BRIBERY.

The law of Wisconsin relative1 to bribery is as follows:

*

*

SEC. 39. Bribery of signers to petitions, etc.-1. Any person who shall offer, or with knowledge of the same permit any person to offer for his benefit, any bribe to a voter to induce him to sign any * nomination paper * * and any person who shall accept any such bribe or promise of gain of any kind in the nature of a bribe as consideration for signing the same, whether such bribe or promise of gain in the nature of a bribe be offered or accepted before or after such signing, or any candidate who shall knowingly cause a nomination paper, or papers, to be signed in his behalf by more than the maximum number of qualified electors provided for his district by subdivision 5 of section 11-5 of this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon trial and conviction thereof be punished by fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail of not less than 10 days or more than 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Penalties: Caucus and general election laws applicable.-2. 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 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. SEC. 40. General election laws applicable (secs. 11-25). 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. SEC. 263. Bribery at elections (sec. 4478).-The following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery at elections:

1. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, give, lend, or agree to give, or lend, or offer, promise or promise to procure or endeavor to procure any money or valuable consideration, to or for any voter, to or for any person on hehalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, corruptly, on account of such voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election.

2. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, give or procure, or agree to give or procure, or offer, promise, or endeavor to procure any office, place of employment, public or private, to or for any voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any voter, or to or for any other person in order to induce such voter to vote or refrain from voting, or do any such act as aforesaid, corruptly, on account of any voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election. 3. Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to or for any person in order to induce such person to procure or endeavor to procure the election of any person to a public office, or the vote of any voter at any election.

4. Every person who shall, upon or in consequence of any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement, or agreement, procure, or engage, promise or endeavor to procure the election of any person to a public office or the vote of any voter at any election.

5. Every person who shall advance or pay or cause to be paid any money to or for the use of any other person with the intent that such money or any part thereof shall be expended in bribery at any election, or who shall knowingly pay or cause to be paid any money wholly or in part expended in bribery at any election.

Penalty. And any person so offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison for a term of not less than six months nor more than two years: Provided, That the foregoing shall not be construed to extend to any money paid or agreed to be paid for or on account of any legal expenses authorized by law and bona fide incurred at or concerning any election.

SEC. 264 (sec. 4478a). The following persons shall also be deemed guilty of bribery at elections:

Reference is to "Election Laws of Wisconsin," published by J. A. Frear, secretary of state, 1908. 15235-12-2

1. Every voter who shall, before or during any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, receive, agree, or contract for any money gift, lean, or valuable consideration, office, place of employment, public or private, for himself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting at any election.

2. Every person who shall, after any election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person in his behalf, receive any money or valuable consideration on account of any person having voted or refrained from voting or having induced any other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election; and any voter or other person so offending shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not less than one month nor more than one year.

SEC. 266. Office obtained by bribery, vacant (sec. 4481).-Any person who shall obtain any office or shall have been elected to any office at any election, at which election he shall have induced or procured any elector to vote for him for such office by bribery, shall be disqualified from holding said office, and he shall be ousted therefrom, and said office shall be deemed and held vacant, to be filled by election or appointment as other vacancies, according to law.

SEC. 294. Bribery at caucas or convention (sec. 4479).-Any person being, or seeking to be, a candidate for any office at any election authorized by law who shall give, or promise to give, to any elector or other person any money or thing of value or any pecuniary advantage or benefit for the purpose of inducing or influencing such elector or other person to vote for him in any convention or meeting of the people held for the purpose of nominating any person or persons to be voted for at any such election to make him the nominee of any such convention or meeting and the candidate to be voted for for any office at such election, or who shall so give or promise any such thing to any such person for the purpose of inducing or influencing any person to sign any nomination paper which seeks to have him nominated as a candidate for any office to be so voted for; and any such elector or other person who shall ask, solicit, or receive any money or thing of value or any pecuniary advantage or benefit from such candidate as a consideration or inducement for his vote at any such convention or meeting of the people, or his signature to any such paper, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500.

SEC. 296. Bribery in connection with caucus (sec. 45426).-Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any preliminary meeting or caucus mentioned in sections 11a to lli, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is therein created, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to an elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any preliminary meeting, caucus, or convention held under said provisions shall be punished as provided in section 4542a.

SEC. 298. Bribery of voter; disturbance at caucus or convention.--Every person who, by bribery or corrupt or unlawful means, prevents or attempts to prevent any voter from attending or voting at any caucus mentioned in this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any officer, inspector, or delegate whose office is created by this act, or who shall give or offer to give any valuable thing or bribe to any elector as a consideration for some act to be done in relation to such caucus or convention, or who shall interfere with or in any manner disturb any caucus or convention held under the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished in the manner hereinafter provided. (Ch. 341, 1899.)

CHARGES OF CORRUPTION IN THE LEGISLATURE.

On page 2271 of the Report of the State Senate Investigating Committee an attempt is made to summarize the corruption alleged to exist in connection with the election by the legislature, and the first objection is that Mr. Stephenson was elected by the legislature by a majority of three votes while the charges of corruption against him. were being investigated by the legislature. This charge seems hardly worthy of serious consideration. It was admitted that he was elected by the legislature, and there is no law or rule that would invalidate the election because of the pendency of these charges. That was a matter for the members of the legislature to consider in determining whether or not they would vote for him.

ABSENT MEMBERS ON MARCH 4.

The next charge is that the election of Mr. Stephenson was made possible by three members, who, it is claimed, at the instigation of Mr. Stephenson's managers and agents, absented themselves from the joint assembly when it became known that their presence would prevent the election of Mr. Stephenson, and it was charged that the absence of these three members had been procured by fraudulent or wrongful means by or on behalf of Mr. Stephenson. It was the only charge of corruption in connection with the election of Mr. Stephenson by the legislature worthy of consideration.

The result of the vote on March 4 consequent upon the absence of these three members is made plain in the testimony of Richard J. White (p. 1324) and by an examination of the journal of the joint assembly on March 4. On that day the total number of votes cast was 123, of which Isaac Stephenson received 63.

The members of the legislature whose absence from the chamber on March 4 was questioned were Messrs. Farrell, Ramsey, and Towne.

On March 3 Farrell voted for Neal Brown, Ramsey voted for George W. Peck, and Towne did not vote at all.

On March 2 Farrell and Ramsey voted for Neal Brown, and Towne voted for Lucknow.

On March 1 neither Farrell, Ramsey, nor Towne voted at all. On February 27 Ramsey voted for Wall, Farrell voted for Neal Brown, and Towne did not vote at all.

On February 26 Towne voted for Thomas A. Stewart; neither Farrell nor Ramsey seem to have voted.

These instances are cited to show that on the face of the transaction there was nothing unusual in the absence of either of the three absentees on March 4, and nothing in their absence to raise the presumption of corruption therein.

It is true that had these three members been present and voted the total vote would have been 126, and the 63 votes received by Mr. Stephenson would not have elected, but the evidence clearly establishes the fact that Mr. Ramsey, one of the three absentees, was paired with Mr. Fenelon and that such pairs had been universally recognized, so that Mr. Ramsey can not be said to have been absent for any corrupt purpose, nor would his absence from the joint assembly affect the result of the vote. Being paired, he could not have voted. In that event, had Farrell and Towne been present the total vote would have been 125, of which Mr. Stephenson received 63. Sixty-three would have been a majority and would have elected Mr. Stephenson, so that the absence of Farrell and Towne did not affect the result of the election, and it can not therefore be said that the election was brought about through corrupt practices so far as the absence of Farrell and Towne was concerned.

It is not charged that any other member who voted for Mr. Stephenson did so either from corrupt motives or actions on his own part or that he was procured to do so by any corrupt action on the part of any person in the interest of Mr. Stephenson.

no

The votes cast for Mr. Stephenson were those that had been consistently supporting him throughout the contest. There was change in his favor upon which any presumption of corruption could be based.

Does the evidence show or tend to show that there were corrupt measures or unlawful methods adopted to secure the absence of either Farrell or Towne ?

There has been much sensational testimony introduced before the subcommittee, which was heard largely because such testimony had been received by the legislative investigating committee for the purpose of showing bribery or corrupt methods in connection with the absence of Ramsey, Farrell, and Towne. It was not shown that any money had been traced to either of these men from any source in connection with the matter; but it was claimed that a fund had been raised to be used for corrupt purposes, and that, on the assumption that such fund had been raised, it must at least in part have been used to bring about the absence of these three members of the legislature.

It was claimed that Senator Stephenson had entered into an arrangement with Edward Hines and R. J. Shields for using money for corrupt purposes to be furnished by Mr. Stephenson, and much hearsay testimony was introduced for the purpose of establishing such fact. There can be no question but what the effort to establish any such charge utterly failed. There was no evidence upon which any reasonable conclusion that such corruption fund had been either raised or used could be based.

The charge as to a meeting between the three absentees or some of them and Mr. Regan and Mr. Puelicher at the Plankington House in Milwaukee centered about the testimony taken before the legislative investigating committee of a witness, Frank T. Wagner, who was utterly discredited both at the legislative investigation and by testimony introduced before the subcommittee. It was shown that he is now under sentence in the penitentiary for perjury for having testified to seeing these men in the Plankington Hotel and hearing a conversation upon which the charge that they had entered into a corrupt bargain at that time rested. All the testimony in regard to such a transaction fell to the ground, and was so manifestly without foundation as to call for no consideration except its dismissal.

CHARGE OF BRIBERY OF OTHER MEMBERS.

There seems to have been some remark on the part of Mr. Damochowski and Mr. Lyons as to the tender of money being made them in connection with this election, but on the witness stand they both stated that whatever statements they made in that regard were made in jest and that there was no foundation in truth for them.

Some sensational testimony was introduced in regard to statements made by Mr. R. J. Shields as to having received money or handled money in the interest of Mr. Stephenson in a corrupt manner in dealing with members of the legislature, and members of the senate legislative investigating committee had gone to the office of a certain attorney in Chicago and there met Mr. Wirt Cook of Duluth, Minn.. who recited to them some hearsay statements as to conversations and acts which were fully investigated by the subcommittee and found to be entirely without foundation.

We may therefore safely dismiss the charges of corruption in connection with the action of the legislature in electing Mr. Stephenson, whether such election is held to have been on January 26 or on March 4, 1909.

GENERAL CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION.

It appears that Mr. Stephenson contributed $2,000 to the Republican State central committee. Against this contribution no legitimate objection can be urged. It was not in violation of any law nor for other than general election purposes.

It was also shown by testimony that Mr. Stephenson before the primary gave money to C. C. Wellensgard, Levi H. Bancroft, and Thomas Reynolds, who were candidates for the legislature. These men testified that they used the money in the interest of Mr. Stephenson at the direct primaries. If we eliminate Mr. Stephenson from the direct primaries the contributions which he made to these candidates for nomination and election to the legislature would be in violation of no law. It appears from the testimony that they w re at the time voluntary and ardent supporters of Mr. Stephenson regardless of any money which they may have received or which may have been placed in their hands by him for any purpose.

There is not sufficient evidence upon which to base a charge of bribery or any other charge that would affect the validity of the election of Mr. Stephenson in either of these cases.

DIRECT PRIMARY.

The subcommittee, in determining the scope of the investigation, was confronted with the question as to how far, if at all, the charges affecting the candidacy of Isaac Stephenson before the direct primary should be considered.

The State legislative committee had directed its attention principally to the direct primary and the conduct of the candidates therein.

It was doubtless competent for the legislature to provide for direct primaries for the nomination of candidates for the legislature and to place legal restrictions about them to secure the integrity of their elections, but, as herein elsewhere more fully stated, it is not competent for the legislature to provide for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate at direct primaries.

The status of Mr. Stephenson at such primaries is not comparable to that of candidates for the legislature or for any State office.

The language of the resolution under which the subcommittee acted directs it to report whether "in the election of Isaac Stephenson there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices," and the language of the last paragraph of section 1 of the resolution, bringing the matter to the attention of the United States Senate, strictly construed, refers only to the election.

When we speak of the election of a United States Senator under existing constitutional and legislative provisions we contemplate only the election by the legislature of the State. There is as yet no recognition to be given extra-legislative proceedings in the nature of what is termed "direct primaries," no such method of selection being recognized by any law of the United States.

The subcommittee has, however, brought to the attention of the Senate in the record of its proceedings all the facts obtainable relating to the conduct of the primary. Should it be the judgment of the Senate that such facts are irrelevant, then the consideration would be limited