4. 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, corruptly and unlawfully.

5. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to one Hambright, of Racine, Wis., large sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by said Hambright for said Stephenson preliminary to said primary, said Hambright being then an elector of this State, corruptly and unlawfully.

6. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above stated said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, pay to one Roy Morse, of Fond du Lac, Wis., then an elector of this State, the sum of $1.000 as a consideration for some act to be done by said Morse for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, and corruptly and unlawfully.

7. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, paid to divers persons, then electors of the county of Grant, Wis., ranging from $5 per day and upward, as a consideration for some act to be done by said several electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully.

8. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design, said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to divers persons who were at such time electors in this State a consideration for some act to be done for said Isaac Stephenson by such electors preliminary to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully. 9. That in further pursuance of such purposes and designs said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to said primary, did pay to electors of this State, who were of a different political opinion and who held to other political principles than those of the Republican Party, more particularly Democrats, sums of money as a consideration for some act to be done by such electors for said Isaac Stephenson preliminary to said primary, corruptly and unlawfully.

10. That in further pursuance of such purposes and design said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, prior to such primary, did offer to pay to Edward Pollock, of Lancaster, Wis., certain sums of money, as editor of the Teller, a newspaper published in said city of Lancaster, Wis., and to other editors of newspapers who were at such time electors of this State, and for the purpose of purchasing the editorial support of such editors and as a consideration of something to be done relating to such primary, corruptly and unlawfully.

11. That said Isaac Stephenson did, prior to such primary, by and through his agents, promise and agree to pay to one Lester Tilton, a then resident and elector of this State, and residing at the city of Neillsville, Wis., a sum in excess of $500 to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of said Lester Tilton to the assembly of this State from from Clark County, and did offer to give to said Lester Tilton a sum in excess of $500 if said Lester Tilton would become a candidate for the assembly from said Clark County if said Lester Tilton would support said Isaac Stephenson for the office of United States Senator, all of which is in violation of sections 4542b and 4543b of the statutes.

12. That said Isaac Stephenson did, by and through his agents, give and promise and pay or agree to pay to other electors of this State sums of money to procure or aid in procuring the nomination of such electors to the senate and assembly of this State other than those electors residing in the district where said Isaac Stephenson resides. 13. That E. M. Heyzer and Max Sells, prior to said primary, being at such time employees of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., a corporation doing business in this State, did contribute and agree to contribute free services as such employees for the purpose to defeat the candidacy of former assemblyman E. F. Nelson, from the district embracing Florence, Forest, and Langlade Counties, for the nomination for assemblyman from said district, all of which was done with the knowledge and consent and under the direction of said Isaac Stephenson, his agents, and employees, contrary to chapter 492, Laws of 1905.

14. That in further pursuance of the purposes and design above set forth said Isaac Stephenson, by and through his agents, did, in addition to paying certain sums as above set forth, offer and agree to pay to electors of this State, prior to said primary, a premium or bonus to those who in his employ carried their respective precincts in such primary for said Isaac Stephenson as such candidate.

15. That said Isaac Stephenson, if claiming an election by virtue of receiving a plurality of votes at such primary, then said Isaac Stephenson has violated chapter 502 of the laws of 1905 by failing and neglecting to file his expense account as provided by said chapter.

16. Charging generally the primary nomination or election of said Isaac Stephenson was obtained by the use of large sums of money corruptly and illegally, by the violation of sections 4542b, 4543b, and 4478b of the statutes relating to illegal voting, bribery, and corruption, and other laws above set forth relating to elections and primary elections.

John J. Blaine, a State senator, who made the said 16 specific charges, which constituted the basis of the legislative investigation, was examined in detail as to each of such charges and failed to sustain any of them, either by his own testimony or by reference to the testimony of others. The charges were made on information and belief according to his own testimony. He seemed upon examination to have no information upon which any belief as to their truth could be based.

An inspection of his testimony (transcript, p. 592, etc.) will fully justify the conclusion of the subcommittee that such charges were not sustained.

These charges were investigated by two legislative committees; first, by a joint committee which submitted a report which was not finally acted upon; second, by a committee of three members of the State senate, only one member of which was a member of the legislature when the report of that committee was made.

The time within which the joint legislative committee might take testimony and report was limited by the legislature to expire on the 13th day of April, 1909, and on that day the said committee met and adopted a resolution that each member make an outline of his proposed report and submit it at a later day for discussion before the committee.

Said committee then adjourned subject to the call of the chairman of the senate or assembly committee.

This ended the work of the joint investigating committee.

The State senate, acting independently of the assembly and in view of the expiration of the time within which the joint committee might finish its work, adopted a resolution on March 25, 1909, authorizing the president of the senate to appoint a committee consisting of three members to complete the investigation that had been carried on by the joint committee and to "further fully, fairly, and thoroughly investigate the campaign and election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator, and the campaign and election of members of the legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or affects the election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator."

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION.

In the order of their importance the duties of the subcommittee may be classified as follows:

First. To investigate the proceedings by the legislature, including the actions of Senator Stephenson and those representing him, during the session of the legislature.

Second. To investigate the campaign and election of members of the legislature so far as their election in any way pertains to or affects the election of Isaac Stephenson as a United States Senator. Third. The primary election and the campaign.

ELECTION OF A SENATOR BY THE LEGISLATURE.

The law providing for the election of Senators by the legislature is as follows, being chapter 1, title 2, of the Revised Statutes of the United States:

SEC. 14. The legislature of each State which is chosen next preceding the expiration of the time for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organizing thereof, proceed to elect a Senator in Congress.

SEC. 15. Such election shall be conducted in the following manner: Each house shall openly, by a viva voce vote of each member present, name one person for Senator in Congress from such State, and the name of the person so voted for who receives a majority of the whole number of votes cast in each house shall be entered on the journal of that house by the clerk or secretary thereof; or if either house fails to give such majority to any person on that day, the fact shall be entered on the journal. At twelve o'clock meridian of the day following that on which proceedings are required to take place as aforesaid the members of the two houses shall convene in joint assembly, and the journal of each house shall then be read, and if the same person has received a majority of all the votes in each house he shall be declared duly elected Senator. But if the same person has not received a majority of the votes in each house, or if either house has failed to take proceedings as required by this section, the joint assembly shall then proceed to choose, by a viva voce vote of each member present, a person for Senator, and the person who receives a majority of all the votes of the joint assembly, a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present and voting, shall be declared duly elected. If no person receives such majority on the first day, the joint assembly shall meet at twelve o'clock meridian of each succeeding day during the session of the legislature and shall take at least one vote until a Senator is elected.

SEC. 16. (Relates to filling vacancies.)

SEC. 17. (Also relates to the filling of vacancies.)

SEC. 18. It shall be the duty of the executive of the State from which a Senator has been chosen, to certify his election, under the seal of the State, to the President of the Senate of the United States.

SEC. 19. The certificate mentioned in the preceding section shall be countersigned by the secretary of state of the State.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

The Forty-ninth Legislature of Wisconsin consisted of 33 senators and 100 assemblymen, and convened at the capitol at Madison on January 13, 1909, at 12 o'clock m.

On Thursday, January 14, 1909, the organizing of both_houses was complete, and the assembly adjourned until Tuesday, January 19, at 10 o'clock.

The senate organized on January 13, 1909, and on January 14 Senator Husting introduced joint resolution 3, providing for the investigation of the primary election, which was laid over until the next session, and the senate adjourned until Tuesday, January 19, at 10 o'clock a. m.

On Tuesday, January 26, the senate considered joint resolution 3, and a substitute was introduced by Senator Blaine. (Senate Journal, pp. 72-77.) This substitute contains the specific charges.

On January 26, 1909, a vote was taken on the election of United States Senator, each house voting separately.

In the senate the total number of votes cast was 17. Mr. Stephenson received 12 votes, Brown 4, Rummel 1. (Senate Journal, pp. 78-79.)

On the same day, January 26, upon the call of the roll in the assembly, the total number of votes cast for Senator was 84. Mr. Stephenson received 60, Neal Brown 16, Jacob Rummel 3, S. A. Cook

2, H. A. Cooper 1, J. H. Stout 1, and John J. Esch 1, which result was announced by the speaker. (Assembly Journal, pp. 74-75.)

On Wednesday, January 27, resolutions were introduced in the senate, among others joint resolution 8, being an arraignment of the United States Senate and a demand for its abolition, introduced by Senator Gaylord. (Senate Journal, p. 86.) It was referred to the committee on Federal relations. This is mentioned in passing only to show the temper of the legislature on the day of the first joint ballot for United States Senator.

At 12 o'clock noon of January 27, 1909, the two houses met in joint convention. The lieutenant governor, presiding, stated:

Gentlemen of the joint convention, you are assembled here for the purpose of expressing your choice for United States Senator. In order to comply with the Federal law the clerk of the senate and the clerk of the assembly will read from the journal of each house, respectively, the proceedings of the preceding day with reference to the election of a United States Senator.

The senate journal (p. 94) and the assembly journal (p. 80) records as follows:

The chief clerk of the senate read the journal of the senate of January 26, 1909, and the chief clerk of the assembly read the journal of the assembly of January 26, 1909. The president then said: "The clerk will call the roll. As your names are called you will arise from your seats and announce the candidate of your choice."

Senator Hudnall said:

I rise to protest against any other proceedings being taken in the joint assembly at this time except the announcement of the presiding officer that Hon. Isaac Stephenson is elected to the United States Senate for the term commencing March 4, 1909. I do that for the reason that it appears from the journal of the senate that the total number of votes cast for persons were 17, of which Isaac Stephenson received 12, Neal Brown 4, Jacob Rummel 1, and the journal of the assembly shows that of the members who voted for persons there were 60 for Stephenson, 10 for Brown, and 3 for Jacob Rummel; and it further appears from both journals of senate and assembly that Isaac Stephenson received a majority of all the votes cast in each house.

It devolves then upon the president of this joint assembly to declare Isaac Stephenson duly elected to the United States Senate, and then the duty devolves upon the president of the senate and speaker of the assembly to certify his election to the governor and to the secretary of state, and they to certify his election to the United States Senate. Any other proceeding is out of order and nugatory.

Senator Hudnall stated that he made this statement as a protest and as a point of order. The president held the point of order not well taken and held that Senator Hudnall was out of order in his protest.

The presiding officer then directed the nomination of candidates, and the joint assembly proceeded to vote for a United States Senator. There were 131 votes cast, of which Isaac Stephenson received 65, and the presiding officer announced that "it appears from the records of the convention that no person has received a majority of the votes cast for United States Senator." Whereupon the joint convention dissolved.

On no other day until the 4th of March, 1909, did anyone receive a majority of the votes cast in joint assembly. On that day (the 4th of March) upon the twenty-fourth ballot of the joint assembly there were 123 votes cast of which Isaac Stephenson received 63. Whereupon the chairman of the joint assembly announced the election of Isaac Stephenson, and the joint assembly adjourned sine die.

At each session of the joint assembly the question as to whether any vote in the joint assembly was necessary was raised by protest against such proceedings upon the grounds that, Mr. Stephenson

having received a majority of the votes cast in each house voting separately, no other or further duty remained for the joint assembly than that of reading the journals of the two houses of the proceedings in each relative to the election of a United States Senator on the day previous. These journals were read and the fact disclosed that in each house Mr. Stephenson had received a majority of all the votes cast. It remained only that he shall be declared duly elected Senator." The statute does not prescribe who shall declare the person receiving a majority of the votes in each house elected Senator, nor in what form such declaration shall be made.

From the reading of the law it would seem that when the two Houses voting separately each gave Mr. Stephenson a clear majority and having met in joint session on the day following the vote in the separate houses, the journal of the proceedings of the two houses voting separately being read in joint convention and the result announced, the election was completed; the mere failure to declare him elected could not in any way defeat the will of the two houses as expressed in their separate votes.

The failure to make a specific declaration of his election was not vital. The action of the governor and secretary of state in deferring the certificate of his election or in misstating the time of his election could not affect that election.

If we are correct in assuming that the election of Isaac Stephenson was accomplished when the record of the two houses was read and announced in the joint assembly, then the failure or delay of the executive officers to perform their duty could in no way defeat his election as of the date of the meeting of the first joint assembly.

ACTS OF BRIBERY CHARGED.

Charges of bribery in the interest of Mr. Stephenson's election had been freely made both before the subcommittee and before the legislative investigating committee. Not one of these charges have been sustained by the testimony.

The word "bribery" has been applied to many acts that do not constitute bribery.

The procurement of advertising space or editorial comment in the newspapers upon the payment of money by or on behalf of a candidate for office can not under any construction of law be held to be bribery.

The procurement of the services of men to speak either publicly or personally on behalf of any candidate, or to canvass the electorate on his behalf, is not bribery under any reasonable construction of the

law.

If the testimony were true that money was offered to Assemblyman Leuch to go upon the floor and vote for the purpose of effecting a quorum it would not constitute bribery. It was the duty of such member to go upon the floor and vote.

The charge of an attempt to bribe H. R. Pestalozzi utterly failed of proof before your committee.

The charge of unlawful dealings with the Milwaukee Free Press utterly failed of proof. It was conceded that Mr. Stephenson owned a controlling interest in that paper and he was certainly entitled to have its support and to sustain his interest in it.