Newspaper Page Text
VOL. 111. OVERTAKES THE BRIBE GIVER. REPORT ROUSE SUBCOMMITTEE, Which Literally Flays Bill Washburn Alive. SOME OF THE CORRUPTION Which the Committee Elucidate in Re viewing the Testimony. BR-BERY TRACED DIRECTLY To the OHiee and Person of Mr. Wash burn. DETAIL OF THE PURCHASES Shim ing the Corrupt Use of Money in 304 Cases. SCATHING REVIEW OP EVIDENCE Which Fastens the Corruption on the Waslilnirii Titniiin. THE LNTIMIDITION PRACTICED Which Secured the Voles of the Minne apolis Workinjinen. THOSE NUMBERED BALLOTS) Which Were Marked in Defiance of Law Thrown Out. i A RESUMt: OF THE RETURNS ! 1 Which (Jives Donnelly a Majority I < of 2.'] O. ' A VERY PRETTY PEN PICTURE Of W.'ishltiiruisin in the Third Minnesota I District. THE CONCLUDING RESOLUTIONS 1 Declare that Washhurn is Not and that J Donnelly is Entitled to the Seat. 1 c 1 A FULL COPY OF THE REPORT ' Presented to the State of Minnesota by j the "Globe." 1 NOW COME TO THE PROM Ami Sapport the Damnable Corruption of Hill Waslilinrn, if Yon Dare. ! Special Felegrain to the Globe. ] Washington, March 18. — The House com niitttecn elcttiocnhavo made some progress Lut did not reach a voto to-day in the Dcnnelly-Washbum case as v.uh expected. Tbo minority report presented by Kiefer has not yet yet been printe?, and Waahburn's friends made that an excuso for delay. Tho House finally ordered it printed and paid for ont of the contingent fund, co that tho convictod corruption^ cannot complain of unfair treatment. Tho report of tho majority of tho sub committees composed of Manning of Mis nippi, Armtield cf North Carolina and Belt/. hoover of Pennsylvania, was prosent ed ti> th'< full couuuitlco nud mado pnblic today. His a masterly revie>w of the cose and Ims mado a sensation here. It shows in swell a clear and forcible manner tho cor ruption resorted lo by Washbarn to socuro his Hint that it removes the last vestige of hopo for his retaining it. Tho evidence i 3 so strong that it fairly overwhelms him. Tho fall committee will positively voto on the report of Iho sub-committee on Tuesday and there in no doubt of its adoption. Neither is there any doubt of the result in tho House. It is now only a question of a very short lime when Mr. Donnelly will take his seat. Ho wrtfl culle-d on by numerous friend..-, Liiis afternoon aad ovening, and congratulated over his signal victory. Washbarn is terribly crest fallen and his countenance shows that ho feels the disgrace which has s> jtistly overtaken him. Tho report concludes with two resolutions, tho first . declaring that Washbarn i* not entitled to his seat, and the second declaring that the seat rightfully belongs to Donnelly. Though the report is long I forward it to the Glove entire, and your readers will find it a docuuu-nt which is vory intorosting rcadiug. THE REPORT. The Committee of Elections, to Whom was K.r. ■. r.,1 the Contested Election Case of Ignatius Donnelly Against William D. Yt'nsiilmrn, From the Third Congrestlonal District of Minnesota, Having Had the Same Under Advisement, lies Leave to Keport: Your committee have carefully examined the qaestion3 of law and fact involved in the case. UKIIIERY. KERENS AND EItOWEB. The first question which they considered was the question of bribery. They find that bribery was committed on \ behalf of the sitting member, Mr. Wash bum, by his friends, by members of hi g district committee, nr.d by personal, politi cal, and business agents; that this bribery was not confined to any portion of the dis trict, or to any one town or county, but that it extended throughout a region of country nearly four hundred miles long and one hun dred miles wide; and they further find that in many cases the briberyhas been tracod home directly to Mr. Washburn himself. The committee give herewith an abstract of tho testimony in somo of those cases. Charles Kerens, a Democrat, the postmaster of tho village of North Prairie, Morrison county, [situated about one hundred miles from Minneapolis j, testifies, (p. ."•no. printed testimony, ] that prior to the election of Nov. f>, 1878, he wrote and mailed a letter direct ly TO THE SITTING MEMBED* WaSHBUBN, in which he said he would give his support at the election to him, Washburn, for $.">(). This letter evidently reached the sitting member, for Berens testifies that he received a letter in reply to it from Keith, the postmaster at Minneapolis, a political friend of the sitting member, in which Keith said, "he was glad that Berens would work that way"; he, Keith, further stated that he would give Berens' let ter to J. V. Brower, one of the Kepublican United States land ollicers at St. Cloud, and that Brower would attend to the matter. J. V. Brower tostifies, (p. 246), "Charles Ber ens wrote a letter to Minneapolis demand ing $ ">O, for which he wa3 to support Gen eral Washburn, (the sitting member); the letter was sent to me by some one in connection with tho campaign; I can't 6ay whether by the committee, or by General Washburn, or by some one for them." Brower admits the re ceipt of $r>o from Washburn or his commit, tee, and may have got more. Berens [p. 300J and Brower [p. 2.~>GJ both agree that Brower visited North Prairie, Morrison county, and called on Berens ; Berens says : "Brower said I should work for Wasliburu and ho would see mo all right." Ho says Brower did not pay him any money bocanse he, Brower, did not trust him— he thought ho was supporting Donnelly. Brower testifies : "I advised General Washburn, | the sitting member ] or some one for him, after I had been advised that no arrangements of that character could be entered into," [that is, the purchase of Berens' support for §50] "or words to that effect, that he should not enter into sucli arrangementy with Charles Berens, or anyone else." Here it is cioarly established that there was a negotiation between a Democratic voter and Mr. Washburn, the sitting mem ber, the one to sell his voto | for his vote is implied in his "snpportj for $">(), and tho other to buy it. Tho letter is answered for Washburn by Keith, his friend; the propo sition is accepted with thanks, and the letter is delivered to a federal official who f;oes with tho letter and with Washburn's money, or tho money of Waehbnrn's com mitteo, in his pocket, to sco tho party and consummate the transaction. It is of no moment that Berens finally declined to re ceive the money. The offense of bribery was complete when one party offered to sell his vote and tho other agreed to buy it. | Sco Russell on Crimes, vol. 1, p. 159; Hardings vs. Stokes, 1 M. & W., 238.] Brower re ports to Washburn, or somo one for him, that tho "arrangement" could not bo en tered into. There is no denial of this testimony and no attempt to impeach Berens or Brower. If Washburn had not been ready to use money to corrupt the voters of his district he would have resented tho proposition made to him by Berens as an insult; on the contrary, ho appears to have lieen as ready to buy Be rens'^vote as Berens was to sell it. That Brower was Washbnrn's npent clearly ap pears: and when Brower told Berens that he should work for Washbnrn and ho (Brower) would "see him all right," it was in effect the samo as if Washbnrn himself had spoken tboso words. In short, as Keith and Brower simply acted as agents for Washburn, the transaction may bo thus briefly stated: 1. Berens tolls Washburn ho will sell him his vote for $50; '_'. Washbnrn thanks him and ttJla him to go ahead and it will bo all right. VOTE OF KITTSON COUNTY. Thero is in tho third Congressional dis trict of Minnesota an unorganized county named Kittson, situated in tho northwestern corner of the State, and adjoining the line of the British possessions; it is more than 400 miles from Minneapolis. In the fall of 1878 this county was a wilderness; there woro probably, as appears from the testimo ny, not ten actual settlers in tin entire coun ty, (see pp. 125-14 1). Between tho Bth and the 10th October, 1878, (p. 126), two inon, n<»med Arthur J. White and B. P. Webster, entered into a contract with the St. Paul «t Pacific railroad company, which was then constructing a railroad through said counts , to get cord-wood for the use of the railroad company. Between the dates named thoy collected together some eighty or ninety wood choppers in the city of Minneapolis, and proceeded to Kittson county to cnt this cord-wood. The men so hired were princi pally harvest hinds and tramps who had not been m tho State long enough to vote; they were in Kittsou county for a temporary pur pose, and were therefore not entitled under tho laws of Minnesota^ [sco Rev. StaUAlinn., sec. 55, p. 66, | the county was unorganized and the election precincts wero established in the county ten days before tho election, by tho governoc, without authority of law, and were therefore*legally not election pre cincts; thero wero no registration lists at the polling places: tho voting took placo in rnil road depots or in railroad cars: thero wero no proper ballot-boxes, [cigar boxes and candle boxes without looks and keys, aq re quired by law, being used as ballot-boxes j; the judges were not sworn, and, in short, al most all the requirements of the laws of the State for the holding of elections wero ig nored. At ono of these precincts, to-wit, Tama rack River, these eighty or ninety wood choppers, hired by Webster and White, voted. There were only four actual settlers, (p. l-'5,) in the precinct; and these alone were presumably entitled to vote. The vote cast was 109 for Washbnrn and 1 for Don nelly. The testimony of George C. Morton (p. 12;">), John Mulvoy (p. 120), Arthur J. White (p. 806), and E. P. Webster (p. 297) shows that these eighty or ninety wood choppers were urged and requested by Web ster and White, tho wood-contractors, to voto for Washburn; they were told that if they voted for Washburn they would be paid, (p. 125,) from $1.65 to $2.20 each for their votes: they did vote and they voted for- Washburn, and they were so paid; and they refuted to rote at all unless they were paid, (p. 297). The total sum paid by Webster and White to these men for their votes was $100 or $170, (p. 307). It further appears, by the admission of Webster, that the con tractors expected to be repaid this money (p. 297) so paid out for these votes. It also appears (see p. 121) that in addi tion to tne eighty or ninety wood-choppers so bribed to vote for Washbnrn, the con tractors Webster and White gave two trap pers their board for a week, on condition that they vote for Washburn ; and they did so vote. George C. Morton testifies (p. 126) that White told him in the presenoe of Webster that they, Webster and White, were to get $200 for their services at the election, in behalf of Washburn. Tho money paid out by them for votes was repaid to White, one of the firm, (see p. 127) by Major Hale, of Minneapolis, the business manager of the contestee, Washbum, eight days after* the election, by a check for $182 ; and the check was cashed for White by one George B. Webster, the paymaster of the Minne apolis & St. Louis Railroad company, of which the contestes, Washburn, was and i 3 president. White admits (p. 307) that he was repaid the sum of 31G8 or $172, being the money so paid for these 80 or 90 votes, by said George B, Webster, paymaster of Daily r^^&^ oontestee's railroad company. There was no connection between tho Saint Paul & l'acilio railroad, for which the wood was out, and the Minneapolis & St. Louis railroad, of which oontestee is president ; the one runs from Saint Paul northwestwardly to British America or Manitoba ; tho other runs from Minneapolis southwardly towards Saint Louis ; and tho plaoe where the wood was cut was between 400 and 500 miles distant from Minneapolis. Hore, then, is a caso of bribery by tho wholesale, and it clearly appears that the money that was paid for the bribed votes was repaid ta Wttxhbu jvt's ojlice by his busi ness manager, by a check which is cashed by the paymaster of his railroad company. shagben's swau. Emil Shagren. a Swede, a Greonbaoker, a laboring man, resided at the date of the elec tion in question at Minneapolis, Minn, (page 15). He was an active supporter of the con testant, Donnelly, and had been a delegate to tho-Greenbaok Congressional convention. About the lf>th October, 1878, a friend of Waahburn, named William Chase, urged him to go to Washburn's office to see Major Hale, his business manager, (the same per son who paid for 80 or 90 bribed votes at Tamarack river), because Major Halo would "convince" him that he should vote for Washburn. Shagren declined to go. The invitation was several times repeated. At length Sbagren went to Washburn's office. Ho was met by Major Hale, who was cvi dently prepared l>y Chase for the interview. Hale commenced by asking him if he want ed greenbacks. He, Hale, then referred to the fact that SLagren had been a delegate to the Greenback convention and was a sap porter of contestant, Donnelly. Hale told him that he would sea that he, Shagren, voted for Washburn. This ended the first interview with Hale. Soon after Shagren got oat of work. Chase again urged him to go to see Halo and he, Hale, would give him a "job;" and he gave him a sealed letter to Hale. On the 19th of October Shagren went to WasJiburn'ti office again. He gave the letter to Hale; Hale read it and went into another room and conferred in whis pers, which tho witness overheard, with C. C. Washburn, bbotheb or the sitting member and ex-governor of Wisconsin. Hale then came out of this room with a $5 bank note folded between his fingers; sat down besido Sbagren, put his hand on his lap, and said :- "EmiJ, 1 will tell yon what I want of you; I want you to vote for W. D. Washburn, (the sit ting member,) and use your influence and work among your friends for the election of Governor Washburn, (the sitting member,) and I will pay you $2 a day from now till the close of the election"; and "ho figured it up and said it would bo $30, besides my expenses and money to spend among the boys." "He told me to bring my bill there to Mr. Washburn's office the day after election and I would get my pay." Shagren made no answer. Then Hale took the $5 bank note, which he had brought out of tho room where he conferred with the brother of the silting member, and delivered it to Shagren, saying : "Emil, here is fjji s; go and use this among tho toys, and drop in occasionally and I will give you more." It is true that Shagren voted, worked and mado speeches for Donnelly sub sequent to this interview; and in one of these speeches and before the election, ho stated publicly the particulars of this attempt to corrupt him and secure his vote; but tho crime of bribery was complete when Wash burn, in his own office, through his business manager, and in the presonce of his brother, paid Shagren $5 and promised him $.'!('. more; and Shagron accepted the $5. It is of no moment whether Shagren intended to vote for Waahbnrn or not, or whether he did or did not bo vote.^^^^^^Hl^^H^^H COBEUPTING THE SAINTS. We turn now to some briberies committed in St. Paul; and hore, again, the money paid is traced back to Minneapolis, and to the sitting member. John Flaherty, (p. 2.">), testifies: Is a saloon keeper in St. Paul; a Democrat. He went to Minneapolis two weeks before the elec tion; went to the Republican headquarters; saw C. W. Johnson, secretary of the Repub lican Central Congressional Committee, and the same party who acted as agent for Wash burn in the bribing of Cloutier. Johnson said that Washburn most be elected, and asked witness if ho ttonght ho could get many votes in Saint Piiul, and witness said he thought ho could. Johnson told him thut one It. Barden "was their agent at Saint Paul," and promised to write Barden about Flaherty. Tho day boforo election, witness called on Barden and Barden paid him $10. Witness pretends that he voted for Don nolly, but admits that he worked part of the time for Washburn. The proof in this case Eecms to your cum mitteo to bo very conclusive; the party bribed was an active opponent of Washburn and warm supporter of Donnelly, and theso facts woro known to Washburn's business mana ger. He belonged to a different political party from the sitting member. The bribery takes place in Washburn's office and in the presence of his brother. The witness, Sha gren, was coaxed thero uuder the promise of a job, and advantage taken of the fact that he was out of work and poor. A distinct and deliberate proposition is made to pay him a given sum for his vote and support, and part of the money is paid to him. CLOUTIEB SEEN BY JOHNSON. Bernard Cloutier, (see p. 211,) resided in Minneapolis at tho time of the election, and sold farm machinery. He was, and had al ways been, a Democrat, and generally took an active part in politics. About a week or ten ila\.-i before the election he met John Baxter, n friend of tho pitting member. Cloutier told him, in answer to a question by Baxter, that he, Cloutier, did not intend to take any part in tho election. He says, "I told him that I hod made pp ray mind to take no part in the ek€jion, at J hud hereto fore been promised a good deal and never got anything for ft." Thereupon Baxter re quested witness to beo Charles W. Johnson, (secretary of tho Republican central commit tee of tho third Congressional district). Two or three days thereafter Baxter met Clontier again and asked him if he had seen John son. Clputier said no. Baxter said that was queer as Johnson had promised he would see Clontier. Baxter then took Clou tier to the ojil-e of the silling member, Washburn, and they told him there- that Johnson had just ."no out An hour after wards Cloutier was in Christian & Dean's office, when a gentlc-ruan cama in and told him»that "General Washburn, [the tittikg member,] /canted to sec me, \Cloutier,] at his [Wcu&burn'si] ffffice~ n Cloutier went to Washburn's office, and there met Charles W. Johnson and Dr. Keith, (the postmaster of Minneapolis, and the same party who thanked Charles Borons for his offer to sell bis support to Washburn for !?50). Johnson wanted Cloutier to go out and electioneer for Washburn. Cloutier said he would do so if he was paid for his time and expenses. Thereupon Johnson told him to start out The next day Johnson met Cloutier at the postoffico and'paid him thirty dollars. The following Wednesday Cloutier met Johnson again at WaaJtburtis office. "I told him I wanted some more money. He asked me how much I wanted.and I told him I wanted twenty dollars. He, [Mr. Johnson,] went into tl\£ next room and commenced talking xrith Mr. Washburn, [the sitting member]. He came back and handed me twenty dol lars." The witness, Clontier, states in his cross examination that he was in favor of Mr. Washburn in the first place; but it appears by his examination in chief that he had made up his mind to take no part in the elec tion, because he had been previously prom ised bribes which were not paid; and there upon he was. paid $50 to convert him from that position of neutrality and indifference into a warm supporter of the sitting mem ber. In other words, the payment of that sum of money secured to Mr. Washburn a support and influence which he would not have had without it. It is fair to presume that if tho vote and support of this merce nary politician could have been had without the payment of the money, the $50 would not have been paid. The contract of bribery was made by the ST. PAUL, FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 19, 1880. secretary of Washburn's committee in Wash barn's office, and part of the money was paid in Washbnrn's office in his presence, and nu der circumstances whioh oreate a strong pre sumption that it came from Washburn's pocket. That is to say, Gloutier asks John sob for $20; Johnson goes to Washburn and returns with tbo money and pays it to Glou tier. CONVINCING TKOOF. Horo, then, we have four cases of bribery, involving 9C bribed votes, brought home to the sitting member in the dourest and most conclusive manner. In the first case the ne gotiation is with Mr. Washburn himself ; in the nest, the money which bought the votes is repaid in his (Washburn's) office by his business manager; in the third, the bribe is offered and the money paid in Washburn's offioe by his business manager and in the presenoo of bis brother; and in the fourth case, the bribe is offered and the money paid by the secretary of Washburn's committee in Washburn's offioe, and part of the money paid in Washburn's office, and probably out of his pocket. It seems to your committee that this evidence is sufficient to convict Mr. Washburn of bribery in any court in the world. And yot in the face of such an array of testimony Mr. Washburn is dumb. He had forty days in which to rebut this testimony: le could have taken the stand himself, to es )lain or deny the Berens matter; he could lave procured tho testimony of his business nanager, Hale, to contradict Shagren and Morton; he could have called Johnson to iontradict Gloutier; he could have sworn his >rother, Ex-Governor G. C. Waahburn, to leny that he was present and conferred with iale, and also to rebut the natural presump ion that be, (C. C. Washburn), furnished the $5 with which Hale bribed Shagren. He did tothing of this kind; he denied nothing; he sailed not a single witness to rebut this or toy thing else in the mass of testimony shoi» ng bribery. Certainly no lawyer, and no lay nan familiar with human nature, will pre end that it was Mr. Donnelly's duty to place hese parties who held such close and inti uate relations with Mr. Washburn on the Fitness stand. He might just as well be isked to make Mr. Washburn his witness, n these matters he and his friends were like he Siamese twins, living, breathing, and uoving together. It will not do for Mr. Washburn to say that he did not wish to 'dignify tho case of the contestant" by call ng witnesses in rebuttal. His own character is a man of honor demanded some denial or Kplanation of this testimony, which traces he bribery of % voters right to his own of ice, to his business manager, to his brother, md to himself. Jf he did not consider his >wn reputation affected by such charges, he t least owed it to his constituents, and to he Congress of the United States, to prove hat ho had not gained a seat in the House >y unworthy, dishonorable, and criminal >ractices. Having failed to robnt this evidence by ounter testimony, the presumption of law >ecomes conclusive that he did not do so be cause he could not do so. Ho concedes hereby the truth of ovcry statement made >y contestant's witnesses; and hi 3 silence is n admission of his guilt. It is a well nn ierstood prinoiple of law that admissions of ;uilt "may ba implied from acquiescence of if the party, whether it bo acquiescence in he cond net or langu ago of another.' ' (Gren eaf on Evidence, vol. 1, see. 27 and sec. 97.) "If a material adverment, well plead d, is passed over by the adverse party, with >ui denial. -whether it be by confession, or by i )leoding some other matter, or by demurring j n law, it is thereby conclusively admitted." Ibid sec. 27.) And in this caso the failure o rebut or impeach the testimony of theso vitnesscs as to bribery, is a confession of he truth of their statements and of the guilt )f the party. Your committee have dwelt at length up a thpse four cases, because they reach home lirecty to the sitting member: bat they con itituto but a small part of tho testimony ikowing bribery. THE CROOKEDNES3 AT CBOOK3TON. At Crookston, in £blk county, the testi nony shows, (p. 223,) that but 86 legal votes wero cast, while 253 votes wero returr.od as »st. A large part of these illegal votes were last by parties at work upon the construc tion of a railroad; they were not inhabitants of tho town3hip; they had no right to vote Lhero. It is proved that :!"» or 10 of these woro paid for their votes by the railroad company; their tickets wore furnished them >y the agents of the company; they were Washburn tickets, and they all voted for Washburn. Tho men so paid to voto for Washburn were Democrats. They wero at work shoveling dirt around tha round-house. Besides those, two hand-cars, loaded with railroad men, also voted— about sixteen of them. William Johnson (see v. 190) v>aa one of a gang of 17 railroad laborers; they were at work 14 miles away from Crookston, and outside the election precinct: they had no right ti vote at Crookstoii, but 1G of them did so vote, and they were paid for their votes by the railroad company; the agents of tho company furnished them with their tick ets—Washburn tickets; and they voted for Washburn; they would not have voted at all if they had not been so paid, (p. lai). J>. M. Itobbins (p. 34), of St. Paul, had a railroad contract to help build the railroad through Kittson county; had 150 men work ing for him 15 miles from Two Kivers, Kitt son county; about 100 of these men went with him on a construction train to Two Kivers to vote; these men, except about 30 or 40, did vote; they were all paid for their votes tho same amount they would have earned if they had continued to work; the railroad company ran the train for their ac commodatiou; the wtiny-pltce ims a rml roadrcar, which stood on a side track; there was no house at Two Kivers Btation of any kind. As the voto at Two Kivora was 74 for Washburn and 1 for Donnelly, the bribed votors must have voted for Washburn. It fnrthor appears?, (p. ;JG,) that the railroad laborers workiDg for this witrfesa at* Tam arack Kiver voted there. Theso luado up tho balance of the 100 votes polled at that place. Dennis Keardon testifies (p. 144) that he. was one of a gang of more than 50 railroad hands that Voted between Middle liiver and Tamarack liiver; at Two Kivers the voting place w«fe a box-car, the ballot box was a candle-box; -there were no tickets taera bof Washburn tickets. Theso 50 railroad men lived in box-cars and were moved forward as the work progressed. They were all paid for voting by the railroad company) many of them were Democrats. There wert, uo houses in sight at that place, and- of course no ro dents of that locality. This testimony establishes the fact that at Crookston, Tamarack Kiver, and Two liivers, there were IGI vote 3 cast by railroad work men, who wero net residents of those locali ties, were there for a temporary purpose, and were not entitled to vote; and that they were all paid fcr their votes: that they voted for Washburn, and would not have voted if they had not been paid. FO2GETFUL BfIOWKB. We have seen that J. V. Brower, (p. 244), one of the United States land officers at Saint Cloud, Minn., was furnished with the letter of Charles Berens to Washbnrn, in which Berens offend to sell his vote to Washburn for $50. It further appears that Brower re ceived from Washburn, or his committee, money to visit Berens and to make a canvass of certain counties; how much does not ap pear, as Brower's memory is very oblivious of these details. Brower admits, (p. 245), that he left money at different places in Todd and Morrison counties during his canvass for "legitimate political purposes;" that he did this in the interest of Mr. Washbnrn; and he, Washburn, knew he was working for hire, (p. 252), he visited five towns in Morrison county. He considers it perfectly legitimate to hire Democrats tj> work with their teams in behalf of tho Republican party. He hired a number of mea in this way; he cannot re member how many; it may have been twenty or one hundred; neither can he recollect whether he spent $c oor $500 in this canvass of Morrison and Todd counties. This testi mony shows that an agent of the sitting member, acting at his request, with his knowledge and by bis authority, and fam (Etabe. '■ ■'•^•^•^'■^^^^^^ I^^P^^^^^^T ished with his money, or the money of this party, went into the counties of Tod J and Morrison, 120 and 150 miles from Minneap olis. UPON A MISSION OF OOBBUPTIONJ that he bonght up probably 100 voters and spent probably $500 in the work; and al though the events transpired bat a few weeks before his testimony was taken, he pretends that he does not remember the names of tne voters he bought, the amount he paid ont, or the number of persons bribed. The bribery was accomplished nnder the thin disguise of employing Democrats to work at the polls for the sitting member. He admits that one of the parties so bought was George Geissel, of North Prairie; he paid him a snm of money— may have been $5 or $20— for the use of a team (p. 24G). He paid Thomas Kitowski a sum of money, probably $25 or 960, to peddle tickets for Washburn at the polls, and for cigars to be furnished the vot ers, (pp. 245, 253). Kitowski was a Demo crat. Having established the close relations of Brower with the sitting member, and his au thorized agency for him, let us follow him in his canvass : John Fleckenstein, (p. 291), of liich Prai rie, Morrison county, a farmer; his "politics aia't much"; Brower called to see him; he told Brower he had decided to take no part in the election. 'He subsequently received, he thinks, from Brower, $10 with a lot of Democratic tickets with the sitting mem ber's name on them. He kept part of the money; he bought crackers and beer with part and paid $5 to Poter Virnig. The wit ness pretends that he voted for Donnelly, but the tone of his testimony renders this doubtful. Brower then went to see Peter Yirnig, (p. 290) another farmer of Rich Prairie, a Democrat. John Fleckenstein was with him. Fieckenstein paid him, Virnig, $5, "for his team and day's work" at the election. With the $5 was a lot of Democratic tiokets with Washburn's namo on them. Virnig also nretends that he voted the straight Demo cratic tioket. Brower also called to see Henry Arm itrong, (p. 303) of Two Rivers, Morrison county, a farmer and a Democrat. He testi fies that Brower paid him $20 to work at the polls for Washburn. He did work for Waahburn, distributed his tickets, and the presumption of law is that he voted for him. Thomas Kitowski was subpoenaed to tes ,ify, but refused to appear. Charles Berens testifies, however, (p. 300) that Kitowski told lim that Brower had paid him $50. ' Brower admitted he had paid him some money, it may have been $25 or $30. These briberies, having been committed by an authorized agent of the sitting mem ber, were, in effect, committed by the sitting member himself ; and the agent, Brower, says that he will not swear that he did not bribe one hundred persons in the same way during his canvass of Todd and Morrison counties, and spend $500 in doing so. Milo Porter, (p. 292), mail carrier, of Lit tle Falla, Todd connty, was a supporter of Donnelly. The Republican county treasurer of Todd county, Mr. Buss, offered him $50 if he vrnnld abandon Donnelly and support WasLburn. He, Buss, said he had himself received, or was about to receive, $500. Porter declined to take the $50, and pub lished a card at once, before the election, in tho Little.Falls Transcript, reciting the offer made him, and warning the people of the kind of moans that were being employed to elect Washbnrn. There was no attempt made to contradiot Porter's testimony. Bass wh not called to the witness stand. sabin's payment. . Ye pas.-, from the northern part of the dis trict to the southern part. Will'am M. Leyde, (p. 48,) lives at Cottage Grove, Washington county, engaged in threshing machine business — a Republican. He saw Washbarn in St. Paul shortly before the election. He went to Minneapolis, to tho room of the Republican Central commit tee, or a room odjdCuhg. He was there famished with a letter, (he does not remem ber whose namo was to the letter,) to a Mr. Sabin, of Still water, requesting Sabin to em ploy him to canvass the county, (p. 49). He, Leyde, understood that $GOO was raised in Stillwater for political purposes. Armed with this letter, ho went to Stillwater, and wa3 paid $"»0 by Sabin, and $15 by •another party, to canvass tins county, and thereupon he visited ncurly all the towns in the county, and hired men to work at the polls for Wash barn with their teams. He declines to say who ho hired, how many he hired, and how much he paid them. We supplement Lovde's testimony by the testimony of F. S. Meilicke, (p. 52), one of tho county commissioners of Washington county, to whom Loyde stated that he (Leyde) had talked with Washbarn, and Washbarn told him "lo go to Sabin, and that the money had been placod in Sabin's hands and he would make it all right with him;" and that they had raised $GOO in Stillwater, "beaidos tho amount that Afr. Waahbwn had placed there.''' lie (Loyde) said he had spent all the money so furnished him but $15 in hir ing men to work at the polls for Washburn; he gave the name of one man, Henry Mon roe, of Newport, to whom he had paid $5 to "work at the polls for Washbarn." All the $GOO raised at Stillwater, and the money contributed by Washbnrn, was to 1 c spent in behalf of Waahburn. Abraham Werrick, (p. 28,) of St. Paul, machinist, testifies that he also went to Min neapolis in October, before the election. He mado it his special business to see Wash burn, and saw and conversed with him; he asked Washburn "who was his friend down there," (in St. Paul). Washbarn told him "ho expeoted the committees would take some interest in him": "that Mr. Harden," (the same party mentioned by Flaherty,) "was on some committee," and he gave him a litter of introduction to Mr. Harden; the letter slated that Werrick was his, Wash bum's, friend. Witness presented Wash burn's letter to Harden; forgets what con versation took place; bat the committee, (presumably the committee of which Barden was a member,) asked him to hire two men . to work at the polls. He received $S0 — $10 far himself and $20 to hire two men. He hired Oluf Larson and Julias Bjornstad, and paid them $10 each. He worked for the whole Republican ticket. Prior to seeing Washburn and being paid this $30, he had not been supporting Washburn, (p. 31); the men Larson and Bjornstad were paid to work for the whole Republican ticket. Lar son, (p. 27), is called and admits the receipt of $10 from Werrick, to work for the straight Republican ticket; he did so work and voted fur Washbarn. Bjornstad, ip_. 21), testifies to same effect; he worked for the whole Republican ticket; received $lUCrom/ Werrick; he claims to have -voted for Don nelly. O. B. Wergedahl, (p. 20), of St Paul, tes tifies that Werric'i told him he wanted him to work for the Republican ticket; and said that he, Werrick, saw Washbarn twice in Minneapolis, and that Washbarn sent him, Werrick, to Barden, and told him that he, Washburn, "had given money to Barden to spend in St. Paul foi? his election. " He wanted Wergedahl to work for Washburn, and told him he had got money for Bjorn stad: witness refused to work and vote for Washbura. This testimony seems conclusive. Waqh burn had placed corruption funds in the hands of R. Barden, and h# and Johnson, secretary of his committee, refer parties to Barden for money; and Barden, or some member of the committee, pays oat money to these parties; they pay in tarn to others, and all of them work at the polls for Wash bum's election. Another St. Paul party, John Gairy (page 22), admits the receipt of $25 from a Re publican candidate for a local office (State Senate) to work at the polls and peddle Re publican tickets. He pretends to have voted for Donnelly. UQUIDATIXa A OHUBCH DEBT. Christian Heyer, a Democratic German farmer, of Af ton, Washington county, testi fies (p. 54, printed testimony,) that he was paid $10 by Warren Getchel, a Republican politician and particular friend cf the sit ting member. Getchel asked him if he could support Washbarn. Witness said he would. Getchel said be was "a particular friend of Washbarn," and "he wanted me to help all I could;]he asked me if there were any debts on our German church, and that after election he would hand me $10 to use for what purpose we thought best— l could do with it as I had a mind." He does not know what the consideration was for the $10. They have a large German population at Afton, about half Democrats. He worked and voted for Washbarn. Tolef G. Fladeland, of Sank Center, Steams county, merchant, testifies, (p. 221, printed testimony,) that he was paid $20 by Mr. Cooper, chairman of the ltepablican county committee of Steams county, to go out and peddle Democratic and liepablican tickets with Washbarn's name on them. He told Cooper that he wa<j not a politician; doesn't k«ow bat he expressed Limself in favor of Mr. Donnelly daring the campaign. At the time Cooper paid him the $20 he was neutral as between Donnelly and Washbnrn. He visited two or three towns; nsod his own team; was gone one day; expenses $1, profits, $19. DEMOCBATIO EDITOB BOUGHT. Tile testimony of Nathan Richardson, of Little Falls, Morrison county, (p. 285), lead ing Republican and politician by trade, shows that the editor of the Democratic paper at that place was bought op to support Washburn; that the sum paid was probably $125, (p. 28G); that it came from Minneap olis, from Loren Fletoher, ah active friend of the sitting member and a prominent lie publican, (p. 44); and that after the pay ment of that sum the said newspaper sap ported Washbarn and denounced Donnelly. The witness Riohardson, who conducted the sale of this Democrat and his newspaper, supported Washburn, made a canvass of the county in his behalf, spent $25. He admits the payment of $7 to William Witherall: he did not expeot to be repaid; thinks With erall voted for Washburn; he also paid $2 or $3 to a man named Sloan; money has not been repaid; thinks Sloan voted for Wash bnrn. It will be observed that in nearly every one of these cases of bribery committed throughout a region of country half as large as the State of New York, the money paid is traced back to the city of Minneapolis, the residence of the sitting member. From this point as a common center, the corruption radiated in all directions over the district; and when we oomo to Minneapolis all the testimony shows that it was a very hotbed of bribery. We give brief abstraots of tho cases proven: SUDDEN CONVEESION. It is shown, (p. 80,) that a Democrat named A. M. Sohaak, a Scandinavian, was publish ing a Scandinavian newspaper in Minneapolis during the campaign and supported DomuU ly for Congress up to tha night before tne election; that night he was announced to speak at a Scandinavian Democratic meeting at Minneapolis in favor of contestant, Don nelly. Instead of spsaking for Donnelly, he came oat strongly for Washbnrn, and the next day ho admitted to witness that he had been paid $150 for doing so. He had a new suit of clothes and a pocket fall of money. There was no attempt to contradict this wit ness; in fact, counsel for the contestee, in their cross-examination, seem to argue that it was perfectly right and legal to bribe Democrats to speak in favor of Republican candidates. It may be said that this testi mony as to Schaak is hearsay evidence. Tho declaration of a voter as to his qualification or disqualification to vote is always received in evidence; he is regarded as a party to tho proceedings. This is a well-settled and uni form practice, (see 27, N. Y. Rep., People vs. Pease; 3 MoCord's Rep., p. 230, foot-note; oontested election case, Vallandigham and Campbell, Cong. Globe, vol. 41, p. 2,317; and in the case of Milborne Port, 1, Douglas election oases, G7, 7G, 129, 150, &c, (see 3, McCord, 230), it was decided that the admis sions of a voter that he wa3 bribed are al ways receivable in evidence. They rest also on the broader ground that confessions of crime are receivable against the party "as the highest and most satisfactory proof;" [Russell on Crimes, vol. 2, p. 823). Here the admissions are confirmed by all the sur rounding circumstances: the sudden conver sion on tho eve of the election, the new clothes, money, <fee. William R. Metcalf (p. 182), a farmer ro siding in Crystal Lako township, near Min neapolis, testifies that he was paid $15 to work at the polls in Crystal Lako township for the Republican ticket. Corsor, ono of tho parlies who hired him to work at tho polls, was a Republican candidate for State senator, asked him to -support Washbnrn; he refused; subsequently he was engaged to work at the polls for the Republicans. Tho $15 was paid him by Charles W. Johnson, secretary of Washbarn's committee, the same party who bribed Shagren, Flaherty, etc. He went. to Johnson's office two days after the election; he simply presented his name and Johnson paid him the $15 without a word. He doolines to say who he voted for for Con gress; will not swear that he did not vote for Washburn. Johnson's repudiation of hale's hounds. of bale's hounds. It will be remembered that when Major Hale attempted to bribe Shagren, he told Shagren to come the day after eleotion to Washburn's office, and he would be paid. . We find, from Metcalf's testimony, that Johnson also had an arrangement to pay off his bribed voters the day after election; and in this connection we would refer to to the testimony of Ed. A. Stevens, (p. 105), whose office was in the same building with Johnson's office, who swears that as he passed Johnson's office, several men were standing in front of it, and a party said to Stevens, "You ought to hear Charley Johnson swear; there is a big crowd below after their pay, and Charley says, 'Ma jor Hale can pay bis own hounds. I have all I can do to pay those I hired myself." The testimony of Metcalf and Shagren shows what they were being paid for. APPEAIi FOB OOBBITPTION FUNDS. This same man, Johnson, issued, Septem ber 19, 1378, as secretary of the Republican Congressional Committee, an appeal (see p. 43), in the form of a circular, to Republi cans to contribute funds to the success of the Republican cause in the district The circular is in these words : Minneapolis, Sept 19. — "Sir: The Con gressional committee, chargod with laboring for the success of the Republican cause in this district, call with confidence upon you, as a Republican, for such a contribution in money as you may feel willing to make, hop ing it will not be less than $ — . "The committee deem it proper in thus speaking to Republicans, to remind them of the importance of the impending cimpaign. That t%i United States Senate is to be Dem 6crati«^Rter the 4th of March, 1879, is vfty nearly certain. In view of this, the election of a Democratic House of Represen tatives would precipitate upon the country dangerous burdens. Among these schemes is the intention to attempt the revolutionary expulsion of the President from his of lice, the payment of the rebel claims and war debt, the payment of the full value of all emancipated slaves, and the unlimited issue of irredeemable paper currency, in place of the present redeemable paper money, which was issued by authority of a Republican Congress, and by the same party has been sustained, thereby preserving the national honor and credit. "Please remit at once," etc. SHALL FBY BBIBES. Johnson admits, (p. 42), that copies of this circular was sent ont to about fifty par sons, and that money was received in reply, but be refuses to state who it was seat to, and be does not remember what amount wjs received in response to this appeal. Louis Kandson, of Minneapolis, testifies, (p. 161, printed testimony), that be was paid five dollars by bis employers, Barnard & Cope, active Republicans, to work for Wash born. He worked and voted fox him. Hia fellow-workman, Louis Paulson, did the same kind of work, and also received five dollars; he, Paulson, saw it paid. JohnC. Oleson, testifies, (p. 92), that Wm. Chase asked him to vote for Washburn. He paid him $2 to work at the polls for Washburn, and be did so work and vote. This' Wm. Chase was the same party who in dnoed Shagren to go to WflSbburn's offioe in Hoarch of "a job." Emil Shagraa testifies, (p. 10), tbat Ole Mahla admitted to him that he got-^/Uo vote for Washbnrn. Mahla denies thian part, (p. 117), bat admits that he did Wo ceivo $25 from some one for working at the polls. He declines to say whether he ped dled tiokets with Washbarn's name on them. He refuses to say who paid him the money. He pretends that ho voted for Donnelly. Shagren also testifies, (p. 1C), that Sevit Mahla told him he had been paid to vote for Washbnrn, bnt did not state tbo amount. Also that Daniel Getchell told him that he had received $20 for voting for Washbnrn. Getchell denies this, (p. 80), bat ha refuses to say what he did say to Shagren. He ad mits that he received money for his services at the election, bnt claims that it was not from Mr. Washburn, and that he voted for Donnelly. He refuses to tell who paid him. Dominiok M. Gaertin (p. 94) testifies that Karl Fintler told him that he had received a sack of Washburn flour for voting for Wash bam. Louis N. Gaynor, of Minneapolis, (p. 200), admits that he received money for his ser vices on election day, but declines to say jvho paid it to him; and he declines lo an swer whether he voted for Mr. Washburn or rorked for him; bat he admits he peddled tiokets with bis namo on them. Peter Engberg, of Minneapolis, (p. 207), admits that he received money for election purposes; that he voted for Washburn, that he worked for him, and that he was paid for his services on election day. John Smith, of Minneapolis, (p. 131), swears that Peter Qaady, a saloon keeper, told bim he had received $:>5 for voting his boarders for Mr. Washburn. Peter Quady (p. 201) admits that ho told Smith that he received $5 and was to receive $20 more ; that he induced Smith to vote and gave him a Washburn ticket : several of his boarders voted for Washburn ; bnt he pretends the money was not paid in tbo in terest of Washburn ; he voted for Wash burn. Winfield S. L S ach(p. 158) testifies that Quady offered him $10 if he would vote for Wanhburn. Leach refused the offer. Hon. Charles Hoag, a leading Democrat of Hennepin county, (sco p. 90) was requested by a Democratic worker for Wftshburn to state what sum of money, put into hia hands, would induce him to vote for Washburn. Hoag refused the bribe and voted for Don nelly. Tnomas G. Itees, of Minneapolis, (p. 140) testifies that Frederick Puhler told him that he was hired to canvass, "travel, and treat," for Washbnrn, and was paid $35 per week and $10 a day for money spent in treating ; and that there was a man similarly employed in each of the fifteen precincts of the city of Minneapolis. Thomas Halloran, hoW> keeper, Minne apolis, testifies (p. 119) tlSt he is a Demo crat ; that he was paid $5 by a Dr. Evans, with which "to treat the boys," and he agreed to work and vote for a ltepublican candidate named- by Dr. Evans ; it was not Mr. Washburn; and he claims that he, Halloran, voted for Donnelly. Tho following is a summary of the cases of bribery or attempted bribery referred to in tho foregoing testimony : WniißE MONEY WAS PAID. Cases where the money was paid the titling member, or his business manager or the clerk of his Congressional committee, or some frit nil and the parlies voted fi,f the silting member: At the wood camp at Tamarack river, 90 wood choppers and 2 trappers, total 92 Webster and White, the contrators 2 Bernard Cloutier 1 Hail road hands at work at round house, I Croukston, l'olk county 35 Railroad hands who came to Crookston on band cars J6 Railroad hands who voted at Orookston with Johnson 17 Railroad hands who voted at Two Rivers. . . 74 Balance of I). M. Bobbins' railroad hands who vote at Tamarack river 15 J. V. Brower and the men he bribed, to-wit: George Geissel, Thomas Eittowskiand Henry Armstrong 4 Wm. Al. Leyde 1 Henry Monroe 1 Abraham Werrick 1 Oluf Larson , 1 Christian Heyer 1 Toleff G. Fladeland . 1 William Witberall. .' 1 Sloan 1 A. M. Stiaack 1 Wm. U. Metcalf .-..-. 1 Louis Knudson ■ '. . . . 1 Louis Paulson 1 John 0. Oleson 1 Ole Mahler '.'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.!'.'.!'.'.'.'..'.' 1 Sevit Mahler 1 Karl Fin tier ' 1 Louis N. Gaynor 1 Peter Eagberg 1 Peter Qaady 1 Fred. l'uhlcr, and tho 14 canvassers similar- 1 ly engaged in the other 14 precincts of 1 Minneapolis 15 Mr. Buss, treasurer of Todd county 1 291 * , BUIDKS OFFERED. Case* where bribes were offered but not accepted; or, where if accepted, Ihejmrly bribed claims tliat he voted for Donnelly. •» Emil Shasren 1 John Fieckenstein 1 Peter Virnig 1 Charles Berens 1 Milo Porter 1 John Flaherty 1 O. B. Wergedahl 1 John Guiry 1 Julius Bjornstad 1 Daniel Gctchell 1 Winfield 8. Leach 1 Charles Hoag 1 Thomas Halloran.. 1 — 13 Total 304 STARTLING REVOLUTION. But this is not all. The testimony re veals the names of only six of ■ the parties who wore bribed by J. V. Brower, of Saint Cloud, in his canvass of Todd and Morrison counties, and to those six men he paid out only SjiHX), but he testifies that he may have similarly employed a hundred parties, and he docs not know whether he paid out $50 or $500. In the case of William M. Leyde, another of the agents sent out by Washburn, we have the name of only one of the men he hired to work at the polls, Henry Monroe, while it is in evidence that he canvassed nearly every town in the county and hired a number of men whoso names he refused to disclose. We find that at Crookaton there were 173 illegal votes, and the testimony shows that G8 of these were railroad hands who were all paid for their votes. The prob ability is very great that the larger part of the other 105 votes were cast by railroad hands similarly paid for their votes. In Minneapolis the whole atmosphere was olonded with bribery. The evidenoe show* that large sums of money, many thousands of dollars, had been spent for corrupt par poses. A startling revolution in the politi cal feelings of the voters was accomplished on the eve of the election, and all tho testi mony indicates that this was brought about by bribery and intimidation. There was no attempt on the part of 'he sitting member to account for this extraordinary revolution, or to answer the testimony showing briber;. A SECRET CBIME. It must not be forgotten that bribery is a secret crime; both the parties to it are equal ly interested in keeping it secret; and when delected both are ready to give ingenious ex planations of it. If they bavo acknowledg ed to third parties the receipt of the bribe thsy are ready to declare, when called to the witness stand, that they were in favor of the bribegiver before the money was offered; or that they voted for bis opponent; or that the money was paid by some one else, som6 nameless party, for same other purpose. Under these circumstances when it is Shawn that in an election over 300 cases of bribery and attempted bribery are proven, the presumption is not violent that for every ca% that was, by accident, and the indiscre tion of the partiea, brought to tho light, there were others that were never revealed. The rooords of the contested-election cases of Congress will be searched in vain for a parallel to this case. It shows that the peo ple of this Congressional district were de bauched to the last degree; the witnesses in many cases defend the practice of baying up *O. 79 voter* to forego their principles; the parties who received the bribes in many instances boasted to their neighbors of the money they had recoivod, and seemed to bo proud of the high price for which they hael sold them selves; and tho sitting member did not think it at all necessary to call witnesses to deny or explain away this overwhelming mass of cor ruption. Nothing could testify moro strong ly to tho degeneracy of the ago and tho depths to which popular suffrage has fallen than the revelations made in this extraordi- * nary case. THE LAW OF UUl i:):i.v. It is a clearly established priniyplo of law, both in England and the United States, that bribery committed by the sitting taember. or "by any agent of the sitting merebsr, with or without the knowledge or direction of his principal, renders the election void.*' [See Felton vs. Easthorpe, Kogere' Law and Practice of Elections, 221.] In England bribery is an offenso of bo hein ous a character, and so utterly subversive of th freedom of elections, tnat, when proved to havi been committed, though in one instance only. and though a majority of unbribed voters re main, the election will be absolutely void, (dishing' s Par. Law, p. 70, sec. 189; .SI. Jve.i, Douglass, 11, 389; Coventry, Peckwell, 1, 97; Maine on Elections, 345.) Freedom of election ia violated by external violence, by which the electors are constrained. or by bribery by which their will is coirnpted; and, in all cases, where the electors are pre vented in either of these ways from the free exercise of their rights, Vie election icill be void without reference to the number of volet affected t/iercby. (Cushing's Par. Law, p. 68, §181.) The same doctrine was affirmed by the Jouso of Representatives in the recent case of Platt vs. Goode, second Congressional dis trict, Virginia. [See Contested Elect., 1871 -'7O, page CSO.J The report, adopted by the House, de clares : These bribed votes Bhoald not be counted. The record famishes no method for their elim ination. Their acceptance can only be avoided by applying the rule of law, bo well known and of such general adoption that it need scarcely be repeated here, that whe*l illegal and fraudu lent votes have been proven, and the poll can not be purged with reasonable certainty, the whole vote mast be rejected. Bat yoar committee do not think it eec" es3ary to rest the decision of this case upon this principle of law, although they believe that the evidenoe shows conclusively not only that bribery was committed in a multi tude of instances, bat that a great number of these cases were traced home to the sit ting member. They are of the opinion that the evidence shows that the contestant had a majority of the legal votes cast and returned. INTIMIDATION. It appears that many of the voters who ca3t their votes in favor of the sitting mem ber were intimidated and coerced into doing so. The testimony of Albert Church [pp. 224, 227] shows that the railroad hands who voted for Washbarn, at Crookston, told him that they were compelled "to vote tho way their boss, the railroad company, told them to ;" * • • "they had to vote the ticket of their own boss." Thoy were led up in a body to the polls [p. 22G] by their foreman, Jacobns, and he gave them the tickets they wero to voto. Many of these men were Democrats, [p. 224] and would prob ably have voted tho Democratic ticket if they had b9en free from tho coer cion of tho railroad company. In Minneap olis this SYSTEM OF COERCION AND ISTIMIDATION was carried out systematically. The testi mony shows that the employers of labor in that city united to raise money to buy votes for Washburn [page 23] ; a circular was is sued by the chairman of the Republican county committee, urging busines3 men to lay aside their business and devote one day at the polls [page 106]; largo numbers of employers of labor, including many who usually took no part in such work, were at the polls working for Washbuin [p. 106]; the workmen were sent for and brought to the polls by their employers and ballots were there placed in their hands, folded, and voted by the employes without being opened [p. 108], tho employer or his foreman fo'low ing them to the polls to sco that they deposited them [p. 97]; many of the employes de clared that they believed they would lose their means of subsistence if thoy did not vote for Washbarn [p. 110]; tho employes of tho North Star Woolen mill WERE BttOUOHT TO THE POLLS IN SQUADS by the son of the proprietor, Philip Gibson; when a friead of contestant tried to givo these men ballots, Gibson jumped between them and tried to force the canvasser away, declaring that he had brought the men there himself, and that most of the workmen voted as their employers wanted them to [ p. 9Gj. The foreman of this mill told one of the workmen [p. 97], that an employe of tho mill had, at a previous election, voted in op position to his wishes, and that he would take the same man to the polls the next day, to wit, to the Congressional election in ques tion, and if he did not vote as he wanted him to he wonld discharge him. When witness es were called by contestant from among the employes of this mill to testify in this caso. the said foreman followed them to the no tary's office and remained there while they were testifying [p. 98]. "Tho workmen in the Minneapolis Harvester works who wero known to be Washbarn men were carried to the polls and returned; while those who could not be induced to vote for Washburn wore not allowed to go, unless by losing their day's work, and probably their situations, | p. !)*. | In one case, a witness, a workman in a 'fur niture shop, swears that he was suspended from work the day after election because ho had voted for Donnelly, and because it was reported to his employer that ho had ox pressed the belief that if Donnelly was elected the workmon would get better wajjos: ten days after election he was finally dis charged, [see pp. 101-2.] It appears that '•the vote cf the oity was very light. * * A largo number of workmen did not vote at all. Thoy were afraid of losing their jobs if thoy voted for Donnelly, and thoy would not vote for Washburn, [p. 113.]" NUMBEBED BALLOTS. In seven precincts of Minneapolis tho judges of election placed a number on the back of each ballot to correspond with the number of the voter on the poll-list. Let us consider the purpose of this numbering of the ballots: At the session of tn» legislature of Minns sota, in January and February, 1878, a special law had been enacted, providing thot in cities containing more than 12,000 inhab itants the ballots should be nnmbered. This law applied, and was intended to apply, only to the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, were the workingmen was very numerous, and where alone the required population ex isted. It was felt by many that the provis ion of law was oppressive and unconstitu tional, and at the spring election in Saint Paul, held immediately after the law was passed, a party offered to vote without bay ing his ballot numbered; he was refused, and be brought an action at once in the dis trict court of Ramsey county, in which Saint Paul is situated, to test the validity of the act. The court decided, fsee Brisbin vs. Cleary et al., printed test., p. 74], that the act was unconstitutional, inasmuch as the constitution of Minnesota, sec. G, Art. VII, provides that "all elections shall b j by bal lot;" that the ballot implies secrecy, and that this law requires every man "to vote, in effect, a ticket with his name indorsed on it;" and in case of a contest the ballots are to be made public. "This taw," says tho oourt, "furnishes the means of ascertaining exactly how every elector voted; that is its acknowl edged purpose." WEIGHT OF THE DECISION. This decision of the district court of Ram sey county was the unanimous decision of a Continue:! on Second Page,