fact that he comes here with the full approval of the people of Illinois.

There is a second reason why I know you will listen to me with patience, and with open minds, and that is that the rights of a sovereign State are involved in this great question; and the rights of that State are the rights of every State of the Federal Union. What is the fate of Illinois to-day may possibly in future years be the fate of some other State that is represented by some of the members of this committee.

And in the third place, and greater than all, there is not one member of this committee who can have other than a feeling of deep affection and veneration for the Constitution of the fathers, and no matter how any of you may have voted hitherto, there is not one of you who would willingly pull down in a day what it has taken 140 years to construct. I do not want to indulge in verbal hysterics in relation to the Constitution, although the solemnity of the matter can not be too strongly impressed. If you allow this fabric to be destroyed on this occasion in this or other respects, you have destroyed that which can never be rebuilt. There is not to-day the statecraft that could ever do again what the fathers did in Philadelphia 140 years ago. One can say, as Othello said in that last act of Shakespeare's greatest drama, "Put out that light"-the light of the Constitution "and I know not whence is that Promethean heat that can that light relume." It will be extinguished forever, and with it will go an experiment in democracy which hitherto the whole world has admired. With that invocation to your indulgence and attention to the general remarks that I shall make, let us consider for a moment what is the question before us. The Senate of the United States, without itself expressing any opinion, has asked this committee to consider and to report, first, whether upon any evidence before it there is any reason why the oath of office should not be given to Colonel Smith upon his undisputed credentials; and secondly, assuming that such oath of office were given, what should be the action of the Senate with respect to giving him his seat.

We are confronted with an unprecedented situation here. There is no accuser; there are no formulated charges; there is no contestant; there are no rival credentials, and all that the committee has and all the facts upon which any argument can be predicated, are these, that in an ex parte investigation-and by that I am not speaking invidiously, at all, because I think the Reed Committee rendered a great public service by calling the attention of the American people to the excessive use of money in politics, but nevertheless on an ex parte investigation-certain facts were developed, and as I understood this committee last Saturday, you desire to have me argue, upon the face of the report and upon the face of the testimony, whether there is any reason under the Constitution of the United States why the oath of office should not be administered to Frank L. Smith upon undisputed credentials of his State.

Therefore, I must first address myself to what were the facts developed in the Reed committee. If I took the bulky record, most of which has little reference to Mr. Smith-and there are other features for which he is not responsible and as to which he is not interested-if I were to take that and fumble from page to page, I would certainly tire the committee; and therefore I have carefully

read all the pertinent testimony, and I have tried to summarize it, extenuating nothing, and obviously setting down naught in malice, in the form of a few typewritten pages, and if you will allow me to read the "evidence in the case, to use a term that I once used in reference to a book, such reading will have the added advantage that for each reference I will quote the page of the record of the Reed Committee where it may be found, so that any member of the committee can verify it. With your indulgence, these are the facts that are disclosed by the testimony in the case:

Frank L. Smith is the president of a small bank in a town of 2,500 people. He has been in public life for over 30 years and against his reputation there has never hitherto been any imputation. In November, 1925, he determined to enter the Republican primaries, which were to be held in the following April, as a candidate for United States Senator against the late Senator McKinley. He was a man of small means, as compared with his opponent, who was a multimillionaire. Moreover, his opponent had the advantage of being the seated Member, which enabled him to frank his political literature to every voter and which gave him, to a considerable extent, the control of the Federal organization. The proof shows that until very late in the primary campaign, Mr. Smith had no factional or organization support except and only the organization developed by his friends.

Mr. Smith required an organization and he requested his friend, Allen F. Moore, to form a campaign committee, of which Mr. Moore became chairman and treasurer. Mr. Moore "understood the task of creating the organization and conducting the campaign, except in so far as Mr. Smith would make speeches and see the people. (1533.) Mr. Moore opened headquarters in the Congress Hotel, Chicago, and Mr. Smith departed on his speech-making campaign during the course of which he made 300 or 400 speeches, "making as high as 31 towns in a week and 56 speeches a week." (1539.)

He was constantly on the go, and to one in public life that is full of meaning. I know that some years ago, being engaged in some litigation with John Philip Sousa, we were cross-examining him, and it developed that he had written two letters which had two entirely different statements in regard to the same matter. When we asked him how he could reconcile these statements he turned to the lawyer who was examining him, and he said, "Mr. So and So, did you ever do one night stands?" It was so appropriate that we did not bear too hardly upon a man who in one letter had said one thing and in another exactly the opposite, when he was thus doing the hardest thing that a man can possibly do; namely, the driving, intense energy of a public man, shaking hands with thousands and thousands of people, addressing thousands more, and wearing every energy of mind and body and soul to the extreme limit in the attempt to overcome the desperate odds against which he was struggling.

This division of work required Moore to collect and disburse the money and Smith to meet and address the people. (1539.) Mr. Smith testified that he "had nothing to do with the collection of the money. (1535.) Asked by the chairman whether he had discussed with Mr. Moore "where he could get money," Mr. Smith replied: "No; I did not tell him where he could get money.' (1539.) He further testified: "I have the information that Mr. Moore conducted

the campaign, collected the money, and will be ready and glad to respond as a witness and tell where he got it. As to where the money came from, I did not see the money and know nothing as to the form in which it came to Mr. Moore." (1537.)

Mr. Smith further testified that he had instructed Mr. Moore to accept no contributions that would involve any obligation on his part. He did not know what contributions had, in fact, been made until after the primary, although he admitted that, during the campaign he had knowledge that Mr. Insull had made contributions to his campaign fund and, as it had become an issue in the primaries, his only reply was "that if one who had made $38,000,000 reduction in utilities costs saw fit to support my candidacy, I could see no reason for objection." [Reading:]

The CHAIRMAN. I take it then, Mr. Smith, that you had information that put you on notice of the fact that Insull had contributed. Mr. SMITH. I would not put it that way, Senator. Mr. Insull was supporting my campaign.

donations, I had no knowledge at that time.

I had information that

As to the amount or any specific

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not take up that matter with Mr. Moore?

Mr. SMITH. I talked with Mr. Moore about the progress of the campaign and Mr. Moore indicated to me that he was getting along all right with managing the campaign and with finances. (1868.)

* * *

Mr. Smith himself contributed $5,000 and some small checks, aggregating a few hundred dollars, which his friends had given him. Mr. Smith further testified upon his and Mr. Moore's activities: From the beginning there was a division of labor between us. I was to make the campaign throughout the State, attend meetings, meet the voters and in every way possible, by word of mouth, carry the message to the people of the State of Illinois. Mr. Moore was to effect the best organization possible under the circumstances, direct the campaign from central headquarters, and find the money to pay necessary expenses. We had a clear understanding from the start about money. This understanding was that under no circumstances was I to be put under any obligation whatever to any one for contributions or other assistance. I have not violated that understanding at any time and I am firm in my belief that Mr. Moore has in no way violated it. I have never at any time or under any circumstances, either previous to this primary campaign, during the campaign, or after its close, in any manner, directly or indirectly, obligated myself to any person for, or on account of, any assistance, whether monetary or otherwise, that he or she might have contributed toward the success of my campaign. I am just as sure of Mr. Allen F. Moore as I am of myself in this regard. (1861.)

Please understand, Senators, that Mr. Smith, in this testimony, is not in any sense repudiating what Mr. Moore has done. He accepts responsibility for that, and therefore he would not have me put him in the position of repudiating it. The fact is, however-and there is no contradiction of it-that the matter of financing the campaign was undertaken by Mr. Moore, a man of substantial means; that Mr. Smith had departed and traveled from one end of the State to the other; and that the only knowledge that he had that Mr. Insull had made any contribution was the fact of the contribution: but the amount, or the circumstances, were unknown to him until after the primary elections.

Mr. Moore confirmed this testimony about the division of the work, and testified that he himself, as a friend of Mr. Smith, had contributed $75,000, and that other contributions had been made. which aggregated about $250,000. Of this sum about one-half was contributed by Mr. Insull. In November or December of 1925 Mr.

Samuel Insull, a man of large wealth and varied enterprises, asked him to call at the office; and, after indicating his interest in Mr. Smith's campaign, Mr. Insull contributed $50,000. Early in March he contributed a second $50,000, and shortly before the primary he contributed $25,000 more. Mr. Insull gave as his reason that he did not like Senator McKinley, and did not think that he had made a good Senator. (1558.) No other reason was assigned for the gift, except that one, and the principal avowed ground of Mr. Insull's objection to Senator McKinley was the latter's approval of American participation in the World Court.

Mr. Moore testified:

Mr. Smith did not know anything about the finances of this campaign. I . handled that myself. (1566.)

He gave a detailed account of his expenditures, which aggregated $253,000; and be it remembered that there never was any evidence whatever, or the pretense of evidence, that a single dollar was ever spent illegitimately. Every dollar of it had been accounted for, for what was not merely a legitimate object but quite a laudable object, in acquainting the citizens of Illinois with the merits of the campaign. Now we come to Mr. Insull's testimony; and they are the only three.

Mr. Insull testified that he had opposed Senator McKinley because of his deep-rooted convictions on the World Court matter. He stated that, apart from the Smith campaign he had spent, through men of his own selection, about $26,000 in propaganda against the World Court. He specifically stated that the money that he contributed was wholly his own, and that none of it had been contributed by any public utility corporation. The only testimony on this subject is as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Where did you get the money from?

Mr. INSULL. My own personal resources. Every dollar that I have contributed to Mr. Smith's campaign and every dollar that I have contributed to this World Court campaign is the money absolutely of Samuel Insull-of myself. The CHAIRMAN. There was no arrangement for any reimbursement? Mr. INSULL. Absolutely none whatsoever. (1825.)

Now, therefore the committee can at least start with the fact-and it is an important fact-notwithstanding the idea so generally prevalent throughout the country, owing to the always misleading headlines of newspapers, that no public utility corporation ever contributed a penny to Mr. Smith's campaign. Of course you may say that Mr. Insull, who is a very prominent official, and perhaps you could go so far as to say the controlling spirit, of public utility companies, did contribute it out of his pocket; but I do not want to argue the case now until I have completed my facts. Certainly, however, if Judge Gary makes a contribution to a political campaign, there is no necessary inference that the United States Steel Corporation gave it; and when a man like Mr. Insull, who is a type of citizen common in many cities, who takes an interest in everything, the opera, the art gallery, civic enterprises, the theater, public utilities, political movements, etc., exercises his undoubted right as a citizen of the United States, in the absence of any prohibitory law, to contribute to a party movement which has his sympathy, it is gratuitous and at all events it is without justification to conclude that the money of the public utility corporation was contributed.

At the time these gifts were made by Mr. Insull to Mr. Moore for the Smith campaign fund, Mr. Smith was the chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission. It is a body of seven men, each of them given an equal vote, which regulates utilities. Mr. Smith testified that during the World War the rates had been raised to meet extraordinary conditions, but after its termination the commission commenced investigations to reduce them. They first took up the Chicago surface lines and the Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., an Insull concern. The street car company's rates were reduced, and a saving effected to the patrons in four years to June 30, 1926, amounting to over $35,000,000.

As to the Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., the chief Insull concern, an order was made, effective August 1, 1923, which reduced gas rates from $1.19 per thousand cubic feet to $0.96 per thousand cubic feet, resulting in a saving to consumers up to June 30, 1926, of approximately $25,000,000.

The Commonwealth Edison Co., another Insull concern, had its rates reduced on August 1, 1923, and this reduction to June 30, 1926, amounted to $5,800,000.

These references will be found on page 1862.

All these references are in the record.

By the way, I may interject here that not only is there no evidence whatever that the public utilities commission-of which Mr. Smith was but one member in seven, and whose orders were at all times subject to an appeal to a court by any interested party-ever raised any public utility rate a penny, but, as a matter of fact, the reductions were substantial and deep-cutting; and after the primary and the election there never was a suggestion that the public utility companies received any possible favor at the hands of the public utilities commission.

Let me also interject there, if I may, this further thought, that if it be true, if you can spell out from this testimony an inference or a presumption that Mr. Insull gave this money to Colonel Smith to influence him as chairman of the public untilities commission, then you have this very remarkable fact, that the very purpose and object of the money and the very inevitable use of the money was to make it impossible for Mr. Smith to continue to act as chairman of the public utilities commission, because the moment he was elected Senator, he could not continue as such chairman, and his opportunity of being useful (if he had been a serviceable tool of Mr. Insull) had altogether vanished with his election; so that the very contribution of money was designed to take away the very effect which is imputed upon these facts.

Such is all the pertinent testimony as to the Insull contributions, upon which the charge of impropriety or corruption was based. Senator CARAWAY. May I ask you a question?

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir.

Senator CARAWAY. What is your explanation of the contribution from Mr. Studebaker, who was an owner of utilities in Illinois?

Mr. BECK. It is precisely the same thing. Mr. Studebaker was not called, was he, or Mr. Copley? I have forgotten. At all events, each of them in turn was a man of affairs, and connected with a public utility corporation, but there is no evidence to show that the public utility corporations contributed anything.