Rensselaer Republican, Volume 22, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 January 1890 — THE DUDLEY AFFAIR. [ARTICLE]

THE DUDLEY AFFAIR.

A lively Boat Between M . Veorheoe ud Mr. Edmunds—Hr, Miller Quickly Responds.; V~“*' . '■ • Senator Voorhees’s remarks in his speech of Wednesday, regarding Senator ‘Quay’s visit to Indiana during the Presidential election, provoked the Pennsylvanian to reply that it was untrue that he conferred with political managers, or in regard to Dudley’s case. The IndianA Senator said he could not be blamed if he drew the inference that Mr. Quay wanted the prosecution of Dudley stopped. Mr. Voorhees arraigned Judge Woods, whose course, he said, had been particularly shameful. The action of Chambers called for summary dismissal.

No better opportunity, he said, could present itself to the President than was now presented to define his connection with Dudley, and with Dudley's crime. Benjamin Harrison was President of the United States, and, as such, was called upon to spurn the disgraceful example. In conclusion, Mr. Voorhees declared that bribe-givers, bribe-takers, and all the indorsers of bribery should be regarded as pirates and enemies of the human race. Mr. Edmunds offered an amendment for the preamble and resolution so as to strike out the preamble and make it read: “That the Attorney General be, and hereby is instructed to inform the Senate what instructions, if any, the Department of Justice has given to S. N. Chambers, District Attorney for the district of Indiana, on the subject of the arrest of W. W. Dudley, or his exemption from arrest, and by what authority of law any such instructions have been given, and that copies of all such correspondence be transmitted to the Senate.” He expressed, sarcastically, his admiration of and concurrence in the beautiful tribute of the Senator from Indiana, to the value of political morality He also gave his adhesion to Mr. Voorhees’ denunciation of political immorality. If Mr. Dudley had done the thing imputed to him, he had certainly committed, if not a crime against the United States, a crime against that class of public morality which the Senator had so beautifully cescribed, and which, as he said, was so essential to the safety and perpetuity of Republican institutions. Still, it was possible that the so-called Dudley letter had been forged, or so altered as to make an innocent—a morally inno-cent-political letter appear to be a guilty one. There were instances of such political forgeries about the time of presidential elections—such as the Morey letteF. But he was glad that the leaders of the Democratic party had apparently reformed [laughter in the galleries], and that now, at least, on the anniversary of the battle of New Orleans, there was some evidence of allegiance to the principles of the only real Democrat he had ever heard of—General Jackson. [Laughter.] Mr. Voorhees —If the Dudley letter is a forgery, why is it that he has not brought his libel suits against the New York pa pers to a trial, and why is it that he has skulked and cowed, and hid himself in exile for the past twelve months or more. Mr. Edmunds—l domot know that Mr. .Dudley is skulking or hiding anywhere, and Ido not believe it. Ido not know that he has any libel suits pending in New York. If he has, I suppose he knows how to take care of them, .. ZII Mr.Woorhees—l say here, in the hearing of the New York press and itsjagents, that every possible effort has been made to get Dudley, in his own person, in the State of New York, to prosecute his own libel suits; that all such efforts have failed, and that Judge Lawrence, the other day, denied the motion of Dudley’s lawyers because Dudley (he said.) kept himself outside of the limits of the State. Mr. Edmunds—Judge Lawrence may be right or he may be wrong. Ido not know. But if Dudley has an suits and does not prosecute them, the defendants are entitled to have them dismissed. This letter, assuming it to be genuine, was an offense, i take it, against the laws of Indiana, which provide, undoubtedly, against attempts to bribe voters, and if this letter of Mr. Dudley’s, who is a citizen of Indiana, was used, or attempted to be need, to corrupt voters, where is the majesty of the law in the noble State? Where are the Democratic District Attorneys, and why all this long delay in bringing a citizen of of that State to book for this crime against his own native land ? In this connection Mr. Edmunds commented on the failure of the Democratic United States District Attorney, before the change of administration, to bring the matter to the attention of the Grand Jury. Mr. Voorhees asked whether he was referring to Mr. Sellers. Mr. Edmunds did not know the ame but would assume that the name was Sellers—a very good name in the drama, he believed. [Laughter ] That Democratic official, he said, having apparently done his wljftle duty in sifting and preparing the evidence, saw such a flood of light, or darkness, as the case might be, that he did not care to have any more hand in the business ami resigned. He intimated that the Dudley letter might have been sent out by a Mr. Whitaker, of Martinsville, Ind., chairman of a Democratic County Committee, oa the 7th of Septemoer, 1888, and which was recently published in an editorial of the Terre Haute Express, a paper published, he believed, in the town of the Senator’s residence. The Dudley letter seemed to be a child or the twin sister of this Wnitager letter, which be sent to tho clerk's desk to be read. Mr. Edmunds made reference to the Coy affair, and showed familiarty with Indiana political matters. In his retort Mr. Voorhees charged the Attorney General had coached the Vermont Senator. He said that there had been no Whitaker letter; that Coy’s conviction had been in the most infamous partisan court since Jeffrey’s, and that the President had been obliged to pardon him. At the close of the discussion Mr. Ed~ munds’s amendment was agreed to by a party vote—3l to 24—and the resolution thus amended was adopted, Mr. Voorhees remarking that he would find some way to ascertain the judgment of the Law Department on the action of its subordinate.