general assembly convened, did not render him an account directly for services or expenditures made during that session in his behalf; did not pay any money to me directly 2895, 2096 Stephenson, I had always been his supporter 832 Sum of $300, unaccounted for, used by me in paying my personal expenses in traveling in eastern part of State 832 Sum of $513, how disbursed by me at Madison during legislative campaign; paid I). H. Davies, whom Edmonds had employed, $145; paid Young, who came from Milwaukee, expenses for two or three days, which amounted to $18; near as I can divide rest up, paid $35 for railroad fare, about $125 for hotels, means, and incidentals, and $195 for telegraph and telephoning 2094 Sum of $771 received by me to be used in Stephenson campaign; $71 of it was paid out by me before I received any money from Edmonds; $100 of it was received early in the campaign, and then I received $500; I would not even approximate the date; all disbursed to parties named and a few whose names I can not remember, with balance used for my personal expenses 830, 832, 2095 White, T. M., paid him $100 to get teams and men at polls; he was partner in manufacturing business with John L. Haney, Kewaunee 831, 833 P. Pairs, motion of counsel for Stephenson to strike out all expressions of opinion in testimony of Zimmerman in relation to, and the effect of 1525 Patrick, L. S., testimony of 1294 Stephenson, was once his private secretary; not recently; not in 1908; think check he gave me for $190.99 was a settlement for expenditures I made during the entire year; think part of it had some connection with his cam- paign; I paid some, I think, for postage and some for traveling expenses; could not tell how much; have no memorandum of it; did not receive any other money from him or his managers for campaign purposes 1295 Pearson, C. L., State senator of Wisconsin in 1909, farmer, testimony of 1582 Domachowski told me on the day of election he had been offered $1,500 to stay out of sesssion while vote was being taken; about a week later told me that it was a joke; impressed me when he first told me the story that he was in earnest 1582 Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable, from election laws of Wisconsin 371 Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of 652, 698 Account of expenditures; did not occur to me duiing campaign I ought to keep one; never asked to, and did not make one to Stephenson, Edmonds, or Sacket; never attempted to make one until I prepared one for legisla- tive committee 683, 684, 685, 689, 690 Advertising material, all sent out of Milwaukee; I think I gave the names of the local men to Mr. Edmonds, and the matter was sent direct to them; matter included posters and lithographs; four counties quite generally covered with 694 Bank account, only have one; paid everything out of it; paid my family expenses out of it 684, 686 Bayfield Press, paid $25 cash September 15 for printing in connection with Stephenson campaign; I do not remember what printing 666 Bribery statute; I do not agree with interpretation that it means the very giving of anything to an elector to procure an act to be done irrespective of whether act is lawful or unlawful 676, 677 Business; no one has any interest in mine but myself; did not enter any of campaign sums in my books; Stephenson matter tieated entirely inde- pendent of the business of the office 700 15235°— 11 vii XCV1 DIGEST INDEX. Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Campaign; I was asked to take charge of Stephenson’s interests in Bayfield, Douglas, Sawyer, and Washburn Counties; there were four candidates, three of them trained politicians; Stephenson’s candidacy was announced very late; the work that had to be done for him was in the enemy’s country; the people in those counties did not know Stephenson; in order to get his claim before voters, it was necesaary to engage as many people as it was possible for us to get; his candidacy put forward, so far as I know. within the law 674, 675, 676, 693, 694 Campaigns; I had been intimately connected with others prior to this one; no methods used in Stephenson campaign other than those used in prior campaigns; I have taken part in 16 campaigns in that section 691 Candidates for legislature before the primaries from four counties in my charge; my talk with them before primal ies was to whether or not they would support the nominee for United States Senator in the primary; I Canvass ; unable to make one complete enough to get poll and mailing lists with money turned over to me; the territory was too large and the time too short; we did not have a canvass that made it possible to watch men at Cash item of July 17, $100, was my own money that I expended before I received any check from Mr. Edmonds, if I remember correctly 655 Cash item of July 30, $25, in account; I can not recollect for what money was paid 655, 656 Cash item of August 1, $25, indorsed by Columbia Clothing Co.; it did not go to them; was cashed in their store; it was presumably given out of hours 658 Cash item of August 1, $125; I have no recollection for what it was ex- pended; it represents money paid out by me; no part of it was compen- sation to me; I can not name anyone to whom I paid it 657 Cash item of August 4, $15, indorsed by H. R. Grochau, agent of Omaha Railroad; I do not know what it was for; Grochau did not get the money; it was cashed in his office 658 Cash item of August 14, $250; I have no recollection who got the money; there is no source to which I could appeal to refresh my memory in regard to it; can not account for cash item of $25 on same date 659, 660 Cash item of August 18, $50; can not account for it; all of $5,000 was avail- able then 661 Cash item of August 21, $40, indorsed by L. D. Balmat & Co.; they did not Cash item of August 29, $150; I do not remember it 665 Cash item of August 31, $300 and one for $25; I do not remember them 665 Cash item of September 10, $150; I do not remember what it was paid for. . 666 Cash item of September 12, $25; I do not remember what it was for 666 Cash items, checks were drawn payable to “cash” and the money paid to me ; not a cent of the money indicated by them or the checks remained Cash items of August 5 for $200 and $25, I have no recollection for what ex- pended 658 Cash items of August 7, aggregating $225 ; I have no recollection for what that was used for 659 Cash items of August 8, aggregating $250, I have no recollection for what it was expended; item of $50 on that date indorsed by James Glynn was cashed in his saloon; he did not get the money on it; money was not expended in the saloon ; 659 Cash items of August 21 of $200, $100, and $40; I do not recollect them 661 Cash items of August 22 for $100 and $25; do not recollect them 662 Cash items of August 26, three for $50 each; one indorsed by R. J. Agen; he did not have the money 664 Cash items of August 28, two for $50 each; I can not account for them 664 Compensation, I kept a little less than $500 for my own; I paid up all the bills and I had that much in the bank when I got through 672, 686 DIGEST INDEX. xcvn Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Counties, four in which money was expended — Douglas, Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn; are most northern counties of State; Superior located in one of them; only other large city in them is Washburn, city of about 6,000 inhabitants, in Bayfield County; I spent almost all my time from August 1 to 21 in those counties and more than half of it in Superior; vote in the four counties; newspapers circulated in 661, 662, 674, 675, 692, 693 Dresser, H. L., had nothing to do with the campaign and does not live in the State; I was in Duluth and somebody made application to me for money and I had to go to him and borrow it and gave him check of $10, August 18, to reimburse him; it was money expended in the campaign; I can not say to whom I paid it 661 Duluth News-Tribune, paid item of $40, August 28, for advertising; has a Superior department and page and is circulated very generally through- out Superior 665 Edmonds, E. A.: Did not say that I should keep an account of expenditures; I did not not say anything to him on subject; nothing said to effect it was necessary 688 I do not think any correspondence passed between us; there was no telephoning between us as to subject of money 689 I talked with him first about my employment in campaign; in Mil- waukee; recollect that he sent for me to come down and talk it over; asked me what could be done for Stephenson in eleventh congres- sional district; he spoke about me taking charge; I did not want to do it; we tried to figure out who could handle it; I think I was here three times, when he finally decided he would ask me to look after those four counties 687 Paid me first sum of $1,000 to electioneer for Stephenson; I procured assistance to disseminate information in regard to the reasons why we thought he should be returned to the Senate; I paid out all of first $1,000 654 Said in first conversation early in July they would provide the money for campaign in my four counties; I said I thought it would take $5,000; he said he did not know whether he could get that much money; he did not know at that time how vigorous and careful a campaign Stephenson would put up; in next conversation, 10 days after, nothing definite was said about amount to be expended; when I received first $1,000 it was not determined $5,000 should be ex- pended 687, 688 Electioneering, defined; to electioneer is to further the interests of a candi- date; includes treating 673, 679 Eleventh congressional district, includes four counties under my control in campaign and eight others; was district in which Judge John J. Jen- kins was defeated by Lenroot for Congress in that primary campaign; Stephenson, largely supported by stalwarts, had a plurality in four coun- ties carried by Lenroot, a “half-breed;” section was rather strongly “half-breed” 698,699 Expenditures, I had no purpose in concealing them in failing to keep a memorandum of the detailed work done by me or those under me 691 First sum of $1,000, I planned that we would take it and get a hold of as many of the men who were accustomed to doing political work in that territory as we could get hold of with that money, laying the foundation for a further and more extensive electioneering organization if the money was forthcoming 689 Fridley, C. R., items of $300, August 1, and $50, August 14, paid to him for electioneering in Superior and Douglas Counties; he did not render a state- ment to me; I do not know, in specific terms, how he expended the money; was an attorney and old resident of Superior; he received cash item of $50, August 26; think he received more of cash items than appear to have been given him upon checks drawn to his order; I should think I gave him $1,000; I can not swear to any definite amount 656, 660, 661, 664, 671, 672, 683, 686, 690 Funds, I always kept personal funds in my pocket, separate from campaign funds in my pocket; I would have my money for my own use in one pocket and Mr. Stephenson’s in another 687 XCVIII DIGEST INDEX. Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. page. Inglis, Robert, paid item of $10, August 27, to be expended in campaign; worked in Bayfield County; did not account to me for expenditures made 664, 690 Instructions with regard to disbursements, I do not recollect I gave any as to use to be made of money; it did not occur to me that I should have done so; I do not recall that I gave specific instructions to men em- ployed 678,681 Kirk, G. H., item of $10, August 29, indorsed by him; he never had the money; he was agent of one of the railroad companies and cashed that check for some of us 665 Lamere & Hamilton, item of August 22 was paid them for bill posting in Washburn, Bayfield County; I sent them my check, I think 662 McManus, T. W., item of $45 paid him August 29 for advertisement of Stephenson’s candidacy in a program that he was in charge of, gotten out, I think, for use on Labor Day 665 Maxcy, D. M., Bayfield County, paid item of $25 August 28, to be paid to the men who attended the polling places primary day, to disseminate informa- tion in regard to Stephenson’s qualifications; I was not present when they did it; do not know the manner in which they did it; paid item of $25 September 9, to keep my arrangement for payment to workers at polls; did not account to me for expenditures 664, 665, 666, 690 Mead, L. H., paid item of $10 August 27, to be expended in campaign; worked in Washburn County; did not account for any expenditures made 664,690 Memorandum, did not keep one, as I would expend money from campaign pocket; I did not keep one of the names of the individuals I had working in each of the several voting precincts; have no recollection of keeping an account with Stephenson 689, 690, 700 Men, I did not think it was necessary to tell them that they should not buy a vote. I had no idea that one of them would try to, and I do not believe he did 678 Men employed, should think there were less than 100 to whom I paid money; paid them from amounts ranging from $5 to $150, depending on what I expected the man to do, where he could work, and what he could accom- plish; how money to them was paid; I did not pay a man unless I was satisfied he was worth it; I always ascertained before paying whether he was friendly to Stephenson 681, 682 Money, I did not check up after campaign was over to see what I had expended; I checked up when I was subpoenaed before the joint com- mittee at Madison 686 Money, I did not pay out any received from Stephenson for any corrupt purpose; within my knowledge, none that was placed in my hands for use in the campaign was expended in bribing or corruptly or improperly influencing voters 678, 699, 700 Money, paid to a great many people I knew personally; can not recall the names new; when this thing was over I dropped the entire subject and went about something else; do not remember any man to whom I paid money outside of those given in statement 683, 686 Nelson, Nels, paid item of $27 September 9, to pay for workers at polls. . . 666 Obtaining votes corruptly, I should think it would arise where there is money or something of value paid to an elector* to vote for a candidate to whom he is opposed; would not think it included treating an elector for purpose of making him friendly; would not think entertaining a person antago- nistic to my candidate with meals, drinks, and carriage rides would be corrupt practice 678,679 Primary campaign of 1908, 1 took an active part in it; supported Stephenson . 652 Representatives in four counties were in charge of details there; I was in conference with them from time to time ; we discussed campaign generally, but did not go into details of expenditures or I would have lost their support; they would have thought that I had no confidence in them. . . 692 Saloons, I am rather inclined to think that sometimes, in order to get a man into a receptive mood, I might possibly have bought him a drink; I do not think very much of money represented by cash items was spent in saloons; no one can tell how much of it was; utterly impossible for me to estimate how much of the balance of the $3,000 unaccounted for was spent in saloons 669, 670 DIGEST INDEX. XCIX Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Savage, W. W., was clerk in my law office; I have not any definite recol- lection of what item of $25, July 25, was paid to him for; I am not sure about check for $25 August 19; I sent him out two or three times, I don’t remember when, to get information to enable us to carry on this work; I do not know what he did with item of $25 August 26; he may have drawn it for me or expended it himself under my direction; he was authorized to sign my name to checks 655, 661, 664, 700 Second sum of $1,000, received August 4, I do not remember whether it was handed to me here in Milwaukee or whether it was sent to me by mail; I am inclined to think that I did not see Edmonds at that time. . 689 Services, I tried to keep in touch with situation in Douglas County; I think I went over three or four times to Bayfield, Sawyer, and Washburn Counties entirely on Stephenson’s business; I tried to find out who were supporting him; I was looking for men who could get out and do the work and see the people; was disbursing money to those men 672 Shields, conversation when T handed him $1,000 check and gave him $250 out of it, substance of it wa3 I asked him to put in some time in Stephenson campaign and what he thought he would need at that time; he said he ought to have $250; I believe he got men interested that neither Stephenson, Edmonds, or I could otherwise get; got them interested mostly by talk; men to whom he talked, talked to a great many other people; I do not know how far the money followed the conversation ; impossible to trace that money to ultimate consumer. 667, 668, 669 Shields, is an insurance agent at Superior; has resided there 20 years; I have forgotten for what I paid him $5 August 14; 1 remember his coming and asking me for $5; never engaged in detective business to my knowledge, except he may have been a deputy sheriff at one time; he is the same Shields referred to in the Lorimer case; he was supporting Stephenson and had some of this money to be used for electioneering purposes; $5 given him for that purpose 659,660 Shields, item of $250 without date was paid to him out of first check for $1,000 received from Edmonds; when I got that check, I indorsed it to Shields and he gave me his check, as I remember, for $750; he received the physical thousand-dollar check; I presume he indorsed it after my indorsement; I do not remember who issued that check 666, 667 Shields, It. J., paid item of $75 August 25 for electioneering; I know that some members of (he Catholic Church were active after I gave him the money that were not before; paid total of $330; I did not ask him for itemized statement; I do not know for what he expended it 663, 667, 671 Statement, presented to the joint investigating committee of the legisla- ture, showing disbursement of $5,000, so far as I was able to at that time give; kept unexpended balance for my own services; I made this state- ment up after I had been subpoenaed to appear before the joint investi- gating committee at Madison; it was made up from the checks and not an account that I kept at the time of making the disbursements. . 654, 657, 658 Statute with regard to filing an account, I presume I had heard of it; I do not remember ever to have read it; nothing was said to me about fur- nishing data from which to make up an account; I expected Stephenson to account under that statute in just the way that it has been inter- preted by all the candidates for all of the offices that I have known anything about since the statute was passed ; I do not think the law was intended to be evaded 684, 685 Stephenson, could not know how I was disbursing money unless I advised him; I presume about time of close of primary I could have advised him how money was disbursed, but at any time after that I could not 684 Stephenson, I felt that I was responsible to him for the expenditure of the money he put in my hands; I think I was selected to exercise an inde- pendent judgment upon the manner in which his candidacy should be furthered in that particular 671 Stephenson, was not very well acquainted with him prior to his election to the Senate the first time; I had known of him for a great many years. 653, 676 Sum of $3,000, learned I would receive it about the time it was paid; got information from Edmonds in Milwaukee, orally 689 Sum of $5,000, perhaps three-fifths of it I drew out in shape of cash, put in my pocket and distributed among various persons employed; I should rather guess about $3,000 dispensed that way 683 c DIGEST INDEX. Perrin, Solon L., attorney at law, Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Sum of $5,000 received from Stephenson’s manager during campaign; it was paid to me at three different times as I remember; first payment was July 30, $1,000, either by check or draft from Edmonds; August 4 I received draft for $1,000 from Edmonds, and on August 15 $3,000 by check or draft from Edmonds 653, 683 Superior, have resided there 16 years 652 Telegraph, telephone, and stamp bills, in all about $45, money was ex- pended solely in interest of Stephenson 666 Whitten, T. S., manager of North Wisconsin Lumber & Manufacturing Co., at Hayward, in Sawyer County; paid item of $250 August 24; he employed men to placard some different parts of the county and to pass out Stephenson cards at primary polls; I do not know that he expended any of money in saloons ; did not account to me for expenditures made . 663, 690 Wilson, J. W., paid item of $100 August 22, to electioneer for Stephenson in Washburn County; he told me he paid it all out for hiring men to send throughout the county; he was a locomotive engineer; cash item of $10 August 27, given him to be expended in campaign; did not account to me for expenditures made 662, 663, 664, 686, 690 Worrel, James, cash item of $15 August 31, indorsed by him, I never paid him the money; he cashed that check for somebody 665, 666 Pestalozzi, H. R., jeweler, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1887 Bartlett, think he was present at the conversation with Edmonds 1893, 1894 Bribery of, no one attempted, in the campaign for the election t)f Senator Stephenson 1887, 1888, 1891, 1892 Edmonds, never offered me any money; came to my store and wanted to know if I could not try to catch the Italian vote for Senator Stephenson; in second conversation he wanted me to come to his office ; I said I would not 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894 McGovern, was a supporter of, for United States Senator 1887, 1888 Money, Vandersee offered from $1,000 to $2,500 if I would support Stephen- son 1887,1888,1891,1892,1893 Murphy, Lawrence, told me if I would drop McGovern and work for Stephenson the proposition of Mr. Vandersee (to give him $1,000 to $2,500) would stand good 1889, 1890, 1891 Vandersee, do not know that he was representing Senator Stephenson or anybody in his interest; told me he was a great friend of Stephenson 1889, 1892, 1893 Vandersee, told me there was from $1,000 to $2,500 in it for me if I would support Stephenson; told him I could not, as I was pledged to Mc- Govern 1887,1888,1891 Peterson, H. L., Sturgeon Bay, Wis., testimony of 1292 Account, did not render one 1293 Bills that came in after the primaries were over I paid out of my own pocket; aggregate, $17, I think 1294 Door County, I got a great number of signers for his nomination papers; sent in a large number of nomination papers; made automobile trips through county; employed workers and hired rigs to get voters out to election; employed very few men; do not remember their names; did a big part of canvassing county myself; workers at polls in northern part of county recommended to me by men whom I knew to be good . 1292, 1293, 1294 Memorandum, kept one of expenditures; after the primaries I destroyed it. 1293 Stephenson, did not pay any of, money to voters to induce them to vote for him 1293,1294 Stephenson, received $150 from him to further his interests in 1908 cam- paign 1292 Peterson, Lewis W., hardware dealer, Dorchester, Wis., affidavit of 2009, 2023 Leroy, assemblyman of Marinette, informed him day left Madison it would be necessary to be away; he suggested affiant should try to pair with some anti- Stephenson man; affiant spoke to Assemblyman Otto Onstad, from the second district of Dane County, and a pair was accordingly arranged; both signed a blank-printed form of pair, which affiant believes was filed with Chief Clerk C. E. Shaffer, of the assembly 2009 Madison, left there morning of February 25, 1909, and returned to his home at Denmark, being called there by the illness of his daughter; did not return until after the 4th of March, being detained by illness of daughter during that time; absent from joint convention for the election of Senator on that account, and for no other reason 2009 DIGEST INDEX. Cl Peterson, Lewis W., hardware dealer, Dorch ster, Wis., affidavit of — Contd. Page. Onstad, assemblyman, called up on the evening of March 3 over the long- distance telephone and informed that he was getting restless on account of the continued absence of affiant, fearing he would be criticized by his constituents for not voting; affiant explained his absence necessitated by the continued critical illness of his daughter; whereupon he consented pair should remain until affiant’s return to Madison 2009 Republican in politics 2009 Stephenson, supported him for the senatorship and voted for him on all ballots taken up to and including the 24th of February, 1909 2009 Wisconsin Legislature, member of the assembly of, during the senatorial election in January, February, and March, 1909; at that time resided at Denmark, Wis., and represented the second district of Browne County.. 2009 Pflughoeft, Werner, farmer, Medford, Wis., affidavit of 2010 Age, 25 years 2010 Campaign committee, received from, $252; $100 retained as compensation for services, in accordance with understanding had with committee; about $150 disbursed for personal expenses 2010 Campaign work done in Taylor County, during primary contest; devoted about six weeks’ time to, traveling in said county, visiting many friends, posting lithographs, and circulating campaign material; was at consid- erable personal expense for livery hire and automobiles in making trips and for use on election day in Medford; performed services at request of campaign committee at Milwaukee 2010 Liquors and cigars, not exceeding $10 expended for 2010 Madison investigation, not called as witness at 2010 Medford, resided in, for past seven years 2010 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2010 Polls, men engaged at, were supporters of Stephenson ‘ 2010 Saloon campaign, did not conduct 2010 Statement of expenses, not called upon to furnish itemized; did not keep any 2010 Stephenson, supporter of, before employment 2010 Taylor County, 12 precincts in; township not containing cities usually has but one voting precinct; is the case generally throughout Wisconsin; townships are usually 6 miles square, and some larger 2010 Piper, Herbert J., practicing attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., affidavit of 2010 Age, 44 years 2010 Campaign work done during primary contest in certain parts of Jefferson County; spent at least eight days away from his office; at the request of tures in traveling, and incidental expenses, received $200 to be used for; $100 applied for services; balance expended for livery hire and automobile hire and railway fares, hotel expenses, and for expenses of men to convey voters to polls and men to be at polls 2011 Madison investigation, not called as witness in ' ,. 2011 Milwaukee, resided in, for 10 years or more 2010 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any persons 2011 Precincts, work in county covered about seven 2011 Statement of expenses, never called upon to furnish an itemized; could have accurately done so at the time 2011 Stephenson, supporter of, before engaged to do work 2011 Poll workers, affidavits of 1693, 2022, 2023, 2083 Pollock, Edward, editor and proprietor of the Teller, Lancaster, Wis., testi- mony of 1070 Advertisements, I do not think I published any in the interest of any other Advertising material, I refused to receive it into commercial columns, Blaine, John J., I can not recall that I ever talked with him about matter of charges at all; whatever he got, he got from the paper; I am pretty sure Blaine, tenth specific charge by 1071 CII DIGEST INDEX. Page, Pollock, Edward, editor and proprietor of the Teller, Lancaster, Wis., testi- mony of — Continued. Bribing, if they knew I was opposed to Stephenson and then offered to pay me for supporting him, I would call that a bribe; I did not report to any officer of the law that I had been offered a bribe 1076, 1077 Charge of bribery, substance of, I felt that after I indicated that I was against Stephenson the fact that they continued to send me advertising material to be paid for was an improper way to undertake to get support of paper . . 1087 Charges, when made, I am not sure whether I published them or not; saw them at time and knew my name was mentioned in them 1073 Editorial support of my paper, there was a long time when we were in doubt whether to concentrate our support on McGovern or Hatton; we wanted to take the one that would be likely to get the most votes to overcome Stephenson; about election time when I went home from Madison, I had about made up my mind to support Hatton; when I got home it was evident to me McGovern would get the most votes; hence my paper in the end came out for McGovern; do not remember in what issue 1074,1082,1083,1084 Edmonds, I think had a letter from him; I can not tell positively 1073, 1074 Exact facts, I have not tried to retain in my memory; it has passed out of my mind very much as to what transpired, until the other day when I got the subpoena; and as I was quite sick at the time I could not look up anything; my clerk looked over files of paper, but I could not look them over myself ; the little that one of the clerks read over to me refreshed my memory 1072 Hatton, was generally called a “half-breed ” 1074 Letters, containing offers from Stephenson’s managers, I hardly think I have any of them; I think all the proposals came by letter; I do not know from whom; can not give the name of a person that wrote a letter or sent material; hardly think files of paper would enable me to state who wrote them; do not think I can find letters 1072, 1073, 1078, 1079 Letters, I do not think I sent any to Stephenson headquarters after the one I sent them when they asked me to circulate the nomination papers; did not keep carbon copy of; wrote them only one 1088, 1089 McGovern, when I voted I supported him 1074 Madison, I was there during investigation of legislature as State treasury agent and I was never called upon 1078 Money, by whom offered, I can not now remember anything but that they were Stephenson managers; I could have told the names then; I do not remember giving in any publication the names of the persons making the offers 1075 Money, I did not receive any for support of Stephenson 1071 Nomination papers, first communication I had from Stephenson managers was their blanks and papers, asking me to circulate them; I did not doit 1073,1081 Plate matter sent by mail, I suppose I was sometimes at office and some- times not when it was received; think it came as many as three times; do not keep any plate matter sent; do not think I replied to this matter for Stephenson; can not tell of what character it was; I take it for granted that we were requested to publish it 1078, 1080, 1081, 1084, 1085, 1088 Pollock, Byrne, my son, had charge of the paper in my absence then; have not talked with him with reference to whether or not Stephenson corre- spondence had been preserved 1081, 1088 Specific charge, I am not trying to sustain it particularly; I can not tell now without looking over the paper whether I made any reference to the truth or falsity of it; I never made statement it was not true 1075 State treasury agent at Madison at time articles from Stephenson’s manager received ; I was not home and would know nothing of it until I woTIld go home, in many cases 1072 Stephenson, I do not think I had a letter from him in regard to matter; I was not a supporter of him 1073 Stephenson managers, made propositions to me for publishing in my paper; advertisements, and I think articles sent, that is, to take the place of editorials; I understood it was to be paid for; I do not think there was any sum named; but it would be reasonable to expect my regular prices for advertising — something of that kind; I do not know whether they proposed to pay for support or for advertising 1071, 1076, 1086 DIGEST INDEX. cm Page. Pollock, Edward, editor and proprietor of the Teller, Lancaster, Wis., testi- mony of — Continued. Stephenson, my paper supported him in 1907 ; it did not change during that campaign; it was against him when he came up again; it came out against him from the first in campaign of 1908 1082 Stephenson, was carrying a partisan warfare in paper against him; I did not look for anything favorable about him to publish 1077 Stephenson’s 1908 campaign, participated in only through paper 1071 Teller, have published it past 28 years 1071 Teller, I spoke out strongly to the effect that efforts were made to secure its support from Stephenson’s managers 1075 Written and printed matter came to be set up, other than plate matter, for Stephenson; can not tell how many times; can not describe its character; I do not remember whether anything was said about where it was to be inserted in the paper 1085,1086 Pomerene, Senator Atlee, and Senator George Sutherland, views of xxvn Powell, W. W., newspaper man, Kalamazoo, Mich., testimony of 1583 Domachowski, Pearson told me of the offer of $1,500 to, in the presence of Everrett and Watrous; in answer to my question he said, “Well, yes, I was approached;” said by a friend; did not say who; seemed to be very much in earnest 1583,1584,1585 Everrett, Winter, heard the conversation with Domachowski as to the offer of $1,500 1583,1584,1585 Pearson, Senator, informed me that Domachowski had told him that he had been offered $1,500 if he would walk out 1583, 1584 Watrous, Paul J., heard the conversation with Domachowski as to the offer of $1,500 1583,1584,1585 President of the United States, adjournment on account of visit of, to Milwaukee. 1 884 Primary campaign, discussion as to going into 7-23, 32-36 Puelicher, J. H., cashier of Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, Wis., testi- mony of 128 Account with Stephenson not opened up in the bank because he never requested or authorized it; we had these amounts from him for invest- ment, and I continued the account just as it had been run before 133, 134 Accounts, Stephenson did not instruct me as to the method of keeping 132 Balance of $3,316.28 remaining in my hands from total of $101,400 in com- paign fund was paid over to Stephenson at the time of final settlement, about March 6, 1909 135, 136 Bank records, there are in the bank to-day the original orders for cashier’s checks or drafts with which the managers paid the expenses of the cam- paign; there are the stub books giving the numbers, amounts, payees, and dates; there are the register records of drafts and cashier’s checks, and cashier’s checks themselves, giving date, number, amount, payee, and all the indorsements 132 Banking method in regard to campaign fund; I rather think that the method adopted by the managers in buying cashier’s checks for the pay- ment of their expenses, which would leave permanent records in the bank, was a rather good way of handling it; have no transaction of that magni- tude since that time; method not used since, as no like occasion has arisen; to my knowledge, we never before conducted any campaign through the bank 134, 135 Campaign fund, there were times when the fund was very low and practi- cally exhausted 130 Campaign funds in bank, were in charge of some of the officers of the bank or the paying teller 134 Custodian of campaign fund, independent of my connection with bank; did not represent bank in any of transactions with reference to fund 128 Duties as custodian, entered upon them before Edmonds became manager. . 131 Duties in campaign, were merely incidental; I continued my employment at the bank during the whole period and was gone on a vacation a portion of the time 133 Illegal expenditures, nothing was said to me in way of caution by Stephen- son 132 Items in account filed with legislative committee were numbered after the campaign and during the investigation at request of the committee; numbers were taken from the cashier’s checks or drafts that were used in payment of the items and that are on file in the bank; numbers of cashier’s checks follow consecutively in books of bank 133 CIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Puelicher, J. H., cashier of Marshall & Ilsley Bank, Milwaukee, Wis., testi- mony of — Continued. Marshall & Ilsley Bank, cashier of, for four or five years 128 Money, deposited with me, paid it out upon the order of the campaign man- ager as directed by Stephenson; none paid out without written authority; orders for, turned back to Sacket, office manager, against his receipt to enable him to make up his statement; there is a voucher for each item; no general form for vouchers, which were not numbered, but dated 130, 133, 134, 135 Money, I was instructed to pay it out on the order either of Stephenson, Sacket, the office manager, or Edmonds, general manager 132 Record of transactions for Stephenson, I kept an absolute record in a memo- randum form, as I received the deposits, which I furnished Stephenson later; the checks were also there and held the requisitions on me as evi- dence of the amount which I had disbursed; did not have an account of it in my bank books; memorandum was an individual matter of my own; surrendered it to office manager, Sacket, some time in October or November, 1908, when I took his receipt for total I had disbursed 132, 136 Sacket, paid out campaign money to his order before Edmonds became manager 131 Stephenson, as depositor of Marshall & Ilsley Bank and having funds in bank, asked me to become custodian of a certain fund which he wished to disburse in this campaign to meet the expenses of the primary 128, 130 Stephenson, first talked to me about acting as banker of his funds late in June, 1908; said he had $50,000 in Marshall & Ilsley Bank, a part or all of which he might want to use in his primary campaign, and asked me to disburse it on the order of his managers, which I did; at that time gen- eral manager had not been selected, but Mr. Sacket, office manager, had 131,132 Sum of $50,000, Stephenson had no check with Marshall & Ilsley Bank; we occasionally made investments for him and this $50,000 remained in the hands of the bank as the result of an investment, waiting for orders from Stephenson; three checks, two amounting to $10,000 each and one of $30,000, exhausted that fund during campaign; does not represent an additional fund to what expended by me 129, 130 Sum of $50,000, was evidenced by a cashier’s check to order of bank, and Stephenson was advised that the amount had been collected and that we were holding it at his disposal, we expecting shortly to reinvest it for him, as we have carried sums for him in that manner; did not send the cer- tificate to him; when two payments of $10,000 and one of $30,000 were made he drew a check on that sum and the bank considered it an order, although he was not authorized to check on it, and a new certificate would be issued minus the amount he ordered out 131, 133, 134 S um of $98,083.72 was amount expended in campaign 136 Sum of $101,400, received by me as custodian of Stephenson campaign fund ; amounts included in, when, and from whom received, in detail; had no other funds deposited with me for use in primary campaign 129 Use to which money was put, had no knowledge of; simply acted as banker; Edmunds and Sacket only consulted me when they needed money 130 Purtell, Thomas M., State fire marshal, Madison, Wis., testimony of 1201 Appointed fire marshal by governor a little over four years ago 1201 Cleary, W. H., Spooner, gave him $50 to work for Stephenson 1202 Doar, J., Cumberland, gave him $40 to work for Stephenson 1202 Edmonds, wanted to know if I would do some work for him ; told him I was not doing any political work; then he asked me to give him the names of some parties up north who would do some work for him; I gave him a list of names, and that was all that was said at that time 1201 Fahey, William, Glenwood, paid him $15 to see his friends and get them to polls and interest them in Stephenson 1202 Madison, have resided there 17 years 1201 Milwaukee, there on business one day and went around to the different headquarters of all the senatorial candidates 1201 Money, men to whom I paid it did not account for; did not ask them to. . 1203 Money, none disbursed by me or, as far as I know, by men to whom I paid it, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors 1203 DIGEST INDEX. CV Page. Purtell, Thomas M., State fire marshal, Madison, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Mulvaney, Thomas, Wilson, gave him $30 two weeks, I think, before the primaries; he is a farmer in St. Croix County, and the instructions were to go out and se© his friends all over the county and to have them get out to polls and to interest them in Stephenson 1202 Oakes, Leon, Woodville, gave him $40 to see his friends, get them to polls, and interest them in Stephenson 1202 Sacket, received $175 from some time in August; sent me a draft a week or 10 days after my visit to Chicago and asked me to distribute it to parties I thought would do work for Stephenson 1201 Sacket, reported to him the people to whom I had paid money and the amounts paid; did not state purpose for which I had given it to them 1203 Stephenson campaign of 1908, participated in very little 1201 Sum of $175, I gave it to other people to have them distribute it to people that would do work for Stephenson 1201 Q. Quarles, Judge, adjournment as mark of respect on account of death of 487 R. Ramsey, Thomas F., deceased, testimony of, given before joint investigating committee of the Legislature of Wisconsin 2113 Assembly, March 4, think I left there about a quarter to 12; believe it was immediately after it adjourned its regular proceedings 2115 Brown, Neal, only party meeting I attended was when he was present; he virtually released the Democrats from their pledge to support him; said he had received all the honor they could give him in the party, and if the party could receive any benefit from it, they could go in a body to some one 2115 Campaign expenses, think I filed a statement of $254; included primary and election 2113 Charge made on floor of assembly by Leuch and Zimmerman that they had some knowledge of corruption and something about a $1,500 offer; I heard those remarks; do not know anything about that 2116 Democrat, have always been 2113 Fenelon, James: Believe he answered to first few roll calls when I was in assembly; don’t think he answered to roll call during the senatorial election; papers always had him quoted as a Stephenson man 2115 Believe he is a Republican 2114 Haven’t heard of him lately; understood he was improving; don’t know whether he has attended legislature 2115, 2117 His telegram from Ripon, March 4, asking me to pair with him, received 11.06 a. m.; never occurred to me it was not genuine; have not re- ceived any information that would lead me to think that he did not authorize sending of it; thought some one might have have seen him in regard to it; do not know whether anyone sent it for him 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117 My telegram to him March 4, 1909, stating I granted his request to pair on United States Senator; went over to telegraph office and sent it before half past 11 2114, 2115 Hughes, John, had quite a lively discussion with him about fact I had received telegram from Fenelon; he did not say anything that made me regret having received it; he and Kneen, I think, on March 3 urged me to leave the chamber with the triple alliance — a combination of Social Democrats, one of the factions of the Republicans, and alleged Demo- crats; did not violate any agreement with him when I went out day Stephenson was elected 2117, 2118 Husting, in going out of assembly, I met him in hall and he asked me if I was going to leave them, and I said I thought I was; he didn’t say anything, but he grunted 2118 Husting, Senator, think one evening I had a chat with in regard to sena- torial question; told him I didn’t care who was elected; don’t think I discussed with him fact I received telegram from Fenelon 2116, 2117 CVI DIGEST INDEX. Page Ramsey, Thomas F., deceased, testimony given before joint investigating committee of the Legislature of Wisconsin — Continued. Inducement, did not receive any financial or otherwise from anyone pur- porting to speak for Stephenson or otherwise to leave assembly chamber March 4; no proposition made to me directly or indirectly to influence my vote or to stay away Lush, Charlie, never discussed fact that I had received telegram from Fenelon with him Member of legislature from sixth assembly district; served four years ago for one term Milwaukee, bom there and lived there all my lifetime Overbeck, never talked with him only at breakfast table at Avenue Hotel; didn’t have any conversation with, but if there were three or four at the table there was a general discussion on senator business; did not have any conversation with him or see him March 4; did not discuss fact that I received telegram from Fenelon with him 2115, Pairing, understood by that that if I paired with him (Fenelon) I was to walk out and not vote on United States Senator at all Senatorial contest in legislature this session, I voted for Democratic candi- date every time I was here, excepting day Stephenson was elected; absent from sessions four or five times; reasons for; absent March 4, day Stephenson was elected, because I got a telegram from Fenelon, Ripon, asking me if I would pair with him, and I sent a reply that I granted his request, so I kept my pledge 2114, Senatorial contest in my party, took no part in, in Milwaukee, except voted for Hoyt, and if anyone asked me for advice I advised them to vote for Hoyt; did not handle a cent for any of the candidates Senatorial situation, did not talk with anyone who purported to be interested in Stephenson campaign, who was not a member of legislature, with reference to 2116 2117 2113 2113 2117 2115 2116 2113 2115 Stephenson, as a result of my not being present when he was elected, I have not or any friend has not received any benefit 2116 Stephenson, when I discovered he was elected I did not regret that I had paired; know him to see him; if a Republican had to be elected I think I would favor him more than any other; think he was entitled to it for what he had done for Republican Party and he was nominee of the primary 2116, 2118 Telegram from Fenelon, no one told me I was going to get it; no one that I know of knew that I had received it at time I left assembly 2117 Wayland, don’t knew him; did not discuss with him telegram from Fenelon 2115,2117 White, did not have a conversation with him in reference to senatorial situ- ation; did not discuss fact that I had received telegram from Fenelon with him 2115,2117 Wilmot, Henry M., ran against me in primary election; beat him by five hundred and something 2113 Yockey, Chauncey W., Republican, was my opponent in the general elec- tion 2113 “Red box,” list of bills and receipts found in, referred to in testimony of Sacket 2119-2124 Reed, Roy E., attorney, Ripon, Wis., testimony of 1926 Crawford, received $125 from for disbursement in Stephenson campaign.. 1929 Disbursements, list of in Stephenson primary campaign; items in ex- plained; sums in paid for securing workers to help get out vote and to get some checkers at polls 1930, 1931 Fenelon, James, so far as I know have been his attorney for last four or five years; should regard it dangerous (owing to his illness) to have him come to Madison Fenelon, James, telegram from to Ramsey, I wrote it myself; it was my own phrasing Fenelon, Representative James, last conversation with, that I remember particulars of was recently, when he was subpoenaed to appear here; said there was no use in his going; that I knew his physical condition and that I knew more about it than he did; that I could tell the commit- tee whatever there was to it; I did not go into the details Fenelon, William, affidavit of in regard to his telephoning me that James Fenelon said it would be all right to wire Ramsey and ask for the pair. . 1932 1928 1928 1929 DIGEST INDEX. CVII Page. Reed, Roy E., attorney, Ripon, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Fenelon, William, nephew of James Fenelon, when I called up Fenelon’s house he answered ; I stated to him what Overbeck had said and then he said he would ask Fenelon; I held the line and he came back and said it would be all right to wire in Fenelon’s name for the pair to Ramsey; that was some time about 9 or 10 in the morning (Mar. 4, 1909); saw him that afternoon and told him of result of message 1927, 1928 Money, none paid out by me, or as far as I know by those to whom I dis- bursed it, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors 1931 Overbeck, Henry, Madison, received a telephone message from him be- tween 8 and 8.30 morning of March 4, 1909, asking me if I thought Fenelon would pair with Ramsey on senatorial question; I told him I thought he would ; he asked me to find out and if so to send a wire for the pair 1927 Overbeck, I did not know him except by reputation, so took some time to find out his position on senatorial question before I sent the telegram; asked several people and then sent wire as it is given there; at same time sent him a telegram saying I had sent the telegram (to Ramsey); about 11 o’clock that day received a phone from him asking what arrangement had been made in regard to the pair and I told him I had sent the wire. . 1927 Ramsey, telegram from, until June 10, 1910, I had the original reply; had occasion to write Stephenson on an entirely different matter at that time and I sent it to him; found copy of a telegram in my letter file other day (reads telegram) . . . 1927, 1928 Ramsey, Thomas, met him this last winter; prior to that did not know him; sent him a telegram on 4th of March, 1909, at request of Fenelon; have not a copy of it, but it appears in record (reads it from record) 1926, 1927 Ramsey, when I delivered the message for, at telegraph office at Ripon, I asked them to deliver any reply that might come to me, and I paid the charge at that time; after that, think it was immediately after dinner, they delivered the reply from him, which appears in record 1927 Stephenson, copy of letter I wrote him inclosing telegram from Ramsey. . . 1927 Thayer, L. W., received $20 from; he testified the other day it was $10, but it was $20 1929 Total amount I received was $145 and I disbursed $152; have not been paid the difference 1931 Reese, John M., president of the Dodgeville Chronicle, weekly newspaper, and president of the First National Bank of Dodgeville, Dodgeville, Wis., affi- davit of 2011 Age, 42 years * 2011 Campaign headquarters, received from, $150 2012 Chronicle carried special advertising matter in the interest of Stephenson; caused 3,000 extra copies to be mailed to practically all the voters of Iowa County; received for such work $100; payment of money in no way influenced the policy of said paper; was simply compensation for said work 2011 Iowa County, resided in for past 42 years 2011 Madison investigation, not called as witness in 2012 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2012 Precinct workers, employed; hired teams and drivers for purpose of con- veying voters to polls on primary day at expense of $50 ; no one employed who was not at the time a Stephenson supporter 2011 Statement of expenditures, never called upon to furnish itemized 2012 Stephenson, supporter of in primary campaign 2011 Work done in campaign in accordance with usual custom of campaigning in that vicinity 2012 Regan, M. J., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1674, 1695 Absence of members, never discussed subject with Shields; never sug- gested the subject at any time 1680, 1681, 1682, 1697, 1698 Ay 1 ward, said O’Connor was the first man who told him of the Wagner story . 1682 Black, Wood said he might get money from, by agreeing to keep out cer- tain evidence; I reported my conversation with Wood 1684, 1685 Farrell, never discussed question of securing absence of, with Shields; think Shields said he had heard something about him (Farrell) disput- ing with Democratic members about running out when they were called . 1680, 1697, 1698 CVJII DIGEST INDEX. Regan, M. J., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Farrell, talked with him about the Stephenson case at the Plankinton Hotel 1685,1686 Farrell, was said to be present when it was alleged I had given Towne, Ramsey, and Farrell $35,000 at the Plankinton Hotel 1687 Husting, think he should have investigated the Wagner story more fully before putting him on the stand 1707, 1708 McNally, think he said, “Why don’t the Democrats get up in a body and walk out, and let those fellows fight their own battles out there;” think I agreed that would be a good plan 1682 Marsh, think he should have investigated the Wagner story more fully before putting him on the stand 1707, 1708 Mason, district attorney of Dane County, refused to subpoena O’Connor in the Wagner case 1678 Miner, said O’Connor was the first man who told him of the Wagner story; told me he had paid expenses of a man to go to see O’Connor and see the photograph, but did not see it 1678, 1682, 1783 Money, Shields did not tell me he had authority to get or use for the pur- pose of aiding in Stephenson’s election 1680, 1704 Morris, absence of, from investigating committee 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710 Morris, testified under oath that the committee had possession of Wagner’s testimony about a month before Wagner was put on the stand 1710 Morris, would like to modify my testimony concerning 1707, 1708 O’Connor, told me he had a flash photograph of the fellows that lined up that deal (as to Wagner’s story) in the Plankinton Hotel; Wagner was in the habit of going to his office 1678, 1682, 1683 Offices and positions held 1674 Puelicher, never saw him until he came into the court during Wagner’s trial 1686 Puelicher, was said to be present when it was alleged I had given Towne, Ramsey, and Farrell $35,000 at the Plankinton Hotel 1687 Ramsey, do not think I talked with, while he was in the legislature; other conversation with 1686 Ramsey, never discussed question of securing absence of, with Shields; did not talk about, with Shields 1680, 1697, 1698, 1699 Ramsey, was said to be present when it was alleged I had given Towne, Ramsey, and Farrell $35,000 at the Plankinton Hotel 1687 Ryan, consulted him with reference to the Wagner story ; had been started by, to get evidence as to Wagner’s story; probably talked to, about Shields; talked to, about the telegrams after they were stolen; left no papers with, in the Wagner matter 1676, 1682, 1683, 1699, 1705 Ryan, first consulted him about the Wagner story on 5th or 6th of May, 1909, I think; did not tell him about telegrams then; think we talked about Shields’s conversation with me 1706, 1707 Ryan, has been my counsel since 1882, was a man of high character 1709 Shields, R. J.: Conversation with, as to election of Senator Stephenson; never told me he had authority to get or use money for aiding in Stephenson’s election, nor of securing absence or presence of members; was favor- able to Stephenson’s election; did not leave town for fear of being seen with 1680, 1681, 1682, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1699, 1700 Do not know date of first telegram of, but think it was 10 or 12 days before March 4 1695,1696 Never discussed question of securing absence of Farrell, Towne, or Ramsey with 1680, 1697 Never said anything to me about being in Washington 1697 Received two telegrams from, in February, 1909, asking me to meet Ir'm at the Pfister Hotel; had conversation with, there mainly about some cut-over lands, and also the contest at Madison; probably talked with Ryan about; do not think telegram was sent from Wash- ington; think second telegram was sent from Madison 1679, 1680, 1681, 1696, 1697, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703 Souther, did not meet Wood in office of, in 1909, not till 1910; conversation with, in his office, not exactly as he testified to; told him his testimony was not true 1675, 1678, 1679, 1684, 1685 Souther, do not think he is a bad man; I think he himself believed what he said 1685,1704 DIGEST INDEX. CIX Regan, M. J., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page Souther, talked with me about the Wagner story and the telegrams from Shields; no reason why I should not talk with him about the telegrams. 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706 Souther, meeting with him and Wood was on April 1 1688 Towne, did not see, during the session that elected Senator Stephenson... 1685 Towne, had never seen him until I sent for him at Madison; spoke to him about the story of my giving him part of $35,000 at the Plankinton Hotel on February 20, 1909; details of story 1686, 1687, 1688 Towne, never discussed question of securing absence of, with Shields; did not talk about, with Shields 1670, 1680, 1697, 1698, 1699 Wagner, story of, absolutely false from start to finish 1683 Wagner, talked with Wood and Souther about; told Wood he had no corrob- orating evidence back of his story, that it better be investigated before he was put on the stand; Wood thought he stole two telegrams from my desk; letter from, to Wood; tried to secure indictment of 1675, 1676, 1677, 1678, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1689, 1703, 1704, 1705 Wood, Harry W.: Came to my house to talk about Frank Wagner, in February, 1910; told me he thought he could learn from Wagner who were back of the frame up of the Wagner story; said he thought Wagner had stolen two telegrams from my desk. .1674, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1695, 1696, 1703, 1704, 1705 Conversation with, in Souther’s office, not exactly as he testified to; told him his testimony was not true 1678, 1679, 1684, 1685 Meeting with him and Souther was on April 1; arranged with, at that meeting for him to go and see Wagner 1688, 1689 No reason why I should not talk with him about the telegrams; do not think I did talk with him about them 1705, 1706 Said he and Souther had agreed to testify that I had stated to them that Shields came with money to bribe the legislators; said he might be able to hold up the Stephenson crowd for money by withholding his testimony as to these alleged occurrences 1684, 1685 Remold, Fred W., insurance agent, Kenosha, Wis., affidavit of 2012 Age, 48 years 2012 Campaign headquarters at Milwaukee, received from, $161.05 2012 Campaign work done in primary contest, in city and county of Kenosha, during primary contest, at request of campaign managers at Milwaukee, who requested him to look after Stephenson’s interest, by circulating, dis- tributing, and posting up his literature and lithographs, and obtaining list of names, also in advocating and promoting political interests of Stephenson ; legitimate expenses would be paid and a reasonable compen- sation for services; engaged in work about six weeks; instructed to incur only legitimate expenses 2012, 2013 Kenosha, resided in, for past 48 years 2012 Madison investigation, not called as witness at 2013 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2013 Personal expenses, expended about $100 for 2012 Poll workers, $50, included in personal expense expenditure of $100, ex- pended for services of; instructions given to; unable to give names of; recalls two; not employed unless supporters of Stephenson at the time of employment 2012 Saloon campaign, instructed by campaign committee not to conduct 2013 Services, balance of $161.05, not covered by expenditure of $100 for personal expenses and poll workers, retained as compensation for time devoted to campaign 2012 Statement of expenditures, never called upon to furnish an itemized; made statement in aggregate and received checks for 2013 Stephenson, supporter of before he promised to do any political work for.. 2012 Report of full committee to the Senate vn Report of subcommittee to the full committee vii Report submitted to Wisconsin Legislature on March 18 came with papers from governor of Wisconsin to the United States Senate 322, 323 Resolution of United States Senate authorizing investigation of election of Senator Stephenson 3 Resolution (No. 58) of Wisconsin Legislature, relating to investigation of the primary and general election of 1908 and the election of United States Senator in 1909 2,3 cx DIGEST INDEX. Page. Reynolds, Thomas, member of Wisconsin Assembly from Door County, 1908 and 1909, testimony of 1235, Blaine, Senator, did not have a word of conversation with him relative to payment of money by Stephenson to me, prior to time he filed his charges. Door County, men there all know Stephenson and what he did for people there when they were poor; no occasion to spend a cent for him there, if I had had the time; I was first farmer ever elected there and I proposed to get a State park there; how Stephenson helped me; that was during legislature of 1907 1246, Edmonds, received a $100 check from; after the primary, I think; I had been nominated then; he was chairman of the State Republican central committee; he said Overbeck advised him to send it to me; I miderstood it was out of State central committee funds; Stephenson told me after- wards that he told him to send it to me; used it for promotion of elec- tion of Republican ticket 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1246 Expense account filed with joint investigating committee, given; items of explained Hired a man to work in my place when I was out in county; kept him 26 days; called it $2 a day — $1. 50 and board 1236, Joint investigating committtee, I told those people at Madison just what- ever came into my mind, to let them know how little 1 thought about them Kindlin, George, that I know of I did not tell him I saved $100 out of the Stephenson money; he says I did; I would not tell him the truth any- way; he was a busybody Letter to Milwaukee Free Press, printed in issue of February 28, 1908, coming out in favor of Stephenson as candidate for United States Senate, given; I was author of it Liquors and cigars, estimated I spent about $10 for, out of Stephenson’s money Livery bill, I think, would be included in $51.50 unaccounted for before former committee Member of general assembly that elected Stephenson, I was nominated and elected as; voted for Stephenson as Money, never thought of impropriety of receiving it from a candidate for United States Senate, who I might have to vote on if elected Money, none spent by me in interest of Stephenson for bribing or corruptly influencing voters Money received from Stephenson, did not spend any of it campaigning for myself 1239, Nomination papers, circulated Stephenson’s; did not circulate my own; friends circulated them; paid $1.50 to a man I hired to circulate Stephen- son’s; he spent one day at it and gave it up; I spent about 28 days at it; think I commenced some time in last part of June; had not announced my own candidacy then 1238, Primary election, took up with Stephenson because he helped advance cause of; changed my opinion about its being a great institution four years ago when I saw the cold ingratitude of man Stephenson helped so long Reynolds, T. F., mentioned in Edmonds account is another man Stephenson, have admired him for over 45 years; would have supported him in absence of receiving anything 1240, Stephenson, met him on a boat and received $80 from him, I think before July 20; it was sometime after I circulated his nomination papers; received $100 in currency from him in a registered letter from Marinette about middle of July; was not a candidate for legislature then, but expected to be 1236, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, Stephenson, supported and voted for him in legislature of 1907. Stephenson, traveled through county in all directions, advising farmers that it was their duty to nominate such a man Reynolds, Thomas F., banker, Oconto Falls, Wis., affidavit of Age, 43 years Campaign work at Oconto Falls and Oconto County during primary con- test; services voluntary, received no instructions, except informed by Edmonds that whatever expenses were incurred Stephenson wanted to pay them, and also desired to pay compensation for time put in, which affiant did not desire, never requested, and did not receive 1258 1258 1248 1245 1238 1245 1239 1247 1245 1239 1244 1239 1246 1246 1245 1240 1242 1247 1242 1249 1238 2013 2013 2013 DIGEST INDEX. CXI Page. Reynolds, Thomas F., banker, Oconto Falls, Wis., affidavit of — Continued. Headquarters at Milwaukee, received $200 from, for purpose of paying cam- paign expenses in Oconto County 2013 Money not disbursed for purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2013 Oconto County, about 13 precincts in 2013 Oconto Falls, resided in about 29 years past 2013 Oconto Falls Herald, paid to $100 at request of campaign managers at Mil- waukee, to compensate for printing and publishing campaign matter, articles, etc., and for sending copy of paper to every voter in the county. . 2013 Personal expenses and expenses of livery hire, $40 retained for 2013 Poll workers, about $60 expended for; instructions given; none engaged unless they were for Stephenson before their employment; unable to give names of all; recalls three 2013 Statement of expenses, never called upon for an itemized 2013 Traveled through county by means of liveries 2013 Stephenson, supporter of, prior to doing any work for 2013 Ring, Merritt C., Neillsville, Wis., testimony of 1258 Born in this State 1258 Bradford, C. M., I did not give him $50 1261 Business, at present I am a farmer 1262 Check for $500, never received one; I may have had part of the proceeds; I do not know that 1267 Clark County newspapers, offer made to Greenwood Gleaner and Loyal Tribune to give them money to support Stephenson 1264, 1265 Compensation, did not agree upon what I was to receive 1259 Crothers, G. E., did not offer any money to him 1268, 1273, 1274 Dee, I can remember paying him $150; whether that was out of the $170 I can not say; I think I paid him $50 and promised to send him $100 and afterwards sent it to him; first inquired of him whether he had decided what candidate to support; told me he thought Stephenson was the man; he did support Stephenson after that to my satisfaction 1260, 1261, 1262, 1265, 1270 Edmonds, received $170 August 7 from, for purpose of assisting in campaign; I was to spend it in such a way as my judgment indicated; can not specify how I did spend it 1259, 1260 Edmonds, received $800 or $900 from him during primary campaign; I think all at once; it was fore part of August, I think 1258, 1259 Edmonds, some time after primary election wrote me a letter asking what my charges “were; told him I would make no charges; I had $25 left of the money that he had given me before; he sent me $125 more. . 1268, 1270. 1273 Edmonds, statement to, in writing but not itemized; never rendered any statement of items; merely told him I had expended money; was not at any time asked for an account of expenditures 1260, 1261, 1268, 1269 McFarland, visited him at Stevens Point to see if I could get the leading Republicans there to support Stephenson as against Cook; did not give him any money 1261, 1264, 1267, 1268 Memorandum of expenditures, I kept on a tablet on my desk; whether I had all the items on that I do not know; most expenditures in a form I could easily remember without any reference to memorandum; have not got it now; suppose it went into wastebasket after I had settled up with Edmonds 1259, 1268, 1272, 1273 Milwaukee, think I went to, three times 1261 Neillsville, Wis., resided there 37 years 1258 Payment of $350 on August 18 1260 Public office held, school clerk and a member of both branches of the legis- lature; was special agent of Agricultural Department in London for a period 1262,1263 Smith, William L., to whom I delivered a check for $250, was a candidate for the legislature; privately and publicly said in his announcement as a candidate that he was pledged to support no candidate, but would sup- port one who received majority of votes at primary; no purpose of aiding in his campaign as a candidate for legislature. . . 1261, 1263, 1264, 1269, 1270, 1274 Stephenson, circulated nomination papers for him personally in city of Neillsville 1268 15235°— 11 viii CXII DIGEST INDEX. King, Merritt C., Neillsville, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Pa ge. Stephenson, did not pay any person money to vote for him 1268, 1273 Stephenson, did not visit him at Marinette during campaign 1261 Stephenson campaign in 1908, took something of an active part in; handled a little money; aggregate amount received 1258, 1259, 1268, 1269, 1270 Traveled over about four counties and when I met a man who was recom- mended to me as a good worker I gave him from $5 to $15 or $20; went into Chippewa, Eau Claire, Clark, and Portage Counties and expended very small sums in each one; spent practically all my time in trying to do what I could in interest of Stephenson; explained 1260, 1270, 1271, 1272 Williamson, gave him $50 for publishing advertisements and pictures in the Neillsville Times, a weekly paper 1266 Riordan, D. E., Eagle River, Wis., testimony of 774 Accounted for $1,200 of this money before legislative committee; have endeavored to account for same amount before this committee; have not added any items to the expenditures; made best effort I could to account for expenditures before joint committee; have not been in the locality where I could make an investigation since for purpose of recalling de- tails 785,786,788 Antigo Journal, paid them either $20 or $25 for printing of sample ballots.. 779 Assemblymen, how elected in Wisconsin 794 Berg, former game warden and political worker, I did not pay him money and he did no work for me 784 Bissell, W. H., of Arbor Vitae, Vilas County, paid money to be used in employing men for distributing ballots in town or precincts of Arbor Vitae; I had to insist on his taking the money; I mention that because he is a lumberman and a friend of Stephenson’s 779, 780 Campaign, I think a thorough campaign for United States Senate under Wisconsin primary law, could not be made for $107,000; I think $200,000 could have been spent legitimately in 1908; other candidates would have had to spend that amount as well to make an effective campaign in same length of time Stephenson had 803, 804, 805 Campaign, which I planned and tried to carry through, was one to reach votes in rural districts and not in cities, which was much more expensive because other candidates had been working for months in centers; I gave it practically all of my time from time I accepted management until primary day; I was going over the whole district; did not have time or money to canvass district to ascertain Stephenson Republicans; think preliminary canvass is essential feature of thorough campaign. 788, 790, 792, 793 Candidates for the assembly, none employed by me except Everett 805 Compensation, I figured that I had between $450 and $500 left after I com- pleted the campaign; I kept that for my services 786 Connor, Matt, paid him $40 to put sample ballots in hands of men who would attend polls on election day and work for Stephenson 777, 778 Edmonds, did not know about details of my campaign work; I do not think he knew about my arrangements with men; in a general way I reported to him character of campaign I was making 789, 790 Edmonds, first entered into an agreement with him to support Stephenson in the latter part of July on North Western train; had then made up my mind to support Stephenson; he said he would send me $1,000; I had several meetings with him in Milwaukee 775 Edmonds, I talked with him about organization in seven counties and with respect to rest of State and we made up our minds there would be no use attempting a preliminary canvass 793, 795 Edmonds, said he was giving me the money to take charge of campaign in counties included in northern portion of State, which were Forest, Flor- ence, Langdale, Lincoln, Iron, Oneida, and Vilas; I spent some of aggre- gate sum in each county, but not very much in two of them 776, 788, 790 Everett, of Eagle River, I paid him the largest sum in all, $250, for travel- ing through the counties of Vilas, Iron, and Oneida to ascertain the senti- ment of the people; made two such trips through the county and reported to me after each one; was proprietor of Everett summer resort; at the time was a candidate for the assembly; I paid him the money by check a day or two before primary election; knew he was a candidate then, I think; he was not elected; he was to vote for candidate who received primary nomination 780, 781, 782, 786, 788, 789 DIGEST INDEX. CXIII Riordan, D. E., Eagle River, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Forest County, I paid $50 to parties at Jillson Hotel at Monico Junction, who came there to meet me, but I am unable to give their names and amounts; paid them same time I paid Jillson $50; to be used to employ men at polling places across the line in Forest County election day; admonished them not to talk to any elector within 100 feet of the polls. . 784 Game wardens; I never gave any money to them or deputy game wardens. 786 Jillson, B. F., keeps hotel at Monico Junction, gave him $50 for use in getting vote to polls, to influence voters by sample ballot, and to talk to electors within proper distance of polls 783 Literature, made arrangements with Edmonds to send matter from place to place; paid men for putting it up, and in many places left something for privilege and trouble of keeping it up, if torn down; I paid out directly that way not less than $100 791, 792 Liquors and cigars, I carried some cigars with me and treated gentlemen with them in discussing the matter, but there was no money given any- one to buy liquor or cigars with; there might have been a drink bought occasionally, but there was no saloon campaign made; I should say not to exceed $50 altogether was spent for liquor from funds intrusted to me. 804 Lowell, editor of the Rhinelander New North, Rhinelander, Wis., paid him $20 or $25 for printing sample ballots, such as were to be used in Oneida County 778 Marteau, Frank, runs a newspaper that is printed, I think, in Italian at Hurley, in Iron County; I paid him $100; $25 of that was for printing sample ballots on tinted paper; the other $75 was to be used in picking out men who were voters to attend the polls in different precincts on election day to call attention of voters to Stephenson’s qualifications, and to take a sample ballot to booth so as to enable him to properly mark the ballot; was to hire as many men as he could on primary day to per- form that service ; 776, 777, 778, 785 Memorandum, I did not keep one at that time; it has never been my cus- tom in spending my own money when I was a candidate to require any- one to account to me for what they expended in my behalf 787 Money, I did not pay any person any, directly or indirectly, to secure their support for Stephenson; did not spend any for purpose of corrupting any elector; within my knowledge none was expended by men to whom I intrusted funds for purpose of directly or indirectly bribing or corrupting electors 783,785,803,804 Money, I received all of it before direct primary election and after Stephen- son announced his candidacy; I expended it in interest of Stephenson’s candidacy; I turned over some money to be disbursed on the judgment of others 776 Moran, Barney, Pelican, Oneida County, I paid him $50 to employ as many men as he could to attend polling precincts outside of city of Rhine- lander, using sample ballots in advising and instructing voters to vote for Stephenson 778 Nomination papers, I did not have men employed to procure names for; if I did take part in that work, there was no charge 791 Oberhalzer, former game warden and political worker, I did not pay him money; he did not do any work for me 784 O’Connor, George E., Eagle River, Vilas County, paid him $75 to find out situation in mill towns; was looking for information as to who was for and against the candidates before I did anything in campaign; he had always supported Stephenson; he brought me a list of names; he did not offer the people any inducement for their support 782, 783 Political experience, I took an active part in all campaigns from 1894 until 1908, with the exception of 1906; am familiar with methods in vogue in my vicinity; was a member of State senate from 1896 until 1904 793, 794 Rogers Printing Co., of Eagle River, I paid them $25 for printing sample ballots to be used in Vilas County 779 State senators, how elected in Wisconsin. Statement, I made some kind of a one and filed it; it does not seem to be in the record; it was handed to the senatorial committee at Madison, but was not printed in the volume; I do not know whether it was marked by the committee as an exhibit; I handed it, I think, to Senator Morris; I am not certain vhat it contained 794 779 CXIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Riordan, D. E., Eagle River, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Stephens, D. B., was candidate against Everett for assembly; promised to abide by result of primary in supporting a candidate for United States Senate 781 Stephenson, have known him 12 or 14 years; supported him in primary campaign of 1908 ; did not support him in previous campaign when he was elected to Senate; I made up my mind to support him in case he should be a candidate at time of national convention at Chicago in June, 1908, as result of conferences I had with friends of mine there and be- cause of what had been occurring during past two years; I was not certain at that time that he would be a candidate for reelection 774 Stewart, A. D., formerly chairman of the county committee of Langdale County, of Antigo, Wis., a prominent business man in furniture business; I paid him $185 as a result of a conference with him and other Republi- cans in Langdale County to be used by him and the others in the employ- ment of men throughout the city of Antigo and some of towns and county precincts in Langdale County to handle sample ballots at polls on primary Sum of $900 received in two payments of $400 and $500 some time after the 20th or 25th of August, sent me by Edmonds; one through A. C. Miller, stenographer and clerk in my office at Ashland, which was either $400 or $500; the other through T. I. Laughlin, who had charge of my office at Sum of $1,000 sent me by Edmonds by American Express about July 22 or 25; I put it in my safe; I kept it separate from my other moneys 775 Sum of $1,300 sent me Aug. 4; I did not receive it then; it was later than that; I was out and it was some time before I received it 776 Sum of $3,200 received by me; I account for approximately $1,200 by giv- ing names of persons, retained between $450 and $500 for compensation, leaving balance of about $1,500; of that not much given to other men to expend for Stephenson; how a great deal of it expended for traveling expenses _ 784, 785, 786, 787, 791 Trimble, Frank, Rhinelander, Oneida County, paid him $60 or $75 to se- lect as many men as he could to handle sample ballots in different wards in city of Rhinelander 778 Vilas County, I paid a number of people there sums of $5 for purpose of at- tending polling places on election day to handle sample ballots 780 Rogers, Edward J., express agent of American Express Co., Dodgeville, Wis., affidavit of 2014 Age, 37 years 2014 Campaign headquarters in Milwaukee, received from, $481.79 2014 Campaign work in Dodgeville and Iowa County during primary contest, at request of campaign managers at Milwaukee, who gave no instructions except to look after Stephenson’s interests and would pay legitimate expense and a reasonable compensation for services; wanted names of Stephenson supporters furnished; instructed also to circulate and keep posted literature; go about county as much as possible and advocate merits of Stephenson, and reasons why he should be elected, and employ poll workers 2014 Distributed about $96 for expense of securing poll list, distributing adver- tising matter, livery hire, and expense of circulating nomination papers. 2014 Dodgeville, resided in, for 37 years past 2014 Iowa County, 28 precincts in; a large county 2014 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2014 Precinct workers, disbursed $130 to 2014 Precinct workers engaged by Robins and affiant; unable to give accurate names and addresses; not paid large ms individually; instructions to Robins and practice was not to employ any unless they were originally Stephenson supporters; instructions given to 2014 Reese, disbursed $125 to, for special advertising 2014 Reese, received $100 from, in addition to $481.79 from campaign head- quarters - - - . - 2014 Robins, disbursed about $100 to, for services and expenses and assisting in campaign work 2014 Services, retained about $130 for compensation for 2014 Services of affiant and of Robins covered period of about six or seven weeks. 2014 DIGEST INDEX. cxv Page. Rogers, Edward J., express agent of American Express Co., Dodgeville, Wis., affidavit of — Continued. Statement of money disbursed, never called upon for itemized; did not occur to keep an accurate account; regrets did not; did make general report to headquarters, but not in detail 2014 Stephenson, supporter of, at time requested to do work; had been prior to that time 2014 Traveled over county several times 2014 Roll calls in the assembly, March 4, 1909 1349, 1350, 1351 Rosenheim, Adolph, saloon keeper, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1885 Knell, received $325 from, for use in primary 1885, 1886 Money, received $325 from Mr. Knell for use in primary; spent it among workers and in saloons; received none for personal compensation 1885, 1886, 1887 Worked for Senator Stephenson in 1903; distributed literature for him; employed workers in the primary 1885, 1886, 1887 Rowe, Ralph H., produce dealer, Waupaca, Wis., affidavit of 2017 Acquaintance wide in said counties 2017 Age, 50 years 2017 Campaign managers, received $499.34 from 2017 Campaign work in State and Waupaca County and Waushara County during primary contest, covering period of about two months, at request of cam- paign managers; no instructions excepting told to do what he could by personally interviewing as many people as possible and presenting reasons why Senator should be nominated 2017 Madison investigation, not called as witness at 2018 Memoranda of disbursements, kept no detailed; relies upon memory 2018 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2018 Personal expenses, expended about $300 for, in traveling over counties; consisted of cost of conveyances, train fares, hotel bills, and expenses for entertainment, cigars, etc 2017, 2018 Saloon campaign, did not make; visited saloons and hotels; occasionally men were treated, irrespective of whether for Stephenson or against; no considerable amount spent for liquors 2018 Services, kept $200 for 2018 Sheriff of Waupaca County for two years; also undersheriff for considerable time 2017 Statement, never called upon for itemized 2018 Stephenson, supporter of prior to interest in campaign 2017 Waupaca, resided in about past 30 years 2017 Russell, C. H., Berlin, Wis., testimony of 1192 Account, I had one of everything of any amount that I paid out at time of expenditures; did not render one to Stephenson or anyone in his behalf; they did not ask for one 1198 Age, 70 years 1200 Campaign, I had been enthusiastic supporter of primary-election law and when it passed thought there was a chance for a poor man to get an office; started out with about $1,500 of my own money; soon found I needed more; Col. Lewis and I went to Milwaukee and talked with Sacket; told him I thought with some money I could do good work for myself and Stephenson; so they agreed on this amount of money; Ed- monds and Sacket did 1196, 1197 Candidate for nomination for Member of Congress from second district in 1908; not nominated 1192,1200 Chief clerk in pension department in State capitol at Madison. . 1192, 1199, 1200 Counties, money I had was to be spent in Columbia, Marquette, Dodge, and Adams 1197 Lewis, I gave him $200 first that I had orders from Sacket to give him; then I gave him $150 more to pay for clerk hire and office rent and some little debts we owed at the end of the campaign; last item included postage and stationery more particularly for my own canvass 1198, 1199 CXVI DIGEST INDEX. Russell, C. H., Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page Money, 1 received $700 or $750 from Stephenson campaign fund in three payments, one of $200, one of $350, and I had $200 more; don’t know from whom I received it; was furnished for workers for myself and for Stephenson 1192, 1193, 1198 Money, none disbursed by me nor, as far as I know, by parties in whose hands I placed it for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing elec- tors 1199 Nelson, John, represents Madison district in Congress; is a Republican 1200 Served in First Wisconsin Cavalry for four years; had rank of first lieu- tenant when I finished service in regiment 1194, 1200 Statement of expenditures, known as Exhibit 111 in report of joint legis- lative committee, given; items in, explained; I made that up jugt the day before I was called on the stand, in my office at Madison 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196 Stephenson, worked in his interest in primary campaign 1192 Russell, Charles C., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1833, 1863 Black, received instructions from, which gave to MacLean; no conversa- tion with, about any purpose in keeping removal of papers, etc., from Senator Stephenson; idea in having trunk brought back in case com- mittee should want it 1834, 1845, 1847 Box, said to contain papers connected with Stephenson campaign; have never seen; have seen what purports to be its contents, in garret of a shed in rear of C. W. Kates’s house in Wells, Mich., October 10, 1911; contents taken to Wells in gunny sacks 1833-1835, 1839, 1843, 1844 Cary, Upham & Black; am attorney with; not member of firm; trunk shipped to, from Escanaba on October 10, 1911; letters in trunk arranged in order in office of, under my direction; nothing removed 1833, 1836, 1837, 1842, 1843, 1845 Correspondence, nature of; went through bundle of letters to find out, and through all in trunk in general way 1840, 1841 Gunny sacks, in which contents of box had been put; took from garret in shed and put contents in trunk; did not examine contents; saw that let- ters were in files; did not remove any letters.. 1834-1836, 1839, 1841, 1842, 1846 Kates, C. W., in whose shed at rear of house gunny sacks had been placed; brought trunk from house, October 10, 1911, and put contents of sacks in; locked trunk and put rope around it; used his automobile to carry trunk to American Express office in Escanaba 1834, 1835, 1836, 1846 Letters, in gunny sack were in ordinary pasteboard files; were not alpha- betically arranged; in same condition as when reached my office, so far as I know 1841, 1842, 1845 Letters, to Mr. Stephenson, dated subsequent to primary election, have knowledge of; other than those in trunk, which may pertain to election; brought from Wells to Milwaukee; were separate from letters in files 1839, 1840, 1841, 1845 MacLean, correspondence and poll lists taken from his house in suit case to Marinette; from there in gunny sacks to Wells in May, 1909, as per instructions from me; and then back to Marinette again on April 5, 1909 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846 MacLean, got bundle of letters from his house at Wells, March, 1909, which kept in private drawer in vault in Wells Building ever since; did not remove any letters from bundle; saw one carbon copy of a letter that might have been in files, and I had picked up by mistake. . 1840, 1841, 1842, 1844 MacLean, met in Menominee, Mich., March 4, 1909 (as instructed), across river from Marinette, Wis.; told him to go to offices of Stephenson and get files of letters or papers and take to Wells and take care of them; had telephoned to, previously, to meet me there . . 1833, 1834, 1838, 1842, 1844, 1845 MacLean, superintendent of I. Stephenson Co. at Wells, Mich.; told me had gone to Stephenson’s office as per instructions, found files on chair; could not carry; too bulky; so removed contents to suit case and they remained in this case until some time later 1838, 1839, 1845 Poll lists, in trunk, same as had been in gunny sacks; had seen before in Wells at time I was examining correspondence 1843 Receipt, express, of box shipped from headquarters in Milwaukee to Marinette, dated September 5, 1908. found in storage barns of American Express Co 1836, 1837 DIGEST INDEX. CXVII Russell, Charles C., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Stephenson, Senator, knew nothing about correspondence being carried from Marinette to Wells; was in Washington; no object in keeping it from him; no purpose in moving it 1843, 1847 Stringham, Miss, did not see in Marinette; came on train with, from Madi- son to Milwaukee, March 3; stated to her MacLean would call for this correspondence and to have it ready when he called 1833, 1838 Trunk, have seen contents of, since it arrived in Milwaukee; nothing in form of papers removed from, to my knowledge; had charge of in a gen- eral way; did not remove any letters from files 1837, 1842 Trunk, in which all the contents of gunny sacks had been placed; shipped from Escanaba to Milwaukee; weighed 185 pounds; have not shipping bill of; now contains all of correspondence to the best of my knowledge. . 1835, 1836, 1839, 1843, 1845, 1863, 1864 S. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate. Berlin, Wis., testimony of 152, 374, 440, 1804, 2063 Account, did not understand the law required me to keep one; did not understand law required me to file one which shall state amount of money and purpose for which paid out 162, 163 Accounts in record filed, as complete as kept on card index; copied from cards; names and purposes of expenditures always transferred to; ex- plains more fully than cards 500, 522, 523 Accounts, kept as full as I had the time for; did not hire help on as I pre- ferred to keep them myself 496 Accounts, when I began work thought of necessity of keeping accounts but did not think it necessary to keep permanent ones 477 Advertisement in Milwaukee Free Press, copy of only one I was able to get that contained campaign advertising; is a half-page display similar to one ran in all large daily papers of Milwaukee at same time; inserted on three days preceding election; remember bill for being found among those left at Madison; described and read 529, 530, 531 Advertising, recollection of certain items for 433, 434, 436 Ames, A. R., recollect paying him $200 for organizing in Dane County; be- lieve it was in cash; was to keep within the law and render an account; account from left with joint legislative committee, as I recollect; paid $350, August 8; $50, August 14; and $50, August 28, for same purpose as previous payment 527, 528, 531, 532, 547, 548 Ames, A. R., testimony shows he received $450 more than accounted for in Exhibit 49; to best of my knowledge must have covered some item of general expense charged in that exhibit 2067 Ashland County item, have no recollection of 429 Bancroft, asked Puelicher to make arrangements with him; I did not talk to him with regard to payment of money; Puelicher was to have distinct understanding with him that all money given him by our headquarters was to be used for Stephenson’s interests, and none of it was to be used to promote his own campaign; did not provide method by which uses could be separated 403, 404, 485, 486, 509 Bancroft, employment of, think Mr. McMahon sent his name to Mr. Ed- monds; Edmonds agreed to see him but was called away; I was busy and asked Mr. Puelicher to talk to him; McMahon said he was for Stephenson; talked matter over with Mr. Puelicher, and we did not think it improper . 408, 409, 485, 486 Bancroft, L., paid $250 July 31 to promote Stephenson campaign in Rich- land County; at that time was candidate for assembly from that county; was elected, and was speaker of house; knew he was a candidate when I paid him money; voted for Stephenson for United States Senator in legislature; elected attorney general last fall; voted for Stephenson in 1907 401,402,403,485,509 Beach, J. B., $150 paid him October 16, which he claimed we owed him in final settlement of account for organizing 562 Berg, O. A., have no recollection of item of August 13, $50 to 428 Berlin A. & I. Association, $150 paid for stock; association was a county fair; think deal was made with man named Edwards from Oshkosh; I ratified it; fact that Stephenson had invested money well known around locality where fair was; not a good stock investment, but not a bad ad- vertising one 560, 561 CXVIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk o; the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Bills, accounts, and receipts left with joint committee at Madison; unable to say in all cases which ones itemized 492 Bills, have receipts for where service was with regular business houses; business bills and campaign bills distinguished because I demanded strict business rules from business houses that I would not demand of friend campaigning for me 452 Bills, none were for services rendered after primary, September 1 566 Bowman, Harry, either paid him $150 or gave the check or cash to Mr. Edmonds to pay him; does not know how money used by; have no recol- lection of paying him any money at any time 164, 430 Bowman, W. A., in testimony says he received $20 more than shown by Exhibit 49; I can not account for it 2067 Box, in which papers connected with campaign were placed, had bills put into and sent up to Stephenson and they were afterwards returned to me; to my knowledge, no memoranda of expenditures was placed in; saw it after it reached Milwaukee in office of Cary, Upham & Black; the box, the trunk, was open, and Mr. Russell asked me if it was our stuff; thought I recognized our things; had never seen them in a trunk before; why I did not explain about when on witness stand before 1806, 1809, 1810, 1811 Box, in which papers connected with campaign were placed; presume unused stationery went into; “I did not think there was any correspond- ence in the box until after I testified (previously) ” 2077 Box, in which papers connected with campaign were placed; told Mr. Lambeck to put fixtures and everything Stephenson might use in his offices into; gave him no instructions to put papers into unless it might have been poll lists; think it was in outer room or in vault being packed when I finally left the offices, shortly after September 1; directed Lam- beck to send it to Marinette; Stephenson did not tell me to send it; have no knowledge of papers that went into 1804, 1805, 1811, 1812 Bratz, W., paid $100 August 13 for expenses and possibly some salary in organizing Washington County; do not know how he expended it; if I received expense account from, it was filed with others; item of August 14 was to pay for advertisement he inserted in some paper; item of August 21 for advertising 427, 428, 548 Breithaupt, L., think payment of $660 was for printing of some kind 463 Bruderle, paid him $60 for advertising space in a paper published in Fond du Lac; a German paper, I think; articles set forth Stephenson’s qualifi- cations 429 Buttons, distributed more than 100,000; bill from Whithead & Hoag Co. on file shows cost 430 Calkins, L. A., received $250 in cash from Edmonds, which appears in Exhibit 49; I can not say just where, but it appears as a general item or part of a general item; do not know what $210 check is for 2068 Calkins made an affidavit in which he stated he had received $760; Exhibit 49 shows him charged with $300 in his own name; received $250 in cash from Edmonds, which appears in Exhibit 49 under the head of “General”; He received a check from E. A. Edmonds on his $5,000 in National Exchange Bank; that explains discrepancy 2084 Campaign, assisted Mr. Edmonds in general management of, at Milwaukee office in 1908 152 Campaign, never took personal active part in any except Stephenson 494 Campaign, severed connection with October 16 when I settled the final outstanding accounts 405 Campaign, we had no information to start with; had no lists; every thing waukee headquarters at Wells Building; engaged to perform by Stephen- son latter part of June, 1908 152 Campaign in Wisconsin, if a man wanted to make a systematic campaign for United States Senate, and get the best possible results, I think it would cost him $150,000 to $200,000 513 Campaign literature, Hoard letter, and letter sent out with nomination papers in record before joint committee; 15,000 or 20,000 letters sent out with nomination papers; about 150,000 Hoard letters sent out; of 400,000 Republican voters only able to reach 150,000 with literature 512 DIGEST INDEX, CXIX Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Candidates for legislature, none except Bancroft, Wellensgard, and Kempf received money in any way from us 490 Card index, kept one indicating payment of all moneys; original of de- stroyed; entries on made by me; represented payment of $98,083.72; copied before destroyed; expenditures not itemized; reason for destroying; how sundry items entered in and transferred from; cards destroyed from time to time during campaign; presence of original would not throw new light on investigation 160, 161, 163, 500, 520, 522, 523, 524, 1806, 1808 Cashier’s checks, when procured from bank, we gave them a receipt for the check and a list of names and amounts to whom checks were issued. 556 Check of $5,000, given me by Stephenson; placed with campaign fund in Marshall and Ilsley bank; dated about August 27 166, 475 Checks of bank cashier would show to whom I paid money; never cashed at bank for convenience of anyone * 162, 168 Cigars, have no recollection of item of $10.75 paid for; no knowledge of $4 and $2 items for August 24 465, 469 Cigars, items as published in record showing what was expended for dur- ing whole campaign, grouped 514, 515, 516 Cigars and liquors, why bills for former itemized and latter not 498 Circulating nomination papers, paid various men throughout the State whatever they claimed 464, 465 Clerks, had assistance of messenger to Stephenson’s committee, Arthur Lambeck, and two stenographers; had as high as 42 girls addressing envelopes 154,448 Copy of statement rendered before committee not correct in all instances; instances given 393, 394, 395, 396, 423, 424, 436, 538 Currency, tried not to handle; think I drew about $5,000 in during cam- paign; paid for office salaries and expenses; do not recollect of any dis- bursed to managers except to Mr. Stone 168, 524 Daily Jewish Courier, Chicago paper with large circulation among Jewish people of Wisconsin; payment of $150 to, was for an advertisement 552 Dane County, paid $200 in currency for organizing there 169 Dangers, F. W., recollect he was paid $50 August 20 to put in slides at his moving-picture show to advertise Stephenson 548 Dart, G. W., had no personal knowledge of; had no dealing with 378, 380, 509 Dart, G. W., procured check for $400 on Marshall and Ilsley bank, signed by some officer, probably on order of Mr. Edmonds; does not know how money used by Deidrich, Peter, have no recollection of item of $50, August 21; the word “receipt” in statement would indicate I had filed it with joint com- mittee Dettmann, G., have no recollection of any payments to Dinners, when we kept the 42 girls in office working at night, I gave the lady in charge money to buy their dinners with Disbursements of $98,083.72, summary of statement of, prepared by me. . . Dresser, L. B., $250 more shown in his testimony received than appears in Exhibit 49, accounted for by check for that amount given him by Edmonds out of his $5,000 Ecklund, Frank, have no recollection of payment of $25 to Edmonds, E. A: Do not think I accompanied him when he went to see Stephenson in regard to fifing account before legislative committee Given personal check for $200; orders for money from not necessarily written; do not know how money paid out to his order was used; did not think myself responsible for money paid to; felt when he asked for money I was under obligation to give it to him; think he would indicate what he wanted money for; expenditures by never ac- counted for to me 162,167,532,534 Know nothing about item of $200 paid him July 23 for general organ- izing 397 Presumes he knows about things I do not know about 174 Recollect that part of campaign fund which Stephenson had placed in the hands of Puelicher was transferred to private credit of in an account opened at Marshall & Ilsley Bank; should estimate amount at $500; fund drawn by check signed by Edmonds; do not know how used; recollect he said he paid some of his board out of it. 533, 534, 535 164 429 423 466 470 2067 434 396 cxx DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Edmonds, E. A. — Continued. Think he would know about item of check for $400 to Dart 380 Think most of his personal expenses were paid out of $5,000 given him by Stephenson; have no knowledge whether he received compen- sation for services as manager 532, 533 Was the manager; never examined my accounts; did not submit my accounts to ; do not remember any instance where he reported to me salary arrangement made with one of his lieutenants 497, 501 When private account in Marshall & Ilsley Bank was low, I deposited some cashier’s checks drawn on general fund to credit of it; in sev- eral cases I purchased cashier’s checks to order of people out in the State which I handed over to Mr. Edmonds and he asked me to have them credited to his personal account; never indorsed by parties to whom drawn; indorsed by Edmonds; it was not necessary to send them to the people in whose favor they were drawn and Mr. Ed- monds thought he needed more money in his personal account; this procedure followed in $250 check drawn for Wellensgard 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544 Eppling, F. J., do not know about payments to 2067 Exhibit 49 is more detailed statement of account known as Exhibit 47; how names were added to 503, 504, 525 Exhibit 49, recollect it was made for the joint committee of Wisconsin Legislature; account of Stephenson filed with secretary of state before it was made; presented after Exhibit 47; amounts of all funds drawn from Marshall & Ilsley Bank appear in 397, 525, 535 Expenditures, had no idea question of legitimacy of would be raised; did not think Stephenson’s friends would question genuineness of 500 Expenditures, my opinion of legal or illegal as affected by custom, explained 386 Expense accounts, list of persons who filed and list of persons who did not file, within recollection of me, given; list shows persons who filed accounts and all of the amounts that they received, but I can not desig- nate just the amounts for which they filed accounts; taken from Exhibit 49; identified with printed record by date and not page 2064, 2065, 2066 Expense accounts, put them all in one drawer in my desk; took them out of that drawer, sent them to Marinette; they were sent from there to me at Washington; I carried them to Madison and turned them over to joint legislative committee 428 Express, $235.87, was for sending campaign material about 465 Fine, knew Stephenson amenable to one if he did not file an account com- plying to statute; did not think if my accounts were kept so he could not file such an account that I would be amenable too as an aider and abettor 502 Fond du Lac County, have no recollection of item of $250 under 431 Fossbinder, my recollection of $61 to, is that he did some work in hanging posters and other campaign work; think he rendered a bill; do not recol- lect exactly what it was for 445 Frank, J. H., have no recollection of payment of $100 to Aug. 28; do not remember transaction by which he received $515; do not know how spent; never saw statement from 435 General campaign expenses, only items in Exhibit 49 that answer to desig- nation of general campaign expenses or “general” in which names of persons to whom money was given are not stated, tabulated; aggregate, $2,947.08 567 General expense of organizing, items of charge for on July 6 not included in any statement; meant expenditure of money covering a larger terri- tory than a county, possibly all over the State; do not know to whom money for was paid; never presented items for to Stephenson; as item- ized in Exhibit 49 380, 381, 480, 517, 518, 526, 527 “General organizing, July 21, $250,” have no recollection whatever of item 392,393 Gordon, George, Mr. Edmonds would know for what purpose he was paid $1,300 176 Gust, O. L., have no knowledge of how payments to on August 8, 28, and October 16 were expended 425, 426 DIGEST INDEX. CXXI Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Hamalrath, E. A., lived in Antigo; he sent me a bill for money he had expended in interest of Stephenson and I sent check of $13.75, Septem- ber 5, to reimburse him 548 Hambright, C. M.: Did not ask him whether he did or would vote for Stephenson; told me he was favorable to Stephenson before I paid him any money; trav- eled in Racine and Kenosha Counties; said to me that he did take people into the hotel and invite them to dinner and meals and pay their bills; do not know that his items were ever submitted to Stephenson 381, 382, 383, 384 Paid $50 in currency 169 Payments were for organizing; expense account left with legislative committee at Madison ; passed upon propriety of his account; do not remember how items for sundries expended-; paid $300 for salary, September 5; unable to state what proportion of $400 given to for expenses was used in purchase of liquor and cigars 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 390, 441 Testimony shows he received $45.50 more than appears in Exhibit 49; recollect he was going out on a trip and was short of money and I gave him that or some amount and charged it under “sundries, smalP’ as appears in Exhibit 49 2067 Was employed to go around State and report to us ability of certain persons whom we might employ 422 Hanson, J. T., affidavit shows he received $100 more than appears in Ex- hibit 49; explanation is that in printed copy of Exhibit 49 they left out the name of Hanson, which should appear after one of the items of “ad- vertising ” 428, 436, 2068 Haslam, W. C., from his testimony appears to have received $301 more than shown in Exhibit 49, $250 of that was a check from Edmonds account of $5,000, leaving $51 I can not account for 2067 Hayes, E. V., have no recollection of items of August 27 and September 5 paid to 433 Headquarters, on train from Marinette, first talked of opening; Puelicher and I went into details and then I determined to open office 475 Hilsenhoff, H., have no recollection of who paid him $25 for distributing and hanging posters 435 Hotel Meyer, Janesville, do not remember about item of $17.50 to, August 24; my recollection of item August 20 is that it was money Mr. Puelicher paid for hotel expenses when he and Stephenson and others took trip. 469, 560 Hornibrook, Henry, of Marinette, had nothing to do with office in our head- quarters 1810 Humphrey & Williams, have faint recollection of paying $25 to, for putting up posters around in other counties and Milwaukee County 440 Investigating committee of Wisconsin Legislature, knew personnel of; though members of were not unfriendly to Stephenson; think statement of that $30,000 was spent for liquor and cigars is incorrect; understand their language to mean the $30,000 is to be divided into two classes, a portion of it misappropriated and another portion spent for liquors and cigars 483,484 Itemized statements of expenditures by McMahon, Larson, Reinold, Rowe, Keyes, Ames, Sexton, and Stevens rendered to us, can not find in record of legislative investigating committee; recollect they were among papers left with committee at Madison 490, 491, 492 Items in account dated October 16, aggregating $3,188.65, a cleaning up of bills that came in after primary; no part of aggregate paid for activity during real campaign after the nomination; items read and where possi- ble explained; statement made from claims in bills and letters; had knowledge of items at time, but have forgotten them in three years; dis- bursements for were actually made and not for any improper purpose; think memoranda that was basis of account was left with joint legislative committee 562, 563, 564, 565 Items under head of “General,” have no recollection how expended; actu- ally disbursed by me or by Mr. Edmonds during campaign 422, 426, 429, 431, 433, 434, 444, 526 James, N. L., have no recollection of item of $300 to, August 21 433 CXXII DIGEST INDEX, Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Johnson, 0. T., have no recollection of item of $57.76 paid to 445 Johnstad, L. F., have no recollection of item of $100 to, August 28 434 Johnstone, A., of Eau Claire County, have no recollection of paying him $50 . 441 Jones, A. M., in regard to $150 paid him, I did not make arrangements with him, but remember there was a Mr. Jones in Waukesha County who helped us and probably spent some money 549 Jones, J. R., paid $100 for expenses in organizing Racine County; as I remember he did not receive salary; items of August 14, 29, and 31 paid him for organizing; think payment of September 5 was final settlement; did not account in writing, by items, for any of $883.50 paid him between August 7 and September 5, as I remember; can not say how much of total sum was spent for treating or entertaining electors; recommended by Hambright 420. 421, 422 Jones, W. B., have no recollection of item of $30 paid to 445 Juneau County, do not know who organizer there was 566 Kates, C. W., of Escanaba, had nothing to do with office in our head- quarters 1810 Kelley, J. T., thinks $500 paid him was in currency 169 Kempf, candidate for legislature, who sent in a bill for posting bills for Stephenson 490, 509, 510 Kewaunee County item, have no recollection of it; was in my card index; do not know to whom the $75 of this item was paid August 5 419 Keyes, facts in regard to Hambright’s expenditures applicable to those made by; to my best recollection expense account rendered by, was among papers left with joint committee at Madison; not able to find expense account of, in testimony; said he was in favor of Stephenson’s and 30, August 5, 8, and 20, and September 5 were partly for salary and Keyes, paid $50 in currency 169 Knell, W. R., his account included in my statement, for the money for which I gave a receipt for him; gave bank or Mr. Puelicher a receipt for money used by; presume Stephenson authorized him to disburse money 171,473 Koch Advertising Agency, payments to, for advertising in sundry papers. 458, 459, 552 Kuryer Publishing Co., Milwaukee paper of some prominence; $250 paid them was for advertising space 552 Lambeck, Arthur, had charge of contents of box in which papers connected with campaign were placed 1810 Lamoreaux, F. P., have no recollection of item of $25, August 19; do not know him 428 Larson, C. O., $25 paid July 30 advanced to him for expense money as manager in Ozaukee County; $50 paid to August 14 to cover his expenses Law: Claim no immunity by reason of not knowing; accept responsibility of actions as being within ’. 154 Do not think it was evaded 496 Instructed employees to keep within 162 It was not my understanding that it prohibited the general giving of anything of value for the purpose of procuring votes properly 377 Knew it required detailed statement of expenditures by candidate; did not know that law required particular items of expenditure should be given and not grouped; I understood that no one but can- didate should make report of each expenditure over $5; did not know candidate would be obliged to reply on statement of dis- bursing agents 477 Question as to what it was not considered; promised to keep within; not professionally familiar with; had general understanding of that referred to by Stephenson; read carefully before I did anything except to rent and furnish offices 153 Requiring candidate to file expense account, how interpreted by me. 506, 507 DIGEST INDEX. CXXIII Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Letters and copies of letters on file pertaining to primary campaign, I in- tended to have destroyed after the primary campaign; did not learn that letters had not been destroyed until after I testified here the first time; Mr. Lambeck told me it was his recollection he did send them in box to Marinette; have not gone over them with Mr. Black; thought letters destroyed when I testified before joint legislative committee; did not know of shipping of box then 2077, 2079, 2080, 2081 Liquors and cigars, made expenditures for myself in several instances when I took men I was doing business with to dinner; do not think $500 was spent for, during whole campaign; only know of my own expenditures for, which would not amount to $20; knew of only one man who spent money given him in drinking, and discharged him 481, 482, 483 Liquors and cigars, my agents in some instances told me they spent money for; remember nothing of any complaints that money was being spent extravagantly for 485 Liquors and cigars, there was money spent for, to my certain knowledge . . 469 Literature sent to electors included personal letters, multigraph letters, and circulars of all kinds; can not furnish copies of any sent out from Milwaukee headquarters; carbon copies of personal letters probably put with waste paper when we cleaned up office 449 MacLean, of Escanaba, had nothing whatever to do with our office 1810 McGill, his affidavit of expenditures shows a difference of $25 from those accounted for in Exhibit 49; unable to account for except generally 2068 McGovern, now governor of the State; Mr. Edmonds went to Madison and examined his account, as being only one filed by a lawyer who was can- didate for the Senate at the time, with idea of having Stephenson’s ac- count as nearly like as possible 506 McMahon, compensation of, think paid approximately $450 in aggregate; paid $300 in salary; $150 used in traveling expenses 155, 156, 374 McMahon, did not advise as to meaning of law; gave money under general instructions from Stephenson; when I gave him $50 thought I under- stood application of section 388 of election laws of Wisconsin; did not know of arrangements between him and Mr. Dart; reported to me in detail how he expended aggregate of $200; gave $300 for salary Sep- tember 5 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 441 McMahon, employed to organize throughout State for Stephenson; in- structed to get names of influential persons favorable to Stephenson to whom we could send letters and nomination papers and request for assistance, and to create sentiment in favor Stephenson 155, 375 McMahon, engaged during almost entire campaign; had no business; lived in Milwaukee; had no political experience; knew he was absent because he sent expense account from outside places; expense account of, left with legislative committee at Madison; expense account paid in cur- rency 155, 156, 168, 378 Madison, not at, when legislature was organized or during contest for elec- tion of speaker 409 Madison, was witness before joint committee during session of legislature at; not in, when houses voted separately on question of election of a Sen- ator; not at, on day Stephenson declared elected 173 Mailing list; beside those obtained from two papers, we had lists of all who signed Stephenson nomination papers 512 Mandel Engraving Co., payment of $278.35 to, was for large lithographs of Stephenson 464 Marshall, J. T., do not remember item of $50 to, paid for Columbia County organizing; have no recollection of him; can not recollect any pay- ments to him 401 Marshfield Times, have no recollection of item paid to 552 Member of legislature from my district told me voluntarily that he was for Bancroft; that Bancroft would be a good speaker; I agreed with him 409,410 Memoranda relating to sums paid out, three conditions of existence: First, cards; second, sheets of paper on which I had taken amounts from cards; third, ultimate statement into which I incorporated them; statement taken from cards copied a number of times because soiled; carried some of it in my pocket from July, 1908, to February, 1909 1806, 1807, 1808 . CXXIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Memorandum of expenditures in card index; knew all about each entry at time I set it down; names of persons in, always stated truly; statement of facts upon, true .* 479 Memorandum of expenditures taken from cards was destroyed as I made up the final report filed 1806, 1807, 1808 Memorandum with reference to employment of these men destroyed by me shortly after conclusion of campaign; accounting for money not de- stroyed; showing agreement with Miller destroyed 157, 158, 165 Meyer, Richard, jr., says he received $500; $200 of that was a check from Mr. Edmonds out of his $5,000, and $300 a general item in Exhibit 49 2068 Miller, J. C., never knew until met at Milwaukee headquarters; was not engaged in business; does not remember on whose recommendation he was paid $50; $50 paid in currency 157, 168 Miller, paid $50 for expense money; paid $300 at close of campaign; did not receipt for money ; report from destroyed 159 Miller, payment of $50 to was for purpose of traveling through State to ascer- tain Stephenson sentiment in different localities and influence it as much as possib le ; f ac ts in regard to items of expense same as in Hambright ’s case 380,390,400,441 Milwaukee, opened headquarters at by renting and furnishing office of two rooms in Wells Building 154 Milwaukee County expenses, have no personal knowledge of payment of any items contained in report of W. R. Knell; Mr. Knell would know about 446,447,470,471,472,473 Miner, G. L., have no recollection of payment of $300 to on August 25; lives in Richland Center; know him personally; have no record to show who paid him money Minneapolis Journal; $100 paid to was for advertising space; advertised in because throughout northwestern part of State people take Minneapolis papers instead of Milwaukee papers Minneapolis Tidende, Scandinavian paper with large circulation in Wis- consin; paid $563.79 for advertising; August 19 paid $1,000 for advertis- ing 456,457,458,552 Money, did not admonish men in regard to expenditure of 169 Money for organizing, can not tell how disposed of; might have been used in getting lists of names or employing men at polls; paid for getting signa- tures to nomination papers 162, 174 Money, recollect purpose of payment of in all cases where I made the arrangements; knew nothing of disposal of what passed through my hands on order of Mr. Edmonds 165 Morse, R. L., have no recollection of item of August 27, $250 paid to; do not remember having any dealings with 434 Names, omitted in accounts in some instances because I felt persons to whom money was paid did not want it known because newspapers might say things; can recall persons who asked their names be not used; after joint committee demanded them I furnished them whenever able; do not recall anybody whose name has not been given 480, 481, 502, 524, 525 Names of friends who did not want publicity, did not intend they should come out unless we were obliged to give them ; did not understand statute obliged me to give them to Stephenson; did not appear in card index. 501, 502, 523 Names of persons to whom money was given, did not think law required me to state; gave them when convenient; think 15 or 20 kept off record; do not think more than $10,000 given to; Edmonds and I did not suggest to each other they should be inserted in account; item of July 21 headed “ general organizing,” given to some person whose name I did not want to put on card 495, 498, 499, 502, 506, 545 Narden Tribune, can not place paper, paid $20, August 13 552 Neillsville item, of $150, August 27, know nothing about it 434 Neillsville^Times, paid $50 for advertising, for which, as I recollect, an itemized bill was rendered 551 Net expense of campaign $107,793.05; shown by details gathered in state- ment to be $107,624.18 or $168.87 less than amount returned; think dis- crepancy arises from grouping the items in original report; some have been put into two groups, which made the report that much larger than it should have been 2072 432 553 DIGEST INDEX. CXXV Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Nomination papers, sent out blanks to get signatures required by law for, in order to get Stephenson’s name on ballot 154 Newspaper advertising, have no copy of any advertisement for which Usher paid $500 or $600; set forth Stephenson qualifications; under- stood they were printed as paid matter; aggregate of $12,696.76 paid for, included Usher’s services and disbursements 452, 455, 456, 459 Newspapers, purchased extra ones to circulate; think we paid one of the Minneapolis papers for sending out extra copies in large numbers; think in case of Wisconsin Agriculturist we paid for sending out a large number of extra papers and my recollection is that in a number of other instances we paid money for the purpose; sent out by the newspaper offices to nonsubscribers; do not know how they got the list 554 O’Connor, D. J., who does not appear at all in Exhibit 49 and who testi- fied here that he received $307.50, received that out of the Edmonds $5,000 2068 Office expenses, items for salary and general expenses, aggregate $4,074.38; did not keep payroll; item of $1,101.91 for expenses July 1 to August 5 taken from card index account destroyed; telephone and telegraph bills; postage-stamp item of $9,819 all for sending personal and circular letters in interest of nomination campaign; think $1,200, August 27, was for 2-cent stamps; remember sending 60,000 letters one day with 2-cent stamps; stamp transactions always in cash. . .447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 474, 549, 550 Organization, I estimated it would cost between $150,000 and $200,000 to do it thoroughly; made up my mind it was not advisable to organize by precincts; made up my own mind we ought to organize larger dis- tricts and counties and in more systematic manner than we did; esti- mated cost of such an organization at $50,000 or $60,000; expense of, went beyond what I expected 476, 477, 512, 513 Organizing, my use of the word intended to convey any act of campaign- ing that would produce votes for Senator Stephenson, do not mean any act other than legitimate 404, 510 Orton, R. E., paid $300 on Mr. Edmonds’s order; do not know how he expended money.. 165, 166, 167 Overbeck, Henry, his testimony shows he received $600 more than appears in Exhibit 49; $500 of that was a check on Edmonds’s account of $5,000 and $100 was received by him from Edmonds in cash and appears in Exhibit 49 under date of July 6 as an item of general expense 2067 Payments made after campaign closed, not accounted for in card index; think I kept track of them on sheet of paper; account for, came under date of October 16; made in response to demand for money that it was claimed we owed both for services and disbursement 468 Payments, whether made by check or currency, how determined 169 People of Wisconsin, thought we were keeping faith with, in method of accounts 495,496 Perrin, S. L., testifies that he received $1,000 more than Exhibit 49 shows; Mr. Edmonds’s testimony this afternoon will show that he gave him a check for $1,000 out of the $5,000 in National Exchange Bank; that is no part of Exhibit 49; that $5,000 not included in $98,000 2066 Perrin, S. S.; paid for items of August 4 by cashier’s check; has no per- sonal knowledge of what items refer to 176 Peterson, G., have no recollection of item of $200 to 397 Phlughoefft; have no recollection of him or payments to him of items of August 28 and September 5 437 Plivelich; paid him $35 for expenses in electioneering in Taylor County; employed because he spoke Polish; paid $40 August 31 for election- eering; rendered an account to me; can not remember items in his account 433, 441 Political promises ; did not make any or cause any to be made during pri- mary campaign, 2064 CXXYI DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Poll of voters; did not have list made; generally first thing organizer gets if he has an organization and money enough to do it; had list of about 20,000 names of persons in different parts of State who had expressed sentiments favorable toward Stephenson; to my knowledge had no record in office of two- thirds of people who supported Senator; presume they read advertisements and received circulars 407, 510, 511 Powell, W. E., recollect he came into my office after the primary and stated that he had expended $44 in the interest of Stephenson, and I gave him a check for it 548 Prosecutions, do not know of any brought by Wisconsin officials in connec- tion with either the primary or senatorial campaign in which Stephenson was candidate 507 Puelicher, have no knowledge whether he received compensation from Stephenson 533 Ranger, have no recollection of payment of $50 to August 15; do not think anyone would recollect nature of advertising paid for 551 Rank, M. E., do not remember item of $22 to 441 Rasmussen, H., or Rasmussen Publishing Co., paid $1,000 for advertising in his paper in northern part of State; think it was run as paid advertise- ment 455, 456, 457 Raymond, have no recollection of paying him Marshfield item of $35 440 Raymond, W. B., do not remember payment of $42 to for advertising 434 Receipts, my intention to keep original ones in all cases 2078 Red paper box produced by Mr. Essman from State capitol in Madison; do not think it includes all of the memoranda left with committee at Madi- son; receipts in, read and traced to corresponding items in Exhibit 49; instances given in which it does not contain bills left with committee at Madison; receipts and bills in box all refer to items that appear some- where in exhibit that aggregates $98,000 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075 Reese, J. M., think payment of $100 to, was for publishing an advertisement in his newspaper favorable to Stephenson’s candidacy 43 Remold, F., paid $50 on July 30 to organize Kenosha County, for expenses, and possibly included some salary; do not know that he spent any of it for treating electors to meals, liquors, or cigars; recollect that item of $11.05 September 5 was a final settlement of his expense account, rendered, and a balance of salary due him; do not know manner of expenditure 401 Reynolds, have no knowledge of matter of his being a supporter of Stephen- son prior to the arrangement made with him 509 Reynolds, Thomas, no money paid to, to my knowledge 2066 Richland Rustic, have no recollection of that paper 552 Ring, M. C., testimony shows he received $300 more than accounted for in Exhibit 49; to best of my knowledge it must have covered some item of general expense charged in the exhibit 2067 Riordan, his testimony shows he received $1,900 more than appears in Ex- hibit 49; $1,000 of it was a National Exchange Bank check from Mr. Ed- monds and $900 is explained in his own testimony, in which he says Laughlin received $400 or $500 and Miller the same, making $900 sent to Riordan and in Exhibit 49 charged to Miller and Laughlin 2066, 2067 River Falls Times, do not remember item paid to 552 Rogers, E. J paid $50 on August 5 for expenses and possibly for some salary for organizing in either Grant or Iowa County; received reports from him, which think were left with legislative committee at Madison ; think $300 paid him August 22 was for hiring men and teams to work at polls; of three items paid to, amounting to $481.79, should think $90 would cover salary; can not say whether any part of money was spent for treats, liq- uors. or cigars 410, 412, 413, 430, 431 Rowe, R., general organizing in Waupaca County purpose of payments of July 24 and August 5, 10, and 18 to; rendered an itemized statement which it is possible I destroyed; can not remember items; paid $300 August 22 to employ men and teams to work at polls; $48.34 paid on October 16 was to reimburse him for money expended in excess of $300; do not know whether he spent any money for refreshments, meals, or drinks for electors 398, 399, 400 DIGEST INDEX. cxxvn Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Russell, C. H., $200 paid to August 10; agreed to furnish him money to cover his expenses in helping us; not to receive a salary, as I remember; to cover Columbia and Adams and one or two other counties; paid $550 August 19 under same conditions 547 Russell, in Cary, Upham & Black’s office; had nothing to do with head- quarters during campaign 1810 Rustone, ran a Scandinavian newspaper in Milwaukee and ran advertise- ments for us from time to time; check of $25, August 13, for that purpose. 551 Saloon campaign, gave instructions against conducting, explained 388,482 Saloons, did not go into and call up people generally to drink with me 482 Sampson, D. G., $100 item at Ashland, have no recollection of 434 Schedule of minor items in account, not classified as sundries, read and where possible explained; made up from time to time from card index; items in actually disbursed and not to my knowledge for any improper purpose 559, 560, 561 Services, I received no payment whatever for my, from July 1 to October 16. 476 Sexton, item of $523.98 to was a settlement covering both expenses and salary, as I remember; arranged with him to travel through State to promote Stephenson’s interests within the law; did not talk to him about provisions of law; his home in Waushara County; think he was to receive about $150 a month as compensation; items of August 4, 12, and 14 444, 445, 544, 546, 547 Shields, R. J., have no recollection of paying him item for advertising August 6 Smith, C. D., remember him in Fond du Lac; gave money to cover expenses of campaign work; as I remember payment October 16 of $112 was a claim for his son, who traveled around, he said, in interests of Stephen- son; have no knowledge of what he really did with money 426, Smith, have no specific recollection of item of $100, Oconto Falls, for ad- vertising paid to, August 15 Stamps, $200 for, do not recollect transaction, but fact it is in statement would indicate I bought and used them; think all were bought at post office here Statement filed with secretary of state by Stephenson, made up by Mr. Edmonds with data I gave him; only statement submitted to Stephenson; do not recollect anyone being present when I gave Edmonds data. 503, 505, 506 Statement of account filed is true statement 479 Statement of disbursements, as prepared by me, contained in Exhibit 49 . 154 Statement of total campaign expenditures, includes bills paid during pri- mary or contracted during primary that may have been paid afterwards. 2071 Statute, referring to giving a thing of value, understood that it prohibited the giving if it be corruptly or for the purpose of bribery; do not think it would affect custom of treating; do not recollect of hearing it referred to as antitreating law of Wisconsin; did not understand it was claimed to be enacted for purpose of preventing treating during campaigns 388, 389 Statute requiring filing of expense account, remember having read it; un- derstood it to mean Stephenson was required to file account of money . expended by him, and by others that he had knowledge of 494, 495 Stephenson, Senator: Asked me to do what I could to get the nomination papers, to get out the vote and promote his interests; used the words, as I remember, “Keep within the law, whatever you do” 153, 376, 475 Did not ask what we were doing with money; did not submit accounts to; heard him complain of amount campaign was costing; thought I should keep an account that would satisfy him 497 Did not tell him I was paying $250 to a legislative candidate to work for him; did not talk to him in regard to employment of Bancroft. . . 403, 408, 487, 488 Expected him to get information for account required by law from his own books of the sums expended and disbursed by him; do not think he was responsible to account for amounts furnished to any person if it was not reported to him 15235°— 11 ix 419 427 551 397 478 CXXVIII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Stephenson, Senator — Continued. Expected to give him the account, Exhibit 47, as I filed it before the legislative committee, as evidence of money sent to people; did not intend to retain any original evidence to show him in case he desired to question account, because I did not think he would require any evidence 2077, 2078 Gave me to understand Knell was to have charge of Milwaukee County. 527 Had no idea of concealing any information because I thought it might hurt him 501 In entering expenditures of money in account under headings “Gen- eral” and “Sundries” it was not my purpose to keep him from knowing how various items were expended 480 Items in his statement filed with secretary of state were submitted to him; account examined here not submitted to 498 Knew law required him to file a special account showing persons to whom money paid, amount paid, and purpose for which paid; knew good faith on my part required I should keep his accounts so as to enable him to comply with law; think I did 494, 495 Left discretion to me as to whom to give money on his account; did not discuss provisions of law governing expenditure of money with 375,376 Puelicher and I alone with for several hours at meeting at Senator’s house in city of Marinette, late in evening one of last days in June . . 153, 474 Recollect Puelicher paid his expenses during a trip through six or seven counties 527 Telephoned me from Marinette to Berlin and said he had become a candidate for Senate; asked me to come to Marinette by way of Milwaukee and to ask Mr. Puelicher to come up with me 153, 474 When considering question of putting more money in campaign I did not go over items with him; do not recollect being present at an interview with in regard to necessity of having more money 381 Wrote or called him up as soon as office was opened; had no specific understanding with that I was to have charge of office work; did not pay me money used in campaign with exception of $5,000 475 Stevens, L. H., came to Milwaukee to see about Stephenson campaign in his county. Before arrangements made he suggested matter of procuring his bank to be a depository of State funds. I told him I had no authority from Stephenson to make any promise of that kind ; that if he wanted to take hold of the Stephenson campaign, he must do it with the under- standing that that was not to be a consideration 2064 Stevens, paid $28.93 August 5 for expense money to organize Grant County; think report of that item was turned over to legislative committee; paid him $300 August 22 to provide men and teams at polls; $200 paid him August 31 was for salary; $200 paid October 16 was to settle his claim put in after primary was over for money expended and not collected before; money given him to use in entertaining electors; have no recollection of any account made to me of over $700 spent 415, 416, 417, 418, 441, 468 Stone, J. W., $349.50 shown in his testimony that he received above what accounted for in Exhibit 49 was a check on the Edmonds $5,000 2067 Stone, paid $2,500 in cash August 12; does not know how it was expended; might have expended it for purpose of bribery 169, 170 Stone, State game warden; recollect payment of $2,500 to, was in cash; remember getting money from Marshall & Ilsley bank, because Mr. Edmonds asked me to; think reason was because he did not want to take check or certified cashier’s certificate 508 Stringham, Miss, do not know she had any knowledge of affairs in our office 1810 Submanagers, about 25 per cent of them rendered itemized accounts; did not order itemized accounts from, destroyed; I intended to keep those separate in my desk; office help instructed to bring accounts of, to me-, not by my direction or knowledge included in box shipped to Stephen- son; got memorandum as to number who furnished itemized accounts from Exhibit 49 2079, 2082, 2083 DIGEST INDEX. CXXIX Page. Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Submanagers, thought it necessary for them to keep detailed accounts; did not have authority to require it in all cases; issued orders for money given to; when Mr. Edmonds made arrangements with, I did not feel I had authority to give them directions 496, 497 Sum of $11,600, known as Knell item; did not consider myself responsible for manner of expenditure; came out of $98,083.72 171 Sum of $46,000, included items of expenditures for organizing; thinks it includes expenditures for procuring names to petition for primary nomi- nation; would include expense of nomination papers; would include payment of money to men who were to work at polls; has no knowledge of its including money spent in purchasing votes 175 Sum of $98,000 accounted for in Exhibit 49, included Stephenson’s check of $5,000 to me, August 27; did not include Edmonds’s check for $5,000 from Stephenson 2070 Sum of $111,385.49 furnished by Stephenson for primary campaign; differ- ence between that and expenditures of $98,083.72 shown by Exhibit 49 plus Stephenson’s check of $5,000 to Edmonds, aggregating $103,083.72, explained in statement 2070, 2071 Sundries covered incidental expenses in offices; might have been for beer and cigars in some cases; undoubtedly knew expenditures for, were lawful ; paid for th em myself or reimbursed somebody else who paid them . . 172 Sundries, did not intend to cover up items of drinks and cigars by classi- fying as; how entered into accounts; money for, how expended; do not recollect what items entered under were for; items from Exhibit 49 grouped; bills for, read from list and, where possible, explained; money for, disbursed in every instance and, to m> knowledge, none for unlawful purposes 466, 467, 469, 481, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559 Sundries, small, items in account entered “sundries, small,” taken from card index, destroyed; recollect that items included under heading as traveling expenses were sums paid to men who were invited to come and consult about campaign 467, 559 Sundry advertising, $156.40, have no recollection of; check will show 553 Superior Tidende, paper published in Scandinavian, which we ran adver- tisements in, and they were sent a cashier’s check; think I remember 552 we had their itemized bill 549, 551, Testimony given by persons that received money, find that some of them admit receiving more than is charged to them in Exhibit 49; reason for, in some instances, explained 2066, 2067, 2068 Thayer, L. W., did not make arrangement by which he was paid $600, August 27 548 Treating, was not done in campaign for consideration of votes 513, 514 Usher, E. B., publicity man employed to look after advertising; was to make contracts for advertising; helped prepare some of matter; is news- paper writer 451, 454, 456, 566 Van de Kamp & Lorberter, have no recollection of items paid to 463, 464 Van Houten, had nothing to do with our office 1810 Violation of statute, would not think that expenditure of money in pur- chasing drinks and meals for purpose of influencing voter would be; would draw line concerning, at what was customary and what was not. . 385, 386 Vote, do not know by name any single man who was induced to cast one for Stephenson 404, 406 Voters, think 400,000 Republicans in State; think aggregate voting popula- tion of Wisconsin less than 700,000; know of no way Stephenson could estimate total Republican voters and proportion he could rely upon with- out making accurate canvass of precincts 511, 5*12 Votes, knew of no deal to split up the vote of candidates opposed to Stephen- son in order to improve his chance; heard a rumor of that kind during campaign; had destroyed card index before I heard rumor 499, 500 Votes, Stephenson received approximately 56,809 in primary at a cost of $111,389.49; would be at rate of more than $2 for every vote; total vote cast at general election in Wisconsin that fall was about 450,000; total Republican vote over 300,000; never estimated number Stephenson would have received at primary if no money had been expended; talked about them and influence different things might have on voters 405, 406 cxxx DIGEST INDEX. Page. 408 Sacket, Rodney, an executive clerk of the United States Senate, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Votes, we expected to get 75,000 or 80,000 votes for Stephenson at primary. . Washington, remained at during recess of Congress 152 Washington, returned to shortly after November 1; if I remember correctly I stayed and voted and then went to in a few days 173 Waukesha, had several managers in Waukesha and Waukesha County 549 Waukesha County item, $50, have no recollection of it 434 Wayland, C. C., know nothing of payments to; he is Mr. Edmonds’s partner in business. Mr. Edmonds went over that item again and again 414 Weisman, A. J., paid for purpose of organizing in Manitowoc County 404 Wellensgard, C. E., agreement with was that he was not to use any money in his own campaign that I furnished him; do not understand that he did any electioneering. He simply employed other people to look after Stephenson’s interests 488, 489 Wellensgard, paid $250 September 5 to reimburse him for money expended in Green Lake and Waushara Counties in interest of campaign; was elected to legislature; member of legislature that elected Stephenson; was then a candidate; mailed him cashier’s check; had a conversation with in early part of campaign when I knew he was a candidate, before I gave him money 441, 442, 488, 490 Wellensgard, itemized statement of his account filed with joint legislative committee at Madison; items of his expense account, known as exhibit 62, explained 442, 443, 444 Wells, J. H., received $200 on August 21 for organizing city of Portage; keeps a hotel at Portage; do not know if it has barroom; do not know how he expended $400 received on local account 437 Wells Co., paid $210.62 for number of small bills 464 Whitehead & Hoag, several items paid to were for campaign buttons 463, 464 Windsor, handled money jointly with Hanson 2068 Wisconsin, customary there for candidates to buy liquor for voters; in- structed those employed by me not to observe this custom 387, 388 Wisconsin, went to in latter part of June, 1908; custom to go to after adjourn- ment of Congress 152 Wisconsin Agriculturist, paid altogether about $1,400 or $1,500 to furnish us a mailing list of names of farmers throughout State; we paid them 1 cent for each name and a half a cent for each subsequent use of name; also paid them for addressing envelopes and for envelopes themselves; paid for use of 70,000 names; ran advertisement in and received itemized bills from , which I think have been filed with joint committee . 460, 461, 511, 551 Witnesses who testified to receiving larger sums than shown in Exhibit 49, items to, are included in exhibit under heading of “general,” except such as accounted for by checks drawn from Edmonds check of $5,000. 2068, 2069 Wypszinski, J. W., items paid to July 22 and 24 were for expenses of organizing; authorized to travel through State; arrangement involved payment of salary and expenses 545 List of bills and receipts found in “red box,” referred to in testimonv of 2119-2124 Salmon, C. B., president and treasurer of Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Co., Beloit, Wis., affidavit of 2015 Age, 60 years 2015 Beloit, resided in about past 35 years 2015 Campaign headquarters at Milwaukee, received $100 from; was insufficient; expended about $40 in excess; not been reimbursed for and does not expect to be 2015 Campaign work in Beloit and various parts of Rock County during primary contest; services covered several weeks, had assistance of others to travel into someof country precincts in south part of Rock County and also do work in Beloit; principal work was the circulating of literature, post- ing lithographs, distributing campaign buttons, conferring with friends, sending men out in conveyances, and causing favorable material to be published in certain newspapers in Beloit. . 2015 Expenses incurred were legitimate, proper, and such as have been cus- tomarily expended in campaigns in Wisconsin, and such as accustomed to expend in previous campaigns for last 30 years whenever he assisted others to be elected to office 2015 DIGEST INDEX. CXXXI Salmon, C. B., president and treasurer of Beloit Water, Gas & Electric Co., Beloit, Wis., affidavit of — Continued. Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person Saloon campaign, neither he or anyone who assisted him conducted in any sense Services, makes no claim for compensation for; at no time expected any. . Stephenson, supporter of; prior to doing any work for; had supported him in previous campaigns Sanderson, Thomas H., attorney at law, assistant sergeant-at-arms of the senate of Wisconsin in 1909, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of Absence of members, did not know of, probably, until a few minutes after election; never heard that I was charged with having knowledge of the cause and conditions surrounding 1645,1647,1648 Absence of members, no one told me of money being spent for; heard ex- pressions of various people about 1641, 1642, 1643 Crownhart, statement of conversation that Wood had with. . 1641, 1642, 1648, 1652 Election of Senator Stephenson, do not remember I was on floor of joint convention at time of; heard some talk of his probable election on March 4 1643 1644 1646 1647 1648 Farrell, never knew or heard of a page carrying a note to, on the floor and of his leaving chamber immediately 1643, 1645, 1647, 1648 Kittle, said is Wood just trying to get $100 or $200 or $50 for nothing, or is he acting in good faith ; told him that from what I could gather he is a reliable and truthful man 1650, 1651 Kittle, William, statement of conversation that Wood had with; got the impression from, that Morris had said there were no funds for hiring Wood 1640,1641,1642,1648,1652 Kleist, John C., said Wood had done a great deal of work for him and he always found him honorable 1640, 1653 Money, no one told me of any being paid to three men who stayed out of the legislature; all the information I have of are expressions of various people around the Capitol 1641, 1642, 1643 Morris, Governor, talked with him about the story Wood had told 1640, 1641, 1642, 1648 Regan, statement of conversation of with Souther and Wood 1639, 1640, 1641, 1642, 1649, 1650, 1651 Shields, was mentioned by Wood as Stephenson agent 1652 Souther, statement of conversation of Wood with Regan in presence of. 1639, 1652 Wood, did not know he had offered to work for Kittle, Morris, and Crown- hart for $10 a day 1648 Wood, Harry W., made statement to me as to conversation at which Frank Souther, M. J. Regan, and himself (Mr. Wood) were present in regard to statement made by Mr. Regan; sometime in February or March, 1911. . . 1639, 1640, 1641 Wood, Kittle and Crownhart came to Milwaukee and interviewed him; said if he devoted time to this thing he would want expense money and some compensation 1640, 1641, 1648, 1649, 1650 Wood, statement of conversation (in detail) he had with Regan. . 1651, 1652, 1653 Sattler, D. W., president of the Western Casket Co. and the Western Casket & Undertaking Co., Chicago, 111., testimony of 2089 Harper & Shields are stockholders in the company; hold about $10,000 of the $25,000 stock; it cost me no more to insure the company through the Harper & Shields agency than in any other agency 2089, 2090 Hines, not a stockholder in the Western Casket Co. : had nothing to do with the placing of insurance on the company with Mr. Shields 2090 Sells, Max, district attorney for Florence County in 1908, testimony of 1021 Canvassed three counties in favor of Senator Wright; never mentioned any candidate for assemblyman 1022 Chicago & North Western Railway Co. , I was not an attorney for at that time and had not been for a number of years prior to that; was not an employee of theirs in any capacity 1021, 1022 Hyzer, never had any conversation with him in relation to alleged con- spiracy against Nelson 1023 Page. 2015 2015 2015 2015 1639 cxxxn DIGEST INDEX. Page. Sells, Max, district attorney for Florence County in 1908, testimony of — Con. Nelson, E. F., am personally acquainted with him; I did not do anything directly or indirectly for purpose of defeating his nomination for assembly- man; I had his nomination papers circulated and properly acknowledged and sent them to him, and had some correspondence with reference to his candidacy, but I neither did anything for him or against him; I do not believe I voted for him at primaries; he was not nominated 1022 Reeder, I believe I voted for him for candidate as assemblyman; he was nominated 1022 Specific charge No. 13 not true in any particular; have no idea of any foun- dation for it 1021, 1022, 1023 Stephenson, I was not supporting him in that campaign; supported Cook. . . 1023 Senate resolution authorizing investigation of election of Senator Stephenson . . 3 Shields, R. J., treasurer of the Harper Shields Agency, insurance, real estate, etc., Superior, Wis., testimony of 1390, 1712, 1872 Absence of members, never heard of, until after election; do not think I heard anything in reference to a charge of bribery in connection with; never used money to induce 1720, 1721, 1733 Bell, relations with, not very friendly; did not, to my recollection, talk with him in West Baden about the election of Senator Stephenson; did not 6ay I had “pulled it off,” or “brought it around,” or “across,” or any words to that effect; never talked to him in Madison about the election. . 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875 Cook, do not recall a talk with him on board a train from Duluth to Chicago in the fall of 1909 ; never talked with me as to an arrangement whereby I was to get $15,000 out of the Madison affair; nor of any difficulty with Mr. Hines ; met him frequently ; never said I would kill him if he made me any trouble, or any thing like that 1399-1401 Cuppernull, do not know, and never heard of him; did not say in his pres- ence at West Baden, “Here is $7,000 of Stephenson’s money ” 1875 Edmonds, received $600 or $700 from 1391, 1392 Farrell, did not converse with Reagan about him 1716 Farrell, did not know he had absented himself from legislature until after- wards 1393, 1394 Farrell, never talked with him that I recall; never entertained 1725, 1726 Haley, never talked with him on the subject of Stephenson investigation. . 1401, 1402 Hines, Edward: Am stockholder in several companies in which he is interested. . . 1402, 1403 Did not ask me to go to Madison; did not talk with nor have a letter from him on the subject 1397 Did not procure money from, for election of Senator; had no contro- versy over any amount of money; know nothing of any such financial transaction 1395, 1396 Never talked with him as to the matter of expense that he had been put to in Stephenson’s election; never signified to me that he was respon- sible for Stephenson’s election 1402 Saw him in Washington in February, but did not talk with, on subject of Stephenson’s election. 1728, 1729 Investigation by joint committee of Wisconsin legislature, was not in Madison in that connection particularly; had no interest in it; did not know I was wanted as a witness 1397, 1398, 1399, 1731, 1732 Jenkins, assisted to secure nomination of 1392 Madison, in, at the Park Hotel, when legislature was considering election of Senator; partially in the interest of Stephenson; never saw Stephenson then to talk to 1393 Madison, was there a week or 10 days; was in consultation with Stephen- son’s friends; that was practieally my purpose in being there; left on March 4 going to West Baden, Ind. 1396, 1720, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1730, 1731, 1732 Members of legislature, did not know all; knew, from my own county and some others 1724, 1725 Money : Did not procure, handle, or control, in connection with election by legislature; never heard of any promises or agreements made by any- body as to the use of, in influencing the vote of any member of the legislature 1395, 1733, 1875 DIGEST INDEX. CXXXIII Page. Shields, K. J., treasurer of the Harper Shields Agency, insurance, real estate, etc., Superior, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Money — Continued . Might have had $500 when I went to Madison; had a check cashed for $200 or $250; do not know how much money I had when I left; probably got the check cashed a day or two before 1 left Madison on the 4th of March 1721, 1722, 1723, 1724 Received $600 or $700 from Perrin and Edmonds, but paid most of it out to others 1391, 1392 Spent in entertaining people, members of the assembly; did not enter- tain Towne, Ramsey, Farrell 1726 Spent more than I received 1392 Montague, do not know him 1875 Overbeck, I told him to arrange with Roeder to come to Milwaukee and I would pay for the train to bring him to Madison; said Stephenson and his representatives could not hire this train 1718, 1719 Overbeck, talked and worked with, more than with anybody else repre- senting Senator Stephenson; do not know how much money he had there; never talked about 1722, 1723 Perrin, received $600 or $700 from 1391, 1392 Ramsey, did not know he had absented himself from legislature until afterwards; never entertained 1393, 1394, 1726 Reagan, did not talk with, in regard to absence of certain members and securing a quorum 1394, 1720 Reagan, do not believe I telegraphed him to meet me here on business; met him in Milwaukee during the time of balloting for Senator in Madi- son; do not recall talking to him — saying much to him; do not think I discussed with him, generally, the Stephenson situation; I may have discussed it; think I saw him once in Madison; talked with about cer- tain lands 1712, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1720, 1726, 1727 Reagan, never told him I had any money, or authority to get or use money to aid in Stephenson’s election. 1733 Roeder, did not know why was absent; Overbeck said if he were there the election would be ratified . 1720 Roeder, hired special train to bring, from Milwaukee to Madison; did not meet him or know he was there 1718, 1719 Special train, I paid for, to bring Roeder from Milwaukee to Madison; never got back what I paid 1718, 1719 Starkweather, was paid $250 from Stephenson’s money, and $250 from Jen- kins’s campaign money 1392 Stephenson, took part in campaign for 1390 Towne, did not know he had absented himself from legislature until after- ward 1393, 1394 Towne, never heard Wayland boasting of having kept him out of legisla- ture; never knew by sight; never entertained 1721, 1725, 1726 Was on floor or in lobby when vote was taken; did not talk with members of legislature as to manner of voting, except members from district in which I live 1394 Washington, went there on a trip with Flannery in February; saw Hines there; talked with friends about Senator Stephenson’s election; did not see Stephenson to speak to 1728, 1729, 1730 Wayland, never heard him boasting of keeping Towne out of legislature^ .. 1721 West Baden, Ind., went there from Madison; staid there about two weeks.. 1397, 1398, 1724, 1725, 1730, 1731, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876 White, I think, we were rather tickled over the result (of keeping members out of legislature) 1721 Smith, Addison T., statement of 1215 Trunk, received key of, from Attorney Black this morning 1215 Smith, Herbert H., real estate and insurance business, Hartford, Wis., affi- davit of 2015 Addressing, mailing, and stamping, expense for about $40 2016 Age, 49 years 2015 Automobile hire, expense for, about $15 2016 Campaign committee, received $100 from; whole expended and more, for which never asked to be recompensed, and does not expect to be 2016 CXXXIV DIGEST INDEX, Page. Smith, Herbert H., real estate and insurance business, Hartford, Wis., affi- davit of — Continued. Campaign work in Hartford and in eastern part of Dodge County, during primary campaign, at request of campaign managers at Milwaukee; cov- ered period of several weeks; consisted of traveling throughout Washing- ton County and eastern part of Dodge County, m corresponding; also had assistance of others in putting up and circulating campaign material, such as lithographs, cards, buttons, etc 2015,2016 Hartford, resided in about past 20 years 2015 Livery hire and automobile hire, large expense for 2016 Madison investigation, did not testify at 2016 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2016 Personal expense in traveling and for livery hire, about $45 2016 Statement of expenditures, never called upon for itemized 2016 Stephenson, supporter of prior to request to do campaign work 2015 Sommer, W. J., shoe business, Superior, Wis., testimony of 1710 Crownhart, C. H., lives in Superior; have no recollection of talking with on subject of election; presume he is half-breed; holds office in Wisconsin.. 1711 Palace Market Co., am president of 1710 Politics, am a Republican; out of entirely; have not been taking any interest in for last eight years 1711 Shields, R. J., have known for 17 years; never talked with at any time about Stephenson election; never made remarks about time had at Madison 1710, 1711 Stephenson, election of, only know what read in papers 1710 Souther, Frank T., inspector on street work in Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of. . 1653 Black, never knew of any efforts on the part of Wood to be retained by, in the interest of Senator Stephenson 1666 Crownhart, never knew of any efforts on the part of Wood to be retained by. 1666 Farrell, Regan said Shields asked him if he thought he (Farrell) would stand hitched; did not say that Shields said what he expected to do with him; did not write his name down in my book; spoke to Wood about 1658, 1659, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1668, 1669 Kittle, never knew of any efforts on the part of Wood to be retained by. . 1666 McConicha, John D., do not think he knew anything of the conversations between Regan and myself 1673 Ramsey, Regan said Shields asked him if he thought he (Ramsey) would stand hitched; did not say that Shields said what he expected to do with him; did not write his name down in my book; spoke to Wood about. . 1658, 1659, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1668, 1669 Regan, M. J.: Came to talk with me about Wagner; Wood came also, being a friend of Wagner; said Shields had sent him two telegrams to meet him and he met him at the Hotel Pfister; said he had come prepared and that Stephenson must be elected; said Shields had come direct from Washington from Stephenson, and had carte blanche to use any amount of money to carry through a certain deal; said he had tele- grams in safe place 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665, 1672 Did not say to me anything about having lost any telegrams; never heard anything about it until a long time after 1665 Did not tell me that Shields assured him that he would be kept out of sight in Madison 1659 Did not tell, what "Wood had reported to me 1659, 1660 Said he believed a part of what Wood said was true, but not that part which connected him (Regan) with the occurrence at the Planking- ton Hotel 1657 Said he had taken advice of an attorney (Ryan) as to Shields’s propo- sition; attorney advised him to have nothing to do with it; do not remember time of this meeting, probably in September, 1909 1655, 1656, 1657, 1659 Said Shields asked if he thought Farrell and Ramsey would stand hitched; do not know that he mentioned Towne 1658, 1659 Told Wood I would testify to the truth as to his (Regan’s) conversation with me, touching telegram Shields sent him 1666, 1667, 1668 Wood cautioned me to keep quiet about matters affecting 1670, 1671 DIGEST INDEX. CXXXV Page. Souther, Frank T., inspector on street work in Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Ryan, attorney at law, Regan said he consulted him as to Shields’s propo- sition; did not put his name in my book 1655, 1659, 1668 Shields, Regan told me he asked him (Regan) if he thought Farrell and Ramsey would stand hitched; do not know that he mentioned Towne.. 1658, 1659, 1663, 1664 Shields, Robert, Regan told me of his (Shields) sending him two telegrams to meet him at Hotel Pfister, and he met him; Regan’s conversation with; never knew where telegrams came from 1654, 1655, 1656, 1657, 1660, 1661, 1663, 1672 Towne, do not know that Regan told me that Shields asked him (Regan) if he (Towne) would stand hitched; did not write his name down m my book 1658,1659,1668 Wagner, Frank, made appointment with Regan to come to my office to talk with; Wood came, being a friend of; Regan believed a part of story of; I could not help but believe it 1654, 1656, 1657, 1660 Wagner, never able to obtain any information of value from, as to who was behind him 1666 Wood, Harry W.: Cautioned me to keep quiet about conversation in so far as it affected Regan 1670,1671 Conversation with, as to my testimony; I told him I would tell the truth; said he would see Regan and tell him what my stand would be; I said I would say Regan had received telegrams from Robert Shields; have a book at home with that name down in; spoke of the Ramsey and Farrell business 1666, 1667, 1668, 1669, 1670 Never knew any efforts of, to be retained by Mr. Kittle and Mr. Crown- hart, nor of his effort to be retained by Mr. Black in the interest of Mr. Stephenson 1666 Visited Wagner two times at Waupun; reported results to me 1666 Was present when he had conversation with Regan in Milwaukee on the question of the election of Senator Stephenson ; Regan and I agreed to send him to see Wagner; do not remember that he asked Regan to pay his expenses to go to Waupun to see Wagner 1653, 1654, 1657, 1660, 1662, 1663, 1664, 1665 Stephenson, Senator: Charges against, specific 4, 5 Checks used by, in primary campaign 1255, 2025 Copies of letters stating that he could not, under the law, give any assistance toward the election of any candidate for the legislature 2038, 2039 Counsel for, W. E. Black, C. E. Littlefield, H. H. J. Upham 1 Letter of attorney general to, in relation to the filing of his expense account; his letters to secretary of state and attorney general inquiring about filing of expense account 58, 89, 90 Personal letter book of 1255, 1257 Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of 23, 909, 2103 Account, did not keep one myself, showing persons to whom I paid this money and purposes for which it was paid ; only my check book 51 Account of expenses filed in February; not until after legislature elected me; knew in a general way that the other candidates had filed their accounts within 30 days subsequent to primary; attorney general said I need not file it until time I did file it; did not withhold it because of fact I had expended this large sum of money and it might influence electors. . 53, 54, 55, 2111 Advertising, there were buttons with my photograph on sent all over; my qualifications were set forth in every newspaper in the State that they could get them into; I had nothing to do with that; do not know how much was paid to news apers only in the general statement; know nothing about amount paid for advertising only as Edmonds made returns to me 30, 31 Alexander, Walter, paid him check for $588.30 on Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago, October 29 25 Bancroft, H. L., elected to assembly in 1908; became speaker; I did not myself pay him anything; know of his being paid $250 only as Edmonds reported it 39, 40 Blank signed check, never gave one to any man 2108 CXXXVT DIGEST INDEX. Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of — Continued. Page. Book account, showing details of expenditures, at no time asked them (Edmonds, Puelicher, and Van Cleve) to keep 56 Box, containing poll lists sent to Marinette, never saw it; never saw any correspondence contained in it; had no knowledge of contents or dis- position of it until it came here during this hearing 2104 Business, have been lumber and timber business for some 71 years; now engaged in through corporations of which I am the head 2107 Campaign, left entire management of, to managers; for 10 days during, went on annual fishing trip and for about a week was on my yacht; had all my other business to attend to during those 60 days and it was very exten- sive; gave it very little attention; should have given it more 2113 Candidates for assembly or senate, did not at any time during general cam- paign make any contribution to, for any purpose; did not authorize any- body acting for me to make contribution to, in election of 1908 2105 Canvass, I was only in seven counties a part of the last five days of campaign; that is all I had to do with it; paid my own expenses; not included in any statement; did not exceed $100 31, 2111 Cook, who ran against me came on stand and showed that a man can spend $500,000 legally in one of these primaries here 54 Corruptly influencing legislature, never gave Hines or Shields or any man carte blanche to come to Wisconsin for purpose of; never gave any sum to any one for purpose of procuring the absence of three Democrats from legislature, March 4, 1909, or any other day, or of any other member 2108 Eagle Printing Co., that is my own city daily paper, paid check of $16, July 18; paid check of $13.50, September 26, on Stephenson National Bank; first check to was for some advertising; do not know what it was 24, 25, 28 Edmonds, E. A.: Appointed him an agent to spend the money; authorized him to spend it for organization in 71 counties of State; Puelicher and Van Cleve, treasurers, were to pay him the money when he called for it; did not place any limit on amount they were to pay him; exceeded far beyond what I expected it would 23, 24, 30 Cautioned him to get along as cheap as he could; I did not want to throw my money away any more than was necessary; I asked him why he was spending so much; told me he had to do it to get the vote out and to get literature before them, and it cost a good deal to get the names and for postage 55 Check for $5,000, July 18, on Stephenson National Bank was only money paid direct to, as I remember; do not know what it was expended for; gave him it to do what he pleased with and he spent it in the canvass, as I understand, and put some back to me; did not give it to him for service, but he wanted it so he could get it if Puelicher were absent. . 24, 28, 46, 49, 50, 56, 57 Did not see him to exceed four times during the canvass 31 Expected him to make a canvass with the money given him; told him to keep within the law, at different times 41, 50, 53 First conversation with in reference to campaign was about first part of July; met him at Marinette; asked him to go to Milwaukee and meet Puelicher and Van Cleve; he said he would take charge of campaign and I said I would furnish money to Puelicher and Van Cleve and he could call on them; nothing said about what campaign would cost. . 48, 49 Furnished me information on which I filed my account in about same form as it was filed ; did not bring me a book or cards or slips of paper or memoranda showing it; I do not know whether it was the original account that he kept 58, 2112 Have known him 15 or 20 years; is in paper business; once in legisla- ture from Oconto County; I asked him to take charge of campaign; no suggestion made by either of us about his being compensated; I do not know whether he was or not; think he devoted most of his time to my interests 44, 45, 46, 50 His testimony in relation to payment to him of $2,400 in aggregate covering expenses incurred by him at the session of legislature when I was elected, and some expenses incurred afterwards is in accordance with my recollection of facts; did not spend a cent other than that in connection with legislative election; no account filed of that expenditure 2110, 2111, 2112 Told him to keep a correct account of everything; told him he must be specific about amounts paid and persons to whom paid 50 DIGEST INDEX. CXXXVII Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of — Continued. Page. Eppling, came into my office and wanted some money for Lutherans at Watertown; Miss Stringham, my secretary, was sitting there and went out; I told him I would not give Watertown anything, but that I would give him $200 for his church at Algoma in memory of Senator Stebbins; in meantime Miss Stringham came in and I told her to make out a check for $200; she noted on the stub “Watertown”; it was a mistake; I did not give it for Watertown and did not ask him to work for me at all 909 Expended a hundred and seven thousand seven hundred and something dollars between time I announced candidacy and primary election, in connection with my nomination 23 Expenses for organizing outside Milwaukee County, $53,729, know nothing about that only as you see it in account returned by Hambright 32 Greenwood, Alfred, paid $125 in cash; was a cripple; dead now; he went into Kewaunee County and others and got names; gave money to him partly out of charity 25, 38, 39 Henning, E., advised me by telegraph my election occurred January 26. . . 2109 Hines, Edward, have known him about 15 years; business relations with; never had any conversation with me in connection with my election to Senate by Wisconsin Legislature; never discussed with me question of use of money in any way in connection with my election by legislature; did not state to me I would be likely to have “trouble ” which could be relieved by payment of a sum of money and I did not agree to contribute $55,000 for that purpose 2107, 2108 Howey, J. W., paid check of $100, November 7, on Corn Exchange Bank. . 25 Hutchinson, Fred, paid $25 through Ludington Co., as far as I recollect, for obtaining signatures to nomination papers 37 Lambeck, called him up, I think, on telephone and asked him to ship poll lists to Marinette; do not know whether they were shipped 2103,2104 Law, knew what it was during primary campaign; had a general idea; charged and cautioned all of them that were doing anything for me to be careful about and to keep within; knew it required me to make an account showing amounts paid, persons to whom paid, and purposes for which paid 53,56 Letters, did not write any political campaign ones; might write a friend asking him to do what he could for me; did not write any in regard to any expenditure 57 McAllister, D. J., one of my foremen in my lumber mill, paid by the N. Ludington Co., which is one of my companies, $110.50, and charged to my account; I think he went over into Oconto County and saw some of his friends — to vote for me, I guess 25, 37 McLean, J. A., August 8, paid check for $20 on Corn Exchange Bank for getting names, I think, in Brown County ; I never saw him ; my secretary or somebody else may have paid him; I can not remember that; pre- sume I signed the check, as I sign my checks 24, 28, 29 Madison, was only there the 16th of February, 1909, and gave my evidence there in the forenoon and afternoon 43 Marshall and Illsley Bank, had $50,000 there in the first place; it was an open-account deposit; it was loaned to a flour man at Minneapolis and he paid it and it was lying there 51, 52 Members of legislature, never paid or authorized to be paid any money to any of them for voting for me for United States Senator; did not pay or authorize the payment of any money to any of them for absenting themselves or refraining from participating in the ballot; know of three members absenting themselves, only through the newspapers; never saw and had nothing to do with them 43, 44, 2108 Memorandum of money furnished to be expended in campaign, making in all $111,385.49; know how a few items in were expended 24, 25, 28 Money, did not pay any person any in connection with my campaign be- tween September 2 and the day of the general election for the purpose of influencing or working for me with the members of the legislature 43 Money, did not, to my knowledge, pay out any in connection with primary election other than the aggregate that has been shown here on record. . . . 2110 cxxxvm DIGEST INDEX. Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of — Continued. Page. Money, I thought it was calling for a good deal of money, but of course I did not know what Edmonds wanted it for and I had absolute confidence in him and in my two treasurers, then and now, and I did not know any- thing about the detail and how they were using it, and did not know any of the time until they made their report; in a general way would say to them, “You are spending a good deal of money and I would get along with less” 42, 43, 55, 56, 2112 Money, they tried several times to have me state how much I would put up; and I would not do that; I was going to pay the cost as it came along; at no time during campaign had I determined on any limit 2111 Morgan, J. Earle, paid check of $2,550, November 7, on Stephenson Na- tional Bank; he did some work in Winnebago and, I think, Waupaca County to get out voters and circulate documents; is my son-in-law and has plenty of money of his own and I suppose did not send his bill to me until he got ready 2543 Patrick, L. S., my secretary, paid check of $190.99, November 21, on Stephenson National Bank 25 Peterson, H. L., paid check of $150, August 17, on Stephenson National Bank for circulating nomination papers ; is a reputable citizen of Sturgeon Bay, Door County; do not know how many names he got or how long he was engaged in doing it 24, 29, 30, 37 Political promises or agreements, did not make of any kind in connection with primary campaign; did not authorize any of my representatives to make any of any kind; did not make any in connection with my election by the legislature in 1909, or authorize any person representing me to, and so far as I know none were made 2105, 2106 Postage, item of $11,339 paid for; have no personal knowledge in regard to it 31, 47 Puelicher, all money given to, was to be paid over to Edmonds as he might need it 28,30,51,52 Puelicher, cashier of Marshall & Illsley Bank, with Van Cleve, was a treas- urer of money I paid to be used in campaign; no particular business rela- tions with; I have some stock, and we do a great deal of business in that bank; managed my campaign in 1907 before the legislature 47 Puelicher, J. H., cashier Marshall & Illsley Bank, money paid to: July 30, check for $10,000; August 7, check for $30,000, Marshall & Illsley Bank; October 10, check on Stephenson National Bank for $3,700; November 20, check for $200, Stephenson National Bank 24, 25, 51 Puelicher, made first arrangement with, I think, about the 28th of June; did not see him; presume I wrote him to meet Van Cleve and Edmonds to arrange about campaign; told him to keep within the law; assumed he knew I would have to file an account 52, 53 Reynolds, paid him $180 in cash; was for obtaining signatures to nomina- tion papers; he did not make any charge, but I gave him that money; not sure he was a candidate for legislature when I gave him first $80 in currency; asked him to get me some names and employ others; after- wards instructed secretary to send him $100 in currency; knew then he was a candidate for legislature, but I gave it to him for getting these names originally 25, 37, 38, 40 Reynolds, Thomas, do not know anything about contribution of $100 to him by State central committee during general campaign after primary; did not suggest or advise committee to make such contribution 2105 Sacket, Rodney, gave him check on Corn Exchange Bank for $5,000 August 27 25 Settersten, A. J., paid check of $26.10, September 14, for getting names in my own city, at 5 cents a name 25 Shields, Robert J. ; have not any acquaintance with him that I know of; he said he saw me five years ago when I had an ulcer of the eye* I do not remember seeing him then; never had any conversation with him in rela- tion to my election to United States Senate; do not remember any con- versation with him of any kind ; never gave him a signed check in blank to be filled in for use in connection with my election to United States Senate 2106,2108 DIGEST INDEX. CXXXIX Stephenson, Senator Isaac, testimony of — Continued. Page. State central committee, think I contributed $2,000 to, for general campaign fund; had no agreement with anyone connected with committee that any part of it or of any of their funds should be used for my personal interest; no understanding between Edmonds and myself that any acts of commit- tee should be performed in my interest personally or as a candidate ; think I gave the money to Edmonds . 2104, 2105, 2110, 2111 Statement of my expenses in primary campaign, filed under the law Febru- ary 11, 1909, given; shows amount placed in hands of Edmonds, Pue- licher, Van Cleve, Sacket, Brown, and others as $111,385.49; expendi- tures accounted for, $107,793.05; have no personal knowledge of items in, except that of $225.06 for getting names to nomination papers. 26, 27, 32, 37, 41 Stevens, never knew anything about efforts to get his bank at Lancaster a depository for State funds 2104 Stronach, H., paid him check of $26, September 3, on Stephenson National Bank, for getting names in my own city 25 Tariff upon lumber, my attitude toward, in 1909 2109 Treasurers, appointed J. H. Puelicher, cashier of Marshall & Illsley Bank, and J. A. Van Cleve as 24 United States Senate, first elected to, 26th of January, 1909; became a can- didate for, in June, 1908; was then a Member of, having been elected to fill an unexpired term on the 17th of May, 1907 23, 48, 2109 Van Cleve, all the money that was given him was to be given to Edmonds, my manager, as he might need it. . . 30, 51 Van Cleve, business relations with; with Puelicher, was treasurer of money I paid to be used in campaign 47 Van Cleve, J. A., money paid to, by me: June 28, check on Stephenson National Bank, $2,000; July 6, check on Marshall & Illsley Bank, $10,000; August 20, check on Corn Exchange Bank, Chicago, $15,000; August 24, check on Corn Exchange Bank, $10,000; August 31, check on Corn Ex- change Bank, $2,000; September 3, check on Corn Exchange Bank, $13,500; November 28, check on Stephenson National Bank, $71.35; cash paid through H. J. Brown, $792.75 24, 25, 27 Vandersee, Frank, do not remember any such man; did not authorize him to make any negotiations or promises in my interest 2106 Wellensgard, C. C., know nothing about him at all; that is, about money he received in connection with my campaign 40, 41 Wells Building, think they had 15 or 20 persons there sending out letters; I was in there twice and that is all; I saw a good many there; that was under direction of Edmonds 48 Stevens, L. H., banker, Lancaster, Wis., testimony of 1295 Bank books, there are certain transactions that have always been carried by us as spindle items — that is, just transient — where they do not go through the books; first entered on piece of paper and paper is put on spindle; did not have a spindle account for Stephenson money. 1296, 1297, 1311 Blaine, Senator, I know him; did not state to him at any time in any form or language that I was doing work for Stephenson, organizing, and picking off Hatton and McGovern men 1308, 1309 Compensation, kept $200 of Stephenson campaign money for my own use; pursuant to an arrangement; received that probably a month after the primary; think I made arrangement for, with Edmonds 1302, 1312 Draft for $28.92, received August 5, spent for small expenditures made in going over county and a trip to Milwaukee; sent them a statement for it . . . 1298, 1307 Drafts received from Stephenson fund, I cashed in my bank; sent to Chicago or Milwaukee for collection; whole record of, is kept; indorsed by me; could tell from books of bank when received and amount; did not bring memorandum of those facts here; did not think it necessary 1297, 1298, 1308, 1309 Edmonds, first knew him in August, 1908; came to Milwaukee pursuant to conversation with McMahon to talk over Stephenson matter with him; in same conversation early in August took up with him question of getting State deposit for me 1301 Edmonds, I had some correspondence with him in reference to securing the depository; I think I destroyed it just about as I received it or shortly afterwards; did not keep copies of letters I wrote; believe he reported to me he had taken it up with the commission and with the secretary of state 1304, 1305 CXL DIGEST INDEX. Stevens, L. H., banker, Lancaster, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Edmonds, think I received all told about $900 from him; think it was all sent to me; did not keep an account of it; can not give dates sent; it ranged from August 5 to middle of October; have nothing to indicate exact amount received; testified before legislative committee it was $800; may possibly have been; all received by check 1296, 1303, 1306, 1307, 1310 Grant County, list of men employed there prepared from memory, given; shows amounts paid, but not dates 1305 Grant County, money all expended there; had workers at the polls as far as I could cover the county 1303 Jensen, F. P., paid $50 or $60 for livery and expenses for workers at Platt- ville 1306 Lancaster, have resided there four years 1295 Law requiring candidates to file expense accounts, knew there was one; in his paper, the Grant County Herald, in the last publication before the and surrounding territory, securing workers at polls and talking up Stephenson sentiment 1306 McMahon, Edward, was first man to come to see me about supporting Stephenson; I did not make matter of securing State deposit for my bank McMahon, first conversation with, I mentioned subject of State depository first; told him I was working for it; asked him if he could help me any; he said he would do what he could; he wanted me to aid Stephenson’s canvass; both agreed to help one another; said he wanted to get workers Madison, was there two days during senatorial contest in legislature; was there when investigation was going on; did not have any conversation with any of the members of legislature in regard to election of a United States Senator 1302 Memorandum, have none showing items or details of disbursements; did not keep one of names and amounts when I was disbursing money 1309, 1311 Meyer, Richard, heard he was working for Stephenson in Grant County. . 1304 Money all spent before primary day in promoting or working for Stephenson; Money, carried Stephenson funds in my pocket in cash; did not enter it on any piece of paper 1297 Money, none spent by me, or as far as I know, by men to whom I disbursed it, for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing electors 1310 Money unaccounted for, I think, was my expense in traveling around over the community during a good deal of month of August; traveled by team and auto; used my own auto; included hotel fare and lodgings; circulated some literature and put up advertising as I went around; do not remember that I hired anyone else to do it 1309 Public office, have never held one in State of Wisconsin 1302 Puelicher, met him; did not have conversation with him on subject of rendering account; did not talk to him about State depository 1308 Sacket, talked to him about question of State deposit; he said they could not promise the depository; think he said in substance he had no authority to make any political promises 1308 State deposit for my bank, secured in February, 1909; had McMahon, Edmonds, and my father help me, and J. P. Chandler, who was assembly- man at the time Treasurer Dahl was in the assembly went with me to Madison to interview the committee; continued to receive deposits from State until last January; withdrawn as soon as Gov. McGovern took his chair; received about $20,000 on deposit by this arrangement. 1300, 1301, 1302 Stephenson, commenced to support him first of August; did not talk in favor of another candidate in June and first half of July to anyone. ..... 1299 Stephenson, did not have any conference with him on subject of rendering an account . 1308 Stephenson, do not know when I first expressed myself in favor of his candi- dacy; did not do any work for him before McMahon came there; had not announced I would support him before then 1300 DIGEST INDEX. CXLI Stevens, L. H., banker, Lancaster, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Stephenson’s campaign in 1908, participated in 1295 Storrs, paid $25 for money expended for workers in and around Fennimore . . 1305, 1306 Sum of $200 received day before election I think I spent for workers and for expenses in the election and for livery hire 1303 Tiller, W. C., paid $40 for his teams on day of primary, if it was deemed Weller, William, never paid him anything for livery purposes 1311 Stone, James A., letter to Hon. John J. Blaine, dated Jan. 22, 1909, in regard to investigation of Stephenson 1480 Stone, John W., Minneapolis, Minn., testimony of 1313 Bowman, gave him $500 in Milwaukee the day I received money, $500 in city of Madison some time in August, and gave him check for two hundred and some odd dollars at another time 1315 Bowman, H. A., game warden; paid him $1,280 to be expended for ordinary election work in different parts of State where he was located ; he did not Craig, John, of Superior, game warden; paid him, for campaign use, first Edmonds, M., as result of conversation had in Milwaukee, Mr. Sacket gave me $2,500, the amount I had suggested 1323 Edmonds, sent me a draft, in full, for $349.50 1320 Fridley, at Superior, was paid $140 for campaign use 1321 Game warden, served as, in State of Wisconsin two years, June, 1907 to 1909; Salary $1,800 a year 1313, 1317 Gerhart, Fred, game warden, paid him $200 for campaign use 1316 Gordon, paid him $25 for campaign use 1316 Hulbert, A. J., game warden; paid him $10 for campaign use 1316 Kolb, G. C., game warden, paid him for campaign use, $50 1316, 1317 Memorandum, had only partial one at time of expenditure 1318 Money, have no personal knowledge of what was done with, I paid to men. . 1317 Money, none was spent to my knowledge, nor did I spend any for purpose of bribing or unlawfully influencing any voters in interest of Senator Stephenson 1324 Money was given me to be expended in interest of Stephenson’s primary campaign ; to be used at my discretion 1315 Ordinary election work, meant team hire, putting up lithographs, seeing that the vote was gotten out, etc 1316 Pierce, E. W., paid him $10 for campaign use 1316 Sacket gave me $2,500 in currency in one package in Wells Building at Sather, J., paid him $10 for campaign use 1316 Stephenson, had conversation with, in Marinette prior to making the ar- rangements with Mr. Edmonds; asked him if he was candidate for re- Stephenson, no mention was made of any money I was to receive for use in campaign 1323 Stores, A. E., game warden; paid him for campaign use $20 1316, 1317 Tate, F. A., paid him $20 for campaign use 1316 Tuttle, E. W., game warden; paid him $75 for campaign use 1316 Stover, James H., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1593 Puelicher; Wagner claimed he brought the money into the room 1595 Regan, Matt; Wagner said he distributed the money 1595 Wagner, Frank T., about the 9th or 10th of March, told me a story of having looked over a transom of room 325 in the Plankington Hotel, and seeing certain members of the legislature receiving money; connected Matt Regan with the occurrence; claimed Mr. Puelicher brought the money into the room; told the same story three different times; was afterwards convicted of perjury 1593, 1594, 1595 Stringham, Miss Mary F., secretary to Senator Stephenson, Marinette, Wis., testimony of 1812 Box, understood was sent direct from Wells to Milwaukee; never was told it was sent back to Marinette from Wells or Escanaba; do not know what became of contents beyond letters and campaign buttons 1819, 1820 cxm DIGEST INDEX, Pag*. Stringham, Miss Mary F., secretary to Senator Stephenson, Marinette, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Box, wooden, containing letters, papers, etc.; first saw in warehouse of N. Ludington Co., of which Senator Stephenson is president; do not know who receipted for it when it came; looked through and had letter files and box of campaign buttons; nothing else; carried into office; had been opened before by mistake; nothing removed. . . 1812, 1813, 1814, 1818, 1820, 1821 Lambeck, messenger for Stephenson; wrote letter from Washington, after holidays in 1909, to find certain letter and forward to Sentor Stephenson there; thought letter was in box at warehouse shipped from headquarters; think he was mistaken about it being there 1813, 1815, 1818, 1821 Letter, instructed to find, do not know what was about; do not recall name from whom it was 1821 Letter files, indexed; five or six; looked through; could not find letter wanted; stacked them in vault of Senator’s private office until was instructed to take them out 1815, 1818, 1820 MacLean, R. E., superintendent of I. Stephenson Co. at Wells; came personally after letters in files; did not go over them so far as I know; brought suit case; do not know what happened to them after he took them away; never saw them again; took letters under direction of attorneys 1816-1821 Russel, attorney in office of Cary, Upham & Black, gave orders for files to be gotten out and ready to send to Wells by MacLean, when he came; never went through letters and papers in vault to my knowledge 1816, 1818, 1820, 1821 Stephenson, Senator, secretary to, now and in 1909 and 1910 1812 Sturtevant, John L., Wausau, Wis., affidavit of 2016 Age, 46 years 2016 Money not paid for advertising for purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influ- encing or bribing Post, or any person connected with 2016 Stephenson, personally a supporter of; supported him in his campaign for the Senate in 1907 2016 Waupaca Post, during primary campaign was owner of; for special adver- tising in interest of Stephenson and sending out large number of copies to voters, received $100 from campaign headquarters; was reasonably worth that sum; paper supporter of Stephenson several months prior to time special advertising was run; payment in no way influenced general sup- port of paper or affiant 2016 Subcom mittee appointed to investigate charges against Senator Stephenson ii, 4 Report of, to the full committee vn Sutherland, Senator George, and Senator Atlee Pomerene, views of xxvii Testimony, as to committee reopening case and receiving additional 1992 Thayer, L. W., owner of real estate, Ripon, Wis., testimony of 934, 1752 Accounts, I keep them in connection with my ordinary business; generally make memoranda of business transactions; some things I do not record . 937, 938 Burgess, L. A., Ripon, hired his automobile; think I was two or three days in his machine; he was with me; made a one-day trip to Green Lake and from there to Markesan and Waupun; we carried Stephenson lithographs and literature; engaged various parties in different precincts to organize and distribute literature; think I paid him $20 937, 945, 946, 947, 948, 1753 Burke, Jere, Ripon, gave him $5, I think 1754 Business college, attended in 1876 or 1877; I could not tell amount paid for tuition 938 Campaign, I spent practically all of my time after I began to do this work until primary election day 948 Cast my first vote for Rutherford B. Hayes; cast my last vote for President Taft 938,939 Check for $100, payable to “cash,” was sent to me at Northwestern station by James L. Stone, cashier, in response to a telephone call of mine; he brought the check or sent it down, and I signed it there in the station and he gave me the cash then 942 Check for $150, received from bank September 2, 1908 943 Checks, show how I withdrew money from bank; looked them up to see if I could not refresh my memory, because I was subpcened before this com- mittee; have checks and bank book with me; given as exhibits 941, 942, 943, 952 DIGEST INDEX. CXLIII Page. Thayer, L. W., owner of xeal estate, Ripon, Wis., testimony of— Continued. Competition, there was an active campaign for other three candidates in that district 950 Edmonds, I received $600 from him to organize western half of Fond du Lac County and take up work in Green County; had done some work and disbursed some money there before I received the check from him. . 934, 936, 944, 1752 Expense account, I knew that the candidate was required to file one ; since no request was made of me to keep an itemized account, I took it for granted that the candidate would file his account from office expendi- tures; I thought from the custom of filing reports that the mere state- ment that the candidate had paid me $600 would be a sufficient designa- tion of the item 936 Items accounted for amount to somewhere about $180 to $185 1754 Laws of Wisconsin, had a passing knowledge of one that defines one’s action in campaigning 936 Memorandum, never had one of the sums paid out 934, 1752, 1754 Men, employed 30 or 40 in various precincts for purpose of looking out for the vote on election day, canvassing, and with rigs to get voters out; not always employed by me directly; I should think that cost me anywhere from $250 to $300 for the entire district; believe $150 paid out to persons I can not recall . 940, 941, 944, 949, 950, 951, 1754 Money, I paid out a large amount of it to other men; can not give the name of any person to whom I gave it or the amount, only by guesswork . 934, 935, 940 Money, none spent by me, or within my knowledge by anyone to whom I intrusted it, either directly or indirectly, for purpose of bribing or cor- ruptly influencing voters 952 Morse, Roy, Fond du Lac, an attorney; asked me if i would not take part in organization of western part of Fond du Lac County; I agreed to do so. 945 Organizing, defined, I mean to have men talk to electors with reference to qualifications of candidate, to distribute literature and get out the vote. . 934 Personal expenses, including livery, auto hire, hotels, and entertainments, I would figure at $200 936, 937, 1755 Public offices held, I was elected to the State assembly in 1892; elected to senate in 1894; member of county board for eight years; was chairman of that board two years 949, 950 Reed, Roy, Ripon, gave him $10, I think; did work for Stephenson west of Ripon 1753 Ripon, has four precincts; I vote in the fourth 939 Saloons, left literature in very many of them; we would go into a saloon with literature, and the first thing that would occur would be, probably, finding 10 or 15 people in there, to invite them either to a smoke or drink; that might have cost $100 on automobile trip, going from Markesan to Waupun 939,940,947,948 Schrader, F. P., Markesan, I think I gave him $15; understood he was friendly to Stephenson and I went down to see him, and he said he knew a number there who were favorably inclined and he would take it up with them 947, 1752, 1753 Scribner, Wynne, El Dorado, think I gave him $20; was a Stephenson man; he distributed literature, and got those who seemed to be friendly inter- ested in campaign 935, 936, 940, 944, 1752 Stewart, Arthur, gave him $35 or $40; worked for Stephenson in city of Ripon; looked after carriages, and I am not sure, but the poll work 1753 Sullivan, T. G., had been doing considerable work for Lyons; was favor- able to Stephenson; gave him, I think, $30 or $35; was to go for his serv- ices or as he might feel disposed to disburse it; had confidence in him; did not instruct him with reference to expenditure 1753, 1754 Sum of $600, when I received it I took $300 of it in cash with me on trips through district, $300 was left in the bank, deposited I think, Aug. 28, 1908; I drew on that $100 at one time and $150 at another; I think there was $50 in the end, kept for my own compensation 937, 941, 942, 943 Trips, I went with buggy quite a good deal and with autos; I covered the district pretty well; there were 41 precincts in the district 948 Williams, David, Green Lake, gave him, I think, $15 or $20 to work for Stephenson 1753 15235°— 11 x CXLIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Tilton, Lester, Chicago, testimony of *. 1090 Aylward, J. A., my letter to, January 21, 1909; I think Ring is party referred Ay 1 ward, testimony before joint investigating committee in regard to my Blaine, John J., eleventh specific charge by, is not true, any part of it 1091 Brown, I think I supported him for United States Senate; supported Dem- ocratic ticket 1096 Campaign funds, did not handle any for anyone during 1908 primary 1093 Candidate, I was not one for nomination for legislature; they did talk to me about being one; I do not know that they especially talked about Stephenson, thought they did about him and about others 1091 Money; did not receive any from Stephenson or his campaign committee.. 1090 Money, none promised me any to assist me in being nominated or elected Neillsville, Wis., resided there during year 1908 ; 1090 Republican; I had been one and am practically still one, but not a “half breed;” not approached as one to be converted from Democracy to Re- publicanism; I was supposed to be what they call a stalwart up there. . 1097 Ring asked me, I think, if I would work for Stephenson; conversations with, were before the primary; I think he offered to pay services or some- thing of that kind ; this conversation later, I think, than one in which he tried to persuade me to become a candidate against Bradford 1094 Ring, M. C., conversations with, as testified to before joint investigating three different times about C. M. Bradford, who was then running for the assembly; he was not friendly to Bradford and wanted me to run; told him I did not care to run for assembly, and if I did I would pay my own expenses; he said if I would run and get out and help him he would see what aid could be had; was a stalwart; not positive he favored Stephen- son then; think he did later 1091, 1092 Stephenson, I did not support him at any time 1097 Stephenson campaign, did not take any part in it 1090 Towne, Silas R., member of Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Lavalle, Wis., Do not remember details of, trifling incidents are hard to remember Had no conversation with anyone about, until day afterwards; some reporter attempted to interview me 1409 No one offered me money either before or after, for being absent; ab- sence was accidental and partly due to indifference. . 1411, 1471, 1472, 1473 Not present when vote was taken; do not know where I was; knew the vote was to be taken 1407, 1408, 1410, 1412 Talked with Keller about 1413 Am not under the influence of liquor to any material extent 1417 Bribery of, no one offered money either before or after election for being Bribery of, paid no particular attention to charge, but think I arose to ques- j.: „ £ * * l ji 4. 11 4- — t ia m though there had been rumors that certain members had been bribed. 1472, 1476 Democrat, always vote for 1408 Democrats, combination of, with half-breeds to prevent election of Senator Stephenson 1485, 1486 Democrats had a caucus and leader, but I did not recognize him as such.. 1473 Election of, received 1,511 votes, 81 more than Davidson, candidate for governor ; 1484 Hughes, John, I am sorry to say I know him . 1491 Hughes, never informed me that there was any prospect of electing a Democrat 1485 If I had been a Republican I should have voted for Senator Stephenson; knew Democrat could not be elected 1485 DIGEST INDEX. CXLV Page. Towne, Silas R., member of Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, Lavalle, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Ingram, was leader of the half-breeds; told him I was a Democrat; I said if you fellows will join with the Democrats and help elect some good Dem- ocrat, you fellows can name the Democrat; if you will do that I will stay with you to prevent an election, or go out with you to break a quorum; he said that if Stephenson was proven unworthy he would agree to go into joint caucus; I said “that is damned easy” 1412, 1482, 1483 Keller had a conversation with me at some time with respect to voting for Senator Stephenson, or absenting myself, or something 1413 Milwaukee, never in, prior to March 4, 1909 1734 Stone, had a chattel mortagge on farm; reduced by installments 1486, 1487 Stone, James A., do not know whether I said he was pressing me on the mortgage on my farm; and do not remember giving that as a reason for refusing to act with “them” (meaning the friends of Stephenson) to W. W. Power, who I do not remember ever knowing 1478 Stone, said it might not be safe to continue loan to me as I was dipping in politics; loan was for about $2,800; now transferred to State Bank of Lavalle... 1481,1482 Stone, was interested in defeating the election of Senator Stephenson; let- ter of, to John J. Blaine as to investigation; was attorney for people who loaned money on a mortgage on my farm 1480, 1481 Strange, John, am not sure I heard his speech on March 4 1491 Wagner, his testimony first charge of bribery against myself that I heard. . 1472, 1475, 1476 Wayland, C. C.: Entered cloak room with him shortly before convening of session; re- mained about 20 minutes, and do not recollect what was said about anything except that I didn’t want to meddle in Republican poli- tics; don’t know whether anything was said about balloting going on at that time 1472, 1473, 1474, 1477 Former testimony as to conversation with, discussed; details of conver- sation as set forth in former testimony 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492 May have talked with him about mortgage on my farm 1477, 1478, 1479, 1497, 1498 Talked with, on March 4 relative to attending or not attending the ses- sion, part of the time in room adjoining assembly chamber, part in the corridor, and in a cloak room; did not decide to be absent, but was absent through lack of interest in the result of the election 1470, 1471, 1473 Talked with him relative to the election of a Senator; do not remember the exact discussion, but he was urging that the election of Senator Stephenson would be a benefit and ought to be brought about, and I made an occasional comment 1411, 1470, 1474 Trunk, containing correspondence, poll lists and mailing cards relating to Ste- phenson campaign 1215, 1254-1256, 1691, 1692, 1788-1795, 2082, 2096, 2097, 2098, 2099, 2100, 2101, 2102, 2103 Turrish, Henry, as to testimony of; to be put in the form of an affidavit 1512, 1690, 1691, 2024, 2025 Turrish, Henry, lumber business, Duluth, Minn., affidavit of 2031 Boutell, think in the course of the conversation with Hines his name was mentioned 2034 Cook, known of his unpleasantness with Hines. 2031, 2032 Cook, some time in December, 1910, or the 1st of January, was in the buffet car going from Madison to Duluth, and he asked me if I remembered the conversation in the Grand Pacific Hotel 2034, 2035 Cook, Wirt H., interested with him for about 15 years; personally friendly 2031 Grand Pacific Hotel, conversation between Hines, Cook, and myself in the early part of May, 1909 2032, 2033, 2034 Helm committee, after my name was used at, I did not talk to anyone about my memory of the conversation in the Grand Pacific Hotel 2035 Hines, asked him what progress he was making with the tariff on lumber. . 2033 Hines, Edward, known him possibly seven years; had no unpleasantness with him 2031 Hines mentioned the name of Lorimer in conversation in the Grand Pacific Hotel 2033 Lorimer, Senator, have no feeling of prejudice against him 2032 CXLVI DIGEST INDEX. Turrisli, Henry, lumber business, Duluth, Minn., affidavit of — Continued. Page. McCordic’s office, never been in 2034 O’Brien, William, discussed with him the conversation had in the Grand Pacific Hotel 2035 Portland, Oreg., now at 2031 Stephenson, name mentioned in conversation in the Grand Pacific Hotel; I said to Hines, “Mr. Stephenson, being a lumberman, is all right, isn’t he?” He said, “No, Stephenson is an uncertain quantity;” that he had done business for him for 20 years or more, and that he really did not know where he stood on the lumber question; he was undecided; do not remember any reference as “old Stephenson” in that conversation.. 2033, 2034 Witness, sworn as before a committee of the United States Senate at the Senate Office Building, in Washington, D. C., on Monday, July 17, 1911; there testified to a conversation which Wirt H. Cook had previously testi- fied to as occurring between affiant and Edward Hines at the Grand Pacific Hotel, ’Chicago; testimony before said committee given 2031 Tuttle, Emery W., mason and bricklayer, Oconomowoc, Wis., affidavit of 2016 Account of expenditures, kept none; never called upon for any 2017 Age, 60 years 2016 Bowman, Harry, received $125 from; understood had money for use in Stephenson campaign 2017 Campaign work in five townships of Waukesha County in primary contest. . 2017 Money, all received disbursed legitimately 2017 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2017 Oconomowoc, resided in, about past 60 years 2016 Precinct workers, about $50 to $65 spent for services of; unable to remem- ber names of all; does remember names of four; instructions given to 2017 Stephenson, work done for, before any money received ; at all times in favor of reelection of; money received had nothing to do with personal support of affiant and his son 2017 Stone, J. W., received $75 from; understood had money for use in Stephen- son campaign 2017 Traveling, about $140 to $150 spent by affiant and son, and for conveyances, for expense of circulating literature and putting up lithographs, and hotel expenses, entertainment, and cigars 2017 Tuttle, Arthur C., son, assisted by, who devoted several weeks also to cam- paign, traveling in said towns and through the county, and advocating Stephenson, putting up literature, and engaging men to be at the polls on primary day 2017 Twohy, D. W., telegram to, in regard to his meeting Robert J. Shields in Chicago and having alleged conversation with, three or four days before election of Stephenson; reply stating he has not seen Shields for several years; reason for his not being called before committee 1947 U. TTpham, H. H. J., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1972 Affidavit of Senator Stephenson as to paying out $111,385.49 to Edmonds, Puelicher, Van Cleve, Sacket, Brown, and others, and the disbursement of $107,793.05 of that amount; did not dictate form of 1980, 1981, 1984 Barnes, discussion as to expense account of primary election. 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Brown, H. J., did not render ajiy statement to me as to the disbursement of the $107,793.05, or any part thereof 1981, 1982 Brown, paid J. A. Van Cleve $702.75 out of rents he collected for Senator Stephenson 1975 Cook, discussion as to expense account of primary election; time of filing, etc 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Edmonds, did not discuss with him the question of his accounting for any money he paid out 1978 Edmonds, did not render any statement to me as to the disbursement of the $107,793.05, or any part thereof 1981, 1982 Edmonds, think some checks had been given to; do not think I went over statement of account produced by 1973, 1976, 1977 DIGEST INDEX. CXLVII Upham, H. H. J., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Contd. Page. Expense account, statement of Stephenson: Did not dictate form of 1904 Had seen Hatton’s, Cook’s, and McGovern’s accounts, and also Judge Barnes’s and Tim tin’s; the Stephenson account conforms largely to those 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Itemized account of expenditure of $107,793.05 .. 1979 Know nothing of destruction of original items of account. , 1987, 1988 Was approved by me, and was an attempt to comply with the law of Wisconsin as to the filing of expense accounts of the primary; had examined statements of other candidates 1980, 1981,1982,1983,1984,1985,1986 Was trying to have it conform to the practice which had grown up; was some difference of opinion among lawyers as to time it should be filed; do not think I consulted with Senator Stephenson on the subject; did not give an opinion on subject to Sacket or Edmonds 1985, 1986 Greenwood, Senator Stephenson paid personally $125 to 1973, 1974 Hatton, discussion as to expense account of primary election; time of filing, etc.. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Hutchinson, Fred (N. Ludington Co.), paid personally $25 to; was a worker for Senator Stephenson 1974, 1975 Hutchinson, Senator Stephenson paid personally $25 to; was a worker for Stephenson 1974, 1975 Hyzer, E. M., was a member of our firm; has never been in the legislature to my knowledge; appeared before the legislative investigating com- mittee as an attorney representing our firm for Senator Stephenson. 1972, 1973 McAllister, was paid $110.50 by the N. Ludington Co., and charged to the account of Senator Stephenson 1975 McGovern, discussion as to expense account of primary election; time of filing, etc.... 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 Money: Amount of, that Senator Stephenson paid personally was as follows: T. Reynolds, $180; Greenwood, $125; Fred Hutchinson (N. Ludington Co.), $25; H. J. Brown took $792.75 from rents he collected for Sena- tor Stephenson, and paid it to J. A. Van Cleve 1974, 1975 Do not know that Senator Stephenson followed the payment of, any further than the first payment; I never was consulted about any that was paid out by Stephenson’s managers 1978 Do not think the statement of the expenditure of the $107,793.05 com- plies with laws of Wisconsin, as strictly construed, but does comply with the practice that seems to have grown up among candidates as to filing returns 1980, 1981 I had nothing to do with the $107,793.05; that shows what Mr. Sackett and the others disbursed; I did not revise or prepare the statement about it 1979 I undertook to get together the sum total of the funds that Senator Stephenson parted with; found that he had parted with $111,385.49 on all accounts for the primary election; this did not include the $2,000 or $2,500 that he contributed to the State central committee. . . 1973, 1974 I went over the items of expenditure with Senator Stephenson; do not believe I went over the statements produced by Sackett and Ed- monds; their statement was complicated, so I went to Senator Steph- enson’s office at Marinette and got the statement of expense that I have read from his private book 1975, 1976, 1977 List of checks and amounts paid to various people; no controversy as to genuineness of checks 1975, 1976 Never advised on the question as to whether Senator Stephenson, by stating the persons to whom he paid the sums, might comply with the law 1977,1978 Practice of accounting for expenditure of, in primaries and elections; question of the statement and affidavit of Senator Stephenson as to campaign expenditures discussed 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Statement of the expenditure of $107,793.05; itemized 1979 Puelicher, did not discuss with him the question of his accounting for any money he paid out 1978 Puelicher, did not render any statement to me as to the disbursement of the $107,793.05 or any part thereof 1981, 1982 cxLvm DIGEST INDEX. Page. Upham, H. H. J., attorney at law, Milwaukee, Wis,, testimony of — Continued. Puelicher, think some checks had been given to 1973 Reynolds, Senator Stephenson paid personally $180 to 1973, 1974 Sacket, did not discuss with him the question of his accounting for any money he paid out 1978 Sacket, did not render any statement to me as to the disbursement of the $107,793.05 or any part thereof 1981, 1982 Sacket, do not think I went over statement of account produced by. . . 1976, 1977 Timlin, discussion as to expense account of primary election 1989, 1990, 1991 Van Cleve, did not render any statement to me as to the disbursement of the $107, 793.05 or any part thereof 1981, 1982 Van Cleve, J. A., was paid $792.75 by H. J. Brown and charged to the rents collected for Senator Stephenson 1975 Vandersee, do not know him 1984 V. Van Cleve, John A., in real estate and banking business, Marinette, Wis., testimony of 136, 568 Brown, Harry J., turned statement' of campaign expenses in Marinette County over to; gave me a check for it after campaign was over; was Stephenson’s son-in-law and I presume it likely he showed my expense account to Stephenson; do not know of any funds paid out by Mr. Brown other than Marinette County expenses 145, 148 Campaign committee, duties on; I acted as home member of that com- mittee. Mr. Puelicher and Mr. Edmonds were in Milwaukee and I was in Marinette 137 Campaign committee, shortly after announcing candidacy, Stephenson appointed Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Puelicher, and me as a committee to look after his campaign; appointed either at Marinette or Milwaukee; members not all together at time; consultation with Stephenson in regard to shortly after candidacy announced 137 Campaign expenses, I did not furnish any money to speak of for; not more than $15 or $20 145 Campaign expenses, large part went for advertising and postage. - 141 Campaign fund, know of no other disbursements than $52,500 in six checks to Puelicher, $792.75 that I disbursed in Marinette County, and $71.35 sent to C. H. Ross, of Cavour 149 Check for $2,000, August 31, received from Stephenson; on Corn Exchange Bank; indorsed over to Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent to Puelicher. . 143 Check for $2,000 received from Stephenson, drawn on Stephenson National Bank, of Marinette, in my favor; indorsed over to Puelicher by me and sent or handed to him June 28; do not know what he did with it; not stated to be for advertising; do not know what Stephenson said when he gave it to me, except that I do know it was for campaign purposes 138, 141, 144 Check for $10,000, July 6, on Marshall & Ilsley Bank of Milwaukee, drawn by Stephenson to my order; indorsed to and sent to Puelicher; have no knowledge of what he did with it; only check that was on $50,000 fund in Marshall & Ilsley Bank 139, 144, 149 Check of $10,000, August 24, on Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago, drawn in my favor; indorsed over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent to Puelicher 143 Check for $13,500, September 3, on Com Exchange Bank of Chicago, received a day or two after the primary; indorsed over to Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent to Puelicher 144 Check for $15,000, August 20, on Corn Exchange Bank of Chicago; given me by Stephenson; I indorsed it over to the Marshall & Ilsley Bank and sent it to Puelicher; can not remember conversation with Stephenson con- cerning; understood to be for campaign purposes; think he handed it to me personally; he made no statement as to how it should be used. 139, 140, 143 Checks, in four cases indorsed to Marshall & Ilsley Bank; in other cases indorsed to J. H. Puelicher; custom varied in regard to indorsing because I thought Puelicher would be away from home part of the time, and I presumed he had an arrangement with the bank, so that if he was not there when check got there the people in the bank would take care of it. 143 DIGEST INDEX. CXLIX Page. Van Cleve, John A., in real estate and banking business, Marinette, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Checks, sent to me instead of directly to Mr. Puelicher, because my office is right next door to Stephenson’s. “I was very much interested in the campaign and helped him all I could, and when this money was wanted I would go into the Senator’s office and talk matters over and he would draw a check for whatever amount was asked for” 141 Contracts, made none for payment of any portion of money 144 Conversation with Stephenson concerning money, right at beginning of campaign when funds were needed, matter was taken up from time to time; can not remember exact time of first conversation any more than it was shortly after he announced candidacy; do not recollect what was said 140,141 Disbursements by, in Stephenson’s 1908 primary campaign in Marinette County, Wis., in detail 146, 147 Edmonds, appointed campaign manager by Stephenson 142 Employment of assistants, had nothing to do with at headquarters 147 Filing of expense account, I did not assist in its preparation when it came to filing with secretary of state; was not consulted about filing; was not present when matter was talked over; do not recollect talking with Stephenson about. 148 Funds, method of securing, Puelicher would call me up and say more funds were needed, and I would go into the Senator’s office and we would talk matters over, and the result of the conversation would be that he would ask his secretary to draw a check 142 Gray, J. L., paid $5, August 29, for services on primary election day 568 Legislature, attended when in session; not at day Stephenson was elected; attended once or twice prior to election not to create sentiment in favor of Stephenson, but because member of State capitol commission; did not speak to a member there, except local man, maybe 145 Marinette, remained there substantially during entire campaign, which Stephenson knew 150, 151 Marinette, resident of little over 38 years 137 Marinette County, includes 23 precincts; entire vote of about 4,200, of which Stephenson got about 3,000; employed 50 or 60 men in county election day; had a man in each precinct; in large precincts we had three or four teams and men at polls with poll list 569 Marinette County campaign, took charge of for Stephenson; separate trans- action from State campaign; kept account of money received and paid out in connection with; account separate from State campaign account; paid out $792.75 for campaign expenses; kept account of persons to whom paid; statement of filed with legislative committee 137, 145, 569 Memorandum book, used during campaign in Marinette County, contains account of expenses of $792.75 and a list of checks sent to Puelicher, aggregating $52,500; shows men employed in different precincts in county 568 Men employed election day, ascertained they were friendly to Stephenson before I made any arrangement with them 570 Milwaukee, visited two or three times during campaign in reference to private business; did not make trip to for purpose of looking after cam- paign 150, 151 Money, did not disburse any that was sent down here; simply found out that it was needed and the Senator gave me the checks and I sent them down here; knew in a general way for what it was used 141, 144, 145 Money, did not know when I sent it to Puelicher for what purposes it would be used, other than for campaign purposes — mean by that campaign organizing in way of advertising and opening headquarters where 15 or 20 girls sent out literature and all that kind of thing 142 Money, none improperly expended to my knowledge; had no information of any corruptly expended in interest of Stephenson 151, 571 Noyes, F. E., paid him $200 for editorial work on the Marinette Eagle; was friendly to Stephenson and had been supporting him before I gave him the money 568, 570 Puelicher, appointed campaign manager and banker by Stephenson 142 Puelicher, J. H., $52,500 paid out by me was in six checks sent to; do not know that he had $50,000 in Marshall & Ilsley Bank; had heard it 148, 569 CL DIGEST INDEX, Page. Van Cleve, John A., in real estate and banking business, Marinette, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Puelicher, sent him $52,500 for purpose of promoting Stephenson’s nomi- nation as Senator at direct primary; talked with him before I sent him money and found he intended to support Stephenson; managed Stephen- son’s campaign in 1907; do not wish to be understood that any sums paid him were in consideration of his supporting Stephenson 569, 570 Ross, Charles H., of Cavour, payment of $71.35, received by me from Stephenson November 28, was made him for transportation of voters to polls in Forest County; itemized bill from turned over to legislative committee; did not charge for own services 144 Sacket, did not know who employed ; presume Stephenson employed 147 Six checks, aggregating $52,000, came down here to Milwaukee; disbursed by the committee and those that were here 144, 148 Skidmore, Ralph, paid $8.50, of which $5 was for work done by his stenog- rapher during campaign, and $3.50 for a team, in township of Lake 568 Statement of expenses in Marinette County, gave it to H. J. Brown and he gave me a check for it; remained in bank until turned over to legislative committee; do not think it was then turned over to Stephenson; do not know whether a copy of it was turned over to Stephenson 148 Statement of expenses in Marinette County, hesitated to turn over to com- mittee, not because of figures but because this money had been paid out to a lot of my friends up there and I did not care to give the names, but the committee finally insisted upon it and I gave them the names; knew what law required ; proposed to give committee statement giving expenditures in each precinct; amounts are all comparatively small, and I thought it unnecessary to give names 145, 146 Statement of expenses in Marinette County, subsequent one contained all information except names of persons to whom money was paid; shows disbursement in each precinct; shows $35 largest amount paid in any one precinct; did not think anything about its legality at the time 147 Statement of money received and paid out by me as member of State cam- paign committee taken from memorandum book kept at time; will pro- duce memoranda without special subpoena, but it contains nothing but what I have here 138 Stephenson, Senator: Announced candidacy on the 24th of June, 1908 137 Campaign cost him, I think, two or three times as much as he ever had any idea it would 149 Talked with me concerning $792.75 expended in Marinette County campaign, but he did not bother me much about details; did not discuss with me disbursement of $107,000 or $108,000 in State cam- paign, because he left all that to Puelicher, Edmonds, and Sacket. 150, 151 Would canvass matter of money over with; would finally make up mind to send it; would call on secretary to make out check for; always after objections would “cough up,” but not willingly; did not ask what was being done with money 149, 150 Would go to see when requests from Mr. Puelicher came that funds were low; “was much opposed to giving;” can not remember exact remarks of; substance of first conversation with was “he thought they were spending too much money down there; he did not want to ‘put up,’ as you might say; he did not want to send as much as they were asking for. He was very much opposed to doing it 149 Sum of $792.75, paid for Marinette County expenses, of that amount $340 was paid for newspaper service; balance nearly all expended for getting out the vote primary day; few dollars listed for postage; no other money expended in county 570 Sum of $12,000, sent to campaign managers in Milwaukee in one week; made no inquiry as to needs for so large a sum; Stephenson had advised his managers Puelicher and Edmonds to keep within the law, and I pre- sumed they were doing so and think now that they did 142, 143 Sum of $52,000, in connection with committee Stephenson appointed, $52,500 passed through my hands 138, 148, 569 Votes, none purchased by money I disbursed; I never had any information that votes were purchased from any reliable source anywhere at any time in connection with campaign 151 Wood, John, employed him to get three or four teams, to have man at polls with poll list, and to get out the vote on primary day in Amberg precinct. 568 DIGEST INDEX. CLI Page. Vandersee, impossibility of producing, on part of the committee 1991 Van Houten, J. W. B., testimony of 1212 Black, W. E., I think trunk came into office during my absence, and first time I 6aw it it was in our vault and label on it was “W. E. Black, Mil- waukee, Wis.;” would not swear to that 1214 Key of trunk, I have never had it 1215 Trunk, have brought one to committee room containing papers; mostly letters relating to Stephenson campaign; have no lists of papers in; is locked, I think; do not know when it was locked; open yesterday; sorted papers in, then returned all papers taken out; office force present when I handled papers; none of them retained or removed papers to my knowledge; first knew of papers when trunk came by express about 10 days ago 1213, 1214 Trunk, I did not remove label from, in part; did not erase certain marks with a lead pencil; do not know who did; do not know where it came from 1215 Vote of Stephenson in the legislature, tabulated statement of 2024 Voting, illegal, and bribery and corruption, provisions of statutes with regard to 329, 601, 604, 605, 629, 677 W. Walsh, James F., land and timber, Duluth, Minn., testimony of 1561 Cook, am his brother-in-law 1566 Cook, conversation with, with reference to the election of Senator Stephen- son; talked of everything with, that I knew about or heard rumored 1562, 1563, 1564, 1565, 1566 Cook, Wirt H., not associated in business with 1562 Haley, told me something about an alleged quarrel between Hines and Shields as to a settlement for work Shields had done in connection with the election of Senator Stephenson 1563, 1564 Hines, never talked with, about election of Senator Stephenson; do not know him 1565 Hines, not associated in business with 1562 Shields, had some little difficulty with, in 1907 or 1908; had some sort of a claim against him 1566, 1567 Shields, has stock in some timber company with; have not discussed political matters with, since 1907 1562 Shields, never talked with, about election of Senator Stephenson 1565, 1566 Stephenson, election of, did not assist in; had no interest in 1565 Watrous, Paul J., secretary of the Industrial Commission at Madison, also in newspaper business, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1595 Domachowski, heard him say he had been offered $1,500 to stay out of the chamber while the vote was being taken; made in the presence of Ever- ett and Powell; seemed to be in earnest and excited; refused to say who made the offer 1596, 1597 Domachowski, never retracted story to me of offer of $1,500; said it was a misstatement, and that he was joking; sent the news of the story to my paper; was not published in my paper 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602 Everett, J. Winters, heard the conversation with Domachowski as to the offer of $1,500; think his paper used the story 1596, 1599, 1601, 1602 Pearson, Senator, present during part of conversation with Domachowski. 1596 Powell, W. W., heard the conversation with Domachowski as to the offer of $1,500; do not believe his paper used the story 1596, 1599, 1601, 1602 Shields, Robert J., saw him around the capitol immediately preceding election; talked with him about the election (former testimony as to conversation with, repeated) 1597,1598 Wayland, Chellis C., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 725, 1492 Account, I knew there was a statute requiring filing of one by candidate; I knew there was to be some accounting and I did not know whether it would be itemized clear down to the small items in order to comply with election law; had not read election law 739 Account, I never rendered one to the office of my expenses or money ex- pended by me in behalf of Stephenson campaign 727 CLH DIGEST INDEX. Wayland, Chellis C., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Account of expenditures,. I kept a statement in general; I did not keep an account of smaller items, but I knew the character of expenditures; as I employed men and teams and put out printed matter, I knew to whom I gave the money; I had that on detached slips, which I destroyed about Dec. 15, when we moved our office in Appleton; I copied items from slips on to one paper; recollect I copied them exactly as on slips 737, 738 Bill for $49.18 I sent in August 5 was, I think, for expenditures the first 10 days; I made it out when I came in from the first trip, but did not present it for about 10 days after I received the $100 727 Blaine, rose to protest against the declaration of election of Senator Stephen- son on account of the investigation not having been completed 1498 Buchanan Township, not under my personal supervision ; I arranged for rigs to be sent there primary day, and those were sent to John Scanlon; am referring to item of $66; there was a bill rendered for canvassing; in this township there was a man put on each rig and a driver; there were paper mills and men conveyed about 2 miles to vote, in sets, so as not to shut down the factory; and when the shifts changed we had to have more rigs; almost all expense there was for teams and drivers 732 Campaign work, I began it during first week of July, 1908; devoted entire time to it from then until after primary 726 Cannon, C. G., was Edmond’s brother-in-law and was paid item of $10 to go to old settlers’ picnic at Seymour; I think he stayed three days; his ex- penses amounted to a little more than $10, but he settled at $10; spent it For hotel bills and carfare; he probably had some cigars; he does not drink; I do not think he would buy drinks for anybody 733, 734 Cigars, I furnished them for my men, the object being that when you can get a man to stop and smoke you can hold him still and talk to him; I remember my bill for cigars was about $95 for the campaign; there was $27 of that that I didn’t know that I had, but some enthusiast had passed through the factories hammering away for Stephenson and he said he paid that bill, so I settled it 729, 730, 734 City of Kaukauna, west and south, and townships west, advertising, teams, workers, etc., $150, was expended by John Watson, a business man there; he did not report to me; I knew in a general way how he was expending it at the time; he advertised city thoroughly and told me he sent out men in the townships around; sent rigs down to Combined Locks, a paper-mill town, to bring men to polls at Kaukauna, where they voted 732,733 Edmonds, E. A.: About 24th or 25th of January he said: “We can go down to Madison and come back the next day, after the first ballot — it will be all over with;” I said I did not wish to make any expense to myself, that I had wasted a good deal of time, and he said: “If you will come down as my guest, I will pay your expenses;” I told him all right, and I went down expecting to return immediately; often invites me on trips 735,736,737 Asked him once how a report of expenditures was to be gotten up; he said he did not know yet; said he was not the manager now, but he thought I would be informed; this conversation was about middle of September on the street; I never talked to anyone else about it 737, 739 Was associated with him in business prior to time he assumed manage- ment of Stephenson campaign and am now; when he was tendered position of manager I made an arrangement with him by which I would separate my business affairs during time he was manager and be free to assist in campaign; that was about the 1st of July; I was a Republican then and Stephenson supporter 725, 726 Was mistaken in his testimony about my being paid in primary; he was correct as to my not being paid anything before the legitlature, but in the primary I was to receive pay for my services. 735 When I reported to him what I was doing about treating in saloons, he requested me to discontinue that kind of a campaign immediately; that was about middle of August 730 First item in statement before joint committee for $315 for workers before primary and during day of same and expense incurred by several while advertising; polling lists, etc., and stenographers 731 DIGEST INDEX. cun Wayland, Chellis C., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Freedom, town of; item of $34 spent there explained; I arranged with a Mr. Schrader and a Mr. Birdstrom to canvass the township and on primary day they, with their sons, were to take rigs and start from different parts of the township and bring to polls people found to be for Stephenson; I gave them $15 apiece for their work, and I bought a box of cigars for $4 to be used in canvassing among the farmers; were to furnish three teams apiece primary day 732 Girls, paid at different times to fasten badges and buttons on voters; item of $7.70 is for seven of them, including dish of ice cream for each girl; paid out of campaign fund; did not report it to Stephenson; do not think he would have objected 735 Heard something about a special train that was procured by some one during the campaign 1492, 1493 Madison, I went down when legislature was in session and election of Ste- phenson before it; arrived there January 23 or 24, 1 think 735,736 Members of legislature I met when I was in Madison in January, 1909; I do not think I talked to them about Stephenson’s election; I think they talked to me about it, but I do not recall what they said ; it was not under- stood that I was to go down there that time for work; the day the first ballot was taken I think I talked to Mr. Tower, of Portage, in my own district . 736,737 Men employed in Outagamie County, I got best men I could who were for Stephenson, not political hacks, but sober, industrious men who held po- sitions paying from $2 to $5 a day; selected them with a view to their nationality and religious association; I found that I would be unable to get men in the country, so I would have those in the city who were acquainted in country make the trips and report 729 Money placed in my hands for Stephenson campaign, I did not spend any for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any voters; none to my knowledge spent that way by people to whom I intrusted the money for use; I never had any information it was so spent; I did not furnish money to others to distribute 740 Outagamie County, method of organizing, endeavored to get poll lists and got men to check them up; got Stephenson’s friends to assist in making canvass of city of Appleton; found out I did not have money enough to organize by precincts; had advertising matter posted; began newspaper campaign^ attended picnics; passed out buttons; got up circulars and put them in every house; made his name as well known as I could in every corner of county; made speeches 728,729 Outagamie County, total amount spent in, is $887.65 735 Printing campaign badges, sample ballots, instructions to voters in news- papers, bills stating what Stephenson had done for Appleton, newspaper advertising, ribbons for badges, stickers, etc., $45; expenditure made out of campaign fund 735 Public office, I have never held one or been candidate for one 735 Report of expenditures other than that made to legislative committee, I never made one to Edmunds, Puelicher, or Stephenson; was not asked for one; I was prepared to make a report when I came to Milwaukee im- mediately after the primary 737 Saloons, I ceased going to or buying anything there or buying drinks for people in grocery stores about middle of August 730 Saloons, I looked up the number in Appleton and found out there were about 68 in the city and 10 in the outskirts, with grocery stores attached; from 6 to 10 p. m. found gatherings there; I got a candidate for sheriff to go with me; told him I did not drink or smoke, but I wanted to present Stephenson’s case to these people; he said he could drink all I could pay for and for me to take a cigar; I invited these people to partake of a treat and told them why working man and farmer should vote for Stephenson. . 730 Services, difference between amount received by me, $1,199.34, and amount paid out, $887.65, was retained by me for 735 Stenographers, I do not know the exact amount I paid them; I know I paid one $15 for copying the Appleton polling list 732 Strange, in his speech on day of election said he hoped that everything was all right and tnat they had done nothing they would regret 1498 CLIV DIGEST INDEX. Page. Wayland, Chellis C., real estate, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Sum of $95.95 in account was for both cigar expenditures and item listed “Headaches (treats), $17.15”; expenditures all made in Outagamie County; extended from 15th or 20th of July and continued up to the close of the primary 734 Sum of $100 received on July 27 from Edmonds was for expenses I incurred in traveling about the State; my first trip about July 6 was made to ascertain the general line-up of the opposition and to see their plan of campaign; also to see prominent men who were leaders in various counties to find out how they stood and if possible to interest them in Stephen- son’s campaign; I paid out more than the $100; I paid my own expenses for a considerable time and sent in a bill; item in account 726, 727, 735 Sum of $250, received August 7, I can not tell just what I did with that exact sum; I can tell how I did through the campaign and this was part of it 727 Sum of $1,199.18 received altogether in campaign; statement of it given to investigating committee 731, 735 Towne, Silas R.: Do not know of him or other members who were absent being forcibly taken from the hall 1499 Had a talk with, on the 4th of March, 1909, in regard to the senatorial election; told me what Ingram had said to him; details of conversa- tion 1494-1498 Knew he would not vote for Stephenson; made no effort to restrain him from going to the session 1500 Never promised him nor gave him anything of value as a consideration for his remaining out of the joint session 1503 Was afraid he was going to get into trouble with Jim Stone; said he had gotten a loan from Stone’s client; was afraid he would foreclose him and take his horses; I said, “I don’t think there is any danger” ; Stone told him he was getting too active in politics 1501, 1502, 1503 When I went through the lobby with him I had my arm on his shoul- der; I know why I was hurrying; the time was so short, and if he was going to help build up a quorum, if he went in and they voted he would stay, and I wanted those fellows to vote; and the time was so short to the time when he should go in that if I did not hurry I could not tell him what I had in mind and ask him what he would do.... 1498,1499 Transportation item for livery rigs, busses, autos on day of primary and before, $164; most of it was paid for by me; different men employed by me made the trips; I paid the bills 734 Wisconsin, have resided there about 12 years 725 Workers on election day; I hired no one for the day of election except the drivers. They were to get $3, I think it was, but men I obtained early in campaign, and put in their evenings, and then they were to work also on the day of election; I gave them sums ranging from $5 to $15 731 Wellensgard, Christian C., runs a pickle factory and is interested in farms, Berlin, Wis., testimony of 835 Account, I presented one to campaign manager for money expended, at his request; letter inclosing it written by my son; account known as Ex- hibit 62 in testimony before joint legislative committee, given from record; my son wrote account as I gave him the items; I do not think there are any dates to these items, but he happened to put them down that way; might have got down August when it should have been July; or July when it should have been August; I could not swear to dates nor amounts as correct 837, 838, 846, 847, 859, 860 Account, items in on September 3 were paid ward workers; a good many of them were quarrymen that came down to work at polls ; money was not paid some of them as wages for the time they were absent from their work at the quarries; money was paid in cash; paid by me personally with the exception of two or three cases; I do not think date is exactly correct. . . 855, # 856, 869 Account, 13 items in under date of September 2 I do not think all were dis- bursed that day; I think some were paid sometime before 869 DIGEST INDEX. CLV Page. Wellensgard, Christian C., runs a pickle factory and is interested in farms, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Anglem, Bill, town of Green Lake, item in account of $5, August 28, I expect was for purpose of circulating Stephenson’s petition for nomina- tion; I can not remember that he did; it is so long since; he is a Stephen- son man; I do not know that date of item is correct 849, 850, 851 Automobile, election day, $15, September 2, item in account for hire of auto used in town of Berlin and I think in town of S.eneca; belonged to a man by name of Droopman, and I hired man named Wilson to run the ma- chine; that is in account “paid Wilson to run machine, $2.50 ” 855 Burdick, W., town of Green Lake, item of $5, August 28, in account was paid him for circulating nomination papers; I do not know that date of item is correct 850,851 Burlingame, G., item of $30 in account paid to him and four men was for work he did in putting up advertisements and circulating Stephenson petitions; I would not swear to date of item, August 28, as correct; Burlin- game was Stephenson man; money all paid to him; was my personal friend; I am satisfied he was paid latter part of July; was to haul voters primary day; but had this money before that day; he had circulated pe- tition and put up posters; receipt from dated October 5, 1911 840, 841, 842, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854 Burlingame, men employed by; I never paid these men a cent to do any- thing in my behalf; I do not know whether they were Stephenson men; left selection of them to Burlingame; think one of them was named Frost; he said they were all responsible men; I think I knew the men at the time; but I can not recollect the names he gave me; were paid to take their teams and haul voters 7 or 8 miles around the end of Green Lake; so far as I know their votes were not purchased 840, 841, 842 Business connections, practically sole owner of Berlin Canning and Pick- ling Co. ; I own about 700 acres in that vicinity 868, 869 Campaign fund; I contributed $60 in that county 857, 858 Charge that $1,500 was paid to three members of the legislature to absent themselves on the day on which the vote was taken to elect Stephenson; I do not know anything about it; I have heard it or read it in the newspa- pers; I do not remember that I heard it stated by any member in a speech on the floor, but I might have 866 Domachowski, a member of legislature; I did not hear him say that he had been offered $1,500 to absent himself at the time the ballot was taken upon which Stephenson was elected; I heard of it, but I do not remember that I heard it on the floor; I have no recollection about it 866,867 Greager, Steve, has a small farm; he was paid by me for seeing that voters got out in fifth ward in Berlin; he left his work that day and received $5 from me for working at polls 856 Grotta, Jack, owned a small farm near Sacramento; left his work and re- ceived $5 from me for working at polls in second ward, Berlin; I do not think he had a vehicle to haul voters 856 Livery items in account, to Princeton, July 5 and Markesan, July 6, were to get parties to circulate Stephenson petitions; my candidacy not an- nounced then 838, 839 Lyons, Senator, I never heard him say on the floor of the assembly that he had $100 “to be good ”; I do not know where he sat 865 Markesan, Green Lake County, I do not live there; livery items there in account, August 20, 21, 22, and 23, were for teams hired there for several days when I was making trips out into the county to see about getting out teams and parties for primary election day and also getting Stephenson advertisements up; I did not have any to put up for myself; was not on a campaign tour in my own interests exactly at that time 839, 840 Member of legislature, elected in fall of 1906; was a member during session of 1909; was a candidate during 1908 primary ; member from Green Lake County; not now a member; announced candidacy in 1908 in newspapers July 16 or 17 836,838,839 CL VI DIGEST INDEX, Page. Wellensgard, Christian C., runs a pickle factory and is interested in farms, Berlin, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Money, I did not receive any during primary campaign; received $250.80 about September 5 or 6; it had already been expended by me during July and August for getting parties to circulate nomination papers, distributing advertising; for hire of auto liveries and to get parties to polls; I paid sums out of my own funds and charged them to Stephenson; there was no understanding that this money was to affect my vote in legislature; all of sum received by me was paid out in interest of Stephenson’s campaign . 836, 857, 869, 870, 871 Money, I did not spend any in the interest of Stephenson’s campaign, either directly or indirectly for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing any electors 870 Money, I expended personally in the primary $275 and some cents, I think; did not include $250 received from Stephenson 858 Never heard any member of legislature say, upon the floor of the hall in which the joint session was held, that he had received money either to vote for Stephenson or as a gift, or to use in primary or general election, or otherwise; I heard several rumors or statements 863,864 Nomination papers, show name of party that circulates paper; I think every paper is signed and sworn to by man that circulates it 849, 850 Primary election, I came out with the statement in three or four newspapers in my county that I was pledged to abide by it; I took position from standpoint of entire State and not county 860, 861, 869 Rosebrook, C. M., receipt for $25 from, dated October 5, 1911 852, 853, 854 Rosebrook, item of $25 paid to him and four men, in account; he has told me since he was willing to furnish names of the men at any time; he has not given them to me; he lives in town of St. Marie; he paid money to the men to take their teams and bring voters across Fox River, six or eight miles, to polls; I do not know how men voted; I do not think I instructed him money was to haul only voters favorable to me; think they would haul any neighbors; I could not say that hauling of these men to polls inured to my benefit and not Stephenson’s 842, 843, 844, 845, 846 Sacket, had a conversation with him in latter part of June; I had not an- nounced my candidacy then; I do not think I indicated it to him; so far as I know he had no knowledge at the time as to whether or not I was intending to be a candidate 870 Schrader, 0., item in account of $30 paid him and men at Markesan, was for circulating Stephenson nomination papers in Markesan and town of Manchester; they circulated petitions and advertisements; I got men and teams to work at polls; part of services rendered in July and Septem- ber; I do not know as date of item is correct 850,851,854 Stephenson, I was not always looking after my own campaign when I was out for him; made some trips for him before I ever did work for myself; when I talked with a man in behalf of him, I talked on my own behalf; I suppose men I employed supported both of us, I do not know; we did not draw any line in taking voters to polls; did not understand in advance for whom they were going to vote; I do not think money disbursed for him was for services rendered me in my campaign 858, 859, 869, 870 Stephenson, in legislature I voted for him on all the ballots; supported him during campaign; have always supported him; voted for him in 1907, when I was a member of legislature ; had known of him for 20 years . 836, 840, 860 Stephenson, sum of $250.80 had no effect on vote I afterward cast for him; if I had not received anything it would have been the same; if he had not got the majority at the primaries, I should have voted for the other man who did - - 869 Three members of legislature, I do not know the least thing about their being absent at the time the ballot was taken upon which Stephenson was elected 865 Vaughn, E., Kingston, item of $25 in account, September 2, paid him and men, was for circulating petitions and getting parties out at the primary election; the date there is not right, because this was after election and he had the money before the primary 854, 855 DIGEST INDEX, CLVII Page. Wells, Jabez H., hotel keeper, Portage County, Wis., affidavit of Age, 58 years . - Campaign headquarters at Milwaukee, received $400 from, out of which instructed to retain whatever services were reasonably worth, balance to be used for legitimate expense Campaign work in city of Portage and Columbia County during primary contest, at request of campaign managers at Milwaukee, who gave no instructions except to do whatever he could in interest of Stephenson, causing literature to be put up and circulated and kept up, and to get workers at polls on primary day and provide for getting vote out; covered period of 60 days . Columbia County contains a large number of precincts; is large Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person Personal expenses and expenses for poll workers, cost of keeping up litera- ture, for livery and conveyances, hotel expense, cigars, etc., amounted to $200 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2018 Poll workers, instructions given to; unable to remember names of, except- ing few; names of five given; none employed unless for Stephenson at Portage County, resided in, for past 58 years 2018 Services, retained $200 for 2018 Statement of disbursements; kept no itemized; never called upon for 2019 Traveled and talked with many people advocating Stephenson; also caused lithographs to be posted up 2018 Wheeler, William G., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 893 Account, I did not render one to Edmonds or anyone else; was not requested to 897 Barroom campaign, none of $600 spent for 896 Boyd, John, paid $6 for work in town of Lima 896 Campaign, I had charge to some extent in Rock County and visited several of the other counties at different times -893 Campaign, under primary system more expensive than under old system of caucuses; reasons for given; detailed estimate of cost to perfect precinct organization under primary system; cost does not include newspaper advertising and expense of printing and circulating literature 899, 900, 901 Clifford, C. W., gave him check for $10 August 28, for workers at polls in city of Evansville 895 Compensation, I received nothing for what I did 898 Expenses do not represent all the money I expended; trips made during campaign in detail; items of expense exceed the $600 that came into my hands 897,898 Farr, F. G., Eau Claire, I sent him a check myself of $300 to take care of campaign in Eau Claire County 898 Garbutt, Orfordville, I paid him $2; he told me he worked at the polls getting voters for Stephenson, or I should not have paid him 894, 895 Gazette Printing Co., $18.50, that was for printing campaign circulars for use in Rock and Eau Claire Counties 896 Jones, check for $6 paid him for workers at polls and before the primary. . . 896 Memorandum, I kept one accounting for items; it is in possession of com- mittee 894,895 Money, none spent by me or others, within my knowledge, for bribing or corruptly influencing voters 901 Mouatt, Frank, items of $36, August 31, and $19.50 were for expenses incurred traveling aroung the county, including automobile hire and money he paid to different persons 895, 896 Primary system, does not always tend to bring to surface best men; vote is smaller under system; smaller proportion of vote cast at primary than at general election; where I lived, I am satisfied vote on primary day does not amount to 50 per cent of registration 902 Rock County, resided there all my life until I moved to Milwaukee, April 1, 1909 898 Salmon, C. D., check for $75 to him was for organization work in Beloit, getting men out, and rigs at the polls election day; letter from him ex- plaining disbursements 896, 897 CL VIII DIGEST INDEX. Wheeler, William G., attorney, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Page. Self, $100, that check was for an amount of money I drew from bank when I went out on a trip through the county; I left $25 in city of Beloit to be paid to find men in each ward to work for Stephenson on election day. . 895, 896 Sum of $600, received by me from Stephenson campaign fund from some one of the committee; I used $300 to reimburse myself for a similar amount that I had advanced for political purposes in Eau Claire County; I spent balance to hire workers at polls, for automobile expenses, and traveling expenses of different kinds 893, 894, 898 Whittet, L. C., paid $3 896 White, Richard J., traveling salesman, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1324, 1339 Absent members of house, three, at time of election; had they been there would have changed result 1328 Absenting of, from joint assembly room, for two or three weeks a combina- tion of anti-Stephenson Republicans, Social Democrats, and Democrats would leave if they thought Stephenson would be elected, or stay in if thought he could not; a member from Manitowoc County named Wehr- wein hid in the gallery one day to keep from voting 1345, 1346 Absentees at time vote was taken: Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Farrel, and Mr. Towne; did not see them go out, only know they did not answer roll call 1331, 1335 Balloting, I was in lobby during; a large room used by members and public back of chamber proper, partition between; only those near door could see in 1341,1342 Bribery, none to my knowledge; lot of reports around about different people being approached; heard in a general way of some corrupt methods being used 1344, 1347 Buslett, assemblyman from second district in Waupaca County, after roll call on March 3, asked to withdraw his vote as he was paired with Mr. Brown, who had not voted 1329 Conversation held in assembly chamber before the 4th with Mr. Farrel and Mr. Ramsey at separate times, speaking of members going in and out to break quorum; did not think it any more of a crime for Democrats to help election of Senator Stephenson than to try and stop it 1347 Election took place at noon March 4, 1909; final ballot was taken; Senator Stephenson elected; received 63 votes; thought he would have been elected before then; did not know it was to take place that day; brought about by peculiar circumstance, viz., absence of three Democrats 1334, 1339, 1341 Election and absentees, everybody was discussing that night; epoch in history of Wisconsin 1334, 1335 Farrel, knew him well; was representative in legislature from my district; never discussed with him why he did not vote at election; did not talk with him before session 1333, 1334, 1340 Hughes, Assemblyman, a Democrat, member of legislature, called Farrel to account for being absent at vote, censured him and charged him with being responsible for the election of Senator Stephenson 1331, 1334, 1336 Knell, occasionally, when he went out, would leave money with me at office to pay ward workers if they should happen in at that time; did not give any instructions how it should be spent 1325 Knell, Sheriff, assisted him in Milwaukee County in campaign of 1908; received $350 from him for personal expenses; paying hotel bills, buying cigars for the boys, etc.; did not use any, either directly or indirectly, for bribing or unlawfully influencing any electors in primary campaign in interest of Senator Stephenson 1325, 1346 Madison, went there four days before election; left next morning after; was there looking after interests of Senator Stephenson; do not know whether Mr. Shields remained there or not after election 1326, 1333, 1340 Milwaukee Hotel, headquarters, was with Mr. Knell during whole of cam- paign; directly under his directions; did not see any money expended for bribing 1346, 1347 Overbeck, Henry, know well; talked freely with on senatorial situation; suggested to him night before election to get some one to pair with Mr. Fenelon ; knew afterwards he had made arrangements with Fenelon to ask Ramsey; was with him a great deal day of election; asked me to bring vote to him at telegraph office as soon as it was announced, so that he could communicate with Stephenson at Washington 1324, 1328, 1329, 1340, 1344 DIGEST INDEX. CLIX White, Richard J., traveling salesman, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Con. Page. Park Hotel, night after election found Farrel and Hughes there arguing about election of Senator Stephenson and absence of three Democrats, quite a number of people standing around; took both back to bar and had cigars; did not stop argument because thought any facts would become public, but for sake of harmony, and was a friend of both. 1331, 1333, 1335, 1342 Politics, am a Republican 1332 Puelicher, asked me to assist Knell; paid me $150 for expenses to and from Sturgeon Bay where my family were then 1325 Ramsey, knew he was paired with Fenelon; neither I nor any of his friends, so far as I know, talked with him on this subject; did not see him any time during day after election; saw him some time afterwards on street in Milwaukee; did not discuss election or why he didn’t vote 1333, 1340, 1342 Roll call, referred to by legislative committee, absolutely certain meant roll call in the assembly 1348, 1349 Shields, Robert, met him at Milwaukee in February, 1909; talked over senatorial situation with him; do not know where he was at time vote was being taken; do not remember seeing him near assembly chamber day of election; did not say he had been to Washington to see Senator Stephenson, nor did I hear it from anyone else 1328, 1327, 1330, 1344 Shields, was under the impression he was at Madison for the same purpose as I — to further the interests of Senator Stephenson; talked over in gen- eral way after ballot had been completed how fortunate it was for Sena- tor Stephenson 1327, 1344, 1345 Telegram, dated Ripon, March 4, 1909, to Ramsey from Fenelon, read it over his shoulder, right near coat room, asking him to pair with him that day on vote on United States Senatorship; no one was present; members were walking back and forth; supposed he answered it, by his not voting; did not talk with him about it 1336, 1337, 1339, 1340 Towne, did not know him at all; was introduced to him after I had testified at the investigating committee 1333 Wayland, was present at Madison at time of election; did not talk much with, about the election 1328, 1340 Wilcox, Arthur Nelson, gas fitter, election inspector in 1908, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 993, 1894 Inspector of elections, acted as such in the primary election of 1908 993, 994, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 Inspectors, how appointed 994, 995 Inspectors in third ward, third precinct, Milwaukee, 1908, I think they were John Lavin, Charley Winters, and Pat Shanley 994, 1895 Knell, W. R., manager of Milwaukee campaign, I received $50 from him; did not receive $100 stated in specific charge 994, 1895, 1898 Money, I did not use any and so far as I know men to whom I paid it did not use any for purpose of bribing or corruptly influencing voters 996 Sum of $50, how disbursed, I was asked to furnish the names of six men, two for each precinct in the ward, and I paid them $5 for primary day, to hand out cards and do what they could for election of Stephenson; disbursed $50 in behalf of Stephenson 994, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 Winsor, William F., president of State Bank of Mauston, Mauston, Wis., affidavit of 2019 Age, 48 years 2019 Campaign work in primary campaign, at request of managers at Milwaukee; no active work done until about August 25, being absent from city; from that time on traveled about county by livery rig and rail, visiting many friends and talking Stephenson 2019 Hanson, Joseph T., campaign funds mentioned in affidavit of were kept in affiant’s bank; disbursement as stated by Hanson substantially accurate, but figures not correct, according to check made a part of this affidavit; $151.26 now remaining unexpended; funds deposited in name of Hanson, never in the name of affiant; received $45 from, notwithstanding it appears in Hanson’s account affiant received $55, additional $10 given for transmission to D. J. Puffer, to whom money was sent 2019 Mauston, resided in past 48 years 2019 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2019 Personal expenses, disbursed $45 received from Hanson, in traveling about county in the way of conveyance expense, hotel expense, cigars, etc — 2019 Stephenson, supporter of, prior to any arrangement to do any work for — . 2019 15235°— 11 xi CLX DIGEST INDEX, Page. Wisconsin investigating committee: As to production of papers in custody of 452, 453, 454, 474 Motion to strike from record certain parts of testimony of Paul 0. Husting relating to findings of, of which he was a member 1948, 1952, 1953 Opinion reached by Senator Marsh as a member of, discussion as to com- mittee going into 1103, 1107-1114, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129 Wisconsin Legislature: Findings of, not evidence; are in the status of an indictment 296, 2025 Law requiring each house to keep a journal of proceedings 863 Report submitted to, on March 18, came with papers from governor of Wisconsin to the United States Senate 322, 323 Resolution No. 58, relating to investigation of the primary and general election of 1908 and the election of United States Senator in 1909 2, 3 Wood, Harry W., private detective, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of 1602, 1877 Black, William E., understood he was an attorney for Stephenson; did not know he was Stephenson’s attorney in investigation before legislative committee when I made application to him to be retained; that was in his office about two months ago; do not remember saying to him my sympathies were on his side; did not employ me; did not refuse me; said he would see about it; did not see him afterwards 1615, 1616, 1617, 1618 Book containing date of my conversation with Regan and Souther, can not find (later produced); shows date to be December 31, 1909, 7 p. m.; date written in Souther’s office after Regan left; “A” referred to in, means Regan; Judge referred to in, is Judge Ryan, of Waukesha 1604, 1605, 1612, 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883 Businesses engaged in, a detective in Portland, Oreg., and Minneapolis before I came here; went into automobile business here with J. A. Peffer in 1908; in 1909 in automobile business and did work as a detective at same time 1602, 1603 Conversation with Kittle and Crownhart, came together to see me in Mil- waukee something like six or seven months ago; told them in substance the conversation I had with Regan; told them I would charge them $10 a day to investigate; they did not employ me; knew they represented element that was in opposition to Stephenson 1618, i619, 1620, 1621, 1622 Conversation with Regan in Souther’s presence, do not remember telling it to anyone but Sanderson, Kittle, Crownhart, and McGee 1622 Henning, E. J., attorney in Wells Building, offered my services to him two months ago; told me he was not employed in the Stephenson matter in any way; went to him after I saw Black; did not tell him I had been offered employment from “La Follette gang,” but preferred to get it from Black. 1614, 1615, 1616, 1618, 1882 Kittle, have seen him two or three times; saw him first in Sanderson’s office; meeting accidental; was about a month before I met him and Crownhart together; discussed story Regan had told me with him; do not know whether Sanderson had told it to him before I came in. 1618, 1621, 1622 McGee, Charlie, attorney in Wells Building, told me if I would talk to Henning maybe Henning would put me out to investigate Stephenson matter.?..... 1614,1616,1622 Milwaukee, have resided there since latter part of 1895 1602 Morris, Gov., had never seen him until he came into the court room; never made an application to him for retainment through other parties. . 1618 Plankinton House, asked to stay out of, by house detective, Elmer Hyde; reasons for 1626, 1877, 1878 Prinz, James A., talked with him within the last two weeks near the Plank- inton House; did not remark to him that I did not believe Regan knew anything about the Stephenson matter; recollect I stated to him that I did not believe Regan had done what he was accused of v 1878, 1879 Records, if I am doing business with a person I take down everything so that I can show it to him; when I get through with a case do not keep any more track of it; destroy records then; have none of any of my cases for last 16 years *612 DIGEST INDEX, CLXI Page. Wood, Harry W., private detective, Milwaukee, Wis., testimony of — Continued. Regan, M. J.: Claimed all the time that Wagner was guilty of perjury. 1635 Conversation with, in presence of Souther, December 31, 1909, in Souther’s office, Merrill Building; said Shields had sent him a tele- f ram from Washington and been to see him with regard to keeping lamsey, Farrell, and Towne out of the legislature and that Shields made remark that he had come from Washington with carte blanche from Stephenson to draw any amount of money that was needed to keep these three men out; said Shields made him proposition to go to Madison; said when Shields sent him another telegram, saying he was coming to see him, he left town 1604, 1605, 1606, 1607, 1610, 1634, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1639, 1879 Expressed himself as believing money had changed hands 1636 Had been a prosecuting witness against Wagner; he thought that Wagner had lied in regard to him; his attitude toward Wagner was that if Wagner would tell the truth in regard to him, he would do anything he could to help Wagner out 1609, 1635, 1636 I deny the statement he made on the stand about what he said when he was sitting down here with me on the rail; what he did say when I told him I had repeated his statement was: “I am going to deny every part of it from A to Z, for the La Follette gang are a crooked bunch and I am not going to give them one word that is going to help them.” I said: “What am I going to do when they ask me these a uestions — they have my statement? ” He said : “ Do as the rest of lem have done on the stand — say you don’t remember ” 1881, 1882 Repeated for third time conversation that occurred in presence of Souther, at an accidental meeting at corner of Second Street and Grand Avenue, Milwaukee; no one else present 1627,1628 Saw him at his residence, 1011 State Street, seven or eight weeks ago; stopped to talk to him to see if there was anything new or anything of that kind that he would say in relation to the Stephenson matter; he did not repeat the conversation in Souther’s office 1632, 1633 Second conversation with, in Plankinton Hotel; met him there acciden- tally; same thing said as at Souther’s office, as I can remember; did not make a note of date 1607, 1608, 1626, 1627 Talked with him one day last week; we just spoke about him being subpoenaed as a witness 1610 Went to his house, on Cass Street, and he and I looked over his papers to find telegrams that he had received from Shields; did not find them 1608, 1609, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 Sanderson, attorney in John C. Kleist’s office, made remark to me that he thought Stephenson matter ought to be investigated; told him I was ready to go to work; that was about 10 months ago; we were alone in his office; he did not retain me 1613, 1614 Sanderson, first narrated conversation with Regan in presence of Souther to him about a year after the conversation 1620 Souther, Frank, street contractor, Milwaukee, had talked with him in regard to Wagner being sent to State prison, and he mentioned to me there might be a chance of finding out something that might help Wagner; told me he was going to see Regan in his office that evening and that I should come up; kind of sympathized with Wagner 1603, 1604, 1611 Souther, have talked with him two or three times about Regan’s story of Shields; asked him, about 10 days ago, if he remembered the conversa- tion, and he said he did 1611 Stephenson controversy, have made an effort to be retained in connection with, three different times _ # 1612 Stephenson controversy, offered my services to both sides; did not succeed in getting employment from either of them 1620 Wagner, I was trying to assist in finding something that might help him in some way; was not exactly a friend of his; I knew him; my sole interest was to get some information from Regan that might help him 1609, 1635 Wagner, was up at Waupum and had a conference with 1636 CLXII DIGEST INDEX. Page. Wyseman, Arthur 7 ., practicing lawyer, Manitowoc, Wis., affidavit of 2019 Age, 30 years 2019 Campaign work in city and county of Manitowoc, during primary contest, at request of campaign managers; talk with, he would look after distribu- tion of literature and circulation of nomination papers and correspond and talk with fr'ends in interest of the Senator 2020 Expense incurred in circulating literature and correspondence and in travel- ing and for services; paid $135.88 on bill rendered, which was itemized and which affiant has not seen since 2020 Manitowoc, resided in, past 30 years 2019 Money not disbursed for the purpose of corruptly or unlawfully influencing or bribing any person 2020 Stephenson, supporter of at time, consented to do work in campaign 2020 Z. Zimmerman, Fred R., member of the Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, testi- mony of 1504, 1516 Absentees, do not remember all 1524, 1525 Absentees, number of, to affect the result of election; question discussed . 1517-1520 Absentees, probably some of them were paired 1530, 1531 Buslett, was paired with Senator Brown on March 3; if his vote had been counted the result would have been 63 for Stephenson to 62 against 1527, 1528, 1529, 1530 Domachowski, heard him make statement with reference to an offer made in connection with voting for United States Senator on March 4, after the election of Senator Stephenson 1504 Domaschowski, talked with him about the absence of three Democrats; asked him what he supposed had become of these three fellows; he said, “ Well, when you can buy a man to do a thing, he will do almost any- thing.” He said, further, he was offered $1,500 to stay away from the session; never said who made the offer 1504, 1505, 1545, 1546 Domachowski, told me he had been offered $1,500; understood that to be a corrupt offer for the purchase of his vote ; did not ask him who made the offer; am not prepared to swear that I did ask him; am not in a position to say that I did or that I did not; do not remember anybody near when conversation took place 1540-1544, 1545, 1546 Domachowski, was interviewed by reporters as to statement of offer of $1,500 to; probably published on the 4th or 5th of March; Milwaukee and Madison papers were interested 1544, 1545 Farrell, John, knew he was absent on March 4; left the chamber during the roll call 1506, 1509, 1534 Farrell, the time between the time that the protest was being read and the time that the balloting was going on could not have been more than two or three minutes. I do not want to appear as trying to hedge on my testi- mony; if I had to say to-day which statement is absolutely correct I would say that the statement made two or three years ago was correct in point of minutes than my statement to-day 1537, 1538 Farrell, think he left while the protest was being read 1537 Fenelon, Dick White said he was responsible for pair of, with Ramsey 1506, 1507 Fenelon, pair of, with Ramsey did not affect result of the election of Senator Stephenson 1517-1522 Hoyt, Dr., heard Leroy talking to, asking him to get up and change his vote 1522 Leroy, Eddie, heard him talking to Dr. Hoyt the day when it would take one vote to elect Stephenson. I remember his saying to him “Get up here and change your vote and we will stand by you ” 1522 Leroy, think he was very anxious to see Stephenson elected right away; there was something suggestive in the remark that he would stick by him; just how much that might carry with it I do not know 1531 Leuch, believe Davies made offer to, to do certain things; I would rather take Mr. Leuch’s word that he made it than Mr. Davies’s word that he did not 1523 Leuch, told me that one of the Stephenson’s detectives had urged him to stay in the joint assembly in order to help build up a quorum, and that for doing that he was to have any thing that he wanted; told me this on the 1st or 2d of March 1505, 1506 DIGEST INDEX. CLXIII Page. Zimmerman, Fred R,., member of the Legislature of Wisconsin in 1909, testi- mony of— Continued. Lyons, ex-senator, I remember a statement alleged to have been made by, when he said that he had been given $100 “to be good;” never heard him make the statement; Haight told me about this statement 1505, 1506 Never heard of any other offers to members to do or refrain from doing any- thing that would effect the election of Senator Stephenson 1505 Pairs, general subject of, discussed 1517-1522, 1527 Ramsey, Dick White said he was responsible for the pair between Ramsey and Fenelon 1506,1507 Ramsey, pair of, with Fenelon, did not affect result of the election of Sena- tor Stephenson 1517-1522 Ramsey, Thomas, knew he was absent on March 4 1506 Ramsey, went out just as soon as the senate got into the assembly chamber, or within a minute or two 1525, 1536 Rules, do not remember joint convention adopted any 1526 Steering committee, was chairman; tried to keep track of where the men were; steered them either out or in, as it might be necessary, to prevent the election of the Senator 1532 Think it would be an offense to offer to pay a man for remaining at his post of duty and performing it, when he was told that he incurred no obliga- tion to vote for any particular person 1523, 1524 Think one vote would have effected an election on January 27 1522, 1523 Towers, subject of his vote discussed 1519 Towne, I went out to try to find where he was while the vote was pro- ceeding 1509 Towne, saw him and Wayland walking together in the assembly chamber March 4; Wayland had his arm very tenderly around him; other details as to actions of Towne, Farrell, and Ramsey on March 4 1506, 1507, 1535, 1536, 1538, 1540 Towne, Silas, knew he was absent on March 4 1506 Voted against Senator Stephenson and my purpose was to determine whether he could be sent to Washington by the State of Wisconsin and when he got there represent the State with any honor, either to himself or to Badger State 1531, 1532 Voted for Henry Allan Cooper on first day we balloted; on final ballot voted for ex-Mayor Sherburn Becker, of Milwaukee 1504, 1522 Was delegated to watch as many members as I could on the day of election . 1510 Wayland, saw him and Towne walking together in the assembly chamber March 4; had his arm very tenderly" around Mr. Towne 1506, 1538, 1540 White, never knew him until I got to Madison; mistook him for Mr. Knell last Friday in this room because I had the two confused 1533, 1534 White, told me he had suggested the pair between Ramey and Fenelon. . . 1506, 1507, 1516, 1517 o C ' m fe;. '.-V >■> • v ;