|
paper to
several persons and thereafter delivering it to Mr. Halstead, and
Mr. Halstead aided in uttering said forgery by publishing the forged
paper on October 4, 1889, in the Cincinnati 'Commercial Gazette;'
but we find that neither of said parties, Foraker and Halstead, in
uttering said paper, knew the same was a forgery.
"In response to the third inquiry directed by the resolution, viz.:
'Whether any of the Members whose names appeared on said alleged
contract had or have, either directly or indirectly, any unlawful,
corrupt or improper connection with, or interest in, the ballot
boxes which are the subject-matter of said alleged contract.'
"We find that no one of the persons whose names appear on said
alleged contract had or has, either directly or indirectly, any
unlawful, corrupt, or improper, or any other connection with, or
interest in, the ballot boxes which are said to be the subject of
said alleged contract, and that there never was any other contract
relating to said ballot boxes in which either of these persons,
alone or jointly with others, was in any way interested."
William E. Mason, chairman of the committee, added to the report
quoted the following just and true statement, which relieved Foraker
and Halstead from the implication stated in the report:
"If our unanimous finding is correct that Messrs. Halstead and
Foraker did not know the paper was forged when the uttered it, then
they were deceived by some one, for we have found it was a forgery.
Being deceived, then, is their only offense.
"They each have made reputation and character equal perhaps to any
of the gentlemen who were outraged by the forgery. Since they
found they were deceived, they have done all in their power, as
honorable men, to make amends. To ask more seems to me to be most
unjust, and, believing as I do that the evidence does not warrant
the censure indulged in by my associates on the committee in their
above additional findings, I most respectfully, but most earnestly,
protest."
This unfortunate incident, not fully explained before the election,
created sympathy for Campbell and naturally displeased friends of
McKinley, Butterworth and myself. I did not feel the least resentment
after Halstead denounced the forgery, but entered with increased
energy into the canvass. During this period I had promised to
attend, on the 15th of October, a banquet given by the citizens of
Cleveland to the delegates to the Pan-Am
|