Mr. EDMONDS. I think the bank in Mauston, but I am not certain. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Will you make efforts to refresh your recollection about that, and 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 business 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:

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 É. 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 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, suns 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 violation 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?

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 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 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 unlawfully?

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?

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 manager 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 particular 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 committee, 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 Stephenson's representative?

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I am not going to read the record to the chairman, 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. He 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?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes, sir. In answering that question in the affirmative, 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 consideration for some act to be done by said Keller for said Stephenson preliminary 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 primary election?

Mr. EDMONDS. For work done preliminary to the primary campaign.

The CHAIRMAN. The fifth specific charge is:

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. 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 was 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 purports to be C. M. Hambright's account of Stephenson campaign expenses. 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 July 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.

15235-VOL 1-11- -23