Ballot box case report to the US Congress

OHIO BALLOT-BOX.

The Forgery Case Comes Up in

Congress.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.

It Exonerates All the Persons Whose

Names Appeared on the Alleged

Con­tract — The Report Not Unanimous.

Other Washington Dispatches.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 18. — The report of the select committee of the house, which investigated the Ohio ballot-box forgeries during the Campbell-Foraker campaign, was submitted to the house yesterday. It reviews the sensational evidence adduced, and finds that the alleged contract for ballot-boxes was dictated and prepared by Richard G. Wood, and that all the signatures were forgeries.

It also finds that Richard G. Wood, Frank L. Milward and Frank I. Davis were the only persons directly or indi­rectly aiding or abetting in the prepara­tion of the forgery; that Milward and Davis were guiltless of their part in the transaction, and that Wood uttered the forgery for the purpose of recommending himself to the mayor of Cincinnati for the appointment of smoke inspector.

It further finds that Governor Foraker and Murat Halstead aided in the forgery; the former by exhibiting the paper to several persons, the latter by publishing it in The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette; but exonerates both of them not cognizant of the fact that the paper was a forgery. It exonerates all the per­sons whose names appeared on the al­leged contract with any improper con­nection with the ballot-box contract, and says that there never was any other contract relating to ballot-boxes in which any of the persons were interested. The findings so far are approved by the full committee.

Chairman Mason dissents from his col­leagues in the following conclusions where they find: That the conduct of Wood during the negotiations with Governor Foraker disclosed his depravity, and believes that a careful scrutiny of the paper shows its false character: also that the publication of the false paper in The Commercial Gazette showing Mr. Campbells name and suppressing all other signatures, was almost as bad as the original fabrication of the paper.

Mr. Mason declined to sign this por­tion of the report on the ground that the conclusions were not within the inquiry propounded by the resolution. He says that it is doubtless true that Wood's conduct during the negotiations with Governor Foraker showed depravity. Mr. Mason quotes from the evidence to show that Governor Foraker did not base his belief in the genuineness of the forged signatures on Wood' s representa­tion alone; but that he was assured from insinuations made by reputable men that Wood really had a genuine paper in his possession. He does not agree with his associates that "a careful scrutiny of the face of the forged paper must have shown its false character" and that the publication by Mr. Halstead "showing Mr. Campbell's name and suppressing all other signatures was almost as had as the original fabrica­tion." "Whether or not Messers. Foraker and Halstead treated well these honorable men, Mr. Mason says, "is a question of ethics, not involved in this investigation, nor does it throw any light upon our subject, as to who forged and who uttered the forgery."

Mr. Mason, says that the publication of the forged paper long before the election is conclusive evidence that Mr. Halstead was deceived, and believed the paper genuine. Since these gentlemen found they were deceived, they did all in their power, he says as honorable men, to make amends. Mr. Mason says: "To ask more is unjust and does not warrant the censure indulged in by my colleagues, and against such additional findings I respectfully and earnestly protest."