Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. EDMONDS. The only means I have of knowing is thisThe 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. Is 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; R. E. Orton, $300; Max Sells, $25. The CHAIRMAN. Did you mention the other two?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes, sir; U. C. Keller and R. E. Orton.

The CHAIRMAN. You know about those?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes. James Smith, $100. R. 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 correct; 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 manager 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. Bever.

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. R. Ames, $50; C. O. Larson, $50. The CHAIRMAN. That is the item that we have considered in connection with an earlier item?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes, sir. I do not remember the particular item of $200 to Rasmussen 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?

.

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 supposition, 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 anything 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 proceeding along, and we will reach exactly the same result, if Mr. Edmonds if he can do it conveniently-will simply bring in a memorandum

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 concerning 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.)

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 yesterday 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 testified 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.

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. H. 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 yesterday.

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?

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 candidate 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 right fully expended after it is challenged in an official way. Prior to the challenge there is a presumption that the expenditure was proper. It being challenged officially, that presumption awaits the determination 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 circumstances 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 regard, 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 circumstance: but I had not supposed that the mere establishing of the expenditure of money of itself gave rise to a change in the presumption, or placed the burden upon the party making the expenditure. 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 circumstances, 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

« PreviousContinue »