On motion by Mr. Saulsbury,

Ordered, That the testimony taken by the Committee on Privileges and Elections in the investigation of the election of John J. Ingalls to the United States Senate from the State of Kansas be printed, and that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the memorials in relation thereto.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

[The committee consisted of Messrs. Saulsbury (chairman), Hill of Georgia, Kernan, Bailey, Pryor, Vance, Cameron of Wisconsin, Hoar, and Logan.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEBRUARY 17, 1880.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Saulsbury, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the following report:

The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom were referred memorials relating to the election of Hon. John J. Ingalls a Senator from the State of Kansas by the legislature of that State, have had the same under consideration and submit the following report:

The committee, under the authority of a resolution adopted by the Senate, appointed a subcommittee of its members with instructions to investigate the charges and statements contained in said memorials. In discharge of the duty assigned them the members of the subcommittee met during the recess of the Senate in the city of Topeka, in said State, and examined a large number of witnesses, whose testimony, together with the testimony of witnesses examined before the whole committee during the present session, is herewith submitted to the Senate.

The views entertained by the committee render it unnecessary to refer more particularly to the testimony, which will be found to sustain the conclusions of the committee expressed in the following resolution:

Resolved, That the testimony taken by the committee proves that bribery and other corrupt means were employed by persons favoring the election of Hon. John J. Ingalls to the Senate to obtain for him the votes of members of the legislature of Kansas in the Senatorial election in that State. But it is not proved by the testimony that enough votes were secured by such means to determine the result of the election in his favor. Nor is it shown that Senator Ingalls authorized acts of bribery to secure his election.

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, who were directed to investigate certain statements and charges concerning the recent election of a Senator in the State of Kansas, respectfully submit our views as follows:

We concur in part of the report. We exonerate Mr. Ingalls from any complicity with improper practices. We also find that the result of the election was not accomplished by such practices. We think that when the report goes further and finds that persons favoring Mr. Ingalls's election were guilty of such practices, it should in justice state what was clearly and unquestionably proved, that such means were employed in opposition to his election.

ANGUS CAMERON.
JOHN A. LOGAN.
GEO. F. HOAR.

[Third session of the Forty-sixth Congress. ]

FRIDAY, January 21, 1881.

Mr. Plumb submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

"Resolved, That there be paid to J. V. Admire, L. T. Smith, E. B. Purcell, and George T. Anthony, out of the contingent fund of the United States Senate, the mileage for attending as witnesses from the State of Kansas in the investigation of the election of Hon. J. J. Ingalls the same as the other witnesses received."

[The debate is found on pages 814, 815 of the Congressional Record, vol. xi, part 1.]

On motion by Mr. Hill, of Georgia,

FRIDAY, January 28, 1881.

Ordered. That the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the

Senate be discharged from the further consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. Plumb January 21, 1881, directing the payment of certain witnesses in the investigation of the election of the Hon. J. J. Ingalls, and that it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

REIMBURSEMENT OF ME. INGALLS'S EXPENSES.

FRIDAY, March 31, 1882.

Mr. Hoar, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution; which was read the first and second times by unanimous consent:

"Resolved, That there be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate the sum of $8,195 to John J. Ingalls, a Senator from the State of Kansas, in reimbursement of expenses necessarily incurred by him in defense of his title to his seat."

The Senate proceeded, by unanimous consent, to consider the said resolution as in Comnittee 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 a third time by unanimous consent.
Resolved, That the Senate agree thereto.

[Special session of Senate, October, 1881, and first session of the Forty-seventh Congress. ] ELBRIDGE G. LAPHAM AND WARNER MILLER, of New York.

October 11, 1881, the day on which Messrs. Lapham and Miller took their seats, a memorial was presented remonstrating against their admission until certain allegations affecting their elections had been investigated. October 21, the memorial was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. December 12, the committee reported back the memorial and asked that it lie on the table, and that the committee be discharged from its further consideration. It was so ordered December 13. The statement of Mr. Hill, in the nature of an oral report, given below, will show the nature of the allegations of the memorial, and the reasons for the action of the committee.

The history of the case here given consists of a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate relating to it from Senate Journal, 47th Cong., 1st sess., and the remarks of Mr. Hill from the Congressional Record, vol. xiii, part 1, pages 70, 71. There were no debates.

[Special session of Senate, October, 1881.]

MONDAY, October 10, 1881.

Mr. Edmunds presented the credentials of Elbridge G. Lapham, elected a Senator by the legislature of New York to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the Hon. Roscoe Conkling; which were read.

Mr. Edmunds presented the credentials of Warner Miller, elected a Senator by the legislature of New York to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the Hon. Thomas C. Platt; which were read.

TUESDAY, October 11, 1881.

On motion by Mr. Edmunds that the oath prescribed by law be now administered to Elbridge G. Lapham and Warner Miller, Senators-elect from the State of New York; Pending which,

Mr. McPherson presented a memorial of certain members of the legislature of New York, remonstrating against the admission of Mr. Lapham and Mr. Miller to seats in the Senate until certain allegations affecting their elections have been investigated. Ordered, That it lie on the table.

The question recurring upon the motion of Mr. Edmunds that the oath prescribed by law be now administered to the Senators-elect from the State of New York, it was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. Lapham and Mr. Miller then appeared, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to them by the President pro tempore, they took their seats in the Senate.

Mr. McPherson presented a memorial of Miner Gallop and E. H. Pinney, of New York, remonstrating against the admission of Warner Miller and Elbridge G. Lapham to seats in the Senate until certain allegations affecting their election shall have been investigated; which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections; and, On motion by Mr. McPherson,

Ordered, That the memorial of certain members of the legislature of New York relating to the same subject, heretofore presented, be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

[First session of the Forty-seventh Congress.]

On motion by Mr. Hoar,

THURSDAY, December 8, 1881.

Ordered, That the petitions of the citizens and members of the legislature of New York concerning the elections of Senators Miller and Lapham be taken from the files of the Senate and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

MONDAY, December 12, 1881. Mr. Hill, of Georgia, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred the memorial of certain members of the legislature of the State of New York

affecting the right of the present Senators from that State to occupy seats on the floor of the Senate, reported it back, with the recommendation that the committee be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which was agreed to.

*

[Remarks of Mr. Hill, of Georgia, in the nature of an oral report, delivered December 12, 1881, and found on pages 70, 71 of the Congressional Record, vol. xiii, part 1.]

"I am instructed by the Committee on Privileges and Elections to report back to the Senate certain memorials from members of the legislature of New York affecting the right of the present Senators from that State to occupy seats in this Chamber, and to ask that the memorials lie on the table and the committee be discharged from their further consideration.

"In deference to the memorialists, and at the special request of some of them, it is proper that I should state briefly and generally the reasons which authorize this conclusion. "The memorials set forth five reasons as grounds why these gentlemen should not be allowed to sit here. The first alleges that the legislature did not proceed in separate bodies to vote upon the question until the third Tuesday after notice of the vacancy was communicated by the governor. The facts are such as to create some controversy as to whether they did proceed on the second Tuesday or the third Tuesday after the notice; but, in any view, the committee are unanimously of the opinion that the legislature was not deprived of its constitutional right to clect Senators to this body.

"The second allegation is that at one of the joint sessions of the general assembly a quorum of the State senators was not present. It is not alleged that there was not a quorum present of each body on the days the respective elections took place, but it is alleged or claimed that under the act of 1866 the failure of either body to be present with a quorum on any day deprives the legislature of the right to elect. The committee differ with the memorialists in that view. We think that one body of the legislature could not deprive the legislature of the right to elect by such absence, if unquestionably on the day of the election a quorum of each body of the legislature was present and voting. We think the reason alleged in this ground is not sufficient to invalidate the election.

"The third ground alleged is that there was not a majority of the whole legislature actually voting for the members chosen. In our opinion that is not necessary. There was a quorum of each house present in the joint assembly; there was a majority of that quorum actually voting for the members chosen. In our opinion that was a valid election.

"It is alleged specifically in the memorial that the Stockton case is a precedent to the contrary. On examination it will be found that the Stockton case is not a precedent to the contrary. Mr. Stockton, of New Jersey, in the celebrated case so well known, was chosen, not by a majority, but he was chosen by a plurality vote, the legislature in joint session having declared before the election that a plurality should elect. The Senators now occupying the seats in question, from New York, were not chosen by a plurality vote; they were each chosen by a majority, a quorum of each body being present, and a majority of the joint assembly voting. I will state that if the cases from New York were like the case from New Jersey, I do not think at this day any gentleman would regard the Stockton case as a precedent. Unquestionably the body that elects has a right to prescribe that a plurality may elect, and I think the report made by Senator Trumbull on that occasion is not only correct, but conclusive of the law of the case. The committee, therefore, are of the opinion that that ground is not sufficient to invalidate the election. "The fourth ground relates to Hon. W. Miller, and alleges that he is guilty of certain conduct in violation of section 1781 and section 1782 of the Revised Statutes which disqualify a member from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States Government. It is sufficient to say that the Senator from New York has never been convicted of a violation of those sections of the Revised Statutes, and a simple inspection of the sections shows that it is conviction that disqualifies, and not allegations by outsiders or third persons who do not prosecute. Therefore the committee overrule that ground, and think it insufficient, conceding the facts alleged to be true for argument; we do not know anything about them.

"The last ground is one of fact. Before I have alluded to what are called legal grounds or allegations that by legal operation the election is void. The last ground alleges that there were rumors of bribery in procuring the election of these gentlemen. The allega tion of mere rumors of bribery is not sufficient, unaccompanied with evidence, to require investigation at the hands of the Senate or of its committees. It is alleged in this memorial that one State senator of New York is under indictment in that State for offering a bribe to a member of the house to vote in the Senatorial election. It is due to the Senators holding the seats that the committee should say that that indictment is not for a

It appears from the Congressional Record, vol. xiii, part 1, page 76, that the motion that the com mittee be discharged was agreed to December 13, 1881.

bribe offered to vote for either one of the present Senators. It is due also to state that while we find by reports that have been sent to us and investigations had that there were a great many scandals in connection with the Senatorial election in New York during the late session of the legislature, most of these scandals occurred before the two gentlemen now holding seats became even candidates before that body.

"Therefore, sir, the committee, without going further into details, hold that the respective grounds alleged and all of them together are not sufficient to authorize further investigation, and do not make a case invalidating the election of the Senators from New York. We believe from all that is before us that the elections were valid and ought to be so declared. We ask, therefore, that the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject."