The CHAIRMAN. Did you have a poll made up of the voters in any or all of the counties that you counted favorable to Senator Stephenson?

Mr. SACKET. I do not think that we went as far as to have the poll lists. Is that what you mean?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SACKET. A list of the voters. No; we did not do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not go that far. That is generally the first thing that the organizer does, is it not?

Mr. SACKET. If he has an organization, and money enough to do it. The CHAIRMAN. You have denominated a great many men here as organizers, and have specified large sums of money as being paid out for organizing. Do you mean to say that did not include the polling of the vote, for the purpose of knowing what strength you might count on for Senator Stephenson?

Mr. SACKET. We went as far as we could in that direction.

The CHAIRMAN. How far did you go?

Mr. SACKET. As far as our ability would permit us.

The CHAIRMAN. How many names did you have on the poll list favorable to Senator Stephenson?

Mr. SACKET. I do not remember the figures.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no recollection of the poll of a campaign of which you were largely in charge?

Mr. SACKET. We had lists of names of persons in different parts of the State, who had expressed sentiments favorable toward Senator Stephenson.

The CHAIRMAN. How many were there?

Mr. SACKET. I should thing, perhaps, we had a list of a thousand names of that kind.

The CHAIRMAN. Only a thousand names of people favorable to Senator Stephenson in the State of Wisconsin?

Mr. SACKET. I will correct that. We had altogether, I think, about 20,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh; you had 20,000 names of people who were favorable to Senator Stephenson, and he received only 56,839. There were more than half the people who supported Senator Stephenson, of whom you had no knowledge at all.

Senator POMERENE. Two-thirds.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; two-thirds.

Mr. SACKET. Of whom we had no record in our office, to my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Had they not been seen?

Mr. SACKET. I presume they had received circulars, and read the advertisements in the newspapers. I have no knowledge of their having been seen personally; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you missed the poll by about 30,000?

Mr. SACKET. I did not at any time presume that the list of 20,000 names that we had was a list of all the people in the State who were favorable to Senator Stephenson.

The CHAIRMAN. Was not all of this information sent to headquarters?

Mr. SACKET. It was a list of all those persons whom we know, or had reason to suppose, were favorable to the Senator. The list was

obtained from the signers of his nomination papers, and in other

ways.

The CHAIRMAN. You must have expected Senator Stephenson to be badly beaten at the primaries then, with a list of only about 20,000 for him, did you not?

Mr. SACKET. No, sir; I did not.

The CHAIRMAN. You knew that 20,000 votes would not nominate anybody, did you not?

Mr. SACKET. I did not suppose that was all the votes we would get. The CHAIRMAN. What was your estimate of the vote Senator Stephenson would receive?

Mr. SACKET. I do not remember having made an estimate in figures.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know that there were five candidates, each of whom received more than 20,000 votes at that primary? You were managing a $100,000 campaign for Senator Stephenson and figuring on only 20,000 votes.

Mr. SACKET. I do not think you understand me. on only 20,000 votes.

I did not figure

The CHAIRMAN. I asked you how many you did figure on.
Mr. SACKET. I said we had a list of 20,000.

The CHAIRMAN. I know; but how many did you figure on?
Mr. SACKET. I figured on enough to elect Mr. Stephenson.

The CHAIRMAN. That will not do. You know how many you figured on.

Mr. SACKET. If you want me to give my best recollection, I should say we expected to get 75,000 or 80,000 votes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is a more reasonable statement. You thought you had accomplished that result, that would bring him about 75,000 votes?

Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. By the methods that you have explained?
Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you have nothing further to say in regard to your transactions with Mr. Bancroft, have you?

Mr. SACKET. I think I have covered the ground fully.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever talk to Senator Stephenson about the employment of Mr. Bancroft in the manner you have described? Mr. SACKET. I did not; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he ever speak to you about it?

Mr. SACKET. He did not, to my recollection.

The CHAIRMAN. Or, communicate with you in any way about it? Mr. SACKET. In no way that I remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you communicate with him?

Mr. SACKET. In no way that I remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Whatever the responsibility is for this, as far as you know, it rests on you as his agent?

Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who suggested to you to employ Mr. Bancroft? Mr. SACKET. I think Mr. McMahon sent his name in to Mr. Edmonds. Mr. Edmonds agreed to see him, but was called away. I was busy at that time, and I asked Mr. Puelicher to talk to him. That is the whole of my recollection of the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. So that all three of the committee-that is, Puelicher, Edmonds, and yourself, whom Senator Stephenson had named as the committee-all three of the committee, then, had personal communication with Mr. Bancroft in regard to the payment of money to him, on behalf of Senator Stephenson, to get him to work for Senator Stephenson during the campaign at which he was a candidate for nomination as a member of the State legislature. That is true, is it? Mr. SACKET. I did not say that they all had personal communications with him.

The CHAIRMAN. I have understood you to say that Mr. Edmonds did, and that Mr. Puelicher did.

Mr. SACKET. Mr. Edmonds was informed

The CHAIRMAN. By whom?

Mr. SACKET. By Mr. McMahon, as I understand it, that Mr. Bancroft would come in. He told Mr. McMahon to induce him to come in if he could.

The CHAIRMAN. To come in where?

Mr. SACKET. To come into Milwaukee and talk to Mr. Edmonds about it. I do not know that Mr. Edmonds had any idea of paying him money at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bancroft had not announced his intention in regard to whom he would support for United States Senator at the time that he came in, had he?

Mr. SACKET. It was my understanding that he was for Senator Stephenson. If I remember correctly, Mr. McMahon said he was for Senator Stephenson.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Who said that?
Mr. SACKET. Mr. McMahon.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Bancroft say so?

Mr. SACKET. Not to me, he did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Was not Mr. Bancroft's support of Senator Stephenson during that campaign for the primary in consideration of Senator Stephenson's supporting Mr. Bancroft, or Senator Stephenson's friends supporting Mr. Bancroft?

Mr. SACKET. I do not so understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know that that is true or that it is not true, do you mean?

Mr. SACKET. To the best of my recollection and information, I would say that it was not true.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you in Madison when the legislature was organized, or during the contest for the election of speaker? Mr. SACKET. No, sir; I was not.

The CHAIRMAN. At no time?

Mr. SACKET. At no time.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you communicate with any member of the legislature in respect to the selection of the speaker?

Mr. SACKET. I think I had some conversation with the member from the district in which I lived.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you advise him or urge him to vote for Mr. Bancroft for speaker?

Mr. SACKET. If I remember correctly, he told me voluntarily that he was for Bancroft; that Bancroft would be a good speaker, and that he was for him.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you say to him?

Mr. SACKET. I said I was glad of it. I agreed with him.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know Mr. Weisman?

Mr. SACKET. I remember him; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You testified as to the payments made to Weisman. You also testified as to the payments to Hambright. We come now to E. J. Rogers. On August 5 you paid Rogers $50. What did you pay him that money for?

Mr. SACKET. For expenses, and possibly some salary, for organizing, I think it was, Grant County; either Grant or Iowa County. The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what he expended the money for? Mr. SACKET. I received reports from him from time to time. The CHAIRMAN. Were your reports in writing?

Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you those reports?

Mr. SACKET. I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are they?

Mr. SACKET. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they among the papers that you destroyed, as you testified when you were on the stand before?

Mr. SACKET. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you think they are now?

Mr. SACKET. I think they were left with the State legislative committee, at Madison.

The CHAIRMAN. You paid him $300 on August 22. What was that for?

Mr. SACKET. I think that was for hiring teams and men to work at the polls.

The CHAIRMAN. That was 10 days before the election?

Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does he live?

Mr. SACKET. He lives in Iowa County, I think.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. What date was that?

The CHAIRMAN. August 22, page 592, of the joint committee proceedings.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I am trying to check these names with a typewritten list that Mr. Sacket has furnished, but I do not find Mr. E. J. Rogers on this typewritten list, under date of August 22.

The CHAIRMAN. You will find it on the printed page 592, the first item under date of August 22.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Yes; I do find it there. It did not get onto this typewritten list.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Rogers expend any of that money for the purchase of drinks or treats of any kind to electors of the State as an inducement or with the intention of creating a feeling that would result in those persons supporting Senator Stephenson?

Mr. SACKET. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. He may have expended any part of it or all of it for that purpose, so far as you know?

Mr. SACKET. My recollection would be quite positive that he did not expend all of it, or a very large part of it, although he may have made some expenditures of that kind.

At 12.30 o'clock p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

At the expiration of the recess the subcommittee reassembled. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. If the subcommittee please, Mr. Brown, who is subpoenaed, and who has been in attendance, I think, nearly every day, is cashier of a bank in Senator Stephenson's home town, Marinette, and while, of course, I do not know what the subcommittee may have in mind as to his examination, my notion is that it will be very short. It would be quite a great personal convenience to him if the subcommittee could examine him this afternoon and excuse him. I do not ask that, if it is going to embarrass the subcommittee, but it would be a great convenience to him. There is very little that he knows about the matter, I think; but, of course, the subcommittee knows what it desires to get from him.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee desire to accommodate Mr. Brown, but we dislike to break in on Mr. Sacket's testimony, if we can finish that this afternoon.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Would it do to have this understanding, that we will suspend with Mr. Sacket, say, 15 or 20 minutes before adjournment, this afternoon, for the purpose of examining Mr. Brown? Would that be agreeable to the subcommittee?

The CHAIRMAN. There is another witness, Mr. Kingsley, whom we promised in open session this morning we would hear.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I do not think Mr. Brown would want to inconvenience any of the other witnesses. As far as we are concerned, we will be glad to do everything we can, not only to meet the convenience of the subcommittee, but, of course, the convenience of gentlemen who are in attendance under subpoena.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee desire to suit the convenience of witnesses, but we must regard promises already made.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Oh, certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. After a very few days we will undoubtedly be quite caught up with the witnesses.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I do not think Mr. Brown would want the subcommittee to discommode any other witnesses for his convenience. The CHAIRMAN. We will give Mr. Brown an opportunity to testify during the afternoon before adjournment.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I doubt very much whether we will be able to get through with Mr. Sacket this afternoon, because there are quite a good many details I will have to go over, and I would not want Mr. Brown examined to the inconvenience of Mr. Kingsley.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown's testimony occupies about three pages in the former examination, but how long it will occupy at this time I can not undertake to say.

Mr. Riordan has requested that he be excused until Monday. He may be excused until Monday, next, at 2 o'clock.

TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET-Resumed.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sacket, I think the last item of which we inquired of you was "E. J. Rogers."

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. That is at the top of page 590 of the testimony taken at the State investigation.