I

CHAPTER XLIII.

THE BROWNSVILLE AFFRAY-Continued.

HAVE shown that the testimony first submitted by Major Blocksom, although only loose-jointed, unsworn, inconsistent and contradictory statements, was regarded by the President as "conclusive," but that after I had dissected it and shown its deficiencies and general unworthiness, he sent Major Blocksom back to Brownsville, accompanied by Mr. Purdy, to secure the same testimony under oath and all additional testimony that it was possible to get against the men, and that on their return to Washington they brought with them a lot of affidavits and a number of exhibits, which the President again deemed "conclusive" in character, and so conclusive that he did not hesitate, in his official Message to the Senate to impugn the honesty of any one who would upon such testimony pretend to doubt the truth of the charges upon which he had acted.

The testimony taken originally was ex parte and not sworn to. The testimony taken in the second instance by Purdy and Blocksom was given under oath, but it was ex parte. The men had no notice of the proceeding, and, therefore, had no one present to cross-examine the witnesses, or to represent them in any way whatever.

In both his Messages transmitting the testimony the President had ignored the sworn testimony given by the men, and also that which was given by their white commissioned officers, all of whom were gentlemen of the very highest and most unimpeachable character.

Having twice submitted "indisputable and overwhelming testimony" and the committee having taken thousands of pages of evidence in connection with which the men were subjected to the most rigid cross-examination, I was quite sur

prised to hear some time after my speech of April 14, 1908, during the adjournment of the Congress, that again some one was busy trying to get additional testimony, and that in this behalf detectives had been engaged by the Government, who were seeking by all kinds of unfair and dishonorable methods, going even to the extent of manufacturing false and pretended confessions, and using and publishing them, in order to make for the third time a "conclusive and overwhelming case," in addition to the case made by the committee against which my speech of April 14th had been directed.

I had borne with the utmost patience all that had been done against the men on the part of the Government, which ought to have protected them, to convict them of the crimes with which they were charged. While not hesitating to defend them by argument and to attack and destroy, in so far as I was in that way able to do so, every accusation brought against them, and all the testimony with which it was sought to support such accusations, yet I had used only the most respectful and strictly parliamentary language, so much so that no one in the Senate or outside, especially not the President, had any right to complain of anything I had said or done; but when this fourth attempt to make a case against these men, by which they could be smirched and destroyed, became known, and I became familiar with the character of the work that was going on and the relation to that work of the President and Mr. Taft, the Secretary of War, I felt that, while it was gratifying to have another such admission that the President knew he had not made a "conclusive" case, or any other kind of case, yet an unspeakable outrage was being committed; a greater crime in fact, considering the methods that were being employed to fasten the crime of murder on innocent men by false testimony, than any with which the men were charged, and that the time had come for plain speech, and that it was my duty to act accordingly. Promptly after Congress reconvened in December, the President sent us another Message, laying the alleged results of this effort before us. I answered at once, challenging the legitimacy and the truthfulness of his additional testimony, using the

letters I had received, and later, on the 12th day of January, 1909, I at length reviewed this latest, and, as I thought, most indefensible phase of the whole matter, using sworn statements which I had taken the trouble to gather.

I recited the history of the several investigations, reports and messages, and how each time the President had pronounced the testimony against the men "conclusive," and how, nevertheless, he had immediately after my answer to each such message sought to get new or additional testimony, which indicated that, notwithstanding his positive assertions, he still had doubt.

I then showed from letters I had received and from affidavits given not only by the soldiers, but from a number of leading white men of the South and from the official records of the War Department, that after, according to the President, it had been "thoroughly established" that the men were guilty, as much as $15,000 had been paid to detectives from a balance of what I claimed was a lapsed appropriation, to try to get some real proof, and that in this behalf every rule of evidence applicable had been violated, and all without securing one iota of proof that I was not able to refute and destroy absolutely, and did destroy the moment it was offered.

This last effort to convict was not only utterly futile, but, because of the methods of the detectives, even criminal. I did not hesitate to call things by their right names, as will appear from the following quotation:

This Message of the President, with its exhibits, and this report of the Secretary of War present a new and most serious feature of this unhappy business. They not only disclose determined effort on the part of the President to again bolster up the case against these men, which he has heretofore, on numerous occasions, both officially and unofficially characterized as "conclusive” and “overwhelming," but that he has resorted to a method in his effort to secure such testimony that can not be fittingly characterized without the use of language which, if employed, might appear to be disrespectful to the Chief Executive. And worst of all, in this endeavor to secure such testimony the President has, himself, committed the serious offense-condemned by every court that administers the common law that has ever had occasion to speak on the subject-of holding out to these men an inducement, or a reward, for giving such testimony, in the form of re-enlistment, with full pay, of which they had been deprived and reinstatement to all their rights as soldiers.

It does not lessen the gravity of his offense that it appears to be imperceptible to him; or, if not so, that he has become utterly oblivious to all the restraints of law, decency, and propriety in his mad pursuit of these helpless victims of his ill-considered action. I shall be able to show, I think, that all this has been done without the authority of law and with public money that has been literally filched from the Public Treasury in flat defiance both of the Constitution of the United States and of statutes enacted by Congress applicable thereto.

I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion, aside from the question whether there has been a misappropriation of public funds, no precedent for anything so shocking can be found in all the history of American criminal jurisprudence.

It will appear from the President's Message—and that is what I refer to when I say that, and the exhibits thereto attached showing the mode in which the detectives are operating, and the testimony in answer thereto, which I shall submit presently—that fraudulent impersonation, misrepresentation, lying, deceit, treachery, liquor, and intoxication, coupled with promises of immunity and the excitement of hope and fear, and the offer of employment and remunerative wages, have been resorted to to secure the testimony sought for, and that the so-called "confessions" are not confined to such as affect the parties making them, or to those affected by them, who may be present when such confessions are made, but extend also to those not present when they are made, but who are absent and without knowledge of what is transpiring, and without any opportunity whatever to be heard in their own defense, even to make an objection that such statements and such confessions are untruthful.

The following further quotation from my speech shows that I was fully justified in characterizing as I did the work of these so-called detectives and their methods.

After citing numerous authorities to show that "confessions" are never heard as evidence except where shown to be purely voluntary and free from inducement by promise of protection or reward and free from threats and duress, I read first the affidavit of Boyd Conyers:

GEORGIA, Walton County:

In person appeared before me Boyd Conyers, who on being duly sworn deposes and says: "The statements made by me in the several letters written by me to Senator Foraker and published in the Congressional Record of December 14, 1908, are true." Senators will remember the report that Boyd Conyers made a confession to William Lawson, a negro detective, ignorant and illiterate, who signed his name with his mark. He gave the day and date that the confession was made to him. Then Browne testified under oath that he interviewed Conyers in Georgia and secured a confession. Here is what Conyers says under oath:

"I desire to further say that I did not have any conversation with William Lawson, the negro detective, as stated by him, on

the morning of June 8, because I was at work three miles from the city of Monroe at that time, helping to grade the target range for Company H, Second Georgia Regiment, National Guard. I did not go to Gainesville, as stated by him, on the negro excursion June 15, for I was at work cleaning up the post-office until dinner time that day, and after dinner I went out to the target range and helped to put up the targets. I did not see and talk to him on June 29th, as stated by him, for my wife was dangerously sick at that time and expected to die. I never did at any time have any private talk with him, and I most solemnly swear that every word of his statement as to talks had with me or confessions made by me to him, or statements made by me to him, in regard to the Brownsville affair, or affecting me in any way, is utterly and absolutely false.

"I desire to say, further, that Sheriff E. C. Arnold was present at all of the interviews between Mr. Herbert J. Browne and me and took an active part in trying to get me to make a confession. He knows, for he was present and heard every word that I said, that I made no confession, that I denied all the time knowing anything about it; and I here say that I made no confession of any kind to Mr. Browne, and that the statement or report made by him and published in the Congressional Record of December 14, in so far as the same refers to me or affects me in any way, is not true, but a misrepresentation of the real truth.

"BOYD CONYERS.

"Sworn to and subscribed to before me January 4, 1909.
"J. O. LAWRENCE,

"Notary Public, ex-officio Justice of the Peace,
"Walton County, Ga."

Now I will read the affidavit of E. C. Arnold. I see present the junior Senator from Georgia (Mr. Clay). I should like to know whether he knows E. C. Arnold, Sheriff of Walton County; and if so, what kind of a man he is?

Mr. Clay: I have known Mr. Arnold for fifteen or twenty years. He is a most excellent man in every respect.

Mr. Foraker: I should judge so from this affidavit and from the position he holds in his county. I do not think Mr. Arnold needs a certificate of character, except only to those who imagine that every man who does not agree to what is put out from certain places is dishonest or actuated by some unworthy purpose or motive. I venture to say he would compare favorably either with Herbert J. Browne or William Lawson.

STATE OF GEORGIA, Walton County:

"In person appeared before me E. C. Arnold, who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says:

"I am at present and have been for twelve years the Sheriff of Walton County, residing in the city of Monroe. For several years prior to my election to the office of Sheriff I was Chief of Police of Monroe. I have recently been elected Ordinary of the county, and will begin the duties of that office tomorrow, January 1, 1909.