Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Story
February 20, 1878
New Ulm Weekly Review
New Ulm, Brown County, Minnesota
What is this article about?
In the House of Representatives, Mr. Brandt exposes a $50 bribery attempt by lobbyists against the text book bill, initially claiming he accepted it but later retracting to reveal he took it as proof of corruption; a committee investigates in secret.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
BRIBERY IN THE LEGISLATURE.
In the House of Representatives last Saturday, when the text book bill was under consideration, our member, Mr. Brandt, arose from his seat in a very excited manner and stated that he had been bribed by a party representing the lobbyists that were working against the bill. He sent a $50 bank note to the speaker which he claimed had been paid him early that morning, in consideration of a promise that he would vote for certain amendments to the Merrill Bill. He stated that he had promised to vote for the amendment, and should do so, hoping that the house would not feel hard against him for keeping his word.
As may be imagined, great amazement and consternation followed this announcement, and confusion was manifest on all sides. After considerable parleying a committee was appointed to investigate the matter.
Later in the day. Mr. Brandt made the following statement.
"I desire to retract certain statements I made in the house this morning. I spoke under excitement. I did not take the money to be influenced and bribed so as to affect my vote on the amendments on the text-book bill. I only took it to obtain, and have, and present to this house proof that money was used for bad purposes, and I will show fully my intents and purposes before the investigating committee."
That money was being used for corrupt purposes by the lobbyists working against the bill, and that the motives of Mr. Brandt in ferreting out the guilty parties were good, no one, for a moment, doubts. Still, he done wrong in taking the money and the statement, "that he had promised to vote for the amendment and should do so," was most unfortunate. Although his subsequent statement puts a little better light on the matter, as far as Brandt is concerned, the prevailing sentiment is that it would have been far better for Mr. Brandt, and Brown county, if he had kept out of this business.
The committee appointed to investigate the matter held a short session Monday, but they having decided to conduct its investigation in secret sessions, nothing further is known than that Mr. Brandt made a very clear, straight-forward statement as to where and when he received the money, and who paid it to him. The report of the committee is expectantly awaited.
In the House of Representatives last Saturday, when the text book bill was under consideration, our member, Mr. Brandt, arose from his seat in a very excited manner and stated that he had been bribed by a party representing the lobbyists that were working against the bill. He sent a $50 bank note to the speaker which he claimed had been paid him early that morning, in consideration of a promise that he would vote for certain amendments to the Merrill Bill. He stated that he had promised to vote for the amendment, and should do so, hoping that the house would not feel hard against him for keeping his word.
As may be imagined, great amazement and consternation followed this announcement, and confusion was manifest on all sides. After considerable parleying a committee was appointed to investigate the matter.
Later in the day. Mr. Brandt made the following statement.
"I desire to retract certain statements I made in the house this morning. I spoke under excitement. I did not take the money to be influenced and bribed so as to affect my vote on the amendments on the text-book bill. I only took it to obtain, and have, and present to this house proof that money was used for bad purposes, and I will show fully my intents and purposes before the investigating committee."
That money was being used for corrupt purposes by the lobbyists working against the bill, and that the motives of Mr. Brandt in ferreting out the guilty parties were good, no one, for a moment, doubts. Still, he done wrong in taking the money and the statement, "that he had promised to vote for the amendment and should do so," was most unfortunate. Although his subsequent statement puts a little better light on the matter, as far as Brandt is concerned, the prevailing sentiment is that it would have been far better for Mr. Brandt, and Brown county, if he had kept out of this business.
The committee appointed to investigate the matter held a short session Monday, but they having decided to conduct its investigation in secret sessions, nothing further is known than that Mr. Brandt made a very clear, straight-forward statement as to where and when he received the money, and who paid it to him. The report of the committee is expectantly awaited.
What sub-type of article is it?
Crime Story
Deception Fraud
Historical Event
What themes does it cover?
Deception
Crime Punishment
Justice
What keywords are associated?
Bribery
Legislature
Lobbyists
Text Book Bill
Investigation
Corruption
What entities or persons were involved?
Mr. Brandt
Where did it happen?
House Of Representatives, Brown County
Story Details
Key Persons
Mr. Brandt
Location
House Of Representatives, Brown County
Event Date
Last Saturday; Monday
Story Details
Mr. Brandt announces in the House that he was bribed with $50 by lobbyists to vote for amendments to the Merrill Bill opposing the text book bill, promises to vote as agreed; later retracts, claiming he took the money to expose corruption; committee investigates secretly.