A United States Senator was to be elected in Ohio in November. In October a new State Legislature was chosen, and the Democratic members were instructed for one of two candidates for the Senate, George H. Pendleton or General Durbin Ward, both men of prominence and long service in the public life of the state. Mr. Payne's name was not men tioned in the canvass. Nevertheless, hardly had the Legisla ture convened when there sprang up at the Neil House in Columbus an extraordinary Payne boom. Its backers were Senator Payne's own son, Oliver H. Payne, at that time treas urer of the Standard Oil Company, and Colonel Thompson, a prominent personage in the same concern. Their lieuten ants were also members of the company in one capacity or another. Large sums of money were alleged to have been cir culated. There was a rumour that Oliver Payne said the election cost him $ioo,000. It was claimed that it could be proved that a check for $65,000 had been cashed in Cleve land by one of the men most prominent in the Payne boom, and that the whole sum had been spent in Columbus.
A perfect uproar of indignation followed the announce ment of Mr. Payne's choice. All over the state the Standard Oil Company was charged with the election. The Demo cratic press was particularly bitter: Said the Butler County Democrat: "It was simply a question whether Pendleton, Ward, Thurman, Converse, Follett, Geddes, or any other capable and honest Demo crat, should receive the compliments of a seat in the Senate, or that the Standard Oil Company should buy the place for Henry B. Payne. It was an honest and divided Democracy against a hydra-headed dictatorship of rich men on whose banner was inscribed 'Money Talks.' The Carroll County Chronicle in commenting on the election said: "It is a great mistake to suppose Standard Oil has captured the Democratic party of Ohio. It may have captured a score or two of men elected to the Legislature, but they are not the Democracy of Ohio by a long shot. When the British got General Benedict Arnold they imagined they had captured the United States army, but it was a mistake." "The monopoly of the Standard Oil Company must be destroyed," declared the Columbus Times. "Its intrusion into political circles must be prevented. There must be no later acceptance of this outrage. Political purity and perpetuity permit no complacency. These pernicious foreign elements must be eradicated, and until they are no Democrat will enter the capitol of Ohio or of the nation. The rottenness that uncovered itself last night has not its confines in Ohio."
The comments were not confined to papers of the state. The New York Sun, under the head "Was Payne's Election Bought?" said: "The subjoined communication from a source which we always respect is worthy of more attention than is usually bestowed upon the animated expressions of those whose preferences have not been realised: "` It is now believed, and I believe, that the Standard Oil Company recently bought with money Ohio's seat in the Senate of the United States for Mr. Payne. Now, can the social respectability of a man make such a crime respectable ? Or is there to be one standard of political morality for Republicans and another for Democrats ? Or are Democrats expected to condemn corruption only when practised by Republicans, and to condone, defend, and cover it up when practised by Democrats, or when it is found only in the Democratic party ? In my opinion there is no danger so threatening to free institutions as the sale and purchase of political power, and nothing more to be condemned.' " Although these charges were kept up for two years neither the Standard Oil Company, Mr. Payne, nor the Legislature which had elected him noticed them. The scandal became one of the issues of the next campaign and was instrumental in making the next Legislature of Ohio Republican. As soon as the new Legislature convened at the opening of 1886 an investigation of the Payne case was ordered. Some fifty-five witnesses were examined, and the resulting testimony turned over to the Senate of the United States for its examination. The testimony did not prove the charge of bribery, the Ohio Legislature said, but it was of such a nature as to require the Senate's attention. The matter went to the Senate Committee on Elections, and in July, 1886, a majority reported against the further investigation asked by the state of Ohio.* Against this decision two members of the committee, Senators Hoar and Frye, protested: " Is the Senate to deny to the people of a great state, speaking through their Legisla ture and their representative citizens, the only opportunity for a hearing of this momen tous case which can exist under the constitution ? We have not prejudged the case, nor do we mean to prejudge it. We sincerely trust that the investigation, which is as much demanded for the honour of the sitting members as for that of the Senate or the state of Ohio, may result in vindicating his title to his seat and the good name of the Legis lature that elected him.