Mr. LITTLEFIELD. On general principles there is no occasion for specifying the complainant.

The CHAIRMAN. It might be made a very taking text, speaking under certain circumstances.

Senator SUTHERLAND. You do not mean by that that there is a sort of local-option arrangement by which electors in certain districts may have the law enforced, and electors in other districts not have them enforced?

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. A sort of statutory monopoly of purity.
The CHAIRMAN. That is among the possibilities.

Senator SUTHERLAND. That is a modern extension of the localoption idea.

The CHAIRMAN. I am rather impressed with the idea that the purpose of section 338 was to eliminate the candidate entirely from the canvass or the campaign. I think they might have emphasized it, or rather made it plainer, by providing that the candidate should absent himself from the State during the campaign. Under the language of this section there is nothing that he can do that is not a violation of the law.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. Because it says that he shall not do any act in relation to such primary meeting, and if he does it, he is violating that law.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. He is anathema maranatha.

It

The CHAIRMAN. It does not leave him the right to canvass. leaves the elector in the solitude of his own thoughts and judgment, to determine for whom he will vote, without any advice or any information being brought to him.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. And if that is the idea, in order to carry it to its logical conclusion, he should be excluded from the contagion of the presence of the candidate, whose personal influence should be segregated and carried to some other clime.

The CHAIRMAN. I am well satisfied that that was the intention of those who enacted the section, but it is a question of what construction will be placed upon it by the courts of the State.

Senator POMERENE. Did the Senator notice that the words "primary election" are not used in that section, but simply "preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention "?

The CHAIRMAN. There is a general section here that would bring that in.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. That would not allow them to meet even at a bridge party for the purpose of talking the matter over.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a general section which makes it applicable.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. There is a section which undertakes to make the general statutes applicable to all election laws.

Senator POMERENE. I did not know that. Have you a memoran

dum of that section?

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Yes; on page 33 of this pamphlet, election laws of Wisconsin, section 40."

General election laws applicable.

The provisions of the statutes now in force in relation to the holding of elections, the solicitation of voters at the polls, the challenging of voters, the manner of conducting elections, of counting the ballots and making return thereof,

and all other kindred subjects shall apply to all primaries in so far as they are consistent with this act, the intent of this act being to place the primary under the regulation and protection of the laws now in force as to elections. Mr. BLACK. There is another section.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I will read that into the record also.

Senator SUTHERLAND. Section 338 does not refer to anything relating to elections. It applies to preliminary meetings.

The CHAIRMAN. There is another section that covers that.

Senator POMERENE. Look at the section at the top of page 33, "Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable." Mr. BLACK. That is the one.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I will read that in.

Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable.

Any act declared an offense by the general laws of this State concerning caucuses and elections shall also, in like case, be an offense in all primaries, and shall be punished in the same form and manner as therein provided, and all the penalties and provisions of the law as to such caucuses and elections, except as herein otherwise provided, shall apply in such case with equal force, and to the same extent as though fully set forth in this act.

Senator SUTHERLAND. That would make section 338 applicable.
Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I think so.

Senator SUTHERLAND. The other section would not.

Senator POMERENE. While reading these sections of the statute into the record, would it not be well to have all the sections which may define the different election offenses-as, for instance, bribery and corruption-read into the record, so that we can have them?

The CHAIRMAN. We will preface our report with them, undoubtedly.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. It seems to me to be a very good idea that when the record is made up there should be a summary of all the various legislation relating to any of these controversies.

Senator POMERENE. We would be glad to have counsel put into the record any special sections that they have in mind.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I will be glad to take that up with the committee before we get to the final printing of the report, so everything will be in it that any of us think material.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edmonds, you have indicated a desire to be absent for a few days. How long do you desire to be away?

Mr. EDMONDS. I should like if possible to be away all of next week, and if I may be subject to telegraphic call, I shall appreciate that very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it better that the record show that you are excused until a certain time. Occupying the relation that you do to this matter, questions may arise at any time, out of the examination of other witnesses, which may make it necessary for you to be present. Can you be here by October 15?

Mr. EDMONDS. I would appreciate it if I might be here one week from Monday at 11 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you will be excused until Monday, October 16, at which time you will report.

Mr. EDMONDS. Would it be satisfactory if I arrive at 11 o'clock instead of 10? I can come down on the early train from my home.

The CHAIRMAN. Be here at the afternoon session on that day. The hour of adjournment is now so close at hand that we can hardly enter upon the examination of Mr. Sacket.

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 of 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 Ě. 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?