Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I have just a question or two to ask of Mr. Edmonds, 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 Stephenson for use in the primary campaign for bribery or corrupt or unlawful 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 relation to these charges, and I should like to have the intent and purpose 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. Roy 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 previous examination?

Mr. EDMONDS. I believe so; yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Have you any recollection of any other payments that might be covered by the particular or general language paragraphs 7 and 8 other than those that you have definitely described 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 unlawful intent?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You were asked as to whether or not in the conversation you had with Senator Stephenson at the time when you received the $5,000 check any limit was placed upon your expenditures, 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 precincts, 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 instructed 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 suggestion 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 anything, 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 yourself 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?

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 interrupted.

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 È. 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?

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 McMahon 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 Stephenson 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us the conversation, as near as you can, the language used by Senator Stephenson in giving you such instructions.

Mr. SACKET. I can not remember the exact words of the conversation.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us the purport of it.

Mr. SACKET. The only part of the conversation that I do remember in exact language is that phrase "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 law 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 money 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.