the setting and the other towards the rising sun, each comprehending that every step henceforth must separate their lives, wider and wider.
CHAPTER LIX.
When Mr. Noble’s bombshell fell in Senator Dilworthy’s camp, the statesman was disconcerted for a moment. For a moment; that was all. The next moment he was calmly up and doing. From the centre of our country to its circumference, nothing was talked of but Mr. Noble’s terrible revelation, and the people were furious. Mind, they were not furious because bribery was uncommon in our public life, but merely because here was another case. Perhaps it did not occur to the nation of good and worthy people that while they continued to sit comfortably at home and leave the true source of our political power (the “primaries,”) in the hands of saloon-keepers, dog-fanciers and hod-carriers, they could go on expecting “another” case of this kind, and even dozens and hundreds of them, and never be disappointed. However, they may have thought that to sit at home and grumble would some day right the evil.
Yes, the nation was excited, but Senator Dilworthy was calm — what was left of him after the explosion of the shell. Calm, and up and doing. What did he do first? What would you do first, after you had tomahawked your mother at the breakfast table for putting too much sugar in your coffee? You would “ask for a suspension of public opinion.” That is what Senator Dilworthy did. It is the custom. He got the usual amount of suspension. Far and wide he was called a thief, a briber, a promoter of steamship subsidies, railway swindles, robberies of the government in all possible forms and fashions. Newspapers and everybody else called him a pious hypocrite, a sleek, oily fraud, a reptile who manipulated temperance movements, prayer meetings, Sunday schools, public charities, missionary enterprises, all for his private benefit. And as these charges were backed up by what seemed to be good and sufficient, evidence, they were believed with national unanimity.
Then Mr. Dilworthy made another move. He moved instantly to Washington and “demanded an investigation.” Even this could not pass without comment. Many papers used language to this effect:
“Senator Dilworthy’s remains have demanded an investigation. This sounds fine and bold and innocent; but when we reflect that they demand it at the hands of the Senate of the United States, it simply becomes matter for derision. One might as well set the gentlemen detained in the public prisons to trying each other. This investigation is likely to be like all other Senatorial investigations — amusing but not useful. Query. Why does the Senate still stick to this pompous word, ‘Investigation?’ One does not blindfold one’s self in order to investigate an object.”
Mr. Dilworthy appeared in his place in the Senate and offered a resolution appointing a committee to investigate his case. It carried, of course, and the committee was appointed. Straightway the newspapers said:
“Under the guise of appointing a committee to investigate the late Mr. Dilworthy, the Senate yesterday appointed a committee to investigate his accuser, Mr. Noble. This is the exact spirit and meaning of the resolution, and the committee cannot try anybody but Mr. Noble without overstepping its authority. That Dilworthy had the effrontery to offer such a resolution will surprise no one, and that the Senate could entertain it without blushing and pass it without shame will surprise no one. We are now reminded of a note which we have received from the notorious burglar Murphy, in which he finds fault with a statement of ours to the effect that he had served one term in the penitentiary and also one in the U. S. Senate. He says, ‘The latter statement is untrue and does me great injustice.’ After an unconscious sarcasm like that, further comment is unnecessary.”
And yet the Senate was roused by the Dilworthy trouble. Many speeches were made. One Senator (who was accused in the public prints of selling his chances of reelection to his opponent for $50,000 and had not yet denied the charge) said that, “the presence in the Capital of such a creature as this man Noble, to testify against a brother member of their body, was an insult to the Senate.”
Another Senator said, “Let the investigation go on and let it make an example of this man Noble; let it teach him and men like him that they could not attack the reputation of a United States Senator with impunity.”
Another said he was glad the investigation was to be had, for it was high time that the Senate should crush some cur like this man Noble, and thus show his kind that it was able and resolved to uphold its ancient dignity.
A bystander laughed, at this finely delivered peroration; and said:
“Why, this is the Senator who franked his baggage home through the mails last week — registered, at that. However, perhaps he was merely engaged in ‘upholding the ancient dignity of the Senate,’ — then.”
“No, the modern dignity of it,” said another bystander. “It don’t resemble its ancient dignity but it fits its modern style like a glove.”
There being no law against making offensive remarks about U. S. Senators, this conversation, and others like it, continued without let or hindrance. But our business is with the investigating committee.
Mr. Noble appeared before the Committee of the Senate; and testified to the following effect:
He said that he was a member of the State legislature of the Happy-Land-of-Canaan; that on the — - day of — — — he assembled himself together at the city of Saint’s Rest, the capital of the State, along with his brother legislators; that he was known to be a political enemy of Mr. Dilworthy and bitterly opposed to his reelection; that Mr. Dilworthy came to Saint’s Rest and reported to be buying pledges of votes with money; that the said Dilworthy sent for him to come to his room in the hotel at night, and he went; was introduced to Mr. Dilworthy; called two or three times afterward at Dilworthy’s request — usually after midnight; Mr. Dilworthy urged him to vote for him; Noble declined; Dilworthy argued; said he was bound to be elected, and could then ruin him (Noble) if he voted no; said he had every railway and every public office and stronghold of political power in the State under his thumb, and could set up or pull down any man he chose; gave instances showing where and how he had used this power; if Noble would vote for him he would make him a Representative in Congress; Noble still declined to vote, and said he did not believe Dilworthy was going to be elected; Dilworthy showed a list of men who would vote for him — a majority of the legislature; gave further proofs of his power by telling Noble everything the opposing party had done or said in secret caucus; claimed that his spies reported everything to him, and that —
Here a member of the Committee objected that this evidence was irrelevant and also in opposition to the spirit of the Committee’s instructions, because if these things reflected upon any one it was upon Mr. Dilworthy. The chairman said, let the person proceed with his statement — the Committee could exclude evidence that did not bear upon the case.
Mr. Noble continued. He said that his party would cast him out if he voted for Mr. Dilworthy; Dilworthy said that that would inure to his benefit because he would then be a recognized friend of his (Dilworthy’s) and he could consistently exalt him politically and make his fortune; Noble said he was poor, and it was hard to tempt him so; Dilworthy said he would fix that; he said, “Tell, me what you want, and say you will vote for me;” Noble could not say; Dilworthy said “I will give you $5,000.”
A Committee man said, impatiently, that this stuff was all outside the case, and valuable time was being wasted; this was all a plain reflection upon a brother Senator. The Chairman said it was the quickest way to proceed, and the evidence need have no weight.
Mr. Noble continued. He said he told Dilworthy that $5,000
