and had it in his possession at the time he told Mr. Page he expected to receive it; and that the money was not inclosed in any envelope; the fact that Mr. Pomeroy states nothing was said about security or interest (although the parties had not known each other for more than one or two years, and resided at different and distant points); that Mr. Page states he was to have it without interest; the additional facts elicited in the cross-examination of Mr. Pomeroy by one of the committee, that the reason he did not pay over the whole $7,000 to York on Monday night, but only $2,000, was that he wanted to see Mr. Page first; and, on further cross-examination, that he had not the key of the valise where the $5,000 was placed; first that the money was not in the same room (the back room) where the parties were, and afterwards that it was. These and other circumstances connected with the affair show discrepancy apparently irreconcilable. Mr. Pomeroy, when testifying, would naturally state the case as favorable to himself as it could be done consistently with the facts.

On the other hand is to be considered the circumstances leading to, attendant, and consequent upon the alleged receipt of money by Mr. York from Mr. Pomeroy. Four persons conspired to defeat Mr. Pomeroy's election to the Senate of the United States; the plan of operations was concocted at night, and Mr. York, as the chief conspirator, was selected or volunteered to carry out the programme. He went to Mr. Pomeroy's rooms very late at night. His object was to obtain Mr. Pomeroy's confidence and his money, and then betray him. He induced Mr. Pomeroy to believe that he would be his friend, but that he wanted money. He asserts that he sold his promised support to Mr. Pomeroy for $7,000; received the $2,000 before he left, and the balance, of $5,000, the next day; that he took the money to the joint convention, made an exciting speech and exposure, and strenuously opposed all motions for adjournment or recess to allow Mr. Pomeroy an opportunity for denial or explanation. Although a witness who acknowledges the turpitude of his conduct, and the iniquitous means he resorted to to deceive and induce another to commit an offense that he might betray him, may possibly be believed, yet the mind cannot relieve itself of the unfavorable effect which the facts stated and the moral taint of the witness must produce. Detectives, it is said, are employed by governments and by individuals, and to use stratagems and devices to detect suspected offenders. But the cases, I presume, are not exactly parallel. Mr. York and Mr. Pomeroy were personal and political friends, and Mr. York admits that he sought Mr. Pomeroy and exerted his influence to induce him to commit a crime by the offer of a very valuable consideration. A detective may lay his plans and place temptations in the way of one he wishes to entrap, but I do not suppose that he solicits and bargains for its commission. I should be reluctant to credit the testimony of one who confessed to such practices, unless he was strongly corroborated. The true theory should be that the evidence of one who acknowledges his own wrongful and vicious purposes and acts to seduce another into the commission of crime should be corroborated in the essentials of his testimony. While he may be competent to testify, his credibility is sensibly and materially affected. Unless some such rule prevail, any citizen in the community might be unjustly convicted upon the false testimony of a sharp but unprincipled witness. Character alone will sometimes outweigh the charge of an accuser, unless corroborated. In my opinion, neither governments nor individuals should countenance the violation of truth or morality to accomplish any purpose.

Taking all the testimony and circumstances into consideration, and weighing them carefully in equal scales, I cannot decide that the guilt of Mr. Pomeroy is established beyond a reasonable doubt. If I were a judge or a juror, I could not convict upon such testimony. The duty of the committee was to take the testimony and report upon it to the Senate, with their convictions of its bearing and effect. They have, in the short time allowed, and under difficulties and incoveniences arising out of their Senatorial duties and engagements on other committees, and some delay in receiving the printed testimony, been prevented from giving as thorough a consideration of the evidence as they desired to do. But considering the nature and character of the testimony for the prosecution and defense, with all the surrounding circumstances, I have not been able to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the charges against Mr. Pomeroy have been sustained.

G. VICKERS.

VIEWS OF MR. THURMAN.

I cannot agree with the report of the majority of the committee. I think that the testimony proves a corrupt offer by Mr. Pomeroy to Senator Simpson, of the Kansas legislature, to obtain the vote of the latter.

I also believe that the testimony convicts Mr. Pomeroy of having attempted to bribe Senator York, of that legislature, to vote for him; that Pomeroy delivered to York $7,000 is not denied. The only material issue between them is, for what purpose was the money

delivered? York says that it was a bribe for his vote. Pomeroy says that it was handed to York to carry it to one Page, whom Pomeroy had promised to assist in starting a national bank. In my judgment the statements of Mr. Pomeroy on this subject are contradictory, are inconsistent with Page's statements; are so opposed to the usual circumstances attending a business transaction, and are so improbable, especially in view of the circumstances attending the Senatorial election, that reliance cannot be placed upon them. Perceiving no good to result from an elaborate statement of the testimony and reasons that bring me to these conclusions, I refrain from making such statement. Were there time for the Senate to consider the subject fully I should feel it my duty to give at large the reasons for my convictions. But this is the last day of the session and of Mr. Pomeroy's Senatorial term. Before the reports can be printed, much less considered, the session will be at an end. I therefore say no more than to repeat the conclusions to which my mind, has, reluctantly and painfully, been brought.

[Second and third sessions Forty-second Congress, and special session, March, 1873 }

POWELL CLAYTON,

Senator from Arkansas from March 25, 1871, till March 3, 1877.

January 9, 1872, the Joint Select Committee to inquire into the Condition of the late Insurrection ary States reported to the Senate that certain testimony taken by them tended to impeach the offi cial character and conduct of Mr. Clayton; that the committee had not prosecuted the inquiry be yond taking the testimony of two witnesses, deciding that the subject-matter did not come within the limits of the investigation they were directed to make; that they reported to the Senate this tes timony, recommending that the Senate take such action as it deem proper. The Senate resolved that the report and testimony be referred to a select committee to investigate and report upon the charges. June 10, 1872, the committee reported that the investigation was completed, but that the committee were unable at that time to arrange the testimony and report back such parts of it as were relevant; that they held it but the plainest justice to Mr. Clayton that they should make known the general result of their investigation; that they consequently submitted a partial report, reserving the right to submit a final report with the testimony, and recommending that the Senate delay action on the subject until such time; that the charges were not sustained, and that the testimony failed to impeach the Senator's official conduct or character. There was a minority report, which did not enter into the merits of the case, but held that the action of the committee in reporting at that time was premature. February 26, 1873, the committee submitted the evidence, and made a final report, recommending the adoption of a resolution that the charges referred to the committee were not sustained, and that they be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. There was a minority report holding that the charge made of procuring his seat by the corrupt use of money was sustained by the evidence, and that he also obtained 5 votes, which made his majority, by giving to electors lucrative offices when he was governor, as a consideration for their votes. March 25, 1873, the resolution was agreed to.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journals, 42d Cong., 2d and 3d sess., and the reports of the committee from Senate Reports, 3d sess. 42d Cong., No. 512.

Special references to the debates of each day are inserted below.

[Second session of the Forty-second Congress.]

TUESDAY, January 9, 1872.

Mr. Scott, from the Joint Select Committee to investigate Alleged Outrages in South ern States, submitted the following report (No. 15):

At a meeting of "the Joint Select Committee to inquire into the Condition of the late Insurrectionary States, so far as regards the execution of the laws and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States," convened at their room in the Capitol on the 22d of September, 1871, Messrs. Scott, Pool, and Blair were appointed a subcommittee to examine the witnesses then in attendance; which subcommittee organized on the 23d of September, 1871, and examined Edward Wheeler, of Arkansas. On the 25th of September, 1871, said subcommittee examined William G. Whipple, of Arkansas.

The testimony of these witnesses tends to impeach the official character and conduct of a member of the United States Senate from the State of Arkansas, and also to affect the right of a member of the House of Representatives from that State to retain his seat in the House. Other evidence of the same character was offered, and one of the gentlemen affected by this testimony claimed the right to bring witnesses before the committee to contradict or explain the same. The committee, however, upon consideration decided that the subject-matter to which said testimony related did not come within the limits of the investigation they were directed to make, and therefore declined to prosecute the inquiry any further, discharging a witness who had been subpœnaed and was then awaiting an examination.

The joint select committee, pursuing what they deemed to be the proper parliamentary course, at a meeting on December 21, 1871, adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the committee report the testimony taken before the committee affecting Senator Clayton and Mr. Edwards, a Representative from Arkansas, to the Senate and House of Representatives, with a recommendation that each House take such action as it may deem proper."

Agreeably to this resolution of said joint select committee, the undersigned,_the chairman on the part of the Senate and the chairman on the part of the House of Representatives, beg leave to submit the testimony* hereto annexed of Edward Wheeler and William G. Whipple, both of the State of Arkansas, said Wheeler and Whipple Found on pages 2-38 of report No. 15, 2d sess. 42d Cong.

having been the only witnesses from that State who were examined by the committee, to the Senate and House of Representatives respectively, for such action as each House may deem advisable.

JOHN SCOTT,
Chairman on the part of the Senate.
LUKE P. POLAND,

Chairman on the part of the House of Representatives.

The Senate proceeded, by unanimous consent, to consider the report, and Mr. Clayton, having addressed the Senate on the subject thereof, concluded his remarks with the request that a select committee be appointed to investigate the allegations against him therein referred to;

Whereupon

Mr. Wright submitted the following resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:

"Resolved, That the report of the committee and the testimony accompanying be referred to a special committee of three, with power to send for persons and papers, to investigate and report upon the charges therein contained against Hon. Powell Clayton, a member of this body."

Ordered, That the committee be appointed by the Vice-President.

[The debate, including a statement by Mr. Scott and a speech by Mr. Clayton, is found on pages 311-318 of the Congressional Globe, part 1, 2d sess. 42d Cong.]

WEDNESDAY, January 10, 1872.

The Vice-President appointed Mr. Wright, Mr. Morrill of Maine, and Mr. Norwood the select committee authorized by the resolution of yesterday to inquire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton.

MONDAY, January 15, 1872.

Mr. Wright, from the select committee to investigate alleged charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton, reported the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee appointed under the resolution of the Senate of the 9th instant to investigate the charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton have power to employ a clerk, and that there is hereby appropriated out of the contingent fund of the Senate the sum of $2,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to defray the expenses of said investigation."

The said resolution was read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate.

Ordered, That it be engrossed and read a third time.

The said resolution was read the third time, by unanimous consent.
Resolved, That it pass.

THURSDAY, March 28, 1872.

Mr. Wright, from the select committee to inquire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton, submitted the following resolution; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent:

66

'Resolved, That the sum of $3,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary for the expenses of the committee to investigate the charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton, is hereby directed to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate under the order of the chairman of said committee, the vouchers therefor to be approved by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate."

The Senate proceeded to consider the said resolution as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate. Ordered, That it be engrossed and read a third time.

The said resolution was read the third time, by unanimous consent.

Resolved, That it pass.

MONDAY, June 10, 1872.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, from the select committee to inquire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton, submitted a report* (No. 232) thereon.

Mr. Norwood asked and obtained leave to submit the views of the minority of the committee on the allegations of Mr. Clayton; which were ordered to be printed with the foregoing report (No. 232).

* This report is embodied in the one made by the same committee February 26, 1873.

[Third session of the Forty-second Congress.]

FRIDAY, January 10, 1873.

Mr. Wright submitted the following resolution; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent:

"Resolved, That the sum of $1,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of the contingent fund of the Senate for the use of the select committee to inquire into certain allegations against the Hon. Powell Clayton."

The Senate proceeded to consider the said resolution as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, it was reported to the Senate.

Ordered, That it be engrossed and read a third time.

The said resolution was read the third time, by unanimous consent.

Resolved, That it pass.

WEDNESDAY, February 26, 1873.

Mr. Wright, from the select committee to investigate certain charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, submitted a report (No. 512) accompanied by the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the charges made and referred to the select committee for investigation affecting the official character and conduct of the Hon. Powell Clayton are not sustained, and that the committee be discharged from their further consideration." Ordered, That the report and testimony taken before the said committee be printed. [Remarks by Mr. Wright are found on page 1785 of the Congressional Globe, part 3, 3d sess. 42d Cong.]

SATURDAY, March 1, 1873.

Mr. Norwood asked and obtained leave of the Senate to present the views of the minority of the select committee to inquire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton; which were ordered to be printed to accompany the report of the committee (No. 512).

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.*

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 26, 1873.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Wright, from the committee to inquire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton, submitted the following report:

The undersigned select committee, to whom was assigned the duty of inquiring into certain charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton, a member of this body from the State of Arkansas, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following final report:

On the 10th of June last they submitted what they denominated, and which was accepted as a partial report, which they here incorporate to avoid repetition, and that the conclusion at which they have finally arrived may be the more readily understood:

JUNE 10, 1872.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Morrill, of Maine, on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Wright, of Iowa, from the committee to in quire into certain allegations against Hon. Powell Clayton, submitted the following report: The special committee on whom was imposed the duty of investigating certain charges against the Hon. Powell Clayton, a member of this body, beg leave to-submit the following partial report: On the 9th of January, 1872, Mr. Scott, from the "Joint Select Committee to inquire into the Condition of the late Insurrectionary States," &c., reported to the Senate that in the prosecution of their inquiries the testimony of certain witnesses (Edward Wheeler and William G. Whipple, of Arkansas) "tended to impeach the official character and conduct of a member of this body," but as they held that "the subject-matter to which said testimony related did not come within the limits of the investigation they were directed to make," they declined to hear other witnesses, and thereupon adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the committee report the testimony taken before the committee affecting Senator Clayton and Mr. Edwards, a Representative from Arkansas, to the Senate and House of Representatives, with a recommendation that each House take such action as it may deem proper."

The testimony of Wheeler and Whipple referred to in the report and resolution they also reported to the Senate for such action as might be deemed advisable, and on the same day the Senate adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the report of the committee and the testimony accompanying be referred to a special committee of three, with power to send for persons and papers, to investigate and report upon the charges therein contained against Hon. Powell Clayton, a member of this body."

Pursuant to the command of the resolution, and the powers thereby conferred, the committee met on the 18th day of January, and entered upon the discharge of their duties.

James L. Hodges, esq., of Arkansas, appeared before them and asked leave to prosecute the charges, and was permitted to do so, and accordingly appeared by himself and counsel, S. M. Barnes, esq. The testimony, pages 21-377 of the report, is here omitted.