 |
Caldwell
[PERSON.]
Inquiry has been made about “Caldwell.” Someone is under the belief that a Mr. Caldwell (possibly from Cowley County) was responsible for a town in Sumner County being named Caldwell.
Emporia News, January 27, 1871.
THE SENATORSHIP.
TOPEKA, Jan. 24.
The first vote on United States Senator has just been taken. Before the vote a resolution was passed by the House, requiring the members to take an oath that they were not influenced by offers of bribery. This resolution caused a bitter and excited debate. Several members refused to swear. The halls and galleries were densely packed with people and much cheering was engaged in.
The vote in the Senate was as follows: Caldwell 8, Clarke 6, Crawford 5, Ross 1; 5 scattering.
In the House the vote was as follows: Caldwell 30, Crawford 22, Clarke 21, Ross 7, Snoddy 13; the balance were scattered on some eight or ten candidates.
Clarke has had a big lobby here, mostly office holders and bummers. He went in this morning blowing that he had thirty-seven votes. He is badly beaten and there is no help for him. Caldwell makes a good showing, but as about fifty members have agreed to go against him, it is now doubtful if he succeeds. Crawford’s friends have great confidence. Atchison will not support a Leavenworth man. The border tier is mostly in the same fix, and it is now thought they can both be brought to the support of Crawford.
A few hang to the idea of bringing out a new man, but it is believed to be too late for this movement to succeed. Crawford’s friends will stick to him as long as there is a hope. The Neosho Valley is united upon him solidly except three votes below.
LATER. CALDWELL ELECTED.
TOPEKA, Jan. 25.
In the Joint Convention of the two Houses today, at one o’clock p.m., Alexander Caldwell, of Leavenworth, was elected United States Senator from the State of Kansas. The vote stood—Caldwell 87; Crawford 34. This result was brought about by the failure of those opposed to Caldwell to unite on a man. The fact of this failure became known last night at 12 o’clock, and dozens of men who were “on the fence” went over to him. There is very little enthusiasm over the election. Caldwell is principally indebted to Ex-Gov. Carney and his friends for his success. S.
Emporia News, January 27, 1871.
Alexander Caldwell, our new United States Senator, is almost wholly a stranger in the world of politics. He is a citizen of Leavenworth, has heretofore devoted his attention to matters of a purely business nature, and has thus acquired a handsome fortune. He is connected with several railroad companies. He was formerly a resident of Pennsylvania. He is said to be a gentleman of liberal culture. We hope he will prove an honest, faithful, and able Senator. No matter how greatly we regret the defeat of Gov. Crawford, we are as heartily rejoiced at that of Sidney Clarke. It will be a long time, will require many wonderful changes in Sidney’s conduct, and much improvement in numerous respects, before he can again be sent to Washington to legislate for the people.
[THE TOWN OF CALDWELL.]
Emporia News, February 17, 1871.
The last sensation in the way of a city is that of the new town of Caldwell, recently laid off in Sumner County.
It is located near Fall River at the crossing of the Texas cattle trail. The town company is principally composed of Southwestern Kansas men. Wm. Baldwin is president, C. F. Gilbert treasurer, and G. H. Smith, secretary. The location is an excellent one, the valley being extremely wide in this vicinity. There will be three stores opened immediately, also one hotel and a livery stable. Liberal inducements are offered to a first-class blacksmith. For information address G. H. Smith, Wichita.
Emporia News, March 17, 1871.
Senator Caldwell has introduced a bill to allow the Kansas Pacific railroad to build a branch to the Arkansas River.
[STATE NEWS.]
Emporia News, May 12, 1871.
Texas cattle have begun to arrive in Wichita. Over 3,000 head came last week.
I. S. Kalloch has sold his famous trotting ponies to Senator Caldwell, who is to exhibit them to admiring crowds on Pennsylvania Avenue. [Kalloch an Emporia man.]
[SOUTHWESTERN KANSAS: COWLEY COUNTY.]
Walnut Valley Times, December 15, 1871.
Cowley County.
[From the Cowley County CENSOR.]
Now that the settlers on the Osage lands need assistance in their effort to have the time of payment extended upon their lands, they naturally turn to Senator Pomeroy for relief. He has always been ready to help the settlers, and will not fail them now. Springing from the old New England stock, who knew nothing but labor and study, he has ever had a warm side and a willing ear for the approach or word of the laboring class. A petition will be forwarded to him in a few days, setting forth our wants, and rest assured it will not be unheeded. No man has more friends in Southwestern Kansas than has Senator Pomeroy, and none have cause to expect more.
Messrs. Pomeroy, Caldwell, and Lowe, our Senators and Representatives in Congress, can now be of great service to a very large class of settlers on the Osage Diminished Reserve, by exerting themselves in their behalf. By the terms of the law and the instructions issued thereunder, all settlers who have been upon their claims one year prior to the 15th day of this month, or who had settled prior to the 15th day of July, 1870, were required to pay for said lands. How hard many who were too poor to provide well for their families have tried to meet this requirement and succeed at great sacrifice, we will not attempt to state—but they are many. How many have tried and failed, we cannot say; but they, too, are many. Men have offered fifty percent interest for money to enter their land with, and failed to obtain it. Men have sold their stock and even their last team and cow to raise the money, or have offered them for sale at half their worth, and then failed. They have suffered great anxiety and greater sacrifices to save their land, but to no purpose. So much money has been used to enter land with, and that, too, within so short a time—three months—that all the money in the County has been exhausted.
Now we find hundreds and probably thousands of settlers on the Diminished Reserve, within the limits of Montgomery, Howard, Cowley, and Sumner counties, who are upon improved claims or tracts of land, worth hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars, and yet they cannot afford an opportunity to enter the same. In some cases all their worldly possessions are embraced in these improvements. They will not yield them willingly. Let relief come.
It lies with Congress to pass a bill concerning these Osage lands that shall contain plain and reasonable features. One that will not be subject to a hundred rulings and necessitate and allow a hundred interpretations. And above all extend the time of payment to all now upon the land for at least one year, and give to all who come after one year to pay in after settlement. Will one congressional delegation attend to this immediately after Congress convenes next month?
Walnut Valley Times, Friday, March 22, 1872. Front Page.
SENATORIAL BRIBERY.
We have read many denunciations of the report of the Investigating Committee, and find considerable truth in them. The affair throughout was a “white-washing” arrangement and reflects but little on the committee which was chosen to investigate the frauds that were perpetrated by Clarke, Pomeroy, and Caldwell. They have utterly failed to prove that Pomeroy gained his seat by any illegal act, and for Clarke they proved that he gave some of the members of the Legislature a “free lunch,” but it seems from the report that he lost his footing and therefore sold to Caldwell.
They have attempted to prove that Caldwell was the man who gave the most money for his seat in the Senate, and they made a very bad case out of it. Snoddy, the Chairman of the Committee, is charged with being corrupt himself, and that he feared to have some important witnesses brought before the committee on account of them implicating himself. The investigation will now come before the U. S. Senate, where it should have been in the first place. Winfield Messenger.
Mention of D. N. Caldwell...
[JUDICIAL CONVENTION.]
Winfield Messenger, July 12, 1872.
A Convention of the Attorneys of the 13th Judicial District will be held at Winfield, in Cowley County, on the 25th day of July, A. D. 1872, for the purpose of recommending to the District Convention, or Conventions, to be held for that purpose, a Candidate for nomination for Judge of said District to be voted for at the next general election.
W. S. TUCKER. J. T. SHOWALTER.
M. W. SUTTON. J. M. HOOVER.
D. F. BAYLESS. J. B. FAIRBANK.
THOMAS MASON. W. H. KERNS.
J. M. McCOLLEN. JOHN REED.
J. J. WINGAR. E. B. KAGER.
R. B. SAFFOLD. E. L. AKIN.
D. N. CALDWELL. A. H. GREEN.
T. T. TILLOTSON. D. S. HEISHEY [?HEISNEY].
L. J. WEBB. JOHN G. TUCKER.
E. S. TORRANCE. REUBEN RIGGS.
J. M. ALEXANDER. S. D. PRYOR.
E. C. MANNING. T. H. JOHNSON.
H. D. LAMB. G. P. GARLAND.
D. DODGE. J. McDERMOTT.
and many others, attorneys of said district.
Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 15, 1873.
Oxford Items.
The farmers of this vicinity are still planting large fields of cotton; they purchase the seed of Caldwell & Smith, who ship from Memphis.
[KANSAS PENITENTIARY: ARTICLE FROM KANSAS CITY TIMES.]
Winfield Courier, June 26, 1874.
Kansas Penitentiary.
The labor of the prisoners in the Kansas penitentiary was let a few days since for a period of ten years. It was awarded to Alexander Caldwell & Co., of Leavenworth, they being the highest bidders. The labor of two hundred men was hired to this firm at an average of fifty-one cents per day for each laborer. The state provides not only food, raiment, and habitation, but furnishes a shop, with engines and steam power for the use of this company. Messrs. Caldwell & Co. have established an extensive carriage and wagon manufactory at the penitentiary in which they will utilize this immense labor which they have secured. This penitentiary institution has completely closed out every carriage and wagon factory in Leavenworth, and is injuring the business in neighboring towns. No manufacturer of wagons and buggies can compete with a firm that is furnished shop and steam power free and laborers at 51 cents per day. Kansas City Times.
Ten years is a long time to let a contract of that kind for.
Excerpts from long article...
[MANNING ADDRESSES “VOTERS” OF COWLEY COUNTY.]
Winfield Courier, September 21, 1876. “Personals” Page.
TO THE VOTERS OF COWLEY COUNTY.
Having been named by the Republicans of this, the 27th senatorial district, as the candidate for State Senator, I feel it to be a duty I owe the party to which I belong and to the men who have placed me in nomination to contradict the lies that have been in circulation about me for five years. So long as I was a private citizen, it was not worthwhile to confront the liars or chase down the lies that have cursed the earth and poisoned the air of Cowley. To this end on Monday, Sept. 11th, I sent the card which appears below to the editor of the Traveler.
Instead of publishing the notice and then attending the meeting in person, or having someone do so, to face me with the falsehoods which he publishes, he takes the dishonorable course of refusing to meet me in open field, but puts the following stuff into his paper and sends it to hundreds of readers whom I can never meet. He further refuses to publish my reply. Could a man be more unfair? Could a pretended Republican be more dishonorable?
[From the Traveler, Sept. 13th.]
CHALLENGE FOR CHARGES.
We received from E. C. Manning, and by his request, publish the following notice:
PUBLIC MEETING.
“I will address the voters of Silverdale Township at Lippmann’s Mill, Saturday evening, Sept. 23, 1876. At that time I respectfully challenge all persons who have aught to say against me to be present, and make their charges publicly, that I may answer them
E. C. MANNING.”
[COMMENTS FROM C. M. SCOTT.]
We have not the time, nor do we think it necessary, to follow Mr. Manning over the county and make charges that have been through the courts and before the people sufficiently often and long enough to condemn him to every honest voter; but, since he asks for charges, and openly challenges any and all to make them, we have a few to make:
[Charges by Scott followed by answer of Manning.]
9. We repeat the charge of his having demanded $1,000 of Sid Clarke for his vote for him as United States Senator.
The ninth charge is not true. It is an old lie, told with a batch of others, for the purpose of throwing Alexander Caldwell out of the U. S. Senate. No man of the three hundred or more who were present at the courthouse last Saturday afternoon and heard the whole history of my action in the senatorial election of 1871 stated, with the circumstantial evidence cited, followed by Sidney Clarke’s letter dated September 10, 1876, pronouncing the charge false, does believe, or can be made to believe, that charge number 9 is true.
10. We charge him with selling his vote to Caldwell as sworn to by Manning himself, before the Caldwell investigating committee at Washington.
The tenth charge is not true. On the contrary, it is a bold impudent lie, and Mr. Scott knows it to be a lie. In fact, he either knows that the charges made are lies, or knows of no evidence to justify them. Mr. Scott is a weak, foolish, unprincipled creature. He has made trouble in Cowley County ever since he fled from Emporia. His power to do harm is fast waning. His unreliable character is so well known that the public is ever upon its guard in its intercourse with him.
[E. C. MANNING: REFORM WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 4, 1876. Front Page.
“Reform within the Republican Party.”
In an issue of September 13, 1876, we published an answer to a card of E. C. Manning, challenging his opponents to meet him on the stump and make their charges, among other charges, the following:
9. We repeat the charge of his having demanded $1,000 of Sid. Clarke for his vote for him as United States Senator.
Now, in answer to this, Col. Manning grows indignant and demands the proof. In order to accommodate the gentleman, we propose to give him the proof, and before doing so, we desire to call the attention of our readers to the fact that in 1870 Manning was defeated by the people for Representative, as we have fully shown by reference to a communication in last week’s issue, over the signature of W. P. Hackney, in reply to a letter of inquiry from us.
We know personally that the statement of Mr. Hackney is true, and we know further that Mr. Hackney at that time was a citizen of this county, taking a prominent part in the politics of that day, and knows fully whereof he speaks—and at that date the name of E. C. Manning was synonymous with political trickery and personal rascality. He was defeated in a fair election by the people, and by fraud and trickery he went to Topeka as the representative of Cowley County against the expressed wishes of our people as shown by their ballots.
At that time money was plenty in Cowley County—far more so than at any time since—and at that date money could be had at 12 percent, with good security to an unlimited amount. In fact, Kansas was at that date far more prosperous than at any time before or since. The war was over; emigration was pouring into the State from every quarter of the globe; railroads were being constructed in every direction; peace and prosperity reigned everywhere.
These are facts that all the old settlers will bear us out in, and of the fact that money could be had at 12 percent, all over Kansas, the reader can satisfy himself by going to the District Clerk’s office in Winfield and reading the deposition of ex-Gov. Thomas Carney in his testimony in the case of E. C. Manning against Will. M. Allison.
As we say above, Manning, by fraud, went to Topeka to represent the people of Cowley County. Previous to his election he, on the stump and elsewhere, pledged himself to support Sidney Clarke for the United States Senate that winter, and he went to Topeka with that understanding. How did he do it? With what fidelity did he perform his duty? Was he true to the people who had voted for him? And did he give the lie by his acts to the charges made against him in that campaign (that he was a tricky, trading politician, without honor or character) by the people who defeated him? No; but on the contrary, as soon as he reached Topeka, we find him forthwith trying to sell the vote he had for paltry dollars—trying to sell his influence to the highest bidder for cash—and for proof we refer the reader to the testimony of Sidney Clarke and D. M. Adams, on pages 34 and 35 and 144 and 145 of the report of the joint committee of investigation appointed by the Legislature of Kansas in 1872, and which reads as follows (Mr. Clarke’s testimony):
Q. What do you know of the transaction of Mr. E. C. Manning, of Cowley County?
A. I know him. He was a member of the House of Representatives, and had rooms in the Tefft House during the Senatorial election. As I understood it, previous to my arrival at Topeka, from some of the citizens of Cowley County and others whom I deemed well informed on the subject, Mr. Manning had been elected with the distinct understanding on the part of those voting for him as well as those voting against him, that he would vote for me for U. S. Senator. One evening during the progress of the canvas, Mr. F. W. Potter, of Coffey County, came into my room and said I had better see Manning; that something was the matter with him. I called upon him in a room occupied by himself and Mr. Potter, if I remember rightly, and had a conversation with him in reference to his vote for Senator. Mr. Manning demanded of me peremptorily that I should pay him the sum of $1,000 before he would take any part in the canvas in my favor for Senator. He said: “It is reported that you fellows have got the money here, and I am in financial distress and have spent a great deal of money in politics; was a member of the first State Convention, and was a friend of yours when you were first nominated for Congress, and I think you ought to reciprocate now and give me $1.000.” I told Mr. Manning that I could not and would not do it; that I had not got the money, and that if I failed in my election for want of money, I must simply take the consequences. My impression is that I had two conversations with Mr. Manning of a general character.
In our last conversation I said to him: “Mr. Manning, you were elected to the House of Representatives from Cowley upon the distinct pledge, and with the expectation on the part of your constituents that you would vote for me as United States Senator. Every foot of land upon which your constituents tread were saved to them by the fight I have made, running through a period of three years, against the Osage Treaty; and if you vote against me, I will never go back to Washington until I go down to Winfield in Cowley County, where you reside, and call a meeting of your constituents and state to them the demand you have made upon me. If I must lose your vote for want of money, so be it.” In one of the previous conversations referred to, feeling very doubtful whether he would vote for me or not, I referred him to Major D. M. Adams, or got him to talk with Major Adams.
By Senator Stever.
Q. Did any other parties, members of the Legislature, except Mr. Phinney, Mr. Manning, and Mr. McCartney, intimate personally or by their friends to you that they wanted money for their vote?
A. I do not recollect any individual cases.
By Senator Stever.
Questions asked of Mr. D. M. Adams.
Q. Do you know E. C. Manning?
A. Yes. I know him.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him in regard to whom he was going to vote for last winter, and how much he wanted for his vote?
A. I did.
Senator Stever said: “You may state what the conversation was.”
A. Well, gentlemen, that is a matter of history. It enters very largely into the campaign of last fall. Mr. Manning came to my room at the Tefft House. He said he was poor; it cost him a good deal to get elected, and he wanted a thousand dollars before he would vote for Clarke. He said: “You have got the money, I know it, I need it, and I am going to have it, or I will not vote for Clarke.” I told him Mr. Clarke was a poor man, unable to pay any such sum; that he (Manning) had been sent here to vote for him, and that I would not pay him a dollar. He spoke harshly of Mr. Clarke for his meanness, and for his aversion for the same quality; left my room, and I have never spoken to him since.
Q. Who was present?
A. Not any one. He had previously been to Mr. Clarke on the same errand, and admitted to me that he had been to Mr. Clarke.
E. C. Manning, proclaiming to the people before the election that he was a friend and supporter of Sidney Clarke for the United States Senate!
Read the above, and then tell us that E. C. Manning shall again represent a free and intelligent people! OH! SHAME, WHERE IS THY BLUSH! Is this the man that the convention had in view when it passed the following resolutions and nominated E. C. Manning?
WHEREAS, For the first time in the history of Cowley County the Republicans thereof are called upon to nominate a candidate for the office of State Senator, to fill said office for the next four years from said County in the Senate of Kansas; and
WHEREAS, During the term of four years next ensuing for which the said Senator from Cowley County will be elected there will occur the election of two United States Senators by the Legislature of the State of Kansas; and
WHEREAS, The honor of our State, and particularly of the Republican party thereof, has heretofore been sadly tarnished by the open, notorious, and unscrupulous use and receipt of money in all of the election of United States Senators, by the Legislature of the State of Kansas; Therefore, be it
Resolved, By the Republican party of Cowley County that every consideration of public policy and political integrity imperatively demands that our Representatives in each House of the State Legislature at the time of such approaching United States Senatorial Elections should be men against whose character for personal probity and political integrity, not the breath of suspicion has ever blown; and be it further
Resolved, That as the Republican party of Cowley County numbers within its membership hundreds of men whose characters are as spotless, both personally and politically, as the new fallen snow, and whose abilities are fully adequate to the honorable and efficient discharge of the duties of State Senator, we will therefore in the coming contest for that important and honorable position support no candidate therefor whose past and present political, as well as personal, history will not bear the closest scrutiny and most unsparing criticism, when viewed in the light of the foregoing resolutions.
But it is said that Sidney Clarke now endorses Manning. Certainly. It is reported to Clarke that Manning will be elected to the Senate this winter. He will, if elected, vote this winter for some man for United States Senator to fill the office now held by Gov. Harvey, and two years hence to fill the office now held by Senator Ingalls. Clarke is in hopes the lightning may strike him, and commercial politician that he is, he is ready to eat his own words in order to help Manning—that Manning may hereafter help him. Clarke is certain that in this way he can be of service to Manning, and thus place Manning under obligations to him. Each knows the rascalities of the other, and they put their heads together to help each other, on the principle of “You boost me and I will you,” and all their followers with one voice shout: “Great is the little Manning!” But, again, we find by reference to the testimony of ex-Gov. Carney before alluded to in this article, that Manning approached him for the loan of money, and when asked by Carney who he (Manning) was for, for United States Senator, he said, “You (meaning Carney) are my choice;” that between Caldwell and Clarke he had no choice. How so, Mr. Manning? You told the people of Cowley County before the election that you were for Sidney Clarke, and you told Clarke so as you stated in your speech on Saturday, Sept. 16, at the county convention; and you swore to the same thing in Washington, as we shall show hereafter.
Again, by reference to the same volume, on pages 251 and 252, your evidence taken before that committee is as follows.
E. C. MANNING,
Having been sworn, testified as follows:
Examined by the Chairman.
Q. Where do you live?
A. I live in Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Sidney Clarke last winter in regard to the Senatorial election? If so, state what it was?
A. He told me about a week before the first vote that he expected a man here on Wednesday with plenty of money to be used in securing his election. He said he would have one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to back him (Clarke). That party’s name was Bob Stevens. Two or three days after that, he authorized me to say to any member of the Legislature who would vote for him that if they would vote for him for the United States Senator, and he was elected, that each member so doing should be paid whatever price they asked. I did not make any such proposition to any member. He asked me once or twice if I knew of any members whose votes could be secured for him with money. About this time or a short time previous, I had asked Mr. Clarke to loan me one thousand dollars, with which to make a part payment upon the note I had in the bank, which I have mentioned. I stated to him distinctly that I had made an arrangement with Mr. G. W. Veale, of this place, to endorse my note that I should give him (Clarke) for the one thousand dollars, which loan was to have been for one or two years time, with interest at ten percent. I stated to Clarke my circumstances, and that I asked this of him as a friend; that my desire was to get this note out of the bank, where it was drawing one and one-half percent per month; that Mr. G. W. Veale was my endorser upon my eighteen hundred dollar note, and had proposed that if I could borrow the one thousand dollars, he would endorse for me, and would take the note out of the bank for me, and would take some property which I proposed to throw over to him for the balance due upon the note. Clarke told me he thought he would let me have the money, and for me to see Dan Adams; that he thought I could get the money of him. I called on Adams, and he said he could not let me have the money. I told Veale of my failure and asked him if he knew anywhere else where the money could be had.
Now, by reference to the testimony of Gov. Carney, you will see that he swears money on good security could be readily had at that time in Kansas for 12 percent. Why did you not borrow the money of men who loaned money? It was because you wanted pay for your vote, and this was the dodge you took to get it. Everybody knows that men are not usually paid cash for their votes, but notes are given that all parties understand are never to be paid. Especially is this so in the light of your own testimony taken in connection with the fact that Sidney Clarke at that time was and now is financially worthless.
Again, in the same issue, we made the following charge:
We charge him with selling his vote to Caldwell, as sworn to by Manning himself before the Caldwell investigating committee at Washington.
The reader will remember that after Mr. Manning made oath to the facts above set forth, he was called to Washington to be sworn in the Caldwell investigation, and the following is his
testimony.
WASHINGTON, January 21, 1873.
Edwin C. Manning sworn and examined.
Q. Where do you reside?
A. At Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas.
Q. Were you in the Legislature that elected Mr. Caldwell?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anybody offer you any money to vote for Mr. Caldwell?
A. No one offered me any money to vote for Mr. Caldwell.
Q. Was there anything else offered you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any accommodation sought by you or offered to you in the way of a loan of money?
Q. [By Mr. Trumbull] Or any inducement? The witness knows what we want.
A. No, sir—no inducement.
Q. [By the chairman] What about that note, Mr. Manning?
A. I had a note in the bank that had been there in the Topeka Bank some months over due, that I was very anxious always to pay. A gentleman came to me and told me that he believed I could get that note lifted if I would vote for Mr. Caldwell.
Q. Did you have a conversation with Len. T. Smith?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you with Governor Carney?
A. I did.
Q. What was the conversation?
A. Governor Carney was solicitous that I should vote for Mr. Caldwell.
Q. Did you say anything to Gov. Carney about the existence of this note?
A. I did.
Q. What?
A. I asked him to assist me in making a loan on one or two years’ time, at 10 or 12 percent interest.
Q. [By Mr. Hill] For what amount?
A. Two thousand dollars.
Q. What did Governor Carney say to that? Did he decline?
A. I think he said he could assist me in procuring the loan at that rate.
Q. Did he say he could or would?
A. That he could. I think he said he could.
Q. Did he tell you that he would speak to Mr. Caldwell for you?
A. I think he did.
Q. Did you understand that he had your permission to speak to Mr. Caldwell?
A. Yes, sir, I think I did.
Q. And then you voted for Mr. Caldwell on that day?
A. Yes, sir.
The above evidence can be found on pages 301 to 309 of Mr. Manning’s testimony before the U. S. Senate Committee in the Caldwell case.
Again, in the deposition of Gov. Carney before referred to, he swears he did see Caldwell for Manning, that Caldwell agreed to loan Manning the money, that he told Mr. Manning thereof, and that Manning told him they could depend upon him.
Again, we find in Mr. Manning’s testimony before the U. S. Senate Committee above referred to, the following instructive statement.
Q. When you applied to Mr. Clarke for the loan of this $1,000, he was a candidate?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Mr. Clarke regarded as a wealthy man?
A. I believe not.
Q. How did you suppose he had $1,000 to loan?
A. I had several reasons for supposing that.
Q. What were those reasons?
A. One of those reasons was, he told me had money there to procure his election. I ran as a Clarke man, made my speeches as a Clarke man, and told them all I should vote for Mr. Clarke. Every man expected I should vote for Clarke.
Read all the foregoing testimony, dear reader, and then tell us that you will vote for this man, and that his reputation is as spotless as demanded by the convention that nominated him.
Oh, no; Manning is not the spotless candidate that the convention meant in those resolutions we should vote for, but he is the very character the convention pledged themselves and the Republican party that we and they should not vote for in this campaign. When the convention nominated him, and then passed the resolutions above set forth, they voted themselves not only asses, but political harlots. E. C. Manning pure and spotless in the light of the foregoing evidence? If so, then well may the brazen and debauched harlots that infest our cities proclaim themselves virgins.
But again, having proven charges 9 and 10, we propose to make charge 11 against you, Mr. Manning, so stand up. We charge that you, as a member of the State Senate of 1866, committed the gross offense of lying most shamefully, and by your vote in connection with other members of the Legislature, you robbed the present and future unborn generations of the children of Kansas of five hundred thousand acres of land, worth fifteen hundred thousand dollars.
Now the above is a serious charge, but we propose to prove it, and for that purpose we copy the third section of article six of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, adopted at Wyandotte, July 29, 1859, which has been in force ever since, and reads as follows.
“SECTION 3. The proceeds of all lands that have been or may be granted by the United States to the State for the support of schools, and the five hundred thousand acres of land granted to the new State under an act of Congress distributing the proceeds of public lands among the several States of the Union approved September 4th, 1841, * * * * shall be the common property of the State, and shall be a perpetual school fund, which shall not be diminished, but the interest of which, together with all the rents of the land and such other means as the Legislature may provide by tax or otherwise, shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of the common schools.”
The above section of the Constitution was in full force and effect when Col. Manning was elected, and before he took his seat in the Senate, he solemnly swore he would obey that Constitution, and faithfully support and maintain the same.
How did he do it? Just as he did later in 1871, by forthwith trying to use his position as the servant of the people to make money out of an office they elected him to. And how did he do it? At that time the State school fund owned the five hundred thousand acres of land referred to in the above section of the Constitution, and that Constitution says that it “shall be a perpetual school fund which shall not be diminished, and shall be inviolably appropriated to the support of the common schools.”
Yet that Legislature of 1866 passed an act appropriating the five hundred thousand acres of land referred to in the above section of the Constitution (and in violation of the spirit and letter of that section) to four Railroad Corporations, i. e., one hundred and twenty-five thousand acres to each of those corporations, and E. C. Manning voted for that bill.
At the time he voted for that bill, he was a member of one of said corporations; and his Company, under that bill, received by its provisions one hundred and twenty-five thousand acres of land, which the Constitution he swore he would support and protect, said should never be divested from the Common school fund of the State.
By that act he helped rob the children of Kansas and divided their property among the licensed plunderers of the public Treasury, with whom he at that time was, and ever since, has been found.
Below we give the votes and protest of members of the Legislature when the bill was passed. The people of Cowley County will do well to read these copies of official documents taken from the House Journal of 1866.
On the 17th of February, 1866, morning session, after reception of reports from committees and transaction of other business, House bill No. 24, “an act providing for the sale of public lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads,” was read a third time. The question now being: “Shall the bill pass?” The yeas and nays were had with the following result: yeas, 44; nays 57. The following is the vote.
Gentlemen voting in the affirmative: Messrs. Arthur, Bradford, Brice, Bond, Callen, Cavender, Craig, Cochrane, Coffin, Drake, Dow, Fletcher, Graham, Green, Griswold, Harmon, Harrington, Harvey, Hollenberg, Holliday, Johnson, Kelly, Massey, Mix, Montgomery, Moore, McCabe, Nash, Parker, Pearmain, Pennock, Power, Quinn, Rankin, Reese, Rue, Sanford, Stewart, Smith, 43rd, Stotler, Underhill, Walker, Wilson, and Mr. Speaker.
Gentlemen voting in the negative were: Messrs. Allen, Bauserman, Cain, Carlton, Foster, Glick, Gross, Humber, Jackson, Jennison, Kellogg, Knight, Kunkel, McAuley, McLellen, O’Brien, Preston, Phillips, Rodgers, Stabler, Shepherd, Smith, 15th, Smith, 17th, Smith, 36th, VanGaasbeck, Pellhouse, and Woodyard.
Mr. W. A. Phillips then offered the following protest, which was ordered to be spread at large upon the Journal of the House.
We, the undersigned, hereby enter our solemn protest against the passage of an act entitled “An act providing for the sale of public lands to aid in the construction of certain railroads,” for the following reasons: 1st. This law would take from the school fund of this State, lands that have been set apart for their support, and appropriates them to other purposes; these lands being first, transferred by Congress to the State, by the State to the school fund, by a law found on page 572 of the Compiled Laws of Kansas; and, further, that this law, if passed, is in violation of section three of article sixth of our Constitution, which we have solemnly sworn to support; and, further, it appears by the files in the Secretary of State’s office, that certain members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and State officers, namely: Chas. E. Fox, Chas. E. Parker, George Graham, Henry Hollenberg, House of Representatives; F. H. Drenning, E. C. Manning, Samuel Speer, Sol. Miller, Senate; J. D. Braumbaugh, Attorney General; D. E. Ballard, staff officer, are members of the corporations in question, and by their votes have passed this bill; and as it further appears that the bill passed into a law is passed by the votes of these corporators, who are the recipients of the lands appropriated to the extent of 10,500 acres to each, this being in violation of all parliamentary law, for no member has a right to vote on questions in which he has a direct personal and pecuniary interest, the Constitution fixing the amount and manner of their compensation.
[Signature not given.]
And this is the man who proposes, aye, who has the audacity to ask a confiding and honest people to send him back to the Senate and give him one more chance! If he, in 1866, could disregard his oath, and appropriate that land to Rail Road Companies, in his own interest, why not the coming winter appropriate the remainder of the School fund for the same purpose?
It won’t do, voters, your interests are our interests, and we publish these facts that you may vote intelligently and with your eyes open.
Personally, we have no quarrel with Col. Manning, but his record is such that it ought to politically damn any man.
This is no time to trifle about candidates—our watch-word in this campaign is “reform within the party.” This bold, bad man has secured the Republican nomination.
He has his followers in every Township and his retainers and strikers in every locality, all in connection with each other lustily yelling at every man who refuses to support him that they are bolters and Democrats. He is followed by as foul and corrupt a mob of vagabonds as ever disgraced Kansas, clamorous for his appropriation, ever ready to share in the spoil that his past foul and dishonest record leads them to believe will follow in his wake.
(“Big fleas have little fleas upon their legs to bite ‘em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas and so ad infinitum.)
Can it be possible that this man will be elected to the State Senate?
Let the people themselves answer at the ballot box.
[MOVING SIOUX INDIANS.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 4, 1876.
The Sioux treaty requires the Indians to be removed to the Indian Territory, and the Black Hills to be sold to the whites. They will be followed by a sufficient body of soldiers, who will have to be stationed along the Kansas line.
[E. C. MANNING: VINDICATION MEETING IN ARKANSAS CITY.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 4, 1876.
“Vindication” Meeting.
On Friday morning of last week, Col. Manning came down to this place for the purpose of “making votes.” After interviewing a number of our citizens, he went to Bolton Township, but returned again to spend more time here—disgusting some who formerly had a slight respect for him, by “Hurrahing for Manning” himself, thinking, doubtless, “He that tooteth not his own horn, the same shall not be tooted.” To others, his favorite saying was “Vote for me for the State Senate, and I will build you a railroad,” but all to no avail. “Unless a tree has borne blossoms in the spring, you will vainly look for fruit on it in the autumn.”
In the evening he held a meeting at Benedict’s Hall, which was largely attended by an audience that treated him with the greatest courtesy, and hoped, for the good name of the Republican party and common decency, to hear him explain away the serious charges made against him. The attempt was made in a lengthy, labored, and able manner, but the records of the county and sworn statements of prominent men was too much to be contradicted, and his hearers went away satisfied that truth was mighty and would prevail. Those who had said during the day they did not believe the charges, went home convinced they were true, and pitied the man for his infamy.
During his speech he called on a member of the Winfield Grange, and asked him if he had joined the Grange for political purposes, and the response was: “I think you did, Colonel!” “But I got in, didn’t I?” “Partly in.”
Again, he denied his actions on railroad matters at El Dorado, where he did not vote with the Winfield or county delegates on several issues, when it was proven point blank that he grossly misrepresented the facts. Out of sympathy for his feelings, we did not call for a vote of the house, but know the result would have been five votes for Manning—two gentlemen of this place, a Beaver Township farmer, Wirt Walton (who was present to write up his “vindication” for the Courier), and Col. Manning. That was the sentiment.
We have claimed from the beginning that the Republicans made a mistake in permitting his friends to govern the primary meetings; made a mistake in nominating him, and made a mistake in not repudiating him, and taking up a man such as the resolutions call for.
We regret it for the party’s sake; for the honor of the county, and good name of the people that such is the state of affairs, but it will teach us an unworthy man cannot be forced on an intelligent and pure-minded people simply because he claims to be a Republican.
An honest Democrat is far better than a dishonest Republican.
The man nominated has not the slightest interest in the welfare of the party, and only endeavors to use the name of Republican for his own personal and selfish motives.
Such actions have driven many of the best men from our ranks. All over the county we can recall to mind men who affiliated with us a few years ago, that are now identified with the most bitter opposition elements, simply because they saw the errors and did not have the courage to fight against them.
Let us make the fight for principle and show to our enemies and friends that the grand old Republican party of Cowley County has within itself the power and will of reform.
[EDITORIAL: CHARGES AGAINST E. C. MANNING.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 4, 1876.
We give the evidence of Charges Number 9 and 10, against Col. Manning, on the first page; and will have proof of the remaining charges in due time. It is nearly one month before election, and ample time will be had to deny them, if they can be denied.
The fight we make against Mr. Manning is neither a fight of party or prejudice, but an open fight for principle. The Republican party has suffered enough by such men, and if they are not shown the party will not carry them, the party may suffer. The vote this fall will settle the matter whether the reform element of the Republican party of Cowley County is in the majority or minority, and teach honest men to look more closely after the Primary meetings that elect delegates.
[COWLEY COUNTY POLITICS: E. C. MANNING—SCOTT FIGHT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 18, 1876.
COWLEY COUNTY POLITICS.
A Sample Republican Leader.
[From the Lawrence Standard.]
ARKANSAS CITY, COWLEY CO., October 1, 1876.
ED. STANDARD: As you are doubtless aware, there is a war among the roses in this County—Manning and anti-Manning, E. C., who has lain still since the Caldwell bribery bile was punctured, and raised such a stink all over the State. But the double deal in this Senatorial term, was too great a temptation for his venal nature; he saw a fair opportunity in the future to borrow some more money at a low rate, of some Senatorial candidate. So he concocted a scheme that was seconded by a few select friends, had himself nominated by the Republican party before the regular county convention was called or the great mass of the party was aware of it.
They raised a perfect hurricane, but the great borrower was too many for the honest masses, he finally succeeded, and is now on the track in defiance of Scott, of the TRAVELER, who preferred ten charges against him.
This aroused the ire of the gentleman, so he determined to brass it through, and posted handbills all around town that he would answer Mr. Scott on last evening.
Well, he came, he fought, but he did not conquer. He consumed nearly two hours with a general denial, but no proof except a letter from Hon. Sid. Clarke, dated in last month, stating in substance that he, the Hon. Sid, and the Hon. Dan., the man who pays “my checks,” had sworn to a wilful, malicious lie before the Senatorial investigating committee in Washington in the Caldwell case, that Manning never offered to sell his vote to him. This called for a reply from Scott, who literally used up Manning, so that he could scarcely utter a word in reply.
Several of our citizens were called on to prove the truth of Scott’s charges. Mayor S. P. Channell and Judge Christian, formerly of your city, both testified to the point. Judge Christian objected to being called on in a family quarrel. He did not come there to speak, but to see the fun, as he knew the old adage, “When rogues fall out, honest people generally find their dues.” He stated what he knew of Manning’s conduct at a certain railroad convention; but of his general character he knew much, as he had known both Clarke and Manning for many years as public characters. While he did not remember of ever hearing that either of them had committed felony, they were both considered tricky.
Judge Christian knew that Manning up around Lawrence and at Topeka was considered an unmitigated shyster. He knew nothing of how he had acquired the title, but it was a maxim, that where there was much smoke, there was some fire. Nothing occurs without a cause. No man or woman ever acquired a bad character without some cause to justify it.
Poor Manning went home this morning without saying good bye to anyone, and the worst whipped man I ever saw, completely gone to grass.
GRANGER.
[CORRESPONDENCE RE MANNING FROM “OMNIA”.]
Arkansas City Traveler, November 1, 1876.
BALTIMORE, October 26, 1876.
EDITOR TRAVELER: The canvass goes bravely on, and your friend Manning catches it on all sides. I noticed an article in the Republican Daily Journal, published at Lawrence by T. D. Thatcher (one of the most radical Republican editors in the State, and a conscientious, honest, reliable man), headed “Some Curious Revelations,” in which he gives our Republican candidate for the Senate some hard licks, but not a lick amiss. Unless we purge the party of all such characters, ruin and defeat stare us in the face. The article is too long to copy in full, and as much of it has been in print, before, I will omit such and select a few sentences of Thatcher’s comments, to show how our Senatorial candidate is viewed abroad, where he is best known.
“It seems that E. C. Manning, who figured somewhat notoriously in the Caldwell Senatorial election, is again a candidate for the Legislature from Cowley County, and is having a rather rough time of it.”
After giving the substance of a letter written from your city, and the sworn testimony of Sid. Clarke and Dan Adams, with the examination of Manning himself, he winds up with these truthful words.
“It is a little singular that Manning is running for the Senate in Cowley County, Dan Adams for the Lower House as an independent candidate in one of the Shawnee County districts, while Clarke is running John Speer for the Senate in Douglass County. We think that the people have had enough of this crowd. They doubtless swore to the truth about each other before the Investigating Committee. If they did not, they committed perjury. In either case, they are a bad lot for this ‘reform’ year.”
The Democratic candidates, Pyburn and Christian, spoke at our schoolhouse a few nights ago, and made a good impression on their friends, but did not convince many Republicans that the election of Tilden and Hendricks would save the country from Rebel rule and the payment of Rebel claims. Still, both of these men will get a number of Republican votes in this and Silver Creek Townships on purely personal grounds.
The Republicans in this section of the county will not support Manning or any man that upholds him. Our people are determined to support an honest Democrat in preference to a dishonest Republican. OMNIA.
Arkansas City Traveler, November 1, 1876.
GREY EAGLE. Mr. Caldwell shot a large grey eagle near the Arkansas Bridge last Saturday, and left it with us. It measured eight feet from one tip of the wing to the other, and three from the beak to the tip of the tail. Its talons were fully one inch in length.
Kansas 1875 Census Beaver Township, Cowley County. 3/1/1875
Name age sex color Place/birth Where from
Milton Caldwell 39 m w Ohio Ohio
Ella Caldwell 24 f w Iowa Ohio
Kansas 1875 Census Pleasant Valley Township, Cowley County, 3/1/1875
Name age sex color Place/birth Where from
James Caldwell 25 m w Missouri Missouri
Melissa Caldwell 23 f w Indiana Indiana
Ada O. Caldwell 4 f w Kansas
James M. Caldwell 4 m w Kansas
ARKANSAS CITY 1893
Caldwell, J. B., 44. Spouse: Caldwell, M., 42
Caldwell, J. E., 57.
BEAVER TOWNSHIP
1873
Caldwell, Milton, 36. Spouse: Caldwell, Ella A., 23
1874
Caldwell, Milton, 39. Spouse: Caldwell, Ella, 25
1875
Caldwell, Milton, 39. Spouse: Caldwell, Ella, 24
1878
Caldwell, Milton, 43, P. O. Box Oxford. Spouse: Caldwell, E. A., 29
1879
Caldwell, Milton, 44, Oxford. Spouse: Caldwell, Ella, 29
1882
Caldwell, Milton, 44. Spouse: Ella, 31
CEDAR TOWNSHIP
1877
Caldwell, B., 21
Caldwell, B. F., 55. Spouse: Caldwell, L. J., 40
Caldwell, Wm., 23. Spouse: Caldwell, [?], 22
1880
Caldwell, Wm., 27. Spouse: Caldwell, Josephine, 25
WINDSOR TOWNSHIP
1878
Caldwell, A., 30, P. O. Address Lazette. Spouse: Caldwell, L., 37
1879
Caldwell, A., 32, P. O. Address Lazette. Spouse: Caldwell, Lydia, 30
1880
Caldwell, A., 33, P. O. Address Cambridge. Spouse: Caldwell, L., 31
WINFIELD 1878
Caldwell, C., 59. Spouse: Caldwell, Jennie, 22
Caldwell, N. C., 24. [Looks like mother lived with him] Caldwell, Martha, 50
