Mr. SACKET. I thought that I understood the application of that section; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What construction did you place upon it? Mr. SACKET. I read ahead in the law, in that section or some other, and presumed that it meant to give it corruptly, or for the purpose of bribing. The CHAIRMAN. This law recites that purpose, and recites the general giving. Mr. SACKET. It was not my understanding that that law prohibited the general giving of anything of value for the purpose of procuring votes, properly. The CHAIRMAN. You thought you were at liberty to give money or something of value for the purpose of procuring votes? Mr. LITTLEFIELD. He said properly. Mr. SACKET. I thought so, and do think so now. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Is there any objection, Mr. Chairman, to the witness having that section of the law before him, if the Chair desires to examine him further upon it? The CHAIRMAN. It is not necessary to have that before him. The CHAIRMAN. Counsel may, of course, at the proper time ask him about that. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I suppose the only important feature of that is as it bears on the acquaintance and knowledge of the witness himself. It is not what the law is or was. Senator POMERENE. He is presumed to know what the law is. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Yes; but then the question comes as to whether he did or did not intend to comply with it. The CHAIRMAN. Supplementing the suggestion of Senator Pomerene that the duty rests upon a man who assumes to distribute large sums of money in a campaign under this law, to know the law, I think that would probably go as far as the duty resting upon a judge. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite catch the analogy, but I have no doubt the Chair has in mind an accurate legal proposition. Senator POMERENE. We can not differ on the subject of the presumption to know the law. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I have an indistinct notion that I am somewhat familiar with it. Senator POMERENE. I am entirely sure you are. The CHAIRMAN. Speaking for myself, my construction was that the duty rested upon a man disbursing money for another in an election, at least during a campaign, to know the law just as much. as a judge or an executive officer. He becomes an executive officer under the law. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I should not hesitate to suggest that it is incumbent on every man connected with Senator Stephenson in his campaign not to commit a crime, or to do a corrupt or unlawful act. I think they are bound not to do it. The CHAIRMAN. They are bound to know the law. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Yes. While the law says they shall not commit a crime, shall not bribe, and shall not use money corruptly, I have no doubt at all but that they were under an obligation to see they did not do it knowingly. The CHAIRMAN. You were familiar with this section of the law at the time you paid out this money, were you? Mr. SACKET. I had read the section; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Had you at that time interpreted it as you have just now expressed your understanding? Mr. SACKET. I had; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what Mr. E. H. McMahon did with the $50 that you gave him? Did he render you an account? Mr. SACKET. He did; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Where is that account? Mr. SACKET. The account was left with the joint committee at Madison at the time of their investigation. The CHAIRMAN. Is it in this published volume of the testimony taken at that hearing? Mr. SACKET. I am not certain. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I am having Brother Black's office take the copy of the record they have and go through it and give me the list of all the accounts that were filed, and that appear in this record, by the so-called managers, local representatives, and just as soon as we get that I will have a duplicate of it made so the subcommittee may have it. I do not think there were many; I think there were some; but such as they are I will see that the subcommittee has a copy of the same. The CHAIRMAN. Did you know anything of an arrangement made between Mr. McMahon and a Mr. Dart for the expenditure of money on behalf of Senator Stephenson in this campaign? Mr. SACKET. I did not. The CHAIRMAN. He did not report that to you? Mr. SACKET. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I will call your attention to Mr. McMahon's testimony, which will refresh your mind perhaps. He was asked as to the interview he had with Mr. G. W. Dart. He says: Well, there had been nothing done in Marquette County, and correspondence had come into the office about Marquette County, and I was sent down there by Mr. Edmonds. I saw Mr. Dart. Do you know about the sending of Mr. McMahon on to see Mr. Dart by Mr. Edmonds? Mr. SACKET. I do not. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. From what page is the chairman reading? Q. Were you sent there to see anyone there in particular? A. Well, I was told Mr. Dart would be a good man to see because he had written some of the correspondence, Who was Mr. Dart? Mr. SACKET. I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Dart at all. I had no talk with him and remember him only from hearing you read the testimony. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything about the transaction. which Mr. McMahon had with Mr. Dart pursuant to your employment of him? Mr. SACKET. Nothing at all. The CHAIRMAN. Did he never report to you that he had made an arrangement with Mr. Dart? Mr. SACKET. Not to my recollection. The CHAIRMAN. Did he make any report to you at all? Mr. SACKET. About Mr. Dart? The CHAIRMAN. About this money that you had given him, and the manner in which he had used it? Mr. SACKET. He reported the expenditure of this $50 in the first item to me. The CHAIRMAN. That was not the only money you gave him, was it? Mr. SACKET. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That was given him July 6, was it? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. On July 13 you gave him $50 more; did you not? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And on July 21 you gave him $50 more? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And on July 30 you gave him $50 more? The CHAIRMAN. And on September 5 you gave him $300 more? The CHAIRMAN. Did he report to you how he had expended any of those sums of money? Mr. SACKET. The $50 items were all reported to me in detail. The $300 was for his salary. The CHAIRMAN. He reported to you in detail, then, what he had done with all of the $50 items, which amount in the aggregate to $200! Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN: Did he not tell you that he had arranged with Mr. Dart to assist him and cooperate with him in campaign work? Mr. SACKET. I have no recollection of his telling me anything of the kind. The CHAIRMAN. Would you remember it if he had reported such an arrangement? Mr. SACKET. I think I would. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Does not the record show that he communicated with Mr. Edmonds? The CHAIRMAN. I will bring the witness's attention to that now. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. If the chairman will excuse me just a moment; I got the impression The CHAIRMAN. I do not want any suggestion made to the witness. I am going to bring his attention to the item now in regard to this, and then I will yield to counsel. Mr. McMahon testifies as follows in answer to a question as to Mr. Dart being a good man, etc.: Yes; advising that something be done. I saw Mr. Dart and talked over things, spent the night with him, and figured on what would be necessary to put into Marquette County. As I remember it, it was $500-five hundred or six hundred dollars. Did he report that arrangement or conversation to you? The CHAIRMAN. Would you have any such recollection? The CHAIRMAN. Then, you say he did not report it to you? The CHAIRMAN. Then, you have no knowledge of any arrangement being made through your agent, Mr. McMahon, with Mr. Dart, for you? Mr. SACKET. I have not; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did it ever come to your knowledge that such an arrangement had been made? Mr. SACKET. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. George W. Dart was a deputy game warden. Does that assist you in recalling him, as to who he was? Mr. SACKET. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever see him or meet him? Mr. SACKET. I do not remember ever having seen him or talked to him. The CHAIRMAN. He received a check from Mr. Edmonds for $400, he testifies on page 4486 of the joint investigation. Do you know anything of that check? Mr. SACKET. I have no recollection of it whatever. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edmonds would know about that item, would he? Mr. SACKET. I should think so; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Any check for $400 drawn against the campaign fund then would be within the knowledge of either you or Mr. Edmonds, would it? Mr. SACKET. I think so; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Pass that item. You made the payment to J. C. Miller of $50 on August 20? Mr. SACKET. I did. The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose did you give him that money? Mr. SACKET. For the purpose of traveling through the State to ascertain the Stephenson sentiment in different localities and influencing it as much as possible. The CHAIRMAN. Influencing them? Mr. SACKET. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. In what way? Mr. SACKET. By talking to people, by argument. The CHAIRMAN. Who is J. C. Miller; do you know him now? Mr. SACKET. I do not know where he is now. I would know him if I were to see him; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You have an item here, "General expense of organizing," on July 6. Have you the items of that charge? Mr. SACKET. There is nothing here to make me have any recollection of that item at all. The CHAIRMAN. It is not included in any itemized statement that you rendered, is it? Mr. SACKET. I have no recollection of that item at all. I do not know anything about it. The CHAIRMAN. Just answer the question, whether it is included. You know whether you have already included it in some statement. Mr. SACKET. I have not. The CHAIRMAN. It is not included in any statement that you have rendered? Mr. SACKET. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a recollection as to the class of expenses that you charged under that item, "General expense, organizing"? Mr. SACKET. Only from what I know I meant when I put down the word "general." The CHAIRMAN. What did you mean? Mr. SACKET. I meant the expenditure of money covering a larger territory than a county; possibly all over the State; anyway, larger than one county. The CHAIRMAN. Whom did you pay that money to? Mr. SACKET. I have no knowledge. I do not know. Mr. SACKET. I could not say. The CHAIRMAN. You could not say whether it was money you paid to some one to be expended, or whether it was money that you expended and paid out yourself, could you? Mr. SACKET. I would say that I did not expend it and pay it out myself, because I would not have put it in this part of this account if I had. The CHAIRMAN. Where would you have put it? Mr. SACKET. Over in one of the later schedules. The CHAIRMAN. So that you have no other account to give of that item, have you? Mr. SACKET. None. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever take up these items and present them to Senator Stephenson at any time in the shape of memoranda or otherwise? Mr. SACKET. I did not; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. When you were having this stay of proceedings, during which you were considering the question of putting more money in, was there no going over of items with Senator Stephenson? Mr. SACKET. Not with me; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at any interview with Senator The CHAIRMAN. Then, you can not account for the $50? The CHAIRMAN. On the same day, July 6, you paid Mr. Hambright $50. What did you pay him $50 for? Mr. SACKET. For traveling through the State; for the same purpose that it was paid to Mr. Miller and Mr. McMahon, substantially. The CHAIRMAN. How much did you give Mr. Hambright altogether for political purposes? Mr. SACKET. I have made no computation as to that. The several items appear in the account here. The CHAIRMAN. I will call your attention to them. On July 6 you gave him $50, of which you have just spoken, which you say was for the purpose of organizing and influencing votes for Senator Stephenson. Did he vote for Senator Stephenson? Mr. SACKET. I do not know. The CHAIRMAN. Did you ask him whether or not he did or would? |