Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Richland County, state what you know about that; or, so as to make it more brief, state whether or not this sum that appears to have been paid to Mr. N. L. James of $300 on August 25, was or was not under the arrangement for the purposes and under the circumstances to which you have already testified in relation to Mr. James in connection with the $200 item.

Mr. EDMONDS. I believe that was the case, paid for the same purposes as the $200 item.

Under the same date, G. L. Miner, $300, Richland County.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. August 25. What about that?

Mr. EDMONDS. My recollection in regard to that is very faint. I remember the name Grant L. Miner.. I do not recall when I saw him, or if I saw him at all. The amount indicated here does not appeal to me as being the amount Mr. Miner received, but I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this statement.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Then you have no definite recollection as to that? Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. State whether or not it is your belief that that was expended for organization purposes in that county.

Senator POMERENE. It is not a question of belief, is it?

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. No; not strictly speaking, except I suppose this witness would be allowed to go further than other witnesses in that regard.

Senator POMERENE. No; you are asking specifically for belief, and it is a question of memory.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Yes; I am aware that I am a little outside of the line. Can you state, Mr. Edmonds, in relation to that, whether you have any recollection about it?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir; I have stated the best recollection I have in regard to it. The next item on the same page is "Calumet, Frank Ekland, $25."

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. What about that?

Mr. EDMONDS. I remember that name, because of the peculiar spelling, and that very little work for our candidate was done in Calumet County, because it was known to be very strongly in favor of one of the other candidates, Mr. Cook. This man in some manner, and for services that I believed at that time to have been performed for Senator Stephenson, received $25.

Senator POMERENE. Have you any knowledge as to what those services were?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir; none at all.

On the same page, Ashland, D. G. Sampson, $100.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. My notes would indicate that you have already explained about that, but I do not undertake to have any recollection in regard to it.

Mr. EDMONDS. I think his name appears in another place, and that he was doing work for Senator Stephenson in the way of organizing in that county.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. State whether or not the money was paid to him for that purpose?

Mr. EDMONDS. It was, and for no other. On page 593, the last item, $18, O. L. Gust, Baraboo, Sauk County. I can not now recall O. L. Gust. The name is familiar, but not this expenditure of $18.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Do you have sufficient recollection so that you are able to state that he was doing any work for you in the campaign, and if so what work?

Mr. EDMONDS. The only work he could possibly have been doing

was

Senator POMERENE. It is not a question of possibility; it is a question of recollection.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. The question is whether you have any recollection, so as to be able to state what he was doing?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir; I have not. On page 592 there are two items, Juneau County, J. T. Hanson, $250, and another item to the same man of $150.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. The $250 item comes first under date of August 19, and the $150 item comes under date of August 30.

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. What about those?

Mr. EDMONDS. That was for advertising in Juneau County. The reason I did not check that when going over it before was that the name J. T. Hanson did not then appear to be the name of the organizer in Juneau County. Whether it is a misprint or not, I am not sure. The man whom I employed there, I am quite certain, was a banker, and I agreed with him to pay him $400. As I say, it does not seem to me that his name was Hanson.

Senator POMERENE. What was the banker's name?

Mr. EDMONDS. I can not recall. This is the only amount paid in that county, and I do not know whether my recollection is at fault. Senator POMERENE. How do you account for this being here, or can you account for it?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Did you make up this list from which you have been testifying-the list that is printed in the proceedings, marked "Exhibit 49 "?

Mr. EDMONDS. No, sir.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Then, as to Juneau County, are you able to state that you actually did have an organizer there?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes; I had an organizer there, and arranged with him. My recollection is that I arranged with him for $400, and my judgment is that part of that was for services.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. But whether the man Hanson whose name is here, as apparently the organizer for that county, is the correct name of the man whom you employed, as I understand, you are not able to say?

Mr. EDMONDS. I am not able to say; no, sir.

Senator POMERENE. Have you any way of ascertaining definitely who the man was there who was a banker, whom you think you employed?

Mr. EDMONDS. Yes.

Senator POMERENE. Will you ascertain?

Mr. EDMONDS. I should think that by making inquiries I could determine. I have not done so.

Senator POMERENE. Do you know what bank he was connected with?

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 E. 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, sums 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?