Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 July 1886 — Logan on the Payne Case. [ARTICLE]

Logan on the Payne Case.

Among the cards earned to the Senator's room was one from a reporter of the GlobeDemocrat. “Show him up,” was the quick response. After a few introductory words the reporter referred to the attacks being made upon the Senator for his vote on the Payne case in the Election Committee, especially the attacks of the Cincinnati Com-mercial-Gazette. .The committee consists of nine Senators. The charge against Payne was the use of money in his election as Senator from Ohio two years ago or more. By a vote of 7 to 2 the Election Committee recently decided that there was not sufficient ground upon which to order an investigation by the Senate. Three Republicans —Messrs. Teller, Evarts, and Logan—voted with four Democrats against further investigation. Senator Logan said the newspaper attacks upon him in this case arose from a misapprehension of the facts. The case had to be investigated in a legal way; the Senators had to decide as lawyers. The question before the Election Committee was not whether money had or had not been used at Columbws. Ohio, but whether it had or

had not been used to corrupt members of the Ohio Legislature in their votes for Senator. It appeared in evidence that money was used in a caucus at which a Senatorial nomination was made, but it did not appear that a dollar was used in the Senatorial election itself. “The Senate,” said Gen. i Logan, “can not investigate the proceedings of a caucus, and nothing but caucus proceedings were offered in evidence. There was no proof of bribery in either house of the Legislature, after the caucus had nominated Mr. Payne. We stood upon that ground, and made our majority report upon that ground.” Continuing with some warmth, General Logan said: “Why, if they want to investigate the use of money outside of a hall to influence a nomination. I can show that Grant was beaten in Chicago in 1880 by the use of money. Yes, sir,” —growing still warmer, and pointing to a visitor from Central Illinois—“a delegate from your district got SIOO for violating his instructions to vote for Grant. It was a cheap sell-out, but I know all about it.” “So do I,” said the gentleman who was pointed at. “The fellow took the money and voted against Grant, but he’s been a dead man, politically, ever since.”— St. Louis- Globe-Dem-ocrat.