Mr. SACKET. I had reports from time to time, oral or written (I have forgotten which), which indicated that they did in some instances buy liquor and cigars in the way of treating. Senator SUTHERLAND. Were those reports in the nature of complaints? Mr. SACKET. No, sir. The men themselves told me that they had expended part of the money for that. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you get anything in the way of complaints of that nature from any of these counties? Mr. SACKET. I remember nothing of that kind. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you hear anything in the way of rumors that they were spending money extravagantly for that? Mr. SACKET. I heard nothing of that kind. Senator SUTHERLAND. Or any suggestions of anything of that kind during the progress of the campaign-that anything of that sort was going on? Mr. SACKET. None. Senator SUTHERLAND. Now, I want to ask you about another subject for a moment. You say $250 was paid to Mr. Bancroft, who was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. But, as I understand you, you did not talk with Mr. Bancroft yourself about it? Mr. SACKET. I did not; no, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. When did you first know of the payment to him? Mr. SACKET. I think it was the day following the date on which the payment was made. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you make the payment? Mr. SACKET. I did not; no, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. How did you come to know about it? Mr. SACKET. Mr. Puelicher told me that he had made the payment, and I gave him a receipt for it. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you learn by whose authority the payment was made? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. By whose authority? Mr. SACKET. I asked Mr. Puelicher to talk with Mr Bancroft and make arrangements with him. Senator SUTHERLAND. You asked him? Mr. SACKET. I asked Mr. Puelicher to do so; yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. So that the arrangement was made by your authority? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. When you came to make the arrangement, did you know that Mr. Bancroft was a candidate for the legislature? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did it occur to you that there was any impropriety in making an arrangement of that sort with a candidate for the legislature? Mr. SACKET. I talked that matter over with Mr. Puelicher, and it was our opinion that so long as we gave Mr. Bancroft no money, nothing for himself or to aid in his own campaign, there was nothing unlawful or improper about it. Senator SUTHERLAND. Do you see how it would be possible for Mr. Bancroft to expend $250 for the benefit of Mr. Stephenson without at the same time deriving some benefit from it himself? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. When he was a candidate at the same primary? Mr. ŠACKET. I can see how it would be possible for him to expend that money without deriving any benefit from it himself, and I can see how it would be possible to spend that money to his own detriment. Senator SUTHERLAND. I wish you would explain just how that could be done. Mr. SACKET. There were several candidates for United States Senator on the Republican ticket. Mr. Bancroft was a candidate for the nomination as a member of the assembly. His openly taking the side of Senator Stephenson might result in the friends of the other three candidates opposing Mr. Bancroft. He could not spend this $250 in Mr. Stephenson's interest without people knowing it, and knowing that he was for Mr. Stephenson. That would cost him the support of the supporters of the other candidates. Senator SUTHERLAND. On the other hand, to the extent that the use of this $250 induced electors to support Senator Stephenson, would it not to that same extent induce the same electors to support Mr. Bancroft? Mr. SACKET. If Mr. Bancroft employed persons to do work jointly for him and Mr. Stephenson it would, but it was understood with him, according to Mr. Puelicher, that he was not to do that. Senator SUTHERLAND. But the voter would understand that in order for Mr. Stephenson to be elected it might be quite important that the member of the legislature nominated should be friendly to Mr. Stephenson, would he not? Mr. SACKET. It might have that effect. Senator SUTHERLAND. Then, if the voter was desirous of advancing the political fortunes of Mr. Stephenson, would it not be quite natural for him not only to vote for Mr. Stephenson as the nominee for United States Senator, but also to vote for the candidate for the legislature who was friendly to him? Mr. SACKET. I think it would be perfectly natural for the voter to be friendly to both men in a case of that kind. I do not think the money paid him for Mr. Stephenson would influence him for Bancroft. In working for Mr. Stephenson he would probably be in favor of Mr. Bancroft, too, in any case, whether he got any money or not. Senator SUTHERLAND. In other words, to give you a concrete illustration-though I do not mean to suggest that it is anything that has occurred in this case-suppose Mr. Bancroft had used the money to purchase votes outright for Mr. Stephenson; it would have been quite natural that that same vote should have gone for him, would it not? Mr. LITTLEFIELD. If that was a part of the understanding. (At 12 o'clock and 32 minutes p. m. the subcommittee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. The recess having expired, the subcommittee reassembled. The names of George W. Dart, L. W. Thayer, and Le Roy E. McGill were called by the secretary. Mr. Thayer responded, and was duly sworn by the chairman Mr. LITTLEFIELD. If it is agreeable to the committee, I think Mr. Thayer desires to be excused until Monday. Am I right about that, Mr. Thayer? Mr. THAYER. I live so close to Milwaukee that I presume I might be called when the subcommittee desires my presence. The CHAIRMAN. The witness may be excused until Monday. DEATH OF JUDGE QUARLES. The CHAIRMAN The members of the subcommittee have just learned with deep regret of the death of Judge Quarles, the United States district judge who presided over the court sitting in this building. The members of the subcommittee served with the deceased when he was a member of the United States Senate and entertained for him a very high regard as a man and as a public officer. They feel that it is due, as a tribute to the high esteem in which Judge Quarles was held during his lifetime, and as an evidence of respect to his memory and consideration to those he leaves behind him, that the subcommittee adjourn. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I had the honor of being a member of the lower House during quite a portion of Judge Quarles's service in the Senate; and I desire to concur most heartily with the suggestions made by the chairman with reference to Judge Quarles and his character and position. The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will stand adjourned until Monday at 10 o'clock. (At 2 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m. the subcommittee adjourned until Monday, October 9, 1911, at 10 o'clock a. m. MONDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1911. FEDERAL BUILDING, The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators Heyburn (chairman), Sutherland, and Pomerene. Present also: Mr. C. E. Littlefield, Mr. W. E. Black, and Mr. H. H. J. Upham, counsel for Senator Isaac Stephenson. The names of George W. Dart, Thomas Reynolds, and Edward McMahon were called. Thomas Reynolds responded to his name, and the oath was administered to him by the chairman. TESTIMONY OF RODNEY SACKET-Resumed. Senator SUTHERLAND. Mr. Sacket, at the time of the adjournment on Saturday I was asking you about this payment of money to Mr. Bancroft. Did you have a talk with Senator Stephenson about that expenditure? sir. Mr. SACKET. I did not; no, Senator SUTHERLAND. Did you inform him that it was being made? Mr. SACKET. I did not. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did he say anything to you about it at all? Mr. SACKET. Not to my recollection, at all. Senator SUTHERLAND. Do you know whether he knew of it? Mr. SACKET. I have no knowledge that he knew of it. Senator SUTHERLAND. Do you know whether any money was paid into the hands of any other candidate for the legislature? Mr. SACKET. Yes; Mr. C. E. Wellensgard. Senator SUTHERLAND. Where did he live? Mr. SACKET. In Berlin. Senator SUTHERLAND. How much money was furnished him? Mr. LITTLEFIELD. I have the exact amount here. It was $250.80. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Sacket: Mr. Wellensgard lived in your home town? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. How did that arrangement happen to be made with him? Mr. SACKET. I asked Mr Wellensgard over the telephone to come up into Senator Stephenson's headquarters and see me the next time he was in Milwaukee. He came up, and I asked him if he would look after Senator Stephenson's interests in Green Lake County, and he agreed to do it. The substance of the conversation was that he was to look after Senator Stephenson's interests and keep track of the money he expended in Senator Stephenson's interest. He was not to charge any money that he expended for his own campaign, and he was to render me a statement of it after it was over with, which he did, and which amount I paid. Senator SUTHERLAND. You say it was stated that he was not to use any money in his own campaign? Mr. SACKET. That is, none of the money that I was to furnish him. Senator SUTHERLAND. He was a candidate at the same primary? Mr. SACKET. Yes. Senator SUTHERLAND. And to be voted for at the same time? Mr. SACKET. Yes, sir. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did he render you an itemized statement? Mr. SACKET. He did. Senator SUTHERLAND. Is that on file here? Mr. SACKET. It is. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. On file where? Mr. SACKET. In the record of the proceedings before the joint committee. That is, there is a copy of it. Senator SUTHERLAND. In a general way, what was the nature of his expenses? Mr. SACKET. Hiring teams, distributing posters and literature, the employment of workers at the polls, and expenses for traveling around the county in Senator Stephenson's interest in some cases, I think. Mr. BLACK. That statement will be found on page 911 of the proceedings before the joint committee. Senator SUTHERLAND. Traveling about the county in the interest of Senator Stephenson would give him a very good opportunity to travel about the county in his own interest, would it not? Mr. SACKET. According to my recollection, he filed a sworn statement of his own expenditures, according to law; and when he traveled in his own interest he paid his own expenses. Senator SUTHERLAND. Did it occur to you that it would be difficult to separate the two? By traveling about the county "in the interest of Senator Stephenson," I suppose you mean advocating his nomination at the primary? Mr. SACKET. I do not understand that Mr. Wellensgard did any electioneering, as I would call it, for Senator Stephenson. He simply employed people to look after Senator Stephenson's interests at the polls, to circulate his nomination papers, to hang lithographs, and to distribute literature generally. Mr. LITTLEFIELD. Is there any objection to having inserted in the record here this exhibit which has been referred to in the joint committee's investigation, while you are examining upon it? Senator SUTHERLAND. I think not. Mr._LITTLEFIELD. Then the reporter may insert at the present place Exhibit 62, beginning on page 911 and covering page 912 of the proceedings before the joint committee. That will put the subject matter right together. Senator SUTHERLAND. There is no objection to that. (The exhibit referred to is as follows:) EXHIBIT 62. BERLIN, WIS., September 3, 1908. Mr. RODNEY SACKET, Milwaukee, Wis. DEAR FRIEND: Inclosed please find my bill against Stephenson. I wish you would please see that they get it. I haven't put in anything for cigars or what little I spent. Please let me hear from you. I beat Hitchcock by 347 majority. Yours, truly, C. C. WELLENSGARD. [Exhibit 62 received in evidence and is in words and figures following, to wit:] 28. Paid to C. Rosebrook, town of St. Marie, and 4 men. 25.00 28. Paid Bill Anglem, town of Green Lake... 5.00 28. Paid W. Burdick, town of Green Lake. 5.00 28. Paid C. Schrader and men at Markesan.. 28. Paid W. Malena, town of Seneca... Sept. 3. Paid M. Resop, city of Berlin... 3. Paid P. Kresal, city of Berlin... 3. Paid Aug. Waslinski, city of Berlin.. 3. Paid Steve Greager, city of Berlin.. 3. Paid J. Neighbor, city of Berlin... 3. Paid J. Weir, city of Berlin.... 3. Paid J. Briskie, city of Berlin.. 3. Paid F. Bartow, city of Berlin... 3. Paid Joe Gosh, city of Berlin.. 30.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 |