It was determined in the negative by the following vote: Yeas.-Messrs. Borah, Bourne, Bristow, Brown, Bryan, Chamberlain, Clapp, Craword, Cummins, Gardner, Gore, Gronna, Hitchcock, Johnson, Kenyon, Kern, Lea, Martine, Myers, O'Gorman, Poindexter, Reed, Simmons, Smith of Georgia, Smith of South Carolina, Townsend, and Works-27. Nays.-Messrs. Bradley, Brandegee, Briggs, Burnham, Burton, Chilton, Crane, Culom, Curtis, Fletcher, Foster, Gamble, Heyburn, Johnston, Lippitt, Lodge, Lorimer, McLean, Newlands, Nixon, Pomerene, Rayner, Richardson, Root, Smoot, Sutherland, Warren, Watson, and Wetmore-29. So the amendment of Mr. Jones to the motion of Mr. Heyburn was not agreed to. On motion by Mr. Heyburn, at 5 o'clock and 23 minutes p. m., The Senate took a recess until 11 o'clock a. m. to-morrow. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, b. 3831.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1912. Mr. Heyburn's motion that the report of the committee be adopted and that Isaac Stephenson be declared entitled to a seat as Senator from the State of Wisconsin in the United States Senate was read. The question of agreeing to the motion being submitted to the Senate, the same was agreed to by the following vote: Yeas.-Messrs. Bankhead, Bradley, Brandegee, Briggs, Burnham, Burton, Chilton, Clarke of Wyoming, Crane, Curtis, Dillingham, du Pont, Fletcher, Foster, Gamble, Heyburn, Johnston, Lippitt, Lodge, Lorimer, McCumber, McLean, Newlands, Nixon, Oliver, Overman, Page, Penrose, Perkins, Pomerene, Rayner, Richardson, Root, Smith of Maryland, Smoot, Sutherland, Thornton, Warren, Watson, and Wetmore-40. Nays.-Messrs. Borah, Bourne, Bristow, Brown, Bryan, Chamberlain, Clapp, Crawford, Culberson, Cummins, Dixon, Garnder, Gronna, Hitchcock, Johnson, Jones, Kenyon, Kern, La Follette, Lea, Martine, Myers, O'Gorman, Owen, Percy, Poindexter, Shively, Smith of Georgia, Smith of Michigan, Smith of South Carolina, Stone, Townsend, Williams, and Works-34. So it was Resolved, that the Senate agree to the said report. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 3896.) [Sixty-second Congress, second session.] Of Delaware. The credentials of Henry A. du Pont, certifying to his election as a Senator from the State of Delaware for the term commencing March 4, 1911, were submitted to the Senate on January 26, 1911, and on April 4 1911, the said Henry A. du Pont was sworn in. On February 26, 1912, Mr. Reed submitted a resolution authorizing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate and report whether corrupt methods and practices were employed by the said Henry A. du Pont in connection with certain elections in that State in 1904 and 1910. This resolution was based upon testimony taken by the Committee on the Judiciary in connection with the question of the confirmation of a person appointed to a Federal office in that State. On the following day Mr. du Pont made denial of the truth of the charges made and invited any action which the Senate deemed proper to take in the premises. On Wednesday, following a speech by Mr. Reed, the resolution was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. No report was ever made by the committee up to the close of the Sixty-second Congress. The case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings as found in the Congressiona. Record. [Sixty-first Congress, third session.] THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. Mr. Richardson presented the credentials of Henry A. du Pont, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Delaware for the term commencing March 4, 1911, which were read and placed on file. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, p. 1463.) [Sixty-second Congress, first session.] Swearing in of Senators TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1911. In list: Mr. Henry A. du Pont. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 2.) [Sixty-second Congress, second session.] MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1912. Mr. Reed submitted the following resolution for consideration: Whereas the President of the United States, on the 22d day of January, 1912, appointed Cornelius P. Swain United States marshal for the State of Delaware, and sent said appointment to the Senate of the United States for confirmation, and said appointment was in due course referred to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate for proper action in the premises; and Whereas certain prominent citizens of the State of Delaware caused it to be made known to said committee that they desired to protest against the confirmation of the appointment of the said Swain, upon the ground that he was an unfit person to hold the office of United States marshal for the said State of Delaware; and Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States designated two of its members, viz, Senators Sutherland and Overman, to act as a subcommittee, authorized to investigate the grounds and reasons for said protest; and Whereas on the 2d and 9th days of February, 1912, there appeared before said subcommittee Hon. Willard Saulsbury, of Wilmington, Del., representing certain objec tors to the confirmation of the appointment of the said Cornelius P. Swain, and there also appeared the said Cornelius P. Swain in person and by his counsel, Daniel O. Hastings, Esq.; and Whereas said objectors, before said subcommittee, in substance and effect charged: 1. That the said Cornelius P. Swain was unfit to occupy any place connected with or near the courts of the United States for the district of Delaware, because the said Cornelius P. Swain bore the common and general reputation of a persistent vi lator of the criminal provisions of the constitution of the State of Delaware intended to secure purity of elections. 2. That the said Cornelius P. Swain had notoriously been a vote buyer in the second representative district of Sussex County (New Fork Hundred) for many years; 3. That the said Cornelius P. Swain had procured and carried large sums of money into said precinct for the purpose of corrupting the voters of said district, and in the year 1908 was the assistant cashier of the corruption fund, and in substance charged that all of the above facts were notorious; and Whereas the testimony of certain witnesses produced before said subcommittee and certain affidavits there read in evidence tended to prove: (a) That at the election held in the State of Delaware in the year 1904 members of the legislature were being selected who would thereafter have the right to elect a United States Senator, and who did, in fact, elect the said Henry Algernon du Pont Senator from the State of Delaware; (b) That shortly prior to said election a large sum of money, to wit, a sum in excess of $25,000, and claimed to be in excess of $58,000, was contributed by the said Henry Algernon du Pont; (c) That said sum of money was distributed among various corrupt agents working in the interest of the said Henry Algernon du Pont; (d) That said distribution took place in the office of the said Henry Algernon du Pont, and with his knowledge; (e) That $3,000 of the money so contributed was in the office of the said Henry Algernon du Pont delivered to be used for the purpose of corrupting the voters of the second representative district of Sussex County, Del., and was in fact so used under the direction of the said Cornelius P. Swain, and it was admitted by the attorney representing said Swain that said $3,000 was so received by him; and Whereas the evidence tended further to show that not only at the election held in the year 1904, but in the elections held in the years 1906, 1908, and 1910 similar corrupt practices were employed, and said evidence tended further to show that said corrupt practices did affect the election of the members of the legislature who in the year 1911 reelected the said Henry Algernon du Pont to a seat in this body; and Whereas said subcommittee construed its duties to be confined to an investigation of the corrupt practices with which the said Cornelius P. Swain could be shown to be directly connected, and did not therefore investigate generally into the conditions surrounding said election, so that there has, in fact, been no investigation of the connection of the said Henry Algernon du Pont with said alleged corrupt practices, except in so far as the same was made to appear as an incident of the investigation of the said Swain; and Whereas the said Cornelius P. Swain was appointed to said office at the request of the said Henry Algernon du Pont, notwithstanding the evidence tends to show his corrupt practices and general reputation as an election corruptionist: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate and to report to the Senate, whether, in fact, corrupt methods and practices were employed by the said Henry Algernon du Pont to secure the election of members of the legislature who thereafter elected him to a seat in this body; whether said corrupt practices related to the general election of 1904, or the general election of 1910, or to his election by the members of the legislature selected at said elections; and whether the said Henry Algernon du Pont is a proper person to retain his seat, or ought to retain his seat, in this body as a Senator from the State of Delaware. Said Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, is hereby authorized to sit during the sessions or the recess of the Senate; to hold its sessions at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation aforesaid; to employ stenographers; to send for persons and papers; and to administer oaths. The expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee or chairman of the subcommittee. Said committee is requested to proceed with said investigation with all reasonable speed and to report its findings, together with the evidence, at the earliest possible date. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 2443.) TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1912. Mr. DU PONT. Mr. President, I rise to a question of personal privilege. Certain resolutions were offered yesterday in the Senate by the junior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Reed] formulating charges against me. I will at this time confine myself to making the most emphatic denial of the truth of the charges made and invite any action which the Senate may deem proper to take in the premises. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 2492.) 79908°-S. Doc. 1036, 62–375 The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brandegee in the chair) laid before the Senate the resolution yesterday submitted by Mr. Reed, directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the election of Senator du Pont, etc. On motion by Mr. Reed, Ordered, That the resolution lie on the table. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 2497.) On motion by Mr. Reed, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1912. The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by him on the 26th instant, directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the election of Senator du Pont, etc.; . Mr. Reed addressed the Senate and, after debate, The resolution was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 2550-2555.) [Sixty-second Congress, third session.] CLARENCE W. WATSON AND WILLIAM E. CHILTON, Of West Virginia. On February 2, 1911, Clarence W. Watson took his seat in the Senate following the submission of his credentials certifying to his election by the Legislature of West Virginia, as a Senator from that State, for the term ending March 3, 1913. On February 6, 1911, the credentials of William E. Chilton, certifying to his election by the same legislature, as a Senator from the State of West Virginia for the term beginning March 4, 1911, were presented. On the first day of the first session of the Sixty-second Congress, April 4, 1911, he took his seat in the Senate. On the last day of the second session of the Sixty-second Congress, August 26, 1912, a petition, signed by five citizens of West Virginia, was presented to the Senate alleging that bribery and corruption were practiced in the election of said Messrs. Watson and Chilton as Senators of the United States, and praying for an investigation of such charges by the Senate. This petition was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. On February 5, 1913, Senator Chilton made a statement in behalf of Senator Watson and himself in the Senate and submitted a communication in the nature of a reply to the petition above mentioned. This was also referred to the committee. At the third session of the Sixty-second Congress, on the 11th day of February, 1913, the committee reported that no charge of bribery, or attempted bribery, on the part of any member of the legislature, to vote for the said Messrs. Watson and Chilton, appeared in the papers with the committee, and that the only charge of money being used appeared in a purported statement of one of the delegates, who said he received $1,000, prior to a Democratic caucus for the nomination of Senators, to vote for Messrs. Watson and Chilton, and that the statement was without foundation and had been fully retracted by a subsequent statement by the said delegate himself. The committee was unanimously of the opinion that the prayer of the petition should not be granted, and accompanied their report with a resolution that the Committee on Privileges and Elections be discharged from further consideration of the case. The committe report was adopted by the Senate. The history of the case here presented consists of a statement of the proceedings in the Senate as published in the Congressional Record and the report of the committee. [Sixty-first Congress, third session.] THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1911. Mr. Scott presented the credentials of Clarence Wayland Watson, chosen by the legislature of the State of West Virginia a Senator from that State to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Hon. Stephen Benton Elkins in the term ending March 3, 1913, which were read and ordered to be filed. The oath prescribed by law having been administered, he took his seat in the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, p. 1797.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1911. Mr. Scott presented the credentials of William Edwin Chilton, chosen by the Legislature of the State of West Virginia a Senator from that State for the term beginning March 4, 1911, which were read and ordered to be filed. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, p. 1969.) [Sixty-second Congress, first session.] TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1911. The oath of office having been administered to Mr. Chilton, he took his seat. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 2.) [Sixty-second Congress, second session.] MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1912. The President pro tempore laid before the Senate a petition of the governor of West Virginia and others, alleging that bribery and corruption were practiced in the election of Senators Watson and Chilton as Senators of the United States from the State of West Virginia, and praying for an investigation of such charges by the Senate. Ordered, That the petition be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The reading of the petition was commenced and, after debate, was expunged from the Record. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 11862-11865.) |