PENNSYLVANIA. 



621 



way both creditable to it and to the State. 

 The record it will leave will form the brightest 

 page in our history. It will have supported, 

 educated, and prepared for usefulness twelve 

 thousand of the sons and daughters of dead 

 and disabled soldiers, and will have expended 

 in this noble work the magnificent sum of 

 $8,000,000. The whole world may be searched 

 in vain for another such example of patriotic 

 benevolence." 



W. H. Kemble, Charles B. Salter, W. F. 

 Eumberger, Jesse R. Crawford, and Emile J. 

 Petroff, charged with corrupt solicitation of 

 members of the Legislature to secure the pas- 

 sage of the act providing for payment by the 

 State of losses occasioned by the railroad riots 

 in Pittsburg in 1877, were indicted and brought 

 up for trial in the Court of Quarter Sessions of 

 Dauphin County early in the year. The law 

 under which they were to be tried was passed 

 in 1874, and provided as follows: 



1. That any person or persons who shall directly or 

 indirectly, by offer or promise of money, office, ap- 

 pointment, employment, testimonial^ or other thing of 

 value, or who shall by threats or intimidation, en- 

 deavor to influence any member of the General As- 

 sembly, State, county, election, municipal, or other 

 public officer, in the discharge, performance, or non- 

 perfonnance of any act, duty, or obligation pertaining 

 to such office, shall be guilty of the offense of corrupt 

 solicitation and liable to an indictment for a misde- 

 meanor, and on conviction thereof shall be sentenced 

 to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and 

 to undergo imprisonment not exceeding two years, at 

 the discretion of the Court. 



2. That any occupation or practice of solicitation of 

 members of either House of the General Assembly, or 

 of public officers of the State or of any municipal 

 division thereof, to influence their official action, shall 

 be deemed a misdemeanor, and any person convicted 

 thereof shall be punished as provided by the preceding 

 section. Provided, That any open address upon, or 

 explanation of, any measure or question before cither 

 House of the General Assembly, or any committee or 

 member thereof, or before any municipal council or 

 board or committee thereof, or before any public officer, 

 shall not be held to be solicitation within the meaning 

 of this section. 



When the accused appeared before the Court 

 for trial at Harrisburg, on the 8th of March, 

 general surprise was occasioned by pleas of 

 guilty on the part of Kemble, Salter, Rum- 

 berger, and Crawford. Kemble attempted to 

 qualify his plea by a declaration that he did 

 not "corruptly offer any money or thing of 

 value unto any or either of the persons named 

 in the indictment." This was not admitted as 

 part of the plea, but by leave of the Court it 

 was filed in a protest. Petroff was tried and 

 convicted by a jury, and March 29th was ap- 

 pointed for"passing sentence on all the accused 

 persons. An appeal was made to the Board of 

 Pardons, which consented to a special session 

 on March 27th to consider the petitions. The 

 petition of William H. Kemble, after recalling 

 the circumstances attending the effort to pass 

 the Riot Indemnity Bill, stated that the "peti- 

 tioner had no personal interest in the measure, 

 but desired its passage in common with many 

 of the best citizens of the State. The excite- 



ment referred to culminated in a committee of 

 investigation, before which he appeared and 

 frankly stated his participation in the matter. 

 On consultation with his counsel he ascertained 

 for the first time that his statements and fact;?, 

 as given in his examination before the com- 

 mittee, rendered him guilty of a technical viola- 

 tion of the act of 1874, and subjected him to 

 the charge of corrupt solicitation. With no 

 disposition to withhold the truth, he could only 

 reaffirm his testimony before the committee, 

 and, therefore, he pleaded guilty to such 

 charge, but protested, at the time of filing said 

 plea, that he had not promised or offered to 

 either or any of the persons named in the bill 

 of indictment any money or thing of value to 

 influence him in his vote or official action in 

 relation to said bill, and that said plea should 

 not be construed as an admission on his part 

 that he had corruptly offered or promised any 

 money or thing of value to said person or per- 

 sons mentioned in said indictments." 



The Board of Pardons gave a hearing to 

 counsel and listened to letters and statements, 

 and a remonstrance was entered by the coun- 

 sel of the Commonwealth. The result was a 

 refusal to recommend a pardon of the offenders 

 by an equal division of the board, Secretary of 

 State Quay and Secretary of Internal Affairs 

 Dunkel favoring the pardon, and Lieutenant- 

 Governor Stone and Attorney-General Palmer 

 opposing it. The board also refused to hold 

 another session, after sentence should be passed, 

 to consider the question again. When, on the 

 29th of March, the five convicted men were 

 called in court to receive sentence, none of 

 them appeared, and it was speedily noised 

 abroad that they had fled. It proved that 

 Kemble had left the State, but he subsequently 

 returned of his own accord, and on the 26th of 

 April sentence was passed on the five prisoners. 

 Judge Pearson said, in pronouncing the sen- 

 tence : 



"You are each charged with corruptly soliciting 

 members of the General Assembly, and endeavoring 

 to induce them, under promise of money, to vote for 

 the passasre of a bill under consideration. Four of you 

 have pleaded guilty, and one has been convicted, utter 

 an impartial trial. It is greatly to be regretted that 

 for years the practice has been carried on in the Legis- 

 lature. It was charged throughout the whole country 

 that bribery in the Legislature was the great evil of 

 the day. So crying was this that, when the Convention 

 met to revise the Constitution of the State, it was de- 

 cided to make the most stringent laws and enact heavy 

 penalties to meet the case of a legislator withholding 

 or giving his vote on any measure for a consideration." 

 The Judge then referred to the law of 18(50, which 

 provided that the punishment should be five years 

 and one thousand dollars fine, and then he said : " To 

 this has been added the disqualification of the de- 

 fendant from holding any office of honor, profit, or 

 trust in the Commonwealth. Even the occupation of 

 soliciting members' votes is prohibited by fine and 

 imprisonment, and this meets that large class of men 

 who hang about legislative halls who are known as 

 4 borers.' However trivial you may have considered 

 your offense is not looked upon by this Court in such 

 a manner. The public treasury has been plundered, 

 and others made great gains by this practice. What 

 was particularly noticeable in this case is that two of 



