Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 January 1890 — VERY SLY WAS JOEY B. [ARTICLE]

VERY SLY WAS JOEY B.

BUT HE SUPPED INTO THE -MUD ALL , r ; THE SAME. \ Foraker Placed in a Very Bad Light by the Ballot-Box Inquiry—Forger Wood Says Foraker Helped Him to Get Up the Bal-lot-Box Contract* and Knew It Was a Forgery When He Used It. [Washington Cor. Chicago Daily News.] The testimony so far taken by the committee on the Ohio ballot-box scandal, of which Representative Mason of Chicago is Chairman, gives a very dusky color to the conduct of Joseph Benson Foraker, the late Governor or Ohio. Of course one should not pass judgment until the evidence is all in, but the witnesses examined thus far—and they consist only of the Governor himself, Wood, the man who committed the forgery, and Walters, who furnished him the autographs used in forging the names—place him in an exceedingly uncomfortable position, which he plainly shows, notwithstanding his well-known nerve and audacity;and’ there is no telling what future witnesses may say. .From the Governor’s own statement i{ appears that during the last campaign he was anxious to obtain some evidence against the character of his opponent for Governor— Mr. Campbell and the man Wood, who was seeking a local appointment at Cincinnati, as compensation for his influence, offered to furnish him with the original copy of a contract to supply the State of Ohio’ with patent ballotboxes, which was signed by his competitor, and was, to say the least, a very dishonorable one. It was several weeks before the Governor was able to obtain the copy which Wood promised him, and, in the meantime, he induced the authorities at Cincinnati to postpone the appointment Wood was seeking until he (Foraker) gave the word. Foraker also employed a detective to follow up Wood and see that he carried out his promise. Wood being pressed into a corner finally produced a paper signed not only by Campbell but by John Sherman, Representatives Butterworth and McKinley,and other prominent politicians, both in and out of Ohio. ONLY TOO GLAD TO GET IT. This paper, which, if genuine, was sufficient evidence to condemn the political morality of all the.men whose names were signed to it, whs immediately ac-‘ cepted by the Governor, who, in his testimony, says he took po pains to ascertain whether it was genuine or not. The reason he gives, for hot seeking corroborating evidence is that he recognized Campbell’s signature aS genuine, and when he saw Senator Sherman’s name he was willing to believe almost anything. He did not approach those gentlemen, he says, to ascertain whether tneir signatures were genuine or not, because it seemed to him a very indelicate thing to go to a man nnd ask him if he was guilty of such conduct; but he gave the document to Mr, Halstead, of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, who agreed with him that the document was genuine, and afterward published it. He explained in extenuation that he did send for a volume of biography which contained portraits and engraved autographs of the men involved, and compared these engraved autographs with the si gnat res on the contract. He also admitted that he had known Wood—Whom he denounced yesterday as an infamous scoundrel—for fifteen jOars, and that he had paid him $320 to cover his expenses in obtaining this paper. This is the stoiy of Foraker in brief. The witness Walters testified that Wood seemed for him an autograph book containing the names of forty or fifty Congressmen. wood’s confession. Wood made a clean confession, telling the committee that be proposed to tell the truth if it took his head off. He: confes-ed that he forged the document. He said that he sought the local office alluded to at the suggestion of Jim Foraker, the Governor’s brother, and that the Governor himself said he would indorse Wood if the latter would do a little "hustling” for him. The hustling was to get a copy of a document which, he said, had been drawn up in Buttgrwor.tli’s office. Butterworth had beep opposed to his rehomination, was opposed to hie re-elec-tion, and he propoi-ed to vrovj that But.: terworth was disreputable, Whep he gave the 'document- to the (Governor he did not tell him the ‘signatured were forged, or that the contract was fictitious, but he advised the Governor that it had better not be published or shown to any one. He said, in answer to a question, that Foraker ought to have known from what he told him that the paper was not genuine, and that when he delivered the paper Foraker remarked, that the signatures were all written with the same ink and that they looked like forgeries. The witness expected that Foraker would examine ti e signatures closely and then return the paper to him as worthless, and was very much surprised that ‘he did not do so. ■ ■■- ■ * • . r FOBAKER HAD A ROD IN PICKLE. The facts of the matter are that a feud among the Ohio politicians grew out of Foraker’s conduct «t the Chicago National Conventioq; nnd that when he was renominated for Governor Butterworth openly refused to support him, Sherman went to Europe, and McKinley took no part in the canvass. The Governor sought the assistance of Wood, to obtain some evidence that he could use on the stump against Campbell, his opponent, and wood, knowing his feeling ‘toward Sherman, Butterworth, and McKinley, added their names with that of Campbell to the disreputable contract becmse.be felt that Foraker would be gratified. The latter seized the document and began to n'sedton the stump without investigation until it fell into the hands of Halstead,>who|published itlwithout authority. Foraker never ini ended that it should be published, but held back as a mysterious and potent instrument in the campaign and shown only to a few leading Republicans.

EORzAKEirS* A DEAD DtUlt. ' *’ I r . ■* r - . ,- , ' ■ ' ,r ’ The Ballot-Box Forgery Dlaclosure* Esfectually Squelching Him Politically. [Columbus (Ohio) dispatch.l The evidence given by B. G. Wood in the ballot-box contract forgery investigation excites much talk here. Those of ex-Gov. Foraker’s own party who are not of his clique do net hesitate to say the case looks very bad for him. "The best that can be said of it for Gov. Foraker,” said one of them this evening, "is

| that the Governor, by continually fcnpori tuning the man Wood to gfttjkjpapex for him that would put Mr.. Campbell, if not some of his own party, in a bad light, and, ■ by holding out the inducement of politi- 1 cal preferment, drove him to commit the forgery. We can regard Mr. Foraker as an accomplice in the forgery or not, just as we please. He admits enough to put him 4 in the class of unscrupulous tricksters in politics." Of course his friends, ; the Republicans who belonged to the i same clique with the ex-Governor, maintain that he is simply the victim of a treacherous fellow with whom he had dealings in the conduct of an honorable campaign, but it seems to be the general verdict that Foraker is dead politically and can never expect anything again at the hands of his party. He has made I lasting enemies of Sherman, McKinley, ; Butterworth, Grosvenor, land nil the nc- ; knowledged leaders of the Republican : party, without whose combined he cannot hope to successfully win again. Foraker’s Part. [From the Chicago Herald.] No one is astonished at the facts that have coine out in regard to the part taken by ex-Governor Foraker in the Campbell forgery case. It is in perfect consonance with his political record as a dangerous blatherskite and an unscrupulous politician, a fit companion fqr Dudley and others of that stripe. Like Dudley, Foraker is a representative Republican politician, willing and anxious to stoop to any depth of infamy to win a bad cause. Foraker’s action was meaner then that of a man that forges a check, because his act had in view the ruining of .the reputation of an honest man; and to an honest man reputation is more precious than money. But no one is surprised at learning that Foraker assisted in forging Campbell’s name. Perhaps if his record were investigated other villainies might be brought to light.