1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 585 

' 

Also (by request), petition of Elizabeth Howell, for investigation of 

Insane Asylum in District of Columbia-to the Committee on the, District of Columbia. 

By. Mr. E. B. TAYLOR: Petition of Ruth Francis, mother of James 

D. Prosser, late private Company D, Sixty-third Pennsylvania Volunteers, for mother's pension-to the Committee on Inv:;11id Pensions. 

By Mr. G. M. THOMAS: Petition and papers in the case of Christian Leder, for a pension-to the Committee on In·mlid Pensions. 

By Mr. VANDEVER: Petitionofcitizens ofSan Luis Obispo, Cal., 

for an adequate appropriation for the improvement of their harborto the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. · By Mr. J. R. WHITING: Petition of John W. Shine and others, for 

the improvement of the· Pinepog River, Michigan-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. WILKINSON: Papersin thecaseofestateofLucien Goyaux; 

of the Citizens' Bank of Louisiana, and of Mary Shannon, administratrix-to the Committee on War Claims. 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourth-class 

postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads: 

By Mr. BARRY: Of J. A.. Wilkinson and other.;;, of Sparta, Miss. 

By Mr. BLANCHARD: Petition of A. P. Edwards and 54 others, 

and of James A. Calhoun and 53 others, of Louisiana. 

By Mr. BOWEN: Of Charles Thompson and others, of R. C. Robertson and others, and of J. R. Lumkin and others, of Grantville, 

Ab. 

By M.r. T. H. B. BROWNE (by request): Of citizens of Floyd, Dak., 

of Bel verde, Tex., of Blocker, Ark., of Central Lake, Mich., of Mexia., 

Tex., and of W. S. Cash and others, of S. C. Sheppard and others, 

of Henry Swift and others, of Virginia; and qfS. F. Carolanandothers, 

of Long Ridge, Ark. 

By .Mr. DOCKERY: Of citizens of Fox, Mo. 

By Mr. ROWLAND.: Of citizens of Ghio, Richmond County, North 

Carolina. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

FRIDAY, Janua'ry 20,1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m: Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. 

H. JI.!ILTIURN, D. D. 

The J onrnal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and appr_oved. 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House a letter from the 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting estimates from the Secretary of 

the Interior of appropriations to fulfill agreements with Chippewa Indians in Minnesota; which was referred to the Committee on Indian 

Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

SURVEY OF MOUTH OF BRAZOS RIVER, TEXAS: . 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the Secretary of War, transmitting, with a letter from the Chief of Engineers, a report of the survey at the month of the Bmzos River, in 

Texas; which was referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 

and ordered to be printed. 

Il\fPROVEMENT OF MUSKINGUM RIVER, OHIO. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the Secretary of War, transmitting a report of the Chief of. Engineers in 

regard to the improvement of Muskingum River, Ohio; which was !e· 

ferred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and ordered to be 

printed. 

SEN ATE BILLS REFERRED. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House the following 

bUis of the Senate; which were severally read twice, and referred as indicated: , 

The bill (S. 81) for the relief of H. B. Wilson, administrator of the 

estate of William Tinder, deceased-to the Committee on Claims. 

The bill (S. 1027) to fix the charge for passports at $1-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . · 

The bill (S. 139) to credit and pay to the several States and Territories 

and the District of Colombia all moneys collected under the direct tax 

levied by the act of Congress approved August 5, 1861-to the Com- · mittee on the Judiciary. · 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In regard to the referen~e of the last 

bill, the Chair has investigated the precedents and finds that at the 

first session of the Forty-ninth Congress a bill of similar purport wa8 

referred to the committ~e which the Chair bas just indicated, the C.om- mittee on the Judiciary. · 

RETURN OF BILL TO SEN ATE. 

The SPEAKER PrrJ tempore. The Chair lays before the House the 

foUowing request from the Senate. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

IN SENATE UNITED STATES, January 18, 1888. 

Ordered, That the Secretary be clirected to request the House of Representstives to return to the Senate Senate bill !)?-8, in relation to the marriage between 

white men and Indian women. 

There was no objection; and the request of the Senn.te was granted, 

and the bill ordered to be returned. 

PACIFIC RAILROAD COMMISSION REPORTS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Hou§e a· letter received by the Clerk of the House from the Public Printer. 

The Clerk read as follows: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 

Washington, D. C., Janu~ry 19, 1888. 

SIR: The resolution to print 10,000 copies of the President's message and ac- companying reports of the Pacific Railroad Commission is herewith returned, 

for the reason that our estimates place the cost of the same at $805, being in excess of the amount of printing permissible on resolution of the House. Very respectfully, · 

JoHN B. CLARK, Esq., Clerk of the House of Represenlativcs. 

TH. E. BENEDIC'.r, 

Public Printer. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection, the Jetter will 

be referred to the Committee on Printing. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I have a resolution to submit which I believe 

is privileged in its character. 

The SPEA.KERpl'O tempore. The gentlemau~ill send it up. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved by the Bouse of Representatives (the Senate concun·ing), That there be 

printed for the use of the House 10,000 copies of the President's message and 

accompanying reports of the majority and minority of the Pacific Railroad Com- mission. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The letter of the Public Print~r shows it"rill 

take $805 to print these documents, and under the law that printing can not be done under a simple House resolution. I therefore submit 

the concurrent resolution which has just been read, and ask for its present consideration and adoption. 

There was no objection, and the resolution was adopted . . Mr. RICHARDSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the res- olution was adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider .be 

laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

LEAVE OF ABSENCE. 

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted in the follow.ing cases: To Mr. DE LANO, for ten days, on account of important busin~. 

- To ?vir. HAYDEN, indefinitely, on account of important business. 

To Mr. LAWLER, for to-day. . To :Mr. WILBER, for ten days from to-day. 

TERrti OF CIRCUIT COURT, KANSAS CITY. 

:Mr. WARNER. I ask, by unanimous consent, to discharge the House 

Calendar from further consideration of a bill (H. R. 1604) to change the 

time of the sessions of the Circuit court of the western division of the 

western district of Missouri, and to take it up for consideration ·at this 

time. 

There was no objection, and it was ordered accordingly. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the sessions of the circuit court of the United States for 

the western division of the western district of Missouri, at the city of Kansas, 

shall begin and be held on the first l\1onday of March and the fourth .Monday of 

September of each year. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. 

SEc. 2. All process issued from the clerk's office of said court shall be taken 

and considered as returnable to the term or terms hereby established in lieu of 

the term or terms existing at the time such process was issued. 

1\Ir. WARNER._• I will state, Mr. Speaker, this bill simply changes 

the time of holding the terms of the United States circuit court of the 

western division of the western district of Missouri, held at Kansas 

City. It bas received the approval of the United States circuit judge 

and the bar of that State, and was introduced at their request. T~re 

can be, of course, no objection to its passage. . 

Mr. CULBERSON. The effect of that bill is merely to cha1;1ge tho 

time of hol ~ing the terms of the circuit court in Kansas City. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a thh·d time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

SIGNING OF PATENTS. 

Mr. P A. YSON, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. 5514) 

to amend section 4883 of the Revised Statutes; which was read a first 

and second time. 

Mr. PAYSON. I ask for the reading of the bill, and I ask, by unan- imous com,ent, it may be. taken up and put on its passage at this time. , The Clerk read as follows: ;t 

And be it enact.ed, efc., That section 4883of the Revised Sbatutes be, and the same is hereby, amended by inserting after the words "Secretary of the Interior" 

where that name occurs, the following words," or under his direction by one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Interior;" so that the said section, as amended, 

will read as follows : · "SEC. 4883, All patents shaH be issued in the name of the United States of America under the seal of the Patent Office, and shall be signed by the Secretary of 

the Interior, or under his direction by one of the Assistant Secretaries of the In- · terior, and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents; and they shall be 

recorded, together with these specifications, in the Patent Office in books to be 

kept for that purpose." 

• 
• 

586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- . HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

Mr. PAYSON. Under existing law all patents must be signed by 

the Secretary of the Interior. By his request, and under his. direction, 

this bill was drawn to relieve him of that clerical labor, so if this bill 

passes he may designate one of the Assistant Secr~taries to perform that 

clerical work of alfixing his signature to letters patent and copyright. 

Tbe bill was presented to the Judiciary Committee, and I am authorized by them to say it is approved unanimously by them. The draught 

which I have presented was prepMed by the prese1;1t Secret.ary of the 

Interior, and is presented at his request. · The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being 

engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed. 

:M:r. PAYSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 

passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 

table. 

The latter motion w~ agreed to. 

CHANGE OF REFERENCE. 

On motion of 1\Ir. BLANCHARD, the Committee on Rivers and Harbors was discharged from the further consideration of the bill (S. 322) 

to authorize the Southwestern Arkansas and Indian Territory Railroad 

Company to build a bridge across the Ouachita River in Arkansas; and 

the same was referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

IJUPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE WATERS. 

1\'lr. DUNHAM:. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have 

printed in the RECORD a short memorial of the National Board of 

Trade. _ 

There being no objection, the memorial was ordered to be printed 

in the RECORD, and referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

It is as follows: 

To the Senate a.nd House of Rep1·esentatit•es of the United States in Co1igress assembled: 

The National Boa,rd of Tmde, now in session in the city of Washington, re- spectfully memorializes your honorable bodies in favor of adequate appropriations for the improvement of our navigable rivers and harbors; for the removal 

of obstructions therein in an expeditious and thorough manner; and for sur- veys thereof, with. a. view to define the jurisdiction of the United States over them, so that provision may be made by law to prevent obstructions therein. 

By vote and in behalf of the board. 

FRE:PK. FRALEY, President. WASHINGTON, Janua1·y 19, 1888. H. A. HILL, Sce!'et<L1'Y· 

WILLIAM D. WILSON. 

Mr. STOCKDALE, from the Committee on War Claims, reported 

baek favorably the bill (H. R. 828) for the relief of William D. Wilson; 

which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Pri-

~ate Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

LUKE REILLY. 

:Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, from the Committ~e on War Claims, re- ported ba~k with favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 847) for the 

relief of Luke Reilly; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. · 

CAPT. JOHN BURKHART. 

Mr. STONE, ofKentuc1.7, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back with favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 2112) for 

the relief of Capt. John Burkhart; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed, 

LUCIUS J. SE.ALS. 

1\Ir. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported a bill (H. R. 5515) for the relief of Lucius J. Seals; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the 

"Thole House on the Private Calendar, and,. with the accompanying 

report, orde1·ed to be printed. 

WILLIAM L. TRAVIS. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on War Claims, 

reported back with favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 2273) 

for the relief of William L. Travis; which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the ac- companying report, ordered to be printed. 

JOHN H. WEEKS. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, also, from the Committee on ·war Claims, 

reported a bill (H. R. 5516) for the relief of John H. Weeks; which was read a first and second time, referred to the Committee of the 

Whole House on the Private Calendar, and, with the accompanying re- port, ordered to be printed. 

FLORA ADAMS DARLING. 

Mr. STONE, of Kentucky. I am instructed to report back the findings of the Court of Claims in a case which was improperly referred to 

the Committe~ on War Claims. It should be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be referred to the Committee on the JudiciMy through· the petition-box. 

l'.Ir. DUNN. This bill, as I understand it, goes to the Judiciary Committee. 

. The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The rule provides that the change 

of reference shall be made through the petition-box in such cases. T.he bill will go to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

WIDOW OF LIEUT . .JOHN F. STEWART. 

:Mr. BROWER, from the Committee on War Claims, reported back 

with favorable recommendation the bill (H. R. 456) for the relief of the 

widow of Lieut. John F. Stewart; which was referred to the Com~ittee 

of the Whole House on the Priva.te Calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to be printed. 

NORFOLK COUNTY FERRY COMMITTEE. 

Mr. BLISS, from the Committee on War Claims, reported a bill (H. 

R. 5517) for the relief of the Norfolk County Ferry CGmmittee; which 

was r~.d a first and second time, referred to Committee of the Whole 

House on the Private Calendar, and, with the .accompanying report, 

ordered to be printed. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The call of committees for reports is 

now con1pleted. 

Mr. LANHAM. I demand the regular order. 

Ur. CRISP. I rise to a privileged motion. 

.The SPEAKER pro tempore. . The gentleman will state it. 

Mr. CRISP. I call up for present consideration the contested-election case of Thobe vs. Carlisle. 

Mr. LANHAM. Will the gentlem:1n from Georgia permit me to 

make a statement? · Mr. CRISP. Certainly. 

Mr. LANHAM. I wish to state, within the hearing of the gentle- man from Georgia, that this is the day specially set apart by the rules 

of the House for the consideration of business upon the Pl'ivate Calendar. I have nQ disposition to antagonize his motion for the speedy 

consideration of the report mentioned by him. But as t.his is the only 

day for private business, I would like to see, if possible, whether we can not effect an arrangement whereby to-morrow may be substituted 

for to-day for the consideration of such business. I ask unanimous 

consent, therefore, by permission of the gentleman from Georgia, that on to-morrow the business on the Private Calendar shall be the special 

order instead of for to-day. , 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the req nest of the 

gentlen:utn from Texas? 

1r1r. WEAVER. It seems to me, with the understanding th:\t the 

Private Calendar comes on to-day after the disposition of the election 

case, there could be no objection. 

Mr. LANHAM. Will the gentleman from Georgia indicate the 

probable length of time which will be consumed in the consideration 

of the election case? 

1\Ir. CRISP. I am not able to state accurately how much time will 

be required. I understand that some gentlemen on the other side desire to debate the resolution submitted by the committee, but what 

time they will need I can not state. I will, however, endeavor to ascertain after the reading of the report what time gentlemen desire. 

My purpose is that there shall be .a full opportunity given to every 

member to submit remarks upon this quesLion, and I should be very 

gln.u, 1\fr. Speaker, if the House would consent to the request of the 

gentleman from Texas. I will state further that the Committee on . 

Elections would not ask this action to-day, but would agree to call it 

up to-morrow, were it not for the fact that to-morrow has been assigned 

by the committee for a hearing in the contested-election case from Alabama, and not to hear it at that time would be a disappointment and a hardship to the parties interested, as well as to the .counsel in the 

case. Mr. LANHAM. Then I ask consent of the House that to-morrow 

may be set apart for the consideration of bills on the P1·ivate Calendar. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection totberequestofthe 

gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. TAULBEE. I ask unanimous consent tha,t the consent asked 

by the gentleman from Texas shall not interfere with the evening ses- sion? 

M)·. ANDERSON, of Kansas. For what purpose is the evening session? 

A MEMBER. For the consideration of pension bills. • Mr. TAULBEE . . I withdraw the request I made. 

Mr. WEAV,ER. I see noobjection to proceeding with p1·ivate busi- ness after the 61ection case is disposed of, and also to-morrow. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. Is there objection to the request of the 

gentleman from Texas ? 

Mr. WEAVER. The gentleman has modified his request so that the 

Hou.<;e may proceed with private bnsiness to-day after the election case 

is disposed of, and also to-morrow. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. If there be no objection, the request of 

the gentleman from Texas, a.s modified, will be agreed to. 

There was no objection . 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. SPRINGER. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield to me for 

a few moments, that I may rise to a question of personal privilege? 

Mr. CR£SP. I yield to the gentleman for that purpose. 

Ur. SPRINGER. I send to the Clerk's desk and ask to have 1·ead an extract from the REcoRD ofto-daywhich I have marked. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.-HOUSE. 587 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr.· Chairman, the people of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, of New Jersey, and Massachusett.s, and Delaware, and the individual subscribers to the stock were not a little surprised when they found that there was a.memberoftheCon- gress that appropl'iated the $1,500,QOO-who, by the way, is a member_ of this Congress also-who claimed a fee of $10 000 for having astutely inserted the clause in the bill making that loan on which he could go into court and enforce its re- payment. When the United States Government brought its suit, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and their coadjutors submitted the question quietly to the circuit court, which rejected the Government's claim, from which decision, however, an appeal was taken, and on an intimation from the Supreme Court that the language of the law justified the Government in demancling repayment, judg- ment was entered and the money was immecliately paid. 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker I dislike very much to believe that 

the honorable gentleman from Pennsy] vania, who is so uniformly courteous in his manner toward the members o( this House, would intentionally put upon the records of Congress a statement which did injustice to one of his fellow-members; and I think a brief statement · from ine will satisfy that distinguished gentleman that he has done me great injustice. The remark made by him was at the time I was oc- cupying the Speaker's chair as chairman of the Committee of the Whole 

House and had no opportunity to reply; and if I had undertaken to 

reply before the pending bill was disposed of, it would have carried it 

beyond the consideration hour and placed it in the order of unfinished 

business, where its friends could not have obtained the action of t.he 

House upon it for several days at least. Therefore I ask the privi1ege 

this morning of making this statement. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania stated in the remark which I sent 

to the Clerk's desk that a member of the Congress to which he referred, 

who was also a member of this Congress, had astutely obtained an amendment to the centennial bill which required the money appro- priated by that bill to be refunded to the United States, and for that 

service demanded a fee of $10,000. As I was a member of that Cou-

·gress, and as the amendment upon which the decision of the Supreme 

Court turned was moved by me in that Congress, of course I ta,ke it 

_for granted that no other person than myself could. be referred to. I 

did move the amendment in the Forty-fourth Congress to the centennial appropriation bill which changed that appropriation from a Congressional donation to a loan, and required the board of finance, after 

the conclusion of the exhibition, to sell all the property on hand, con- vert it into cash, and first repay the United States the$1,500,000 which was appropriated by Congress before any division of assets was made 

among the stockholders. That proposition was carried in the House. It went to the Senate a,nd the bill was so passed and became a law. 

At the close of the exposition the board of finance was of the opinion 

that the money remaining in their hands.belonged to the stockholders 

of the centennial company, and that no part of it belonged to the Gov- ernment; but the district attorney of the United States in Philadelphia, Mr. Valentine, I believe, was instructed to bring a suit against 

the centennial board 6f finance in the United States circuit court at 

Philadelphia, l'lfr. Justice Strong presiding. That case was heard. 

Briefs and arguments were submitted. Able counsel appeared on both 

sides, and l'llr. Justice Strong decided, after stating the facts and his reasons, as follows: 

For these reasons we are of the opinion that the fund in the treasury of the centennial board of finance should be distributed pro rata among the stock- holders of the corporation, as directed by the tenth section of the act of 1872; and as it is insufficient to pay t.Q the stockholders the full amount invested by them as stockholders, as no part of it is made up of profits, the case contem-

~}~~~ f::Ot:g_e proviso has not arisen, and the United States is entitled to no part 

I quote from the p1·inted record of the case in the Supreme Court, page 

23. The proviso mentioned by Judge Strong contains the amendment 

which I moved to the centennial act ~f February 16, 1876, and which was adopted. 

As soon ns that decision was published I went to the Attorney-Gen- eral in person and called. his attention to it, and stated to him that I was satisfied the court had erred in making it, and asked him to appeal 

the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. He stated to me 

if I would put my request ili writing he would make the order for the 

appeal. I thereupon returned to my seat in the House, and on 22d 

January, 1877, sent a letter to the Attorney-General, which I will ask 

to ha.ve incorporated in my remarks. · It is us follows: 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. 0., January 22, 1877. 

SIR: ·I see from the papers that the United States court at Philadelphia has decidedly adversely to the claim of the Government to the $1,500,000 aop.ropri- ated to the centennial board of finance in February,1876. I have read· the de- cjsion of the court in that case, and am quite sure the court has entirely misap· prehended the true intent and meaning of t.he act of Congress. Having moved the amendment which in some way has perhaps Tnfluenced the decision, I re- spectfully ask that the case be taken to the Supreme Court. Very respectfully, your obeclient servant, 

Hon. A. 'TAFT, .Attorney-General, 

Washington, D. C. 

WJ'!I. M. SPRINGER. 

The case yvas therefore taken to the Supreme Court. In a conversation I had at the time with Attorney-General Taft he said it was an important matter, and when. the case was considered in the Supreme 

Court he desired me to appear on behalf of the'United States and aroue the case for the Government. I stated to1 him I would gladly do "'so. 

He thought it would be just to the House of Representatives which 

·had passed this amendment, ;swell as to myself who bad moved it, that 

I should be heard. 

To prove the truth of this statement, I will quote the following extract from a letter written by Attorney-Geneml Taft, November 9, 

1877, to a member of this House at that time: 

WHhout wishing to deprive ~fr. SPRINGER of compensation for his argument, I am bound to say, however, that my authorizing him to assist in the argument did not arise from any want of legal assistance in the Department of Justice, but from a desire that Mr. SPRINGER and the House of Representatives might be satisfied that their views of the act were properly presented. 

This statement of Attorney-General Taft discloses the motive which 

prompted him to authorize my employment as counsel in the case. The reason is creditable to him, aml conclusively demonstrates that 

my appearance in the case was not only professionally honorable and . 

free from all criticism, but in fulfillment of a public duty which I 

owed to .the House of Representatives, of which I was a member. 

I desire to state now, and my recollection is clear upon that point, 

that the suggestion first came from the Attorney-Genera.! that I should 

appear for the Government in that case, and not from me. 

To that fact I have made affidavit heretofore and am ready to make 

it a..:,IY3Jn, if necessary. The case was appealed, and I was immediately 

notified by Attorney-Geneml Taft. I have here his original letter in 

which he notified me that an appeal had been taken, stating also that 

the case had been advanced and would be heard at...:'t very early dl\y, which fact, he stated, involved prompt attention to the preparation for 

the argument, I proceeded to prepare for the argument, as suggested. I will ask this letter to be printed as a part of my remarks. 

The letter is as follows: · DJ:.?ARTllilili"T. OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, Januar1J Z7, 1877. 

. MY DEAR Sm.' I have instructed the district attorney of Philadelphia to ap- peal the centennial case as you request; I consented, also, on the request of the centennial board, that the case might be brought forward on the docket of. tl1e Supreme Court, so that it may be heard without much delay. This seemed to be reasonable, in order to facilitate that board in making a final settlement of their centennial responsibilities. lt involves, however, prompt attention to the preparation for the argument. 

Yours, very truly, 

Hon. WM. M. SPRINGER, H. C. 

ALPHONSO TAFT, 

Attorney-Geneml. 

I have here also a copy of the brief which I submitted in behalf of 

the Government, covering 40 printed·pages, p1·inted at the Government 

Printing Office, by order of the Attorney-General. I have also a transcript of the record of the case in the Supreme Court. I have also copies 

of the brieis and arguments-very able arguments they were-submitted by the gentleman who appeared for the board of finance. The 

case was argu~ in the Supreme Court, each side being allowed the usual 

time, two hours. :Mr. Smith, the Assistant Attorney-General, stated 

to the court that the principal argument for the Government would be 

made by me, that he would not discuss the merits of the case at any 

length, but would confine himself to a formal statement of the fads, 

leaving it to me to make the principal argument. 

That was done. The court heard the arguments, and after a. few 

weeks they decided the case. The decision will be found in 4 Otto, 

500, and it will be seen from an examination of the record that t.he Su- preme Court, with the exception of 1'11r. Justice Strong, unanimously 

reversed the decision of the court below, and ordered this money to be 

paid into the Treasury, and it was paid in pursuance of a mandate of 

the Supreme Court of the United States. That ended my coimection 

with the case as a lawyer!. It has been stated frequently in the press 

that I had demanded and received $10,000 for this service; and it was stated by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday, 

that I had "cla,imed a fee of $10,000 for having astutely inserted" the 

amendment into the bill which provided for the repayment of this 

money to the Government. I state here that I have never asked heTe- t{)fore that 810,000, or any sum of money, be paid me for my professional services in that ·case, nor do I ask it now. What I did in the 

matter was this: I:filedin thepetition-box, in the Forty-fifth Congress, 

my petition as a citizen, calling attention to my services in this-matter, 

and submitting a copy of the briefs in the case, and an affidavit setting 

forth the facts. That affidavit remained on the files of this Honse until 

this day, when I withdrew it a few minutes ago, and I have it now in my 

hand. In my petition I asked, not that anything should be paid to me, 

but that the case should be referred to the Court of Claims, with the 

right of appeal as in other cases, leaving that court to determine whether 

my services were of any value to the United States or not. 

When I went before the Committee on the Judiciary I ,was asked to 

consent that a sum should be fixed as compensation for my services and 

inserted in a bill which should be reported to the House. I said I pre- ferred that that should not be done; that I did not desire to receive any 

compensation from a body of which I was a member; that all I asked 

was to be permitted to go into courb like any other citizen, and show 

there the services I had rendered, and their value, and get a judgment 

for the amount, if the court should so decide. That petition was con- sidered by the Judiciary Committee, and on the 21st day of February~ 

1878, General Butler, of Massachusetts, by the unanimous instruction 

of the committee, reported a bill to the House referring the claim to the 

Court of Claims, like other cases, and in his report, which I hold in 
588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

my hand, he set forth the circumstances of the services rendered by me, 

and had the kindness to say that those services were ...-alua.ble to the 

Government, that the claim was a just and reasonable one, and that the 

remedy provided for in the bill reported to the House should be afforded. 

I will ask permission of the House to print with my remarks the 

bill and report thereon. 

The bill is as follows: 

Be it enacted by the Sen aU and House of Representatives of the United Slates of Amet·ica i·n Cong1·ess assembled, That the Court of Claims is hereby directed to take jurisdiction of the claim of Hon. 'VILLIAM M. SPRINGER, and determine the 

amount, if any, .due him for professional services rendered the United States in 

the case of the centennial board of finance and others against the assistant treasurer of th.e United States at Philadelphia, lately decided in the Supreme CQurt. 

The following is the report of the committee thereon: 

Mr. BuTLER, from the Committee on the .Judiciary, submitted the following 

report: 

[No. 23i, to accompany bill H. R. 3388.] 

The Committee on the .Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill in relation to the compensation of Hon. W'ILLIAM M. SPRINGER, for professional services ren- dered the United States, having considered the subject, beg leave to report: 

That a suit in the nature of a bill of interpleader arose between the central 

board of finance of the centennial exhibition and the assistant treasurer of the 

United States at Philadelphia, involving the right of the United States to $1,500,-

000 claimed by the assistant treasurer on behalf of the United States, under the 

provisions contained in the act of February 16, 1876. This claim was duly heard 

before the circuit com·t of the eastern district of Pennsylvania and decided 

against the United States. Afterward, upon an appeal to the Supreme C<lurt of 

the United States, the case was advanced on the docket and was decided in 

favor of the United States, and by such decision $1,500,000 was put into the 

Treasury of the United States for its use. There was evidence before your committee tending to show that 1\fr. SPRINGER was employed by the Attorney-General of the United States to take charge of 

the cause as the leading counsel before the Supreme Court of the United St-ates; 

that Mr. SPRINGER did prepare a brief in the cause and gave to it very considera- • ble time and attention; argued it fully, the brief of which argument shows a good amount of labor in preparation, and skillfully present-s the point before the court upon which the adjudication of the case was finally made. 

1\lr. SPRINGER was a member of Congress at the time the service was rendered, 

and so could not be appointed assistant district attorney and draw pay under 

the Jaw regulating the Department of Justice, and hence he has made application to Congress that the Court of Claims may take jurisdiction of the case. There appears to your committee to be no inhibition of law against his ap- pearing in behalf of the United St-ates, or, indeed, against the United States, as professional counsel in the duly constituted civil courts of the United States, 

while being such member of Congress; nor is your committee convinced that 

the law which provides that no officer of the United States shaJl receive pay other than his salary for any services rendered by him to the United States meets the case of Mr. SPRINGER, or was intended to include or does include such 

services as he rendered. Certainly it can not be claimed that a member of Con- gress is bound to try the causes of the United States in its law courts, or, if 

employed by the Attorney-General so to do for the best interests of the Government, that he ought not to be paid as any other counsel would be for like 

services. He doubtless would have te~n paid if there had been an appropriation out of which he could have been paid according to law. 

Appreciating the delicacy of his position, Mr. SPRINGER'S bill, presented to your committee, asked to have his claim for services referred to the Com·t of 

Claims for adjudication, so that he might not seem to be asking Congress, of 

which he was a member, to vote him a sum of money, but only that a proper court might adjudicate what was the value of his services to the Government, and pay him such sum as he merits. This, of course, relieves the committee 

from any discussion of what sum Mr. SPRINGER ought to be paid for his serv- ices, as that must be determined upon evidence by the Court of Claims. In the judgment of your committee, the services of Mr. SPRINGER were valuable; the claim is a just and reasonable one, and the remedy set forth in the 

bill ought to be afforded. 

The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee at that time went on 

the Calendar of Private Bills, but it was never reached, and there the 

matter has remained from that time to this. I have here, Mr. Speaker, a. letter which I deem of considerable value to me personally, on ac- count of the distinguished gentleman who wrote it-Hon. RichardT. 

Merrick, now deceased. In that letter Mr. Merrick states that be bas 

investigated the matter, and gives his judgment as to the value of my 

services, and I think everybody will agree that on a question of that 

kind Mr. Merrick was a judge of the very highest competency and character. In thisletterbestatesthat my services were cleai:ly worth to the 

Government $30,000, and that in making his estimate he bad put the 

figure far below what would ordinarily be charged for like services in a case of similar magnitude between individuals. - I will print Mr. Merrick's letter in full in the RECORD as a. part of my remarks. It is as 

follows: LINWOOD, August 8, 1878. 

MY DEAR Sm: The necessity for passing back and forth between this place 

and Washington must excuse me for allowing your favor of the 31st ultimo to remain unanswered for so many days. You inclose report, No. 237, submitted to the House with the bill referring your claim to the Court of Claims for adjudication, and ask my opinion as to the amount that ought to be paid to you for professional services in the case. Independent of the stateme.ntcontained in the report, I have a personal knowledge of your connection with the litigation from two or three interviews with you whilst you were preparing to argue the. case in the Supreme Court, in which we discussed the questions involved. · You were deeply interested in the case, gave it much earnest thought and 

labor, and argued it with great ability. The-judgment of the -circuit court which had been obtained against the United States was reversed by the Supreme Court, and $1.,500,000 thus saved to the Government. 

Considering the amount involved and the peril in which it was placed by an ad verse decision of the court below, and your successful effort to reverse that decision, I think thM your compensation should certainly no\ be less than $30,000, 

being 2 per cent. only on the amount in litigation. . I will add that this is a very moderat-e estimate according to the ordinary rate of 

fees for the .argument of cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, where 

the counsel succeeds in obtaining- a reversal of the judgment below and secures to his client the entire fund in dispute. 

Sincerely and t-ruly, Y?urs, 

ll. T. MERRICK. Hon. WILLIAM 1\I. SPRI~GER. 

Gentlemen must remember that in the case as it stood when I entered 

it. there was a decision of the United States court below to the effect 

that this money belonged to the board of finance of the centennial exposition, and that no part of it should go to the Government; that at 

my request the case was appealed; that I appeared for the Government as its attorney to argue the case; that the Supreme Court unanimously 

reversed the judgment of the court below, and in pursuance ofthis decision the whole sum of $1,500,000 was paid into the Treasury of the 

United States. If that case bad been between two great railroad cor- porations of this country, and my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania bad been retained by one of those companies, and had made the 

principal argument in behalf of the company that took the appeal, had · had the judgmentagainstitreversed, and bad thus secured to his clients 

by his services the sum of $1,500,000, would he have considered himself 

too highly paid if the sum which Jtir. Merrick indicated had been tendered him? 

But I will state for myself that I never had the slightest idea of re- ceiving any such sum from the Government, nor did I desire to receive 

it. I only desired that the case should be heard by the Court of 

Claims in the .first instance, and taken thence to the tribunal that 

be:1rd the argument in the case, read the briefs, and knew what was 

done, and could well compare those serviceS with the services of other 

attorneys appearing before them from day to day. I was willing to 

take whatever compensation that high tribunal would say I was en- titled to as the attorney for the Government in that case. Having made this statement, :Mr. Speaker, I hope the honomble 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whom I havepersonallythe highest 

regard, will do me the justice to retract the statement which he has 

made, and, so far as he can, withdraw it from the record. 

:M:r. BAYNE. How much did the Court of Claims find--· M:r. SPRINGER. The gentleman means the Supreme Court of the 

United States. 

.M:r. BAYNE. How much clid the Court -of Claims find you were 

entitled to? 

Mr. SPRINGER. The bill which proposed to refer the matter to 

the Court of Claims was never passed at all; the question never went 

to the Court of Claims. The bill remained on the Calendar, and .was 

never considered in the House. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Did you receive anything for your services? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I never received a cent for that service. If 

. the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to do me justice, 

he can move the passage of a bill sending this case to the Court of 

Claims in order that I may get what it or the Supreme Court, on appeal, may decide the Government owes me. But whatever claim I 

may have in that regard, I presume I shall have to leave as a legacy 

to my posterity. [Laughter.} . Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Speaker, I should dislike very much to remem- ber having done an injustice to the amiable gentleman from Illinois. I 

did not mean to doone; I do not mean to do one now, when I reaffirm 

in the language of the RECORD what I said yesterday. I then said, Mr. 

Speaker: 

The people of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, of New Jersey, and Massachu· 

setts, and Delaware, and the individual subscribers to the stock:, were not a little surprised when they found that there was a member of the Congress that 

appropriated the$1,500,()()()-who, by the way, is a member of this Congress alsowho claimed a fee of $10,000 for having astutely inserted the clause in the bill 

making that loan on which b.e could go into court and enforce its repayment. 

If there be wrong to the gentleman in that statement, I regret it; but 

I have lived long under what I have believed to be the well-founded 

expectation of that gentleman to receive $10,QOO as a reward for having 

obtruded himself in this case upon the United States official whose duty 

it was to take charge of it. Such was the popular belief of the day; . and I remember to have been waited upon by one who was recognized 

by me as a friend of that gentleman to ascertain whether if he preferred 

a professional claim in the matter I would oppose it, and I answered 

no; that if the gentleman entertained the idea of pressing such a claim 

I would be glad to have it put on record publicly. And when I was asked whether I thought $10,000 would be too large a fee for therecovery of a million and a half of dollars, I answered no; that if, in any case in which I might have been retained, I had gained an amount like 

that for my client, I should ask a much larger fee; and there the con- verSation ended. But I supposed, and now believe, that that gentleman came to me as the friend of my friend from Illinois. 

I may feel a little more deeply than I should upon this subject of 

any claim or pretended claim for the professional services of a man who 

intervened in the case and magnified its importance and the importance of his possible service to officials who were charged with looking 

after and attending to the interests involved. • Sir I am no longer as young as I was soon after I entered the bar; 

but I' have carried from that time till the present the impressions derived from the seniors of a bar which was conspicuous as the foremost 

bar in the Union in the early days of the Government and until1824~ 

when the Erie Canal supplanted the commercial facilities offered by 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 589 

Pennsylvania turnpikes, and Philadelphia became ihe second commer- cial city of the country. I grew up at the feet of those Gamaliels, and 

O!Je les.._"'n which they each and all, taught, when evil occasion invited 

criticism of such matter, was that no man was entitled to a fee in litigation which he had engendered. 

1\Ir. SPRINGER. One more word, with the indulgence of the 

House. I regret very much that after the statement I have made the 

gentl~man from Pennsylvania insists upon his declaration that I demanded $10,000 for procuring the insertion in the bill of a clause making the appropriation a loan instead of a donation. 

Mr. KELLEY. Wi1l not the gentleman take in what I said? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I thought ~ took it in. Will the gentlema~ read 

it again? 

Mr. KELLEY. I spoke of the gentleman going· into court; I did 

not allude to the fact that be invited himself to be put on the record as an attorney in the case and then went into court. I dealt gently 

with him. [Laughter. J 

Mr. SPRINGER. And I shall deal · gently with the distinguished 

gentleman from Pennsylvania. I always desire to treat him kindly 

and will do so now. He used these words: 

Who claimed a fee of $1.0,000 for having astutely inserted the clause in the biU 

makjng that a loan on which he could go into court and enforce its. repay- ment .. 

Now, does the gentleman mean to say that I have ever demanded a fee -of $10,000 for having inserted in a legislative bill of any kind in 

this House any provision whatever? 

Mr. KELLEY. Will the gentleman say--

Mr. SPRINGER. Answer that question. 

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, I am about to answer it. Now, will the gentle- man from Illinois say that he did not invite attention of the United States 

legal authorities to the fact that there was a clause in it that suit ought 

to be instituted, and that he went into court to press that clause, and 

when the circuit court of the United States had decided-the suit which 

the disbict attorney of the United States when he had intervened in 

the case had declined to press-that he then press~d it? But, Mr. 

Speaker, I did not tell the wnole story of his going into court, from 

court to court, from district attorney to Attorney-General, to show how 

important his services were. The thing had an ugly odor then, and I 

do not think it is savory now. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

still insists on his statement with some limitations which the statement does not make. 

:M:r. KEL.LEY. The limitation appears in the RECORD of this morn- ing, containing the report of what occurred yesterday. 

Ur. SPRINGER. . The gentleman states this in the RECORD, that I -claimed a fee of $10,000 for having astutely inserted the clause in the 

bill making that a loan on which I could go into court and enforce its 

repayment. That is the language of the gentleman. Does he adhere 

to that statement? 

Mr. KELLEY. I do not mean thn.t be drunanded a fee for inserting 

that clause. -

Mr. SPRINGER. Then you withdraw that statement? 

Mr. KELLEY. If I may state--

:M:r. SPRINGER. Well, you withdraw that statement. 

Mr. KELLEY. Allow me to speak for myself. I do not think the 

gentleman demanded a fee for inserting that clause. If I am understood as saying that he demanded $10,000 for inserting that clause, I 

am misunderstood. What I mean to say is that, knowing the purport 

of his own clause, he was the one man among more that 50,000,000 ot 

American citizens who felt that the citizens of Philadelphia and the 

subscribers to that exposition from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and Massachusetts ought to be made to pay its burdens, and who, 

following his own tracks, hunted them until he stripped them of their 

investment, patriotic as it was. [Applause.] 

Mr. SPRINGER. Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement ..is 

satisfactory so far as withdrawing the statement he made. He does 

not now say all that I quoted from his remarks, hut withdraws that 

part wherein be said I claimed a fee of $10,000 for inserting this provision. in the bilL -

Mr. KELLEY. I did not mean to say that. - Mr. SPRINGER. I desire to say that if the gentleman means to 

state that I demanded a fee for inserting that clause in the bill, he , _states what is not true and utters that for which there is no foundation either in my conduct then or since. If he means, however, merely 

to state I pursued that case with all the zeal and ability I had to the 

highest court in the country and obtained from that tribunal a decision 

that the stockholders of the centennial exposition were not entitled to 

that money, bnt that it belonged to the people of the United States, 

and should go into the Treasury, where it did go-- · 1\Ir. KELLEY. My proposition yesterday--

Mr. SPRINGER. Allow me to finish my sentence. If the gentleman imputes that as disreputabl~ conduct on my part, I beg to assure him that I am proud of my record .in that case and regard it as the best 

service I have rendered the people since I have been a member of Congress. That is the judgment of my constituents, also, who have returned me here to six Congresses in succession, since that time. [Applause.] · 

Mr. KELLEY rose. . Mr. SPRINGER. One ·moment further. The J!:Overnoroft.he State 

of P ennsy I vania informed the United States in 1872 that all provisions were made for the pay of the expenses of that exposition, and that not one dollar would be asked of the Government of the United States to 

pay for that exposition. Every bill which passed Congress on this subject was based upon the fact that the expenses of that exposition were to be borne by the people interested in it and not by the Government 

of the United States. The Suoreme Court of the United States in its 

decision, in 4th Otto, io which I have referred, bears me out in relation to the language of my amendment in this case, and I will read it: ~ 

Giving that siguifieation to the word in this case, we encounter no difficulties. 

The statutes are complete, and there is nothing to supply. Everything is in 

harmony, and no strained construction is required. All accounts are easily adjusted, without resort to unusual proceedings. 

Thus the court held that all the statutes passed (and there were several acts passed on the subject) were in harmony with eacll other, including the act fast passed requiring the money appropriated to be paid 

back to the United States. 

The gentleman says that the people of Pennsylvania are entitled to 

great credit for having gotten up this exposition. New York wanted 

it, other States wanted it, the merchants, the railroad interests, and 

the hotel interests in every city and State desired this centennial ex- position held in their l_ocality. 

And why, Mr. Speaker? Because it was well known that thousands 

of people from every part of this country, from the Lakes to the Gnlf, 

and from California to Maine, would rush to that city which secured 

its location. Philadelphia secured the prize. Visitors to the exposition staid there from one day to three or four weeks, or perhaps months, 

and they left millions of dollars in that city. The other places that 

were competitors for the exposition never objected to having these benefits received by the people of Philadelphia. When the citizens of 

Philadelphia and Pennsylvania and other States put their money into 

the stock of this exposition it was done with the expectation that it was a contribution to the _great cele1Jration there, and that the com- pensation to them for the money subscribed would be in the increa..<ied - transportation on the railways, in the increased business of their mer- chants, in the traffic on the street railways, and in the profits to owners of livery-stables, keepers of boarding-houses, and the great gain which 

would come to all of the other manifold interests which reaped millions of dollars profit out of it. . Mr. KELLEY. I beg leave to say to the gentleman from Illinois 

that I would like to make my interruption while he is still on the floor, - 'for he may want to reply to it, and I do not want, after he shall have 

closed his remarks, to again call his attention to the matter. 

Mr. SPRINGER. I wm yield to the gentleman now. Mr. KELLEY. The gentleman proclaims the fact that this was one 

of the most honored, honorable, and to-be-remembered events of his 

life. It might have been so if it had not been followed by the suggestion ofreward on the part of the man who, according to his own statement, deserves credit for .having 'inserted the clause upon which that 

claim was to be fixed. I do not think the average professional -sense 

can possibly feel that the gentleman should derive -any &<ttisfaction from 

looking back on that cord, winding up with General Butler's bill to 

send WILLIAM lVI. SPRINGER's claim for professional services to the 

Court of Claims to adjust the amount he had earned. · Mr. SPRINGER. I want to say to the gentleman from Pennsylvn.-

nia. again, and I say it with a full knowledge of all the facts involved, 

that the first suggestion for my appearance in this case came from the 

Attorney-General Qf the United States, Attorney-Gener~l Taft. He 

was a Republican Attorney-General, as the gentleman well knows, and 

I was not at that time in such intimate relations towards the Republican party-a time wheD we were engaged in the midst of the heated 

contest of 1876 in 1·elation to the occupancy of the Presidential chairto ask fuvors of any kind from the representatives of that party. 

He asked this favor of me, to argue the case, for the r.easons st.ated 

by him in the letter from which I. have ah'eady quoted, and in view of 

tlie fact that it was close upon the time when a change of administration was to take place. That change of administration did, in fact, 

take place between the period of my employment in that connection 

and the arguing of the case. A new Attorney-General came in, who was not familiar with the facts of the ca.se. It was at that time I was re- quested by Attorney-General Taft to appear on behalf of the Government of the United States, and represent its interests. I had no 

thought at the time, nor did the Attorney-General, I presume, think of 

any consideration for- my services. That question did not enter my 

mind. But I had moved in the House the amendment upon which the 

decision of the court at Philadelphia turned, and I felt it my duty as 

a representative of the people to urge upon the Attorney-General the 

importance of taking the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, 

which I did in person, and in the letter to which I have already re- ferred. 

Mr: KELLEY. Let me ask the gentleman whether the Attorney-

• 
590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J.ANU.ARY . 20, 

General asked the gentleman to go to Philadelphia and take charge of 

the case? 

Mr. SPRINGER. I did not go to Philadelphia I left. the case 

there to the tender mercies of the people of that city, who by their importuni?-es and pleudingSy which must have been very effective, induced the presiding judge to decide that the money belonged to them. 

Bu.t when that case came, on an appeal, to the highest tribunal in the 

country) e'?ery member thereof, except the justice who tried it below, 

decided thn.t it belonged to the people of the United States. It was 

upon their mandate, and not upon the slight intimation the gentleman 

snggestsr that the m<mey was paid in.to the Treasury of the United 

States. 

So far as my profession..'\l and official conduct is concerned in this mat;.. 

ter, I submit it with perfect confidence to my colleagues on this floor, 

to my constituents; and to my country. I shall be governed by the 

dict_'l.tes of my own conscience in the discharge of my official duties 

here and of my professional duties elsewhere. If the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania would take as good c..1.re of his own h<mor in matt~rs of 

legislation as he would require me to do, we would not probably haveheard some allegations which have been made in past Congresses in regarn to members being interested in legislation. [Applause.) 

.TORN H • .JO~S .AND THOMAS D. HARRIS. 

1\Ir. CROUSE, from the Committee on War Claims, by unanimous 

consent, submitted a 1~porl on the bill (H. R 37) for the relief of ,John 

H . Jones and Thomas D. Harris, with an amendment; which was refel'Ted to the Committee of the Whole House on the Private Calendar, 

:mel, with the. accompanying reports ordered to be. printed. 

CONTESTED ELECTTO~~-THOBE VS. CARLISLE. 

Mr. CRISP. I now call up the contested-election ease of Thobe vs. Cnrlisler from the Sixth distric-t of KeDtnC'ky. I presume the members 

of this Rouse have rrod and are f::mriliar with the report of the majmity and the report of the minority in this case, and the individual 

views which one member of the committee hns presented, as. thereports have been sent to members through the m:ill.. 

Mr. BURROWS. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to say 

that it is impossible that members c.·1on be fumilin.r with the. repo.t-ts.t as 

they were not delivered until this morning? 

Mr. CRISP. I think tne gentleman. is in error. The report was sent 

in the mails last evening to members. \ 

Mr. BURROWS. It was. no.t delivered at my residence until this 

morning. I mention the fact in order that the gentleman may exp-lain 

the. case fully. 

Ir. CRISP. Perh.::r~ then,. Mr. Speaker, I had best give a some- what fnll history of this case. 

l\Ir. STRUBLE. I rise to a question or oider. For my part. I lliwe 

not had time to examine the repol't of the committee in this case1 and I 

pTesume that the gentleman from Georgia is about to submit; a summary of that report as well as arguments :in support of it. I 1 for one, 

desire to he:u him., which I can not do while so mueh confusion prevails 

in the Han. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tmnpm·e. The point oi order is well t4\ken. Gentlemen in front of the Chair will be seated. 

Ur. CRISP. In tA Sixth district of Kentucky, at the election for 

Congress in 1886, by the official returns Mr. Carlisle received 6,476 

votes and 1\lr. Thobe received 5,.651 votes, showing a majority fo:r the 

sitting member of 825 votes. Within the time prescribed by statute 

~Ir. Thobe served on 1\Ir. Carlisle a notice of contest. That notice 

of contest contained a great number of specifications not necessary to be 

1}-0W read to the House. They may be SUlilJllll,rized, and they are sum.-

marjzed in the report as being a cl.<tim that the contestant received a 

thousa.nd votes in the dist:rict which we:re not counted for him; that 

the ballot-boi:es at some of the precincts were opened before the time 

prescribed by law; thut the officers of electiou at some of the precincts 

were not divided· between the different political parties as they should 

have been under the statute of Kentucky; and there was an amended 

natice, in which he alleged that duplicate returns were :not made ou_t by 

the managers as the law directs. 

The contestee replied to t.hisnotice, denying generally and specifically 

eYery allegation except the one as to the failure to divide the election 

officers between the two political p..'1Lrties, and alleged as to that that in 

certain precincts thn.t could not be done because there were no Republicarn in the district qualified to act as election officers. 

Those were the issues between the parties. The c<>ntestant took 

testimony in the district for seven days, or parts of seYen days, out of 

the forty that the statute allowed him for taking testimooy. There 

the C.'lSe rested, the contestee taking no testimony. TheYe the case 

rested until August, 1887, when this testimonywastransroitted by the 

notary before whom it was taken to the Clerk of the House. In that 

f:tate of the c..'l.Se the contestant appeared before the Committee on Elections in person and by coun._c:el, and asked that the ease. might b0 

reopened, so that further testim~.ny might be taken; otfa.iling in thn.t, 

that a coml'Uittee might be appointed to visit tl1e dist-rict'and investig~tc the character of the election that was held there in.l886. In sup-

• 

port of that motion the contestant pYesented certain affidavits, lette1-s, 

and papeiS, which will he found printed as an appendix to the report 

in this case. 

The contestee, who up to that time had never appea.:red in the case 

except to cross-examine the witnesses down in the district-at that stage 

of the case the. contestee asked the privilege of filing affidavits in reply 

o.r in denial of the affidavits that had been filed by the contestant. 

That privilege was given him1 and wh€n the committee again proceeded 

to conside:r the case the conte::,"tee presented the afiidavits and papers 

which appear in the reeord in the case. 

The first question, Mr. Speaker, that was considered b-y the committee 

was the motion to reopen the case. The reasons assigned by the contestant in support of the motion you will find stated in the report. One 

reason urged was that his counsel had been untrue to him; and the minority of the Committee on Elections in the report submitted by them 

in this case press that charge and seem to think that the action of the 

majority of the committee in proceeding with th:is case rmderthe facts 

presented in the affidavits was improper and unjnst to the House and 

to the contestant. It beeomesnecessary. therefm:e, to call the attention 

of the House to the characteY of the papel'S' presented by the contestant 

and the character of the reply made by the contestee. 

The contestant in the case alleges in his own affidavit that his attorney professed to l'rim that he couldestablishthe necessary facts; that 

he knew all about the witnesses in the case, and that he alone, without 

the special aid or assistance of the contestant, would prepare his case, 

would procure the witnesses, and would do everything that was necessary to establish 1he right of the c<mtestant to a seat. He says that 

very soon after the taking of the testimony began he discovered a lukewarmness on the part of his attomey, anincli.fference on the part of his 

attorney whi~h indicated to him he had 1'ost, interest in the case; and 

then he says tha.t from a conversation witn ills counsei he inferred that 

his counsel h:1d probably sold outt as he expresses it, to the. friends of 

the contestee.. 

That,. Mr. Spettker, is a very grave charge again.st rus counsel. If 

this House were fully satisfied that the counsel of the contestant had 

thus deceived him, had thus betrayed•lri:m, i ' would go very far toward ind:ucing them to give tha.t gentleman anotheJi opportunity to 

present his case. 

Ip. reply to tbat eharge, the contestee presents evidence which will 

he found in tl;le record.. He pr.es.ents the evidence of the counsel assailed; he presents the evidence of other witnesses, and perhaps it may 

be proper to call attention to what those witnesses say. 1\:lr. Wood, 

the gentlmnan assailed, denies under oath, specifically, the charges 

that are made by the contestant. He denies that he made the sta.tement that he would him...~f nrocure the evidence. He denies that the 

contestant committed his cnS:e unreservedly to him.. He denies every 

substa.ntial allegation made by the contestant going to show that he, 

Wood, had been in any manner derelict in his duty, or had in any 

regard betrayed his trust. 

But the contestee does not rely alone upon the statement of ~fr. 

Wood. He shows by affidavits of others, by the affidavit of the notary 

before hom the evidence was taken, the conduct of Mr. Thobe himself, which, it seems to me, is a complete refutation of the charge which 

he now makes, that M.r. Wood was unfaithful ro him. Mr. Thobe 

charges,. as gen.tiemen will reco-llect, tha;t, he sought to procure or to induce his attorney to forward the papers here, that he did everything he 

could to induce him to procure the testimony of witnesses and to forward it, but that this attorneyt whils_t promising from day to day so to 

do, continually neglected and thereby endangered and damaged his case. I want to call the attention of the House to the evidence of the 

no-tary who took the testimony, a man by the name of Tinley. 

This notary says that some three or four m<mths ela.psed between 

the time of the taking of said testimony and its being forwarded to 

Washington; that this delay was the result of Mr. Thobe's tardiness 

in the payment of his fees; that he does not reeall the date of Mr. 

Thobe's calling at his office and requesting him to get the papers, but 

that he (Thobe) did call and so request; that affiant then demanded 

of :Mr. Thobe payment of his fees, the amount of which seemed to 

astonish him, and during the conversation which followed-! commend 

this to the attention of the House-during the conversation which followed,. Thobe said to him, in the presence of other witnesses (whose 

affidavits I will produce), that ~~did not like to pay out any money 

iu the matter; that he never wanted to go into it, and would like now, 

he s..'lJd, to get out of it; and, continuing, he remarked that the labor 

clubs had fo:rced him into it and had promised him assistance, but 

that their n.ssistance had fuiled to mn.teria.lize. He furthe1: said that 

this was the only day;'s work he had lost on account of this busines8, 

and that he would not have lost this~norwouldhe payoutany money, 

but. for the imputations and slurs that were being cast upon him and 

1\fr. Wood (the attorney whom he now accuses of faithlessness) by his own party; which imputations and slurs were to the effect that he and 

1\Ir. Wood had been bought up; and, simply, as he said, to show his 

labor friends and supporters that he had not sold out, he would send on 

what little testimony there was in his behalf to Washington, and let J. 

Hale Sypher do. what he could with it, for, he said, "from what I have 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 591 

heard of Sypher's reputation, he can doa greatdealwi.thit/' and sending the papers to Washington would at least, he said, remove the: imputation of fraud on his part int the matter. 

That is the affidavit of ]lr. Tinley as to the stateD;l.ents of l'rlr. 

Thobe in August, at the time the testimony was sent ou here. Bear 

in mind that the testimony was taken in February and March. In the 

affidavit now presented to the committee the contestant says that even 

during the tal..'ing of the testimony he was impressed with the belief 

that his counsel was dilatory and was not doing what be ought to do; 

yet in August thereafter he states to the notary who took the testimony that he only sends the testimony on to Washington now in order 

that the labor clubs might not impute to him and to his counsel, this 

same J.Ir. Wood, any improper motives in the conduct of the case. In 

this record you will :find the affidavit of a junior J.lr. Wood, who says 

that he heard the same conversation and that it was substantially as set forth in the affi.da:yit. lli. Spe::.ker, speaking as one member of the 

committee, and I think in that respect I can speak f:or the majority, I 

am fully persuaded that the contest on the part of l'rlr. Thobe, with 

whatever motiv;e it may have been begun, was abandoned--:-abandon€d 

by him and his attorney after an earn.est e:ffmt to. establish what they 

had charged! in their notice of contest. It la.n..,auished. No further efforts were made because they felt that they had exhausted whn,t they 

could do, and the case stood jnst in that attitml~. Speaking for my- self, sir, I believe that but for an inspiration that came from ·washington, and not from Kentuckyt the case would have remained just as it 

was at that time~ I make that statement, sir, because I think the 

record in the case justifies and demands it. 

Mr. STRUBLE. I would like to ask the gen.tleman whether it is 

the :finding of the majority o.f the committee that the conte.'tant did 

abandon his contest at any period after he commenced it .. 

Mr. CRISP. There is no statement in the report that he did abandon the contest. I said distinctly, Ur. Speaker, that, speaking as one 

member of the committee, I believed that he did, and believed that the 

majority of the committee so thought. 'l'he Hou~e will find in this 

record, among the papers presented by the contestant, certain letters 

which have satisfied me at least that the inspiration for the further 

pi:o8eeution of this contest came from Washington, and did not oJJigiDate in Kentucky~ 

Bear in mind the contestant's statementt that he did n0t originally 

want to go into the case; that he would get out of it now if he could; 

that he did not want ro pay a.ny money out in the contest; that the 

labor "elubs had promised to help him, but their help had failed to 

''materialize ; '' and then turn to the record in. the case which you have 

before yon. You will find a. series of letters atta{!hed to the affidavit 

of Mr. Vlood, the counsel, whose bona. fides and good faith have b€en 

assailed. These letters throw a flood of light upon the case and the 

:reasons for the prosecution of this contest. 

The contestant in his affidavit charges that one reason why M~:. Wood, 

his attorney below, became offended and abandoned his contest was 

that be employed as assoc.W..te ceunscl,. or as counsel in the €ase1 one J _ H. Sypher, ofthis city, a.geutle)J}3;n wh-ose name is perhaps not unknown to members of this House. The record discloses th& fact that a 

series of letters passed between Mr. Wood, the cotl.llSel in Kentucky, 

and Mr. Syphe.r~ the gentleman in Washlngt<Jn., whom it was proposed 

to- employ, and that Mr. Lee Crandall was 'the medium through whom 

these letters passed. In those lettCis yon will find tbat the counsel 

or tne contemplated counsel here: is lab(}ring to satisfY Ur. Wood that 

no reputable lawyer in Washington would appear in an el~tion case 

unless he has a written power of attorney~ the form o.f which appears 

in the record. By that form of power of attorney the party delegates 

to his cotmsel the exclusive management of his case It is, gentlemen, 

the power of attorney with which you are all familiar, which counsel 

present and file when they appear in any of the Departments of the 

. Government. It bas no more application to· a case pending before the 

House of Representatives .than it would have to any case in any court 

of any State. . 

The counsel in Kentucky insists that the power of attorney must 

not be given, because it commits to :Mr. Sypher the exclusive control 

ofthe case. Mr. Sypher repliesthat hecannotappear, and no reputable counsel can appear, without it. And in these letters he offers inducements t~ .. l'tlr. Thobe to execute this power of attorney, althou!!;h 

he says in the letters that be has no desire to come into the case. 

It seems that M:r. Crandall origina.lly suggested the employment of 

1\fr. Sypher, and was the mutual friend of him and Mr. Thobe. Mr. 

Sypher and 1\lr. Crandall had frequent conversations about the case. 

These letters which have passed ha.ve been put in the record. You 

will find by reference to them various statements which I think illustrate the reason why this contest was carried on. Mr. Sypher, in a letter of December 1, 1886, to Mr. Crandall, says: , 

DEAR Sm: Our mutual friend and brothe.t, Mr. Jeffers, has handed me 1\Ir. Thobe's letter of November 28, addressed to you. As I am not informed as to the contents of your letters to .l't:Ir. Thobe and his attorney, 1\lr. Wood, I do not understand what Mr. Thobe means by saying that "he can't possibly take th.e case out of.l'tir. Wood's hands." - It was not my intention or purpose to have him do so, and if you wrote him to do so, it was not at my suggestion. 1\Iy idea was that n::rr. Wood should continue in the case exactly as he began, al}d not to change or alter his profes- sional relaticns in any way, but that I would assist him in preparing the notice 

of contest, and aid him in taking the testimony, it necessary, ana when the case came here take charge of' it. There is no lawyer in this country, not familiar ~ 

with the special and peculiar practice of contested cases before Cong-ress, but that requires assistance when he comes here. - In fifteen years' experience in suJJh cases in Congress, I have never known of a single successful prosecution which was not conducted by an attorney here on the ground who was familf:ar with this intricate practice. Then, let me say to you again., and not to be misunderstood, that I would positively refuse to co.me into this ease tmless by the consent and desire of Mr. Wood,. who is the attorney. But if I should agree to become associated with .l'tir. Wood in the case when it comes here, I should insist upon managing it, so as to insure success. I have never lost· a case, and I will not put my reputation in any attorney's keeping 

-who has not had equal experience in the practice. The political and diplo.matic 

management of su-ch cases has quite as much to do with success or failure as the technical legal proceedings, and it is in these matters that I have decided ad~ 

vantages over any lawyer from a distance. ,., 

, Then you will find~ further statement which I think justifies the . 

inference I draw. In a letter of December 10, 1887, Mr. Syp.her says: 

Kn<Jwing my views and relations as to the order of K. of L., you suggested my e:mployment as. counsel. ·we discussed fully the whole case, and among. I other things the matter of "ways and means 11 to carry on a costly contest. It , was agreed between us that if I was empowered officially-

, That is by this power of attorneyif I was empowered officially to represent Mr. Thobe I might enlist the interest not only of all my Republican friends in the House, but that I might be able to induce some of my wealthy and powerful protection friends to contribut.e some- thing towards the expenses of bfr. Thobe's contest. The.se are matters which I do not like· to write about, as from the publications I have seen concerning this contest I have great reason to doubt the discretion of both Mr. Wood and his client.. The power of attorney about which 1\Ir. Wood com})lains is the usual printed form used: by aU e.ttorueys in. Washington. What I meant particularly in saying in a former letter that I would expect to take charge of the case here, was assuming that the ease would, like ali others of the kind, run for six to eight- een months and sometimes the entire Congl'ess, two )-ears. 

In a letter of 1\:!r. BL.1.kely, on.e of the counsel in thi.:! case, to Mr. 

Sypher, th.e leading counsel who appeared before the committee, will be 

found a further sta.tement which I wish to read. After reciting a great 

many alleged errors we find this statement: 

Your theory of the '' ways and means t• as expressed in your Ietter oi the 5'th instant is correct, except in one minor detail. You ask, "How much of; this Cftn we prove? t> I say, all that I have set out herein and vastly more. 

N(}W mark you, this js alette:r fn>m the counsel of Mr. Thobe residing 

· in Kentucky to the counsel of ~!F. Thobe residing in Washingt-on. He 

further says: 

I telegraph you to-night. Do not fail to send: me by telegraphic order, if you have not already done so, the $50. The conference is the objective point, and I need the cash for a venture in that direction. Your statement in regard to my remiUance after the elections to-day is per- fectly satisfactory so far as my fee is eoncerned, but as my expenses through Roone anrl Pendleton, in the main, have been borne by Mr. Thobe, I. must re- quest you to remit. by telegraphic order the $50 at once. 

This is a letter voluntarily filed by the contestant in the case, and 

f.rom t.his letter it appears that the ways and means were furnished, and 

the carrying on of this rontest advised, in Washington and not in Kentucky. 

It a~pears that counsel in Kentucky, where Mr. Thobe lives, when 

he wanted his fee did not call on ~Ir. Thobet his neighbor, but applied 

to his counsel here in Washingt-on. It appears when expenses were: t-o 

be furnished to carry on the contest he did nQ.t apply to his neighbor, 

1\ir. Thobe, but applied to his counsel here in Washingt<Jn. And h~ 

says one reason why this fee should be paid at once is that Mr. Thobe 

had himself borne some part of the 6XJ2.ense of the contest. 

Mr. Speaker, I infer from the evidence, some of which I have :read to 

you~ that the contestant in this case told the exact truth when he said 

that be did uotwanttoremain in this ease; that he did not want to pay 

· a dollar mit in this case; that but for the fact that his labor friends 

hacl accused him and Mr. Wood of selliug out be would not pay a 

dollar in the ease, and that he only sent the papers on now to satisfy 

them. be and his counsel had not betrayed them, and to leave it to Mr. 

Sypher, in Washington, to make as much as possible out of the papers; 

to leave to him the management, the furnishing of the means, and suggesting the wa.ys; to leave it to him t-0 secure the aid of his Republican 

friends in the House; to leave it to him to manage the case diplo-matically, so· as to have it linger, as sueh cases do linger, fi·om six months to 

two years, ori the Calendar of the House; and to leave it to Mr. Sypher 

to get from his rich protection friends throughout the country money 

, to help in the pToseeution of this case. 

· I think. a. careful and impartial examination of the affidavits will satisfy any man who is reasonably free from bias and prejudice that such 

is the exact truth in this case. 

Now~ when we go from that question and come to questions of fact 

presented by the affidavitsofthecontestant, all fair-minded men must 

admit that the charges and a.Uegations made ~y the contestant are 

overwhelmingly refuted . . The rojnority of the e0mmitteer I nnderst:md, do n0t deny that. 

This is not a case where one witness swears to the existence of a 

certain state of facts and another denies it, and the committee and 

House are called upon t(} determine between them; this is a case where 

in most instanceS' contestee produces the affida.vit of the witness by 

whDm contestant avers that he can pmve a charge, and such witness 

proves the contrary. Here is a sample: Contestant avers that on the 

evening of the day after the election eontestoo admitted to Horace CambJ;on that he was defeated. The contestee produces th& affidavit ot · Mr.. Cambron, in whiCh he says that no sueh fact: can be proven by 
592. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

him, for it is not trne. Again, he presents the affidavit of one John J. 

Pearce that there was a meeting of friends of Mr. Carlisle in Covington for the purpose of defeating and overthrowing the electi{)n of 

Mr. Thobe. The contestee produces the affidavits of his neighbors in 

the·city of Covington, where the meeting is said to have been held, that 

they had never heard of any such meeting. 

He produces the affidavit of the custodian of the public building, 

of the clerk of the court, of the postmaster, in which they say no such 

meeting was held. Mr. Pearce alleges in his affidavit that be can show 

by one P. Casey that the meeting was held. The defendant produces an affidavit of P. Casey in which be states that no such thing can be 

shown by him, for it is not true. 

The coutestant states be can show by Mr. John J. Pearce that in seven out of eight precincts of Carroll County the votes were fraudulently returned; that the names on the register of voters in each precinct were in the same handwriting, showing they must necessarily be 

forgeries. 

The contestee produces the affidavits of the election officers and the 

clerks who wrote the lists, who swear it is their writing, and was done 

at the time of the election; that each particular list is correct. And 

further, the contestee produced in the committee-room the clerk of Carroll County, thecustodianofitspublicrecords, who presented to the com: n;tittee tl!e records themselves, an inspection of which shows the affidavit of Pearce to be absolutely and necessarily false. Pearce could not 

have been innocently in error, because be &'liys in his affidavit--

! have examined these returns; I am an expert; I have been called to testify 

in court a.s to handwriting, and I state to you the returns in each one of these 

precincts is in the samebandwriting. 

The committee examined each one of those original returns, prod need 

under the order of the county court of Carroll County, and it appears 

from such examination that the names in every precinct were in a different handwriting. So that this charge must be considered absolutely 

out of the case. As to every allegation made by the contestant, or nearly all, there is 

a complete and an emphatic denial, notonlybywitnessesofcredibility, 

but by the evidence of witnesses by whom the contestant claimed be . could prove the facts alleged. 

Mr. LAIRD. There are several original copies of the returns, are there not-two or more ? 

Mr. CRISP. I do not know whether there were two, or not. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minority of the committee, as I understand 

them, make no question upon the fact that on the record as made before the motion was entered in the committee the contestee is entitled 

to his seat. I understand, I say, that no point is mad~ upon that. 

But the minorit.y say that the committee were in too great baste in 

disvosing of this case. They say, and how they can say it they can ex- plain, for I can not understand-they say that the contestant made a strong ex parte showing to establish certain facts; and then they say 

that in that state of the case it is incumbent upon the House, without 

considering the affidavits in response, to reopen the case. Gentlemen 

claim that there are two precedents sustaining their motion to reopen 

the case; . they are simply mistaken. The cases cited by them do not 

sustain their proposition, and are not like the r.ase at bar in any respect. 

Gentlemen cite the case of Sypher in the Forty-third Congress: They 

state that in that case there was no notice of contest, no evidence·was taken, and that upon a mere memorial from the person claiming to have 

been elected the House ordered the Committee on Elections to investigate the matter and opened the case, allowing notice to be served and 

evidence taken. 

If gentlemen bad taken the trouble to examine that case they would 

have found this state of facts: That in the State of Louisiana at that 

time there were five returning boards, each claiming to be the proper 

tribunal to count and. certily the vote; that Mr. Sypher appeared here 

with a certificate from the Lynch board, a!J.d that Mr. Lawrence appeared with a certificate from .one of the other boards, and both came before the House claiming to have the p1'ima facie right. Neither could 

contest the seat because each claimed the seat under his credentials. - Mr. Lawrence bad a certificate, and Mr. Sypher bad acertifieate. They_ came here under that state of facts and presented their claim, and it was decided to seat Mr. Sypher upon the prima facie case; and when 

they did, then, for the first time, Mr. Lawrence became aware of the 

fact that be was a contestant in the case. He could not have been expected to serve notice of contest and take 

testimony when_ he held a certificate and claimed that he was e11titled 

to be seated on the prima facie case. These are the facts. Is that a 

precedent for this case, where, under the statutes of the United States, 

contestant serves notice within the time prescribed, takes testimony, 

personally neglects and practically abandons his case, and then comes here and asks to have it reopened? Certainly gentlemen can not claim 

the Sypher case to be a precedent for the motion urged in this. 

You will find that case reported among the contested-election cases of the Forty-third Congress, and an examination of it will fully sustain 

my statement of it here. I may say in passing that when they come to consider that case, in which one of the gentlemen now appearing as counsel here was a party, the committee found his certificate was fraudulently obtained, or rather I should say that it was fraudulently 

issued by the board; that the board bad actually made and signed a certificate for Lawrence, after which there were presented to them some seventeen hundred affidavits, which they counted as votes for Sypher, 

and which the committee found upon an examination of the case were, 

to use their own expression, ''manufactured.'' 

The other case is that of Mr. BUTTERWORTH in the Forty-sixth Congress. In that case, Mr. Speaker, Ur. BUTTERWORTH and his colleague 

(Mr. Young) w~re sitting members. There was no notice of contest, 

but there was a memorial from the citizens, or some part of them, of the 

city of Cincinnati asserting or alleging that there bad been two or three 

thousand United States marshals appointed to override the will of the 

people; that they had taken charge of the polls in Cincinnati and had 

countenanced all manner of fraud and iniquity. In that state of the case the House of Representatives adopted a resolution not to contest 

the seat of Mr. BUTTERWORTH, but that a subcommittee might be appointed to visit Cincinnati and. take testimony to ascertain the truth or falsity of the charge; and on motion of the distinguished gentleman 

from Ohio who died as President of tile United States, the motion was enlarged so that they might inquire as to the manner of the execution 

of the law in reference to the appointments of marshals at Federal elections. Is that a precedent for this case? These are the only two cases that can be found, I believe, where this action has bPen bad. 

Mr. BRUMM. Will the gentleman allow me? 

Mr. CRISP. With pleasure. 

Mr. BRUMM. In the case of Cook vs. Cutts was the case not re- opened and the parties permitted to take additional testimony? 

Mr. CRISP. It is quite possible. 

Mr. BRUMM. I am quite positive that it is true. , 

Mr. CRISP. Perhaps the gentleman did not comprehend my point. 

The minority insist that this case ought to be opened; aver that it 

·has been the practice of the House to open cases even without any 

notice of contest, and cite these two cases as instances. I concede 

that there are cases where the House bas extended time for taking 

testimony--

Mr. BRUMM. That is only where there is an issue of fact that bas 

not been decided. Is not that the ca.se? 

If the gentleman from Georgia will permit me, is not this the trouble 

here-first I understand you have agreed that the counsel for contestant 

have botched his case, or at least that there is incompetency, if not worse, 

on the part of one if not more of the counsel? It is alleged that there are certain facts at issue in this case that the contestant wants to have a chance to investigate. If there are facts that are at issue, and there 

is no contradiction except by ex parte affidavits, would not that case come exactly within the case of Cook 1:s. Cutts, there being only questions offact at issue that were not decided without regard to the exn.ct 

law and points in the case? 

Mr. CRISP. If I understand the view presented by the gentleman 

from Pennsylvania [Mr. BRUMl\1]; it is only in line with the views of 

the distinguished gentlemen who have filed a minority report in the 

case. As I understand their report, they claim that whenever a con- testant files.an affidavit alleging frauds and irregularities in an election 

it is the duty of the House, without any regard to the truth or the 

falsity of the charge, without allowing any affidavits to be filed in re- buttal, without making any investigation as to the character of the 

witnesses by whom the charge is preferred, to order the case to be re- opened. That is the view of the minority in this case. I do not think 

it tenable, and if the ~ouse agree with me that the contestee bas a right to deny by ex parte affidavit the charges that the contestant makes 

by ex parte affidavit, then there can be no question that the evidence is 

overwhelmingly in favor of contestee, and carries with it conviction 

that the charges of contestant are untrue. The minority will not and do 

not deny this. But their proposition is that however irresponsible the 

witness, however vague the charge, that where under oath it is alleged 

there were frauds in an election then it is the duty of the House to take 

anew the evidence. 

Mr. BRUMM. In other words, if the gentleman will allow me, 

wherever there is an issue of fact, and that issue is crea.ted on ex pa1·te 

affidavits on both sides, they claim it is the duty of the committee to 

investigate those facts. That is my position exactly. 

Mr. CRISP. That means exactly what I said, that whenever affida- vits are presented, no matter bow worthless, no matter how untrue, no matter how absurd--

Mr. BRUMM. Are you not assuming that fact? There are simply ex parte affidavits on both sides. Are you not assuming that on one side those affidavits are worthless and untrue? 

Mr. CRISP. I understand the gentleman's claim to be that where 

the contestant claimed that he showed by affidavit certain facts, and 

the contestee claims that be has produced affidavits which refute the 

alleged facts, the committee must reopen the case. That is the proposition. I say in this case the only point the contestant makes in his 

affidavit, as has been well said by the distinguished gentleman from 

illinois, my colleague on the committee [Mr. ROWELL]-theonly point 

he makes of any consequence is that seven of the eight precinct returns 

of Carroll County were all in one handwriting. Mr. Pearce swears that 

the names of the voters were all in the same handwriting. The con- testee produces the original returns and they show Mr. Pearce's affi-
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE.- ~93 

davit to be untrue. Are you to open the case, or are you to appoint Mr. BRU.l\,!M. That would not interfere with their speaking; the a commission to go to Kentucky to look at the returns, which we have time is unlimited. seen and you can see? Is that the proposition? M:r. CRISP. I thank the gentleman, but will now give way to other 

1\Ir. BRUMM. Is the gentleman from Georgia not assuming now gentlemen who desire to be heard. The gentleman from illinois [Mr. 

that the returns shown to be different from the statement made in re- ROWELL] desire.s to occupy some time. 

ganl to th.em a're absolutely correct? May the facts not show that The SPEAKER pro tempore. Some gentleman representing the views 

they are fraudulent? • of the minority of the committee will now be heard. 

Mr. CRISP. If human testimony can show anything it shows that Mr." LYMAN was recognized. 

those returns are correct. Mr. HOUK. Mr. Speaker, had not we better defer this to some sub· 

1\fr. BRUMM. Yon have only ex pa.rte testimony as to that. sequent day? Let it go over until to-morrow or next day, so that we Mr. CRISP. And so is the charge which is made based on the ex may have time to examine the case. parte testimony of witnesses shown to be irresponsible. A MEMBER. Ye.s; let us have a chance to examine these affidavits. 

J'Ylr. BRUMM. On your assumption. Mr. HOUK. We have not had time to examine and read these records, 

Mr. CRISP. It is not assumption. It is a,n opinion based upon the and I ask--

testimony of credible, respectable citizens. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 

Mr. BRUMM. And counteracted by other testimony by other re- LYMAN] yield to the gentleman from Tennessee? 

spectable citizens. · Mr. LYMAN. What is the proposition, Mr. Speaker? _ Mr. CRISP. Not at all. Pearce l!ays the record of Carroll County The' SPEAKER pro ternpore. The gentleman fi·om Tennessee will 

returns show the registers of the voters' names are all in the same band- state it. 

wl'iting. The Committee on Elections have inspected those original Mr. HOUK. We have no sacred characters here. Let us go into 

records, and from thatinspectionsaythe statement of Pearceisnottrue. this case and examine it properly and know what we are doing. 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. Mayisuggestthatthereisnoevidenceorclaim The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Iowa. [Mr. 

made that these are not the original returns? LYl\IANl yield to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HoUK]? 

Mr. CRISP. None whatever. Mr. LYMAN. I think I had better not, sir. 

Mr. BRUMM. Itmight betbeproper time tomakethat claim now. Mr. HOUK. Well, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjomn this r.r,,se 

Mr. CRISP. The gentleman's claim is exactly what I said. It is until this day week. 

thai:. wherever an affidn.vit was presented, no matter how well satisfied Tho SPEAKER _pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LYtbe committee or the House maybe that the affidavitis false, you must MAN] has t.he floor, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HouK] 

reopen the case. He says you can not investigate on ex parte affidavits can not make a motion in his time. · the question of the truth or falsity of the charge. That means that Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, when interfor the purpose of opening the case you must accept it as true. rupted by the gentleman from Tennessee, I am not very familiar with 

Mr. Speaker, I deny that proposition. There is no court on earth the rules of the House, and therefore I will ask the Chair to state 

that, on a motion for a new tl:ial on the ground of newly discovered how much time I have at my dispo£al. · evidence, would not hear the reply to the proposition made by the party The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has one hour. 

making the motion. There is no case where you propose to do that by Mr. LYMAN. And will other members of the minority have the an ex pm·te affidavit where a tribunal will not hear a reply to the party same time as a matter of course? - making the motion. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Until the House by its action changes 

Mr. BRUMM rose. the order that will be recognized as the order of business, and each 

'l'he SPEAKER pro te-mpore (Mr. RICHARDSON). Does the gentle- member of the committee will be entitled to an hom. man from Georgia yield? Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the position which I shall take in 

Mr. CRISP. I should like to woceed with my argument. That is this case I am actuated by no political or partisan motives whatever; 

all there is in the ca-se. The proposition of the minority of the coni- nor am I actuated by any personal motives. Indeed, there are mem- mittee is just this, that the contestant, having submitted certain affi- bers of this House on both sides, I think, who have heard me say more davits charging fraud in this election, asks to open the case. than once 'that if any other gentleman than a member of my own poThe contestee submits affidavits and records in reply11 which, to the litical party was to occupy. the chair of Speaker of this House, I should 

minds of your committee, overwhelmingly establish the fact that if prefer that it should be the contestee in this case. I mention this 

you opened the case the contestant could not prove one single charge simply to show that I am actuated by no personal motive, and that I 

that be makes. Is the House of Representatives going to do the idle, am acting simply in pursuance of what I conceive to be my duty as a the futile, thing of opening this case and sending down to Kentucky to member of the Committee on Elections, and a member of this House. 

give the contestant the opportunity to prove something which the evi- If the question involved in this case had come to a vote upon the 

deuce already on file will convince any impartial, unbiased mind be printed record as it stood at the time the committee was organized, 

can not possibly prove? That evidence, too, furnished by the very wit- there can be no question a-s to what that vote would have been. The nesses by whom he says he will prove his case. vote would have been unanimous. There would have been no dhTision 

Mr. LAIRD. Will the gentleman permit a question? in the committee; for, as has been stated, the record as then presented 

l\Ir. CRISP. Yes, sir. disclosed no cloud in law upon the title of the contestee to the seat. 

Mr. LAJRD. Conceding that the votes of Carroll County would During the able argument to which we have just list-ened extracts 

stand investigation, are the1·e ~nough other votes chal~enged to change have been read from cor_respoudence between 1\Ir. Sypher, the Washingthe result? ton attorney of the contestant, and another gentleman who, I believe, 

Mr. CRISP. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, that tb;:tt would had some connection with the contest at a prior time. Now, whatever 

change the result. I do-not so understand if.. There is absolutely may be said of that correspondence, it bas nothing to do in my -judgnothing, sir, but the proposition that I have stated. If this Honse is ment with the question which the minority of the Committee on Elecwilling to establish a rule in a contested-election case, where there bas tiollii desire to present to this House. The private correspondence of 

been due notice of contest, where there bas been full opportunity to Mr. Sypher with other gentlemen ought not, in my judgment, to in: 

take testimony, and where testimony bas been taken only seven out of fluence in the least the vote of any member on this floor upon the res- the forty days allowed by law, that, upon a bearing more than twelve olution presented by the majority of this committee. If those letters, 

months after the election, h party may present an ex parte affidavit coming from the source from which they do come, prove anything, they 

charging fraud, and that the other side shall not be heard in the same sustain the allegation which the contestant ma.kes here that he has been manner before the same forum, then you may open this case. betrayed by his attorneys in Covington; for those letters come here as But if you believe, as we believe, that when_ affidavits are presented an exhibit attached to the affidavit of Mr. Wood; and coming from Mr. 

in that way, it is not only the privilege, but it is the duty of the com- Wood, the local attorney of the contestant in this case, the man whoni 

mittee and theHouse to take the ca-se and examinetheevidence offered he charges with having betrayed his interests, they establish his posinnd see what substantial good could result from the reopening of'the tion in that regard; and that is the only bearing they have on this case; 

case, and, ifthey are of the opinion that no good could result, ifthey only in that view ought they have any influence upon any member 

are of the opinion that the case made by the contestant is absolutely here. Jlrir. Wood bad no business to send those letters here. "'Whatever 

and ·wholly refuted· by the case made by the contestee~ they will then their weight may be they were received by him as the attorney of the 

and there dispose of the case and settle it. Then this case should not contestant from one who afterward became also his attorney. IVIr. Wood 

be reopened, no amount of investigation can change the result, and to bad no right to send them here. They come here attached as an ex- open this case will set a precedent under which any contestant or con- hibit to his affidavit procured at the instance and in the interest of th~ 

testee Cc'ln, at great expense to the Government, extend a contest over contestee. 

six months, or indeed two yeal'8, as suggested by contestant's counsel. Mr. HEARD. Will the gent.1eman yield for a question? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman h~ expired. :Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRUl\:11\f. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimm.l.s consent that the gen- - Mr. HEARD. Does not the evidence before the committee show that 

tleman's time be extended. There are some facts that I would like to at the time those lettel1;! were sent here Mr. Wood, the attorney who 

bring out-- sent" them, had terminated his relations as attorney and that the senior 

Mr. CRISP. I thank the gentleman, but other members of the com- counsel of the contestant, Mr. Sypher, had, as is shown by the public 

mittee desire to speak. prints (bec."\use the committee-room was open during "!!he discussion); 

XIX-38 
594. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANU.A.RY 20, 

vigorously and mercilessly as..c::ailed Mr. Wood, charging him with }laving given away or sold out his case? These letters, as I understand, were sent as a defense of :Mr. Wood. 

:Ur. LY11IAN. Granting that t.o have been the fact-that the relation of Mr. Wood as an attorney of the contestant had ceased, which , was the fact-that is no excuse, no reason why any attorney at law 

should betray the interests of any one who had ever been his client. 

Mr. HEARD. I concede that. There is no issue on that point. I 

simply stated it in a narrative way; my point being that those letters 

were sent here in response to charges made by counsel here involving 

the character of the attorney in Kentucky, who sent those letters here 

in defense of his character. 

Mr. BRUMM. That does not alter the case at all. 

Mr. LYMAN. Theyweresenthere aflerthe contestanthad charged 

upon his Covington attorney that he had mismanaged h~ case, but they· constituted no defense to any charge of that kind. They have no ref- erence in the slightest degree to any charge the contestant had made 

against 1\fr. Wood. Their publication was simply a base and inexcusable betrayal by counsel of one who had been his client. 

Now an assault is made on the chara-cter of l\1r. Pearce, who makes an affidavit in this case. He said in his affidavit that a day or two after 

the election of the 2d of November, 1886, there was a meeting of the 

friends of the contestee in the city of Covington. It is said on behalf 

of the contestee that :Mr. Pearce is not to be believed, that this cause ought not to be reopened and this House made cognizant of the facts 

in :reference to that matter because five or six gentlemen of Covington, 

Ky., who say they are the most intimate political friends of the con· testee, have said they were not at that meeting, were not advised of it~ 

and never heard of it. Any member of this House could make a similar affidavit, that he was not present at any such meeting, was not invited to attend it, and never heard of it. 

Why, when such businessastbisisgoingon, if any such there was, it is 

not the respectable part of the community, the gentlemen of integrity, who are invited to such consultations-consultations called for 

the purpQSe of devising ways and means by which the choice of the 

people for their Representative may be overthrown. These affidavits 

may be true; yet they tend only to establish the allegation that the 

contestant has made-not only that he has been betrayed, but that 

steps were taken to overthrow by fraudulent means the choice of the 

people of that district. 

Again, it is argued tha,tthe only point which ought in any manner to 

entitle the contestant to a rehearing is in reference to the poll-lists from 

Carroll County; and gentlemen say it bas been demonstrated beyond 

controversy that the affidavits of Mr. Pearce and others in that regard are false. They say that the original poll-lists are here; that the committee had an opportunity to inspect them; that every member of the 

Honse may inspect them, and that the inspection will demonstrate the 

affidavit of Mr. Pearce to be false. 

1\Ir. OUTHWAITE. The gentleman speaks ofthe affidavits of Mr. 

Pearce ''and others." Will he mention any "others" who made any 

affidavits sustaining Ur. Pearce? 

Mr. LYMAN. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I believe I committed 

the same error in the committee on one occasion. I am not certain that 

there are any affidavits on that point besides the affidavit of Mr. Pearce. 

I do not care whether there are or not. I may grant for the purpose 

of what I have to say that Mr. Pearce's affidavit was the only one on that question. 

I was about to say, when interrupted, that it is taken for granted that 

the members of the committee have seen, and that members of the 

House may see, the original poll-lists from seven precincts of Carroll 

County. Now, I submit-and this is the only comment I have to make 

upon the minority' views of my colleague on the committee, the gentleman from illinois [Mr. ROWELL]-that on these ex parte showings we have no right to take that for granted. That is one of the points on 

which the Horise wants further information before passing upon the 

question who is entitled to a seat from the Sixth district of Kentucky. 

Jltfr. McKENNA. Are those returns here? 

Mr. LYUAN. I do not know. What purported to be the returns 

were before the committee. I do not know whether they are here now or not. I must say that the appearance of those returns was very sus- picious to my mind at least, if not-to the minds of others. If those are the original poll-lists, they have been through an election day in 

the various precincts of Carroll County; they have been handled by 

clerks in those precincts, and, so far as my experience goes, those per- sons are not always the most careful or the best educated. The paper on which these returns are written is clean, undefaced, unsoiled, except 

so far as the writing may be a defacement. 

If it be true that the papers are the original return.Q, then the man 

who swe..<trs that the returns from the seven precincts of Carroll County are all in the same handwriting has committed deliberate perjury; for 

these are not in the same handwriting; no man, whether an expert or non-expert, would suspect for a moment that they were in the same handwriting. 

All I suggest on this point is that there. is room for doubt as to 

whether the Committee on Elections has seen the original poll-list 

from Carroll County. That is one of the questions we want to exam-

.•. 

ine. I£ the ex pat-te showing made by the contestant upon this question be true, then the wrong gentleman has a seat in this House from 

that district; if it be not true, the right gentleman occupies the seat. 

This is the very turning-point in this contest-what was the vote in 

Carroll County? Were the original returns from seven out of the eight 

precincts of Carroll County in the same handwriting, made up after 

•the election, or were they not, as claimed by the contestee ? 

Mr. Speaker, at the first meeting of the committee for the purpose 

of considering this case, the contestant, by his counsel, appeared before 

the committee and presented this motion: 

Motion to investigate the conduct of the election held ~ovember, 1886, for a. R-epresentative in Congress from the Sixth Congressional district of Kentucky: 1. By select committee, as was done in the case of the First and Second Congressional districts of Ohio by the Forty-sixth Congress, first session. 

2. By resolution to reopen case and take testimony, as was done by Forty· 

third Congress in case of Lawrence vs. Sypher and Davidson vs. Smith. 

3. By summoning witnesses before this committee. 

That was the motion, and those were the three propositions which 

the contestant presented to th~ committee at iU3 first meeting for the 

consideration of this case. A strong ex pa1·te showing was made by affidavits and otherwise in 

support of said motion or proposition, which showing in the view of 

the minority committee tended very strongly to establish the following 

facts, to wit: 

1. That great and inexcusable frauds were committed in the conduct 

of the last Congressional election in the Sixth Congressional district of 

Kentucky, whereby the apparent defeat of conteg!:ant was accomplished. 

2. That when it was discovered that by the vote of the people of that 

district the contestant was elected, there was evinced a determination 

on the part of the friends of contestee to prevent such a result being 

announced and the certificate of election being given to contestant. 

3. That forgery was actually committed for that purpose, whereby 

the contestant was deprived of the said certificate. 

4. That election returns were tampered with and changed for such 

purpose and with such result. 

5. That telegrams had been sent on the night of election to have the 

returns withheld for the purpose of altering them in behalf of the sitting member. 

6. That the necessary testimony was not taken to establish such 

facts within the time required by the rules of law and of this House 

because contestant was betrayed and deceived by his attorney, and be- cause he supposed from the representations of his said attorney that 

the same had been taken, and that the case was fully prepared on his 

part for submission to this House within the time provided by the law 

and the rules of the House. 

Now, the minority of the committee claim there was a strong ex parl.e 

statement showing the facts I have rehearsed in your hearing. As was stated by my friend, the chairman of the committee [Mr. CBISP], this 

morning, up to this time the contestee made no appearance before the 

committee. We were furnished with a request on the part of the con- testee that time should be given so that he might examine this showin_g to determine what course he should pursue. 

Without a dissenting voice the time asked was granted. At the ex- piration of that time the contestee came in, and, as has been said already, made a statement in answer to this ex parte showing which had 

been made. 

I care not how strong gentlemen may believe that showing to have 

been. I do not intend here to-day to discuss that question for one moment. In illy view of what ought t'o be and is the law, and ought 

to be the rule of this House, it makes no difference how strong it was. 

That showing was read. The various affidavits were read, which are printed as an appendix to the report of the committee. No member of 

the Committee on Elections till the time this vote was taken, in my 

judgment, had read one of these affidavit:5. My judgment is, up to that 

time not one of these affidavits produced by the contestee had ever been 

in the hands of any member of that committee. Time was asked for 

the purpose of allowing the members of tlre c.ommittee to examine this ex parte showing which had been made by the cont€Stee. By a vote of 

the committee, and I trust I do not get beyond what is proper when 

I say this-by a vote of that committee that request for time wa..s refused. 

Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman candidly say to the House that 

every affidavit presented by the contestee was read in the hearing of 

every member of the committee? 

Mr. LYUAN. I will say so, and I did say so. Every member of 

the committee was present. 

1\fr. CRISP. What is the point in the fact that the members had not 

seen them, if they bad heard them? 

Mr. LYMAN. The point is this: Some of the members of the committee desired to read them. They desired to go through those affi· 

davits in order to see what they purported to be. We wanted to read 

those affidavits upon which we were asked to determine a question of so much importance to this House as the seating the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives. We only had them read by the attorney of 

the contestee. They were an ex parte showing. nut as I have already 

said the request made to examine that showing on the part of the con· 

testee was absolutely denied by the majority of the committee. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 595 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina.. What pmpose did you wish 

to establish, the affidavits having already been read in the hearing of 

every member of the committee? 

Mr. LYMAN. The gentleman asks me to go into the discussion of 

a qne51ion of ethics and mathematics. 

Mr. JOHNSTONr of North Carolina. No. You say the affidavits 

were e.1: parte, and you were ready to go on the record to what was in 

the affidavits--

Mr. LYMAN. No; I did not sayso, and do not proposet-0-sayso. 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of _North Carolina. That is not your positiop., 

th~ point of order raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania~ I wish 

to be heard upon it. 

Thechargeismade distinctly, byamemberofthe Committee on Elections~ that the other- members of that committee, by a majority vote in 

the committee-:room1 were refrued the privilege of looking at certain 

affidavits filed in the case under consideration. That statement forces -

me to say what took place if the members· of the House and the Chair 

will peonit me. 

Mr. L YM,A....l'f. I have no objection. 

Several MEMBERS. Go on. then. 

1\Ir. LYUA.l~. 

Mr. CRISP. There seems to be oo objection ex.eept on the part of 

If' you will listen patiently with your ears and eyes the gentleman. from Pennsylvania. 

open--

1\1r. JOHNSTON. ofN orth Carolina. I have my ears and eyes open. 

1\Ir. LONG. Do you say the members of the committee were not 

permitted to read everything before the committee? · 

Mr. HOUK. The remarks which have jnst been made cause me to 

ask to be heard. While it is a fact we were per-mit-ted to rea.d the affidavits, we were not permitted to examine them as we wished. 

Ur. LYMAN. In answer to an interrogatory propounded by the 

gentleman from Massachusetts, I wish to say this, that it is a fact the 

committee wa.s not permitted for want of time to read the affidavits 

which had been presented by the contestee in answer to the showing 

of the contestant; but without any examination or without a showing, 

we were compelled to vote first upon a motion to ask the Hou._c;:e toreopen the case, and then upon the resolution which the majoTity of the 

committee have presented here. 

Now, that was not an honest, fair treatment of the minority of this 

committee. There are too many members of this House who have been 

accustomed to proceedings of this kind-I mean proceedings whe1·e 

testimony is to be considered and affidavits weighed-to know that any 

gentleman in order to act intelligently upon matters of that kind must 

have an opportunity of examination as to what he is called to vote 

upon. That opportunity was denied not only to the minority of the 

committee, but aJl the committee were deprived of that privilege. 

Granting, therefore! and cop.ceding the superior intelligence of my 

friends, the majority of the committee, who may not have required that 

examination, I am compelled to say that it was desirable, at all events, 

the minority should have that privilege. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. On what account were they denied it; what excuse was urged ? 

M.r. L YM.A.N. · Only I do not want it to come out of my ci.me. 

. ~Ir. CRISP. Not at a1L I ju~t want the House to understand the 

f!_lcts, because I do not wish the committee to be put in a wrong position. 

.After the reading of the affidavits and the submi~sion of the case to the 

committee we went in.to executive session, or had the room to ourselves. 

Under our rules we have three hours for debate :.tfter a case is submitted~ one hour and a half on each side. Nobody claimed the time 

or desired debate. Questions we.re submitted, but there was no request 

for debate. The contestant and his friends could have talked for an 

hour and a half~ or could have examined papers for that length of time, 

under the rules of the committee, and there could have been no objection. They did nothing except submit a motion on the part of the 

gentl~man from Tennessee to continue the case for eight days7 which 

the majority voted down. . 

· :M:r. LYMAN. Well, I do not see that anything that I have said is 

at all controverted by the stlltement of the chairman of the committee. 

I said that by a majority vote in t.he committee we were refused an 

opportunity to examine the affidavits which had been read. J\.fy 

friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HouK], says they were not 

all read. That is trne. but it was stated that it was an unnecessary 

consumption of time to read the affidavits, which were exactly the 

same as others which had been read. I desire to be entirely fair in 

what I say, and I am sorry that I said a word as to what occurred in 

committee on account of the dynamite which it ha8 exploded here. 

We were called upon to vote in successi9-n upon the questions I have 

nn.m~ with the results shown by the various reports of the committee 

and its individual members. 

Now, then, as has been suggested in the course of this debate, it does 

Mr. LYMAN. .A majority voted against it in committee. [Laugh- seem to me that here was presented too grave a question to be decided 

teJ.'.} 

1\ir. BRUMM:. That is just it; brute force. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. I wanted to know what excuse was given for it. 

1\'Ir. LYl\UN. .And I have told you. 

Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman from Iowa allow me for a moment, 

as this is perhaps hardly just to the committee? 

Mr. LYMAN. I certainly do not want to do injustice. 

Mr. CRISP. I believe the gentleman does not, and therefore I 

took the liberty of interrupting him for a moment. 

Mr. L YM.AN. Certa-inly. 

Mr. CRISP. After the reading of these affidavits--

Mr. TOWNSHEND. DQes my friend from Georgia state that the 

affidavits were read? 

M:r. CRISP. I do. 

Mr. LY1\fAN. I said they had been read. 

Mr. HOUK. They were not all read. . 

~Ir. CRISP. By the kindnesso.fmy friend from Iowat I would like 

just now to reply to what seems to be upon the minds of my friends 

from Massachruetts and from Maine, that by so·me means or other members of the committee were refuged or denied the right to read the affidavits to which the gentleman from Iowa refers. 

simply on ex parte showings on either or both sides. If the showing 

m:1de by the contestant be true, this House ought to know it. If it be 

trne that the returns and the poll-lists from seven out of eight precincts of Carroll County were in the same handwriting; if they were 

manufactured for the occasion after the report had gone to the entire 

country by the Associated Press that the contestee was beaten; if t.hey 

were manufactured after that time, this House wants to know it. If it 

be true that on the night after the election, when the returns from the 

two principal counties in the district in which Newport and Covington 

are situated-I forget at this moment their names-showed that the 

contestant undoubtedly was elected, telegrams were sent to the outlying counties to withhold returns until they could be fix.ed up, this House 

wants to know it. If it be true that there was a meeting of the contestee -and his friends, or of his friends alone, to devise means by which 

this .disaster to the contestee might be avoided, this Home wants to 

know it. And I say that it is not just -to this House, it is not just to _ the contestant, and the contestee ought to deem it not just to him1 that 

S(} important a question as that should be tried in that summary manner. 

Mr. HEARD. Will the gentleman from Iowa peTmit me a question? 

Mr. HOUK. Mr. Speaker, I ask the chairman of the committee if 

this is not a fact: did I not ask time to read these affidavits, and was 

J\.!r. LYMAN. Yes, sir. ... Mr. HEARD. I will ask the gentleman if there was any evidence 

whatever presented to the committee as to the sending of any such 

not that refused by brute force? · telegrams as he alludes to, and if it was not suggested to the counsel 

1\Ir. OUTHW .AITE. You wanted two weeks. 

Mr. HOUK. No, sir; I wanted time. 

Mr. BRUM.Jiii. And it should have been given if it required a month. 

1\Ir. CRISP. I want to state with the permission of the gentleman 

exactly what took place. 

Mr. BUCKALEW. I rise to a. auestion of order. 

'I'he SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman will state it . 

Mr. BUCKA,LEW. I desire to know whether this House is to be 

precipitated into an unseemly debate between membeis on the floor as 

to what took place in a committee of the House. As I understand the 

general parliamentary practice, the proceedings in committee are not 

matters for public announcement on the floor of the House. I can not 

see, theFefore, that any good result Ca.n arise from prolonging the discussion in this shape. Bad feeling must necessarily be engendered, and 

.I ask the Chair to decide now whether it is competent for members to 

discuss publicly the proceedings in a committee. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state--

1\'lr. CRISP. Ml'. Spea.ker, if any ruling is to be made about the propriety of the conducij of other members of the Honse, in response to 

• for the contestant that those telegrams should be presented, or some 

evidence of them, if he expected the committee to consider and seek 

for them? 

Mr. LYMAN. The gentleman from Missouri can not have read the 

printed record before the committee, or he would not have asked me 

that question. There was evidence before the committee; it was in 

the printed record that there had been telegrams sent, and the agent 

of the telegraph company refused to produce· them. 

Mr. HEARD. I meant in connection with the application for reopening the case. I understand, so far as the record is concerned, there 

is no difference between us. 

Mr. L Y~i.AN. The gentleman from :Missouri is too good a lawyer 

to stand upon any such question as that. He knows the whole record 

was before the committee, and that record showed there had been telegrams sent. 

Mr. OUTHW .AITE. What kind of telegrams? ~Ir. LYMAN. Wedo notknow, becausetheagentsofthe telegraph 

compa-ny refused to produce them; but my friend from Ohio knows the 

way to produce them when they are wanted at the proper time. 
-· 

596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

I am only speaking now as to what this committee acted on. If 

these charges are not true that the contestant has made; if the showing 

that contestant has made is unfounded, why is it, I ask, that the contestee 

and his. friends are standing here so persistently blocking every road to 

an investi<Yation? Is he afraid of the truth? .Are his friends upon this 

floor afrai.d of the truth? Does he doubt-I ought to say do his friends 

doubt-their ability to go into the Sixth district 'Of Kentucky and establish beyond all controversy that these charges of co~testant ~re not 

true, if it be a fact that they are not true? The fact that there IS such 

a constant denial, such a persistent determination that the events of 

the election in the Sixth district of Kentucky shall not be investigated, 

suggests strongly to my mind that there i~ something wrong down 

there· and I can conceive of no gooi reason why the contestee should 

be so' persistent in his determination that the facts of that election 

shall not be investigated. 

Now all that the contestant asks is that these facts shall be investigated; 'and I am free to say here as a memb~r of the Co~mittee o~ Elections and as an individual member of thl.S House that If the evidence shall not establish these allegations made by the contestant I 

shall be as ready on the final vote as any gentleman on the other side of 

the House to vote to retain the contestee in his seat. But if they shall 

be established, if they can. be established, I want to know it; and I 

know no good reason why this House should not take the proper steps 

to ascertain whether that is so or not. 

We are not without precedents. The precedents have already been · 

alluded to by the gentleman who has preceded me. In the Forty-third 

ConoTess there were two sitting members from the State of Louisiana 

who~e seats, when Congress met, were claimed by two other gentlemen. 

There was no notice of contest; there wa.c; no vote taken. The matter 

went to the Committee on Elections, and that committee made this 

report to the House: 

Mr. Spear, from the Committee on Elections, reported the following resolutions; which were read, considered, and agreed to, na;mely: . "Resoived That Effingham Lawrence and E. C. Dav1dson, from the First and 

Fourth cor{o-ressional districts of Louisiana, respectively, be permitted to serve on J. Hale s"'ypher and George L. Smith, "'}'ho are sitting membe1·s of the same districts, respectively, notices of c_ont~s~ within twenty days. from the passap-e of this resolution· and that the said s1ttmg members be permitted to answer tne same within twe~t y days after the service thereof. 

''Resolved That the time for the taking of testimony in each of said contestedelection cas'es is hereby extended ninety days from the time the answer is al-. lowed to be filed to the notice of contest." 

After Congress has met gentle~ en in that case are permitted to serve 

notice of contest, and the time is extended to allow them to take testimony in order to contest the right of the sitting members, Mr. Sypher 

and Mr. Smith, to sit in this House. What the result of that contest 

was I do not know, but I am under the impression that the contestees 

prevailed. 

A MEMBER. The contestants prevailed. 

Mr. LYMAN. I am informed by a gentleman near me that the contestants prevailed: I care nothing about tha~. The reason I bri~g 

the action of Congress in that ·case up here now Is to show that we have 

a precedent for the action which the contestant claims. ought to be 

taken in this case. And so in the Forty-sixth Congress, Hon. BEN J AlliiN 

BUTTERWORTH who is an honored and able member of this House, 

and ex-Li.euten'ant-Governor Yonng, of the State of Ohio, were the sitting members fro~ the Fif:>t and ~econd distric~ of that St.ate, respectively. They came here With their regular certificates; t~ere were no 

conflicting certificates, as has been suggested by the chairman of the 

committee [Mr. CRISP]. Messrs. BUTTERWORTH and Young came here 

with undisputed credentials, and were seated as members of the Forty-sixth Congress. A memorial came up in the early days of the :first 

session of that Congress, signed by less than twenty-:fivecitizensof Cincinnati a great city with hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. In that 

great city, which these two gentle~an repr~sented, there were found just 

twenty-three men to sign a.memonal allegmg that there ha_d been fraud 

in their election. What dtd Congress do? Congress appomted a committee of seven, of which the contestee in this case was the chairman, 

and sent that committee to Ohio to investigate the election in the two 

districts in question. In the · discussion of that memorial upon this 

floor, the contestee in this case used this language: 

I mean to say just this, that under the Constitution of the United States this House has the absolute and uncontrollable power, at any time and under any circumstances, to inquire in to and determine the election, ret~n, and qualifications of its own members, and that the act of Congress to whwh the gentleman from Ohio alludes (the act providing for contesting elections in the House) is a mere practice act, if I may use the expression, which prescribes the method of 

proceeding in certain cases, that is, in cases where there are regular cont-ests in 

respect to a seat on this floor; but that legislation does not, and in the nature of· things could not, affect the constitutional power which belongs to this House, 

and which belongs inherently to every legislative body, to judge of the election, 

retum, and q ualifica.tions o( its own members. 

In the course of the same debate, Mr. BUTTERWORTH, one of the sitting members who occupied in relation to that case the same position 

which the contestee here occupies in relation to the present case, said: 

I am heartily in favor of the adoption of the resolution. All I usk of the House is a free full, and fair investigation, not only to purify this House of unworthy membe~s. but as a warning to evildoers, that if there shall be found a. taint of 

fraud affecting the title of my colleague or myself to our seats, all I ruJk is that we be unseated, as unworthy to sit upon Uris ftoor. 

That was the language of one of the sitting members in that case, 

Mr. BUTTERWORTH. l\fr. Young, the other sitting member involved in 

the memorial, said: . I rise now only to say that I fully indorse~ hat m~ col1e~gu~,l\fr. BuTT:.::RwORT~, 

has said, and give free consent on my part to an mvestJgat10n that wlll take m every point now embraced in the resolution and to say that I do not want to be 

here unless I have a clear title to it.. 

Commendable words ! Commendable acts ! How striking the contrast between these words and acts and those of the sitting member in 

the case at bar! I have shown, then, that we are not without precedimts, precedents established by this House, if not exactly parallel 

cases, as it is claimed by the chairman of the committee they_are not, 

cases at least parallel in principle; tha,t principle being that th1s House 

ought to know who have been selected by the various Congressio~al 

districts of this country by the majority of the legal voters of those districts. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said aboutall I desire to say in opposition 

to the report of the majority of the committee. The minority think 

and believe and in that belief they are sincere and conscientious as 

members or' the committee and of the House, not influenced or actuated 

by any political or personal feeling-they believe, I say, that a case is 

presented here which demands investigation. The contestant is of the 

same political party as you gentlemen on the other side of the House. 

This.is not a political contest. 

The contestant is poor. He says his casehas been mismanaged. He 

says he has been deceived; that he is unversed in the rules and practices of law; that he supposed his case was ready for presentation ~o 

this House. He is not asking for this seat unless· he is entitled to It 

by the votes of an absolute majority of the legal voters of the Sixth 

Congressional district of Kentucky, ca.."lt on the 2d day: of November, 

1886. He asks only that this House take such steps as shall be adequate to ascertain who received the majority. If he did not get the 

majority, he is content with hie; present position onts!de of these walls. 

If he did receive a majority of the legal votes, ho says that out of 

respect to the vote which was cast and the wishes_of the legal voters 

of the Sixth ConO'ressional district, he want:B to Sit here among you. 

He has that ri<Yht.0 The fact that he is poor, the fact that he is a laboring man, that."he earns his bread by the toil of his bands, entitles him 

to no more consideration tna.n you would accord to anybody else; but 

do not forget, gentlemen, that at the same time these things entitle 

l1iru to no less consideration. Let us treat him fairly. Let us say to 

this hard-handed son of toil, ''You shall have your rights, whatever 

they are, before the American Congress. If you have been el_ected, 

this Houae will ascertain that fact and you shall be seated; 1f you 

have not been elected, this Honse will :find that out and lea.ve you 

where you now m·e." 

Mr. BUCHANAN. One question for information. Those books 

which were produced before your committee-were tl1ey authenticated? 

Mr. LYMAN. They were not books; they were sheets. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Poll-lists, then. ' 

Mr. LYMAN. They purported to be the poll-lists of va.rious precincts. They purported to be· authenticated by the judges, or inspectors of the election, whatever the officers may be called. 

M:r. BUCHANAN. But is there with them any affidavit showing 

the committee that the sheets thus produced are the sheets used at the 

election? 

Mr. LYMAN. There are affidavits tending to show that they are 

the original poll-lists. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Whose affidavits? 

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know-some ex parte affidavits. 

Mr. CRISP. But they were brought here and produced by t"!leir 

custodian, the clerk of the court. 

:Mr. BUCHANAN. But I do not find any statement that the books 

thus produced are the book!'! he had in his custody. 

Mr. CRISP. You will :find other affidavits. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. Are· these lists attached as exhibits to any affidavits? 

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir. 

:Mr. STRUBLE. Did the gentleman wish to be understood as saying 

that while this case was being heard by the committee certain affidavits 

produced in support of the contestee were not allowed to be examined 

personally by the minority of the committee? . Mr. LYMAN. I do not want to be misunderstood on that pomt. I 

did not intend to sav that we were not allowed to examine those affidavits. But there was a motion made by the gentleman from Tennessee 

that a further hearing of the case be postponed in order that there mig_ht 

be an opportunity to examine them; and that motion was voted down. 

We had not such opportunity to examine them as wed esired. I do not 

mean to say that they were pock~ted or withlleld from us, so that we 

could not get them; they were not; they were in thfl possession of the 

clerk of the committee. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Does the gentleman say that be was not granted 

time to examine them? 

:M:r. LYMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKENNA. Had you ~ny reason to suspect that those affidavits 

had not been read correctly? 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 

Mr. LYMAN. Well, that is a leading question. 

Mr. McKENNA. You must go that far if you desire to make the 

point good. 

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no; I am not obliged to take that position. 

Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remainder of my time to my colleague 

on the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE]. 

Several MEMBERS (to Mr. LODGE). Speak in your own time. 

Mr. LYMAN. If the gentleman from Massachusetts can be recognized, I will reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. CRISP. Before the discussion proceeds further, I would like to 

see whether we can come to some understanding as to when the debate 

shall terminate and a vote be taken. 

Mr. LYl\'fAN. One or two other members of the committee desire to 

speak, and also the gentleman from illinois [Mr. ADAMs]. 

Mr. ADAMS. Although not a member of the committee, I would 

like to occupy some time. I do not often oecupy the attention of the 

House, and I should not like to -be limited in point of time. 

Mr. LYMAN. I think the members of the committee can get through 

in another hour. 

Mr. COOPER obtained the floor. 

· Mr. L.ODGE. I thought I was recognized by the Chair. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts, if 

be should proceed now, could only occupy ten minutes. The Chair has 

recognized the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. COOPER], a member of the 

committee. 

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, while it is always unvleasant to.differ 

with those for whose judgment we have profound respect and about 

whose honesty of purpose we have no question, I desire to submit a 

few of the reasons why I coneur with the majority of the committee 

and dissent from the views of my colleague on the committee [Mr. 

LYMAN] who has just taken his sea-t. 

I believe, sir, that there ought to be a period in the term of a member of this House when he can be relieved from the menace of a proposed·contest, when he may be conscious that the time bas elapsed for 

the challenging of his right to be here. I believe that the provisions 

of our statute providing when contests may be originated, bow conducted, and when terminated are politic, wise, and just. The contestant in the present _case seemed to understand this, and in due time 

served notice of contest upon the sitting member that be would undertake to prove that be and not the contestee bad been elected to represent the Sixth Kentucky district in the Fiftieth Congress. He commenced taking testimony in that behalf, yet, as the record shows, and 

as is conceded here, be was unable to produce, and has not filed, a syllable of testimony justifying his c1'lim or impeaching or casting a stain 

upon the claim of the sitting member. 

The only testimony which the contestant took was testimony tending · to show that there were irregularities in the organization of the 

election boards and in the conduct of the election in certain precincts 

in Kenton and Campbell Counties, in which precincts be, the contestant, had a large majority, and which if thrown out would have destroyed every pretense of his claim. He was verifying the old story of 

the man who, seated on a limb, sawed it off between where he sat and 

the trunk of the tree. [Laughter.] 

The testimony being closed, and the time for taking testimony having elapsed, the contestant appeared before the committee and invoked 

it to reopen this case, which the committee, of course, had no power to 

grant; but the committee might have recommended to the House the 

adoption of a resolution to that effect, and the House with its plenary 

power could ignore or override the statutes which govern the committee. And, sir, even at this late day, if the contestant had procured 

and preserfted to us testimony from which it could be reasonably, or, I 

will say, probably or possibly inferred that it was in his power to 

prove that he bad received a :majority of the legal votes cast at the 

election, I, for one on the committee, would have voted to give him 

that opportunity. · 

But what is the case as presented bythetestimony? The testimony 

is ex parte on both sides, and no more e.1: parte on the part of the contestee than on the part of the contestant. What does the contestant 

suggest as a reason why this cas"e should now be reopened, or rather 

inaugurated on the part of the House? For, Mr. Speaker, it will be 

remembered there was no memorial before the committee signed by 

any one. I have never seen one, nor have I seen anybody who ever 

l'ead or heard of one being in existence signed by imy person. If there 

is a memorial anywhere it has not come to the committee, and was not 

in the possession of the committee. 

Bot he brought some affidavits there of himself and of somebody else, • tending to show that there was a conspiracy on the part of the sitting 

member and some others, originating at a meeting of Mr. Carlisle and 

his friends, to deprive the contestant of his rights under and by virtue 

of the election. · Upon that point he had only his own affidavit to 

support his claim, be not pretending to have any personal know ledge of 

the matter, and without anything upon which to found his claim except some idle rumors floating around the streets of Covington. In contradiction to that affidavit, we have the affidavit of the contestee, who 

ought to know where be was, and what be did, and of other parties 

who are unimpeached,_ and who are unimpeachable and admitted to be 

honorable men, who testify to a state of facts showing the allegations 

made on the part of the contestant were unfounded, and could not possibly be true. 

It was impossible for Mr. Carlisle to be at that alleged meeting in 

the nature of things, because he was far away from there, at another 

place. It is demonstrated, -I repeat-it is proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt-that the allegation of the meeting and conspiracy on the part of 

the friends of the contestee to deprive the contestant -of his right to a seat on this floor is. entirely unfounded, and bot idle chaff that w~ 

floating in the atmosphere, under all circumstances. In regard to· this 

charge of conspiracy, I insist that the affidavits prove- that it never existed and this meeting was never held; and in the second place, if it 

ever had been, it could never have been proved by these parties. 

Next he claims the case should be reopened because the sitting member is alleged to have admitted on the day after the election that he had 

been defeated. What if he did? It would have been but the expression of his opinion as to what might be the result of the pending count 

not yet ascertained. It would amount to nothing. But this is denied 

by the contestee. In the first place, he swears that be never made any 

such admission, and in the second place, the party who is alleged to 

have beard it from the lips of the contestee denies that he beard it or 

ever said he bad heard it. Both witnesses deny that the language attributed to the contestee was ever uttered. 

Mr. GOFF. Will the gentlemau·permit me to ask him a question? 

Mr. COOPER. tCert..:11inly. 

Mr. GOFF. If I correctly read the affidavit of Mr.· Thobe, he says 

that Mr. Carlislewaswith the reporterofaneveningnewspaper, of The 

Telegraph, I believe. 

A MEMBER. Horace Cambron. 

Mr. GOFF. He also states that the remarks of Mr. Carlisle on that 

o~casion were reduced to writing and published in the paper represented by that reporter. Let me ask the gentleman this question: 

Has that paper ever been produced before the committee? 

Mr. COOPER. No, sir; nor the affidavit of the alleged reporter, 

which bas never been produced. · "Mr. GOFF. I thought perhaps it might be a matter of evidence of 

peculiar weight where a. party swears that another had stated a matter 

which bad been published, that in the denial of it, the publication itself, in which it was claimed to have appeared, bad been produced . 

Mr. COOPER. It was not there; nobody produced or claimed to be 

able to produce it. 

Mr. LYMAN. Was there any evidence that a search had been made 

forit; and that that particular number of the paper could not be found? 

Mr. COOPER. There seems to have been some sort of an affidavit 

in reference to such search and failure to find the paper. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me ask if this w bole thing is net on somebody's affidavit? 

1\fr. COOPER. Yes, the whole trouble is in reference to an affidavit 

that some newspaper man made, not of matter that be beard himself, 

but claimed· to have heard from somebody else. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Bot is not even ex pm·te evidence better than no 

evidence in reference to grave charges of fraud? 

1\Ir. COOPER. We will see whether there is any substance in the 

charges of fraud as I proceed. 

Mr. Speaker, what are the charges of fraud as alleged? It is, as has 

been well said by my colleague on the committee [Mr. ROWELL], in his 

report, tbegravamen of this allegation, upon which we are requested to 

open up the case, that a gentleman who claimed that he had some experience and ability as an expert had examined these returns from Carroll 

County, and upon such examination they showed upon their face that 

they were all written by the same hand, including the signatures of the 

election officers. That was an exceedingly grave charge, and if true it 

would show that a monstrous fraud bad been committed there, and that 

this whole question of that election should be opened up to careful inquiry, no matter what might be the result. 

If so grave and monstrous an outrage had been committed upon the 

ballot-box as is there ·alleged, it was worthy of the most serious consideration~ Bot, sir, how can such a charge be established? By what 

means can it be proven, or is it susceptible of proof, if the Honse should 

undertake the workJ>f affording the contestant an opportunity to e& 

tablish his allegations. · · 

If the cha:rge be true, it might be proved by the testimony of parties 

who committed the outrage. It might be proved by the testimony of 

the judges and the clerks of the election in those precincts, if they could 

testify, when brought forward, that they did not sign the poll-books, the 

tally-sheets, or the returns in question in Carroll County; or it might be 

estc11blisbed by the testimony of experts, showing that forg~ry bad been 

committed; but I undertake to say here that, with the exception of a 

single affidavit of this man Pearce, there is a total want of testimony 

supporting the charge. , But that is not all. I say further, and challenge contradiction of my statement, that all the testimony which could · 

possibly be brought forward to throw light upon this question, either -

by a commission or by subprenaing witnesses, or by any other process 

of investigation that the House might order, even if the time were ex-
598 CONGRESS! ON AL REOORD-IIOUSE. J ANU.A.RY 20, 

tended until the great archangel sounded the last trumpet, has been the clerk of the county court of Carroll County came into the commitalready produced before the committee, showing the baseless character tee-room, and claiming to be such, delivered these returns to the clerk 

of the charge of fraud. of the committee, and.nobody then challenged the proposition that he 

11fr. BRUMM. Gh·e us some evidence on that point. was the person he claimed to be. 

Mr. COOPER. You can read it in the record. Mr. O'FERRALL. And he came exhibiting the order of the court 

Ur. BRUMM. But that is not entirely satisfactory. authorizing him to bring the books here. 

1llr. COOPER. I do not know what might sa.tisfy my distinguished JYir. COOPER. He exhibited all the credentials and paraphernalia. 

friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania; but I take it that the testi- which could accompany such a messenger, and I do not understand 

mony there will satisfy any reasonn..ble man. how it can be insinuated that these returns came here or that this man 

Mr. BRU11U;L Will it do any harm to enlighten us? got possession of them in an improper way. 

Mr. COOPER. It will do no good; and that which occupies the 1\!r. LYMAN. I simply say I do not know. 

time of the Honse and expends the people's money vainly does harm. Mr. COOPER. Are we to presume every inan who comes here to 

What is the testimony on this point? The sitting member first pro- appear before a committee is a scoundrel and a forger? The cout-est. 

duces the testimony of prominent experts, men whose position in busi- ant's counsel were present-two of them. Modesty may have preness life qualifies them and justifies them in saying that they are ex- vented them from making any such que.:.'iJion at that time. [Laughter.] 

perts in handwriting; cashi-ers and other officers of banks with whom 111r. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Will my colleague permit me to interrupt 

the men in that immediate vicinity, and who presided at this election, him for a moment? 

were in d:~.ily business contact. These men tell us that they are famil- Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. 

fu.rwith the signatures ofthese election-officers, and that they have ex- Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. The point made by the contestant as it 

amined the returns and found them genuine. Affidavits are produced presents itself to my mind is this: That the returns as first mude were 

<>f the judges and clerks of the election, honest men I take it, and quite righ t; that Mr. Carlisle was defeated; and that afterwards they were 

a number of them Republican."!, Mr. Speaker-ay, gentlemen, Repub- cooked up, the returns in Carroll County being in the same hand writ. 

lic3.D.s of Kentucky-who testify that this election was fairly held; that in g. Now, it is claimed that the returns here show that they were not 

there was a free, fair election and an honest count; that their signa- in the same handwriting. I ask my-colleague, was there any eV'idence 

tures to the returns are true and genuine; and they testify fur~er, before the committee to show that. the returns on which Mr. Carlisle 

that some ofthem were earnest and active opponent.s.oftbe sitting mem- was declared to be elected ~ere the returns before the committee? 

ber, vigilantly looking after the interests of their candidate, the con- .J.\lr. COOPER. The affidavit of the clerk shows they were the origtestant, and they know that there was an honest count and return. inal returns. 

ltfr. WILLIAMS. You say that they were Republicans. How did Mr. ROWELL. Ancl he was one of the election officers. 

they vote? Mr. CIUSP. Will my colleague permit me to suggest to him, in reply 

.Mr. ·COOPER. I do no~ know. They swore they were Republicans, to his colleague from Ohio, that there is the affidavit of Nat B. Lewis, 

and although it may be, and is, so high an honor to be a Republican who says he is a Republican; that he examined these poll-books in the 

that a man may step out of his way to pr-oclaim it, I presume that they -county clerk's office, and they axe in the same condition thattheywere 

swore to the truth. [Laughter.] when he signed them; that there is the affidavit ofW. H. Hisle, clerk 

That is not all. They say the retorns were . pTOduced before the of the election in another precinct, who says the s::tme thing; that there 

committee. are the affidavits of :Jitlosgrove, Gilkner, and Long to the same effect; 

},fr. CUTCHEON. How can they be identified? • also the affidavit of a. Knight of Labor, Mr. Leep? These men and 

Mr. COOPER. I will read, if you please, from the affidavit. I have others swore that they examined the returns; that they examined the 

here the affidavit of the clerk himself, which, if I understand language, returns on file in the county court of Carroll, and that they are in the 

does show what I have said. I call attention t.o the affidavit of Mr. R. same condition as when signed on the day of election. The clerk of 

F. Harrison, which begins on page 40 of the record and is completed on the cotmty of Carroll .app-eared in the committee· room and _presented 

page 41. He says this: these returns with an affidavit in which he said that these returns 

Affiant says that the said poll-books and ceJ.·tiiicates are still in his custody, and were those on which the count was made; and these witnesses told you 

that by an order of the county court of said county of Carroll, made on the 11th that the returns they examined there in ..J anuarv were the identical re- day of January, 1888, whlch is hereto appended, affiant has been permitted to withdraw the sn.me u·om his office as clerk: ofthe court of said county, and they turns and in the same condition as they were in November, lBBG. are all herewilh exhibited to the committee. Mr. COOPER. Permit me to· say fnrther that these gentlemen wb.o 

And they were exhibited and were examined by the committee, and swore they were, and appeared to have been, the officers of the election, 

it was conceded by everybody, the minority as well as the majority, some of whom were Republicans, also swear that the actual count as 

that there could be no question about the genuineness of these returns, made by them on the rught of the election corresponded precisely with 

and that any statement that these returns were forged, that these papers, the returns here. 

including the signatures of the officers, were allin the samehandwrit. Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. That is the only statement whicn has 

ing, was wholly unfounded, to put it as mildly as possible. been made here that touches my point. 

Mr. LYMAN. I wish to ask my colleague on the committee, where Mr. COOPER. I understand that I am within the record when I 

is the evidence that those returns before the committee are the returns state that that is established. 

about which the clerk swore? .Mr. WARNER. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 

J\11:. COOPER. They came here with the affidavit of the clerk, and Mr. COOPER. I think I must decline to yield further; there are 

I think it is unworthy the dignity of this Honse to stand here splitting so many gentlemen making speeches in my time. [Laughter.] 

hairs on such a point as that. Now, ll1r. Speaker, I will not be tedious1 bnt I wish to repeat th..'lt 

Mr. OUTHWAITE. I wish to ask my colleague, did .any one in the not only do the affidavits of the officers of election show that these are 

committee question the genuineness of those _papers? the returns, but they also show that the actual ballots cast and counted 

Ur. COOPER. If any such question was made it was not in my by them verified the correct-ness of tbe count, as it appenrs !lere by this 

presence, or at least not in my hearing; and I do not believe any mem- return, and that the result of the election in the various precincts in 

ber of the Hou...~ has any doubt upon that question now. that county was precisely as it now appears from the returns. Now, 

1\Ir. LY:MAN. What ~negation? then, in the face of these facts, Mr. Speaker, what good result can posMr. COOPER. That they were not the same returns that were for- sibly come from action by thlil House reopening this case? In what 

warded by the clerk. way are these alleged frauds or forgeries to be proved, if not by the 

lfr. LYMAN. That they were not the same returns that were for- very men who are hel'e upon record as disproving them, and in that 

warded to the retuming officers. way affirming a negative? How can it he possible to make a case 

Ur. COOPER. I am not talking about that. stronger? 

Mr. LYMAN. That is what we want to get .at. Ur. HENDEHSON, of Iowa. WJ..ll the gentleman yield for a ques1\ir. COOPER. But t-hat we exa;nined the identic.c'\l returns covered tion? 

by the affidavit of the clerk nobody questions. • 1\Ir. COOPER. Yes, sir; if it is not too long. 

Mr. CUTCHEON. I wish to ask the gentleman whether there has :Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. It will not be long. There bas been 

been any impeachment of the character of :Mr. Pearce? some discussion here, and apparently some feeling, in regard to the 

1rfr. COOPER. I do not know anything about that gentleman's question of giving time in committee for members to examine those 

character; and I do not know that there has been any impeachment affida.vi~ -- of the character of ?!Ir. Pearce, or anybody else in this case. lli. COOPER. I will come to that in a. moment. :M:r. Speaker, ~ 

Mr. O'FERRALL. I may be permitted to suggest to my coJ.leagne approach the discussion of what took place in the committee-room with 

on the committee that the poll-books were brought here by their proper Yery great hesitati_on and delicucy. I certainly would not h ave been 

custodian. the one to thrust it in heTe; but as this seems to be a sort of confessional 

Mr. LYMAN. How does the gentleman know that? on that subject, I desire to say that -when a member of the committee, 

Jifr. O'FERRALL. He appeared with them therein the committee- my friend from Tennesse~ I belie-.e [Mr. IIoux], mo-.ed that the con- room. sideration of the case be postponed for eight or ten days, I voted with 

.l\1r. LYMAN. Do vou know him? him on that -proposition. AJ though I did not desire any further time 

A MEMBER. Perhaps he, too, was forged. to co:::ne to a conClusion upon the case myself, I was quite willing, and 

Mr. COOPER. There is no question but a gentleman claiming to be more than willing, that any other gentleman who desired it should 
1888. CONGRE~SIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 599 

have any reasonable time to reread and examine thoroughly the affidavits and the records in this case. But with that view the majority 

of the committee did not agree. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of fairness, I wish to say that all the affidavits on both sides, with the exceptions which I shall mention in a moment, were carefully and intelligently read in the committee-room. · 

Thedisti.nguishedchairm.an of.the committee himself read the affidavits of the contestant, or a portion of them. There were two or three 

affidavits for the contestee'which were not fully read to the committee, 

but their substance was stated. Thecommitteewere told that they were 

merely cumub.tive as to certain points, and no member expressed any 

desire whatever~ to have them read; on the cohtrary, it was unanimously 

signified that no such desire existed . . Now, Mr. Speaker, in the face 

of these facts, I ask again what good result can follow from the adoption 

of a resolution to reopen this case? What can be hoped from it? The 

Louisiana case is cited, a case which I do not understand to be by any 

manner of means on all-fours with this. In that case there was a question as to which of two returning boards, each claiming to be a lawfully 

organized board, was authorized to give a certifica.te to the member-elect. 

The Cincinnati case is also cited. In that case there was a memorial 

asking for an investigation of the election, but here the committee 

ha,ve no memorial before them, nor do I understand that the House 

has any memorial before it. If it has, I have no knowledge of the 

fact. I wish to say further, that the result of the investigation upon 

that memorial in the First and Second districts of Ohio was not such 

as to encourage similar investigations. · A committee went forth from 

this House, clothed with all the authority the House could give them, 

and sat in solemn council in the city of Cincinnati until they got tired, 

at an expense to this Republic of over $60,000, and then they returned · 

without having found anything upon which to even predicate a report. 

I submit, therefore, without desiring to weary the House with words 

of mine, that the passage of a resolution by this House to reopen this 

case would be an injustice to the contestee, an injustice to the contest- · 

ant, and a wrong to this House itself and to the people whom we represent. 

It would be an injustice to the contestee that upon such a thin, 

shadowy, unsubstantial showing as has been made in this case, a showing which of itself demonstrates the utter impossibility of establishing the claim set up, he should be subjected to the annoyance and the 

expense incident to such a contest. I grant you that, high as his position may be as Spettker of this House, the duties of which office he 

has discharged in a manner challenging the respect and admiration not 

only of the House itself, but of the whole nation-! grant you that 

his high position does not entitle him to any more consideration or to 

any other measure of justice than that which is due to the humblest 

member of this House-if there be differences of degree here, which I 

do not understand to be the case. But I do claim for him that he is 

entitled to just the same measure of consideration and protection from 

unfounded and unjustifiable annoyance that any other member ·of this 

House is, and I submit that this House would do itself a wrong and 

any member a wrong, whoever he may be, by subjecting such member 

to the annoyance and expense of a contest of this kind, compelling him 

to expend his time, and to withdraw his attention from the discharge 

of his high and responsible duties M a member, in order to "cavort" 

around over the country, following a contestant upon such a showing. 

Such a proceeding would be an injustice to this contestant, because it 

would be an invitation to him on the part of the House to spend his 

time and money in the vain effort to find proof which does not existan invitation to attempt to accomplish the impossible feat of establishing that which is not capable of being established. 

I see itisgiven out bythecontestant, or his friends, through the press 

that he will carry this .contest before the voters of the Sixth Congressional district of Kentucky at the next election-a resolution which I 

commend-an enterprise in which I wish him success; and I hope to 

live long enough to congratnlate him upon the successful issue of his 

contest before that tribunal. 

I submit further it would be a wrong to this House for it to occupy 

its time and attention, which ought to be devoted to the interests of 

the public, upon a contest the determination of which is so obvious and 

the result so incohtestable as that in this case. 

Mr. Speaker, I propose to yield now to my friend from Illinois [.Mr. 

ROWELL]. 

Mr. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Before the gentleman takes his seat, I 

would like to ask him one question. 

Mr. COOPER. I will answer gladly, if I can. 

1tir. EZRA B. TAYLOR. Is it true there was evidence before the 

committee showing that some of the polls in that district were opened 

on the day before the law allowed them to be opened? · 

:Mr. COOPER. Not at ali. There was such an allegation in regard to 

a single precinct, the precinct of Verona. That ma.tter, however, was 

successfully explained to the committee, as I have no doubt my colleagueon the committee [Mr. RoWELL] will successfully explain it to the 

House. There was no such occurrence even in the Verona precinct, the 

only precinct as to which such an allegation was made. 

I will only say, in conclusion, that giving this contestant the benefit . of every vote which h-e specifically challenges, he still has no claim 

here to the seat. · 

Mr. SOWDEN. Did I understand the gentleman to say that the 

counsel for the contestant were present .at the time of the reading of 

those affidavits? 

Mr. COOPER. Certainly. 

Mr. SOWDEN. Was not the contestant himself also present? 

Mr. COOPER. Not when the affidavits were read by the contestee, a.s I remember~ 

1tir. SOWDEN. But his counsel were present? 

Mr. COOPER. Both his counsel were present. • 

Mr. ROWELL. I do not de1<ign to detain the House by any lengthy 

remarks. It i~ always pleasant to be found in harmony with those 

colleagues upon a committee with whom you affiliate politically, and I 

regret that I am obliged to differ with some of my party friends in this case. It is sometimes said that all the evidence needed to be presented 

to the Committee on Elections in a case of this kind is evidence showing the political parties to which the contestee and the contestant belong. So fa1: as my action is concerned, I wish to give the lie to that 

expression and that belief. I want to try to make in every case a 

record which shall be law for every other case, and not to make law ·for each individual case in accordance with party predilection. 

Let it be remembered that this case came before -the committee as an 

election contest under the statutes regulating the proceedings in such 

cases; that it is not the case of a. memorial sent to the committee to determine whether the action of the voters in any Congressional district 

shall be investigated, but a question whether the contestant is entitled 

to a seat claimed· by him in pursuance of the statute, or whether the 

contestee is entitled to retain his seat. 

As has ah'eady been said, there was and there could be no difierence 

of opinion among members of the committee upon ~he original record as 

presented to the committee. There was presented but a single question of law, and that question capable of decision in but a single way, 

so that there could be no doubt as to the result upon that queation. 

The contestant comes before the committee and files a -motion for a 

recommendation to the Honse that a committee go to Kentucky and 

investigate the conduct of the election in the Sixth Congressional 

district. Now, in accordance with the well-established practice, a 

motion of that kind in a pending case, to be successful, should he 

supported by some proof. What does the contestant do? He brings 

before the committ-ee four affidavits, the affidavit of himself and three 

other persons. In ~is own affida.-it he alleges no fact upon personal 

knowledge. He reiterates substantinJlythe same thing that he had put 

into his notice of contest. Now, I understand an application for a, rehearing, in order to have weight before a court, must be accompanied 

by the affidavits of witnesses hav~g personal knowledge of the facts 

upon which the rehearing is to be granted. 

There is no claim of personal knowledge. It is a simple affidavit of 

hearsay, an affidavit based upon information and oe1ief. But other 

affidavits follow, and in neither of them is alleged one faet which could 

possibly be material in the investigation of this case. 

It is said that the sitting member expressed the opinion on the night 

after the election that he had been defeated. What if he did? Would 

that be a legitimate question to be proved in the contest? The question of whether, on the night after the election, the Speak-er or anybody 

else believed one person or another had been elected can .have no _possible 

bearing upon the question of who was elected. 

So that in the affidavit of the contestant and in the affidavits of two 

other _persons there is raised upon perso!4'11 knowledge no question to 

be decided, not one, either to be met by counter-affidavits or to be investigated in pmof. The only question pr~ented on phin personal 

knowledge is to be found in the affidavit.ofMr. Pearce, who alleges of 

his own knowledge that the ret-urns of Carroll County·, ,in seven out of 

eight precincts of Carroll County, were in one and the same handwriting. If that affidavit was true it snows that the returns of Carroll 

County were forgeries. -But whether enough to change the result of the 

election, it was so grave a charge it ought to be investigated in the interest of all elections. Now, I understand whe~ an affidavit is so presented by one man purporting to have knowledge of facts, and another 

and opposing affidavit is presented by some other•person claiming to 

have knowledge of the same facts, it raises a question to be sent to a 

jury. 

But if I understand court proceedings, when there is a p1ea of a 

record it raises no issue of fact to be submitted to a jury, but it raises 

a question to be submitted to the court itself: Now, the only question 

to be met in the affida.vits of the contestant or the personal knowledge 

of any witness is the question of the forgeries of the returns of the 

precincts of Carroll County. Everything else i'3 so much bosh. Every 

other allegation of personal know ledge is the allegation of immaterial 

fact; and we by opening this case shall be establishing as a precedent 

that anybody who has been a candidate for Congress may neglect to 

proceed according to the statutes, u.nd wben Congress assembles come , 

in and file his affidavit that he believes certain things may be proven, 

and then that we must send out committees to investigattl that question. Then there is an end of contest under the statutes and an end 

of security for any member who received .a certificate and comes here. 

.As regards the affidavit of Pearce, there was brought before the com- mittee the clerk who was the legal custodian of these p.recinet.returns, 

who was by law one of those whose duty it was to open these ballots 
• I 

600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20,. 

when they were returned, the third day after the election, to count the 

ballots and make up the returns of the count, and to keep in custody 

the returns sent in fi·om the precincts. That clerk brings with him 

those returns, which he declares have been in his custody as their legal 

custodian from the day when they were returned to him and when they 

were brought before the committee by order of the court. They have all 

the prerequisites of a record. They have all the force of a solemn record of 

a court presented to us by the legal custodian of that record. It stood 

before us as a plea of a record, and the returns were submitted to us 

for inspection and decision as to whether they were all in one . hand~ 

writing. We did inspect the record, and the affidavit impeaching it 

was proved to have been a false affidavit. By examination it would be 

found in the printed form the blanks were filled up in the handwriting 

of the clerk, as they should be, before being sent out to the several pre~ 

cincts, and I take it, in the examination of this peculiar hand writing of 

the clerk· Pearce satisfied his conscience in saying there was the same 

pecu1iar handwriting in each one of these returns. 

Now, what issue of fact was raised which we ought to take cognizance 

of? The single one, and that one settled beyond all peradventure-an 

issue to be determined on inspection and not by the testimony of wit~ 

nesses. · · 

Why, it is said, ''Give us an opportunity and we will prove that these 

are not the original returns; give us an opportunity and we will -prove 

that the records of a court are not the rec:ords of a court." Now, I do 

not propose to open the. case: so far ·as my vote is concerned, to give any~ 

body an opportunity to'att.empt to falsity the solemn records made in 

pursuance oflaw py the courts of Kentucky or anywhere else, because 

it is too herculean a task for-anybody to attempt. 

Mr. BRUMM. How do you know they were the records of the court? 

l'lfr. ROWELL. Because they are identified a-nd verified, as the law 

provides, by the custodian of the records, and by order under the seal 

of the judge of that court himself. 

Mr. BRUMM. But the custodian of the records is also the custo~ 

dian of the seal. 

Mr. ROWELL. Certainly. 

Mr. BRUMM:. Then you have simply one man against one man, 

one official against another, one oath against another oath. 

Mr. ROWELL. Every record, every~rtificate brought here by every 

member who comes here with the great seal of the State upon it, is 

precisely the same character of record; and you might just as well chal~ 

lenge that seal, and declare that the Clerk of this House did not know 

that somebody had not stolen the seal and put it on without authority; 

or that the officer provided by law had not himself committed a forgery 

and perjury. 

Mr. BRUMM. When it is challenged under oath there is an issue 

raised, no matter whether it is a question even as to the seal of the State, 

for it is after all only· the action of the individual that places it there. 

Mr. ROWELL. It is not challenged under oath except by one man, 

himself not the custodian of these records, himself not capable of iden~ 

tifying what the ·records are in any court. The only way you may 

identify the records when produced in evidence is to bring the regular 

legal custodian, and not some outside party to swear to them. 

Mr. BRUMM. Does the gentleman pretend that the legal custodian 

of a record, who is also the legal custodian of the seal attached to th~ 

recerd which is the evidence of the action of the court, that if that cus~ 

toclian has falsely placed: the seal of his office upon a piece of paper, and 

committed a perjury by swearing it is on original paper, that you will 

· shut your eyes and not tolerate an investigation into the fact, when that 

fact is challenged under oath? That is all the question involyed in this 

case; and I would like to know the gentleman's view of that subject. 

Mr. ROWELL. No, I do not exactly claim that; but I do claim 

that when some unknown party files an ex ra1'te affidavit that the rec~ 

ords are, in his judgment, in one and the .same handwriting, that the 

solemn records of the case, identified by the legal custodian that the 

people have placed over them, are so conclusive that there is scarcely a 

shadow cast across them by somebody whom I do not know coming in 

and offering an affidavit that he thinks the records are all in one hand~ 

writing. 

Mr. BRUMM. But you do not even know the clerk. You know 

one as well as the other. 

Mr. ROWELL. No, I do not know the clerk; ·but I know that he 

has the confidence of the lawful authorities of the State of Kentucky. 

I know that the official in question has the confidence of the people to 

the extent that he manages estates; the interests of children are intrusted to his .keeping and care, and I know in the solemn way official 

records are identified that these records are before us. · 

Now, if we are to enga-ge in the business of investigation at the beck 

and call of everybody, we ought to go into this investigation. But 

the committee had to consider the things before them. It was not a question of public policy. It was a simple question of a contested elec~ 

tion made up first hy a record taken in pursuance of law, but second 

by affidavits filed for a new triaJ, and these affidavits were gotten up to secure that. 

Mr. BRUMM. .A.re you not rather in error when you say that this 

is an application for a new trial? 

Mr. ROWELL. No, sir. 

Mr. BRUMM. I beg pardon; I think you are. .A.n application for 

a new trial is always made after the verdict. It is pending a trial of 

the facts themselves and the issue that an application is made upon an 

affidavit for a fair opportunity to traverse the facts alleged to exist in 

this case. One of the facts alleged is that the attorneys had divulged 

the secrets of their client. 

Mr. ROWELL. Well, perhaps technically the application was not 

made after the verdict; but it was in the nature of a verdict after all. 

Mr. BRUMM. Who delivered it? 

}(fr. R6WELL. It was after the verdict of the committee, because 

it was substantially conceded that the verdict upon the record could 

be but one way. There was and could be no difference of opinion 

among men that had any knowledge of legal questions. So that it 

was a motion-well, put _it in another way-that it was a motion to 

reopen the case and go back to the people and try to take some more 

testimony, the same role that would be applied after an order of court 

to close testimony, and the day of closing had passed for the parties t() 

come in and ask a new order reopening the hearing. And when seek~ 

ing to do that they must bring the n.ffidavits of the witnesses who pur~ 

port to know the facts and not the affidavits .of the interested party 

upon information and belief. 

Mr. STEELE. These returns, as I understand, were identified &Rd 

sworn to by a number of others besides the clerk. 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes; they were identified by oceans of affidavits. 

But the affidavits of fact on the one side and the affidavits of fact on 

the other have raised an issue of fact that ought to be submitted to the 

jury, and hence I considered none of the affidavits except the one 

identifying these returns, because it is a proper way to identify them. 

I treat this matter simply as I would treat a plea of a record submitted 

to the court and not to the jury. 

I would like, if I could find it in my conscience, to reopen tbis ease, 

because this contestant seems to believe that if it was reopened some~ 

thing would turn up. But when a contestant comes before a commit~ 

tee and says, "I can prove certain things by witnesses whose names I 

withhold from this committee, and whose names I will disclose after a 

committee is a.ppointed to investigate," such a statement does not come to me with very·much persuasive force in favor of reopening the case. 

Mr. WARNER. Will the gentleman yield to me for a question? 

Mr. ROWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. W .A.RN~R. If I understand the gentleman's position correctly, 

it is that an issue of fact should not have been passed on by the Com~ 

mittee on Elections on ex parte affidavits. 

Mr. ROWELL. That is correct. 

Mr. WARNER. I will ask the gentleman if it is not now an issue 

of fact whether these returns that come themselves out of the jurisdic~ 

tion of the court without any process here in Washington before the 

committee were the returns which were alleged? 

Mr. ROWELL. My friend from Missouri is mistaken. It was not 

a question of fact resting in the knowledge of witnesses. These records 

were not out of the jurisdiction of the court without legal authority. 

These records were here by order of the court. They were here in the 

custody of their proper custodian. They are identified as the records; 

and yon can not bring against the record parol testimony. 

1\fr. W .A.RNER. I presume the gentleman has consulted the laws of 

Kentucky. I understand him to say that these records are here within 

the jurisdiction of the court and by proper order of the court. Is ihere 

any law of the State of Kentucky that authorizes the clerk to take the 

records of that court beyond the jurisdiction of that State? 

Mr. ROWELL. I have not examined the laws of Kentucky, but 

there is a presumption-in favor of the legal judgment of a court. 

Mr. WARNER. Then do I understand the gentleman to give this 

as the opinion of the committee, that it is a presumption if the clerk 

comes here with the records that they are correct? 

Mr. ROWELL. No, sir. You do not correctly understand me in 

that way. But when a court makes an order, Isaythatpresumptively 

it has adjudged according to law. 

Mr. W .A.RNER. If the court make an order without its jurisdiction, 

I ask the gentleman what would be the effect in that case? . 

Mr. ROWELL. If the court makes an order without having jmis~ 

diction in a case, its order is a nullity when the lack of jurisdiction 

appears. 

Mr. COOPER. If my colleague will allow me to make a suggestion, 

what difference does it make whether there was an order or not, if it 

be true that the records came here and were before the committee? 

Mr. ROWELL. Not a bit. We got a chance to seethe records with~ 

out going to Carroll County. The material question here is a plea of 

record~ and that 1-s to be determined by inspection and not by the ex~ 

amination of witnesses. That is all there is in ~his case; and if that 

be so, the minority should have joined the majority in tbe declaration 

that there is no occasion for this House to reopen the case in this pro~ 

ceeding of Mr. Thobe to contest the right of the sitting member to a seat. What action I might take on a. proper memorial is a. question 

for other consideration. It is not one to be conside1·ed in this contested 

case when the record is.presented to the committee. 

For these reasons I have been compelled to withhold my signature 

from the views of my associates of the minority side of the committee, 
1888.- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 601 

much as it would have gratified me to join them in recommending the 

reopening of the case. Mr. LoDGE rose. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts 

[Mr. LODGE] is entitled to the floor, as a member of the committee, for one hour. 

Mr. LODGE. As the committee has been put in the confessional on the matter of forcing a--vote in regard to the affidavits, I should like 

to state exactly what occurred for the benefit of the House. We listened to the affidavits of the contestee during the entire morning; we then took a recess and came in, if my memory serves me right, at half 

past 1 o'clock. · Mr. BUCKALEW. I call the gentleman to order. 

The SPEAKER pro temopre. What is the gentleman's question of 

order? 

1t'Ir. BUCKALEW. I raise the point' of order that it is not in order 

to debate th~ proceedings in the committee, and the gentleman who now holds the floor has given notice that he proposes to re-enter that 

:field of- debate which had been interrupted. For that reason I interpose. _ 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of Indiana. · I should like to say a word on the 

point of order. I want to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 

BuCKALEW], if it is in order-for the secrets of the committee-room to 

be given out and published in the public prints, whether it is not in 

order for a member of that committee to tell on this floor just what 

"did happen in the committee-room? 

Mr. LONG. I suggest, lf there is anything in this point of order, 

it is made too late, as this bas already been a matter of discussion. 

Mr. RYAN. Certainly. Discussion bas proceeded upon the theory 

that it was right. 

The SPEAKER pro temp01·e. The point of order is not made too 

late. It can be made at any time during the progress of the debate. 

Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, I should not have raised this question 

of what took place in the committee, but it has been discussed freely 

on this floor. When it was under discussion between the gentleman 

from Iowa [Mr. LYMAN] and the chairman of the committee, the honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], the point of order was not 

pressed by the gentlemanfromPennsylvanh• [Mr. BucKALEW], and I 

think that as a mere matter of courtesy each member of the committee 

might be allowed to make a statement. 

1\Ir. BUCKALEW. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will 

not press the point. 

Mr. LODGE. We came in, as I remember, at about half past 1. 

It was moved by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Houx:] that a 

week should be allowed for the documents on both sides to be printed, 

and an opportunity given us to read and examine them. That motion 

was voted down without discussion, and that was the whole of that 

businesS. 

Now, as to the position of the m:iiiority. Speaking as one of •those who signed the minority report, their position seems to me an extremely simple one. The case on the original record as it has been so ably argued by the chairman of the committee both in hls report and 

before the House this afternoon, is perfectly plain. It requires no argument. On the case as made up on the. printed record there was no room for question. Every man on that committee would have voted 

in favor of the contestee. But a motion was made to reopen the case. 

Affidavits were presented by the contestant's counsel and by the con- . testant himself. Those affidavits were met a week later by counteraffidavits, which, I freely aamit, rebut them entirely. I am not going 

to weary the House by discussing those affidavits. I desire to make 

this one point: If we are going to try election cases on affidavits, why 

does the practice act of this House provide that they shall be tried by 

taking testimony ? 

Mr. HEARD. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. LODGE. Yes. 

Mr. HEARD. I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts to 

concede that upon the record there is no L<:Sue between us-that we are all agreed. Mr. LODGE. So I understand. . 

Mr .. HEARD. And I understand the gentleman now to admit that so far as those affidavits are concerned, they are completely answered 

by those presented in rebuttal. Therefore, I ask him, what was there 

for us tq try, and what is there to induce us to reopen the case? 

Mr. LODGE. I am coming to that. There was a week taken to get 

those rebutting affidavits, and the very able gentlemen in charge of the case of the contestee would have been much duller than I suppose them ever to be if they could not, in that time, procure affidavits to rebut 

those presented for the contestant. The point I submit is this: The 

practice of the House before the present practice act, the praetice of 

the House to-day under the existing practice act, is not to try election cases by affidavit. 

l!Ir. ENLOE. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. LODGE. I can not yield. I have but very little to say, and I 

will soon come to an end. The next point is that the practice act, as we all know, shuts out further evidence. The question, then, is simply 

whether the House will settle this case on affidavits, or-whether it con- siders the case one of sufficient gravity to reopen it. It seeme<i to me in 

its significance and its meaning, it seemed to me in the allegations that 

were made, too important a case to be settled in this way. It seemed 

to me that it was a case that deserved the attention of the American - Congress. . It seemed to me that, considering particularly the enormous 

di~parity of political position between the contesta,nt and the contestee, we should proceed with great circumspection and not quite so hastily 

as we have proceeded. In the case of Butterworth and Young, which 

has been cited on this floor, there was no notice of contest; there was no contest made; there was simply a petition from less than twenty-five 

citizens of Cincinnati, alleging fraud. 

In a week probably a bushel basketful of affidavits could have been 

brought in rebutting the statements in that memorial; but the honorable Speaker of this House, who was at that time a member on this 

floor, stood here and advocated in the most liberal terms the opening 

of that case, which was as much excluded by the practice act as the 

present case is excluded by the present practice act. I think the attitude which he then assumed, of going beyond and through the practice 

act when the seat of a member of this House was called in question, 

was the correct attitude. The ground which he then took I believe 

to be the correct ground, and I think so, not only on account of ~he 

importance of removing the slightest taint which may attach to the 

seat of any member, but also because I think it is very important that a false impression of the attitude of this House in this particular case 

should not go forth to the country. 

The contestantwas not a .Republican candidate. He was the candidate of certain labor organizations and of the labor party. He is a 

poor man. He has been unable to bear the expenses of this contest. 

There is no doubt whatever-any one who reads the record and the testimony of his counsel will admit-that his case was shockingly mismanaged. He comes here and in a large measure throw.s himself upon 

the mercy of the committee and of the House. There is, as every man 

knows, a widespread belief among the great working classes of this 

country that the power of corporations, the power of " trusts," the 

power of "rings," the power of men in high authority, backed by 

money and influence, has enormous weight in all legislative bodies in 

this country. Whether that belief is_ erroneous-and I am happy to say 

that I believe it to be-matters not. That belief is abroad; aud it is 

an unwholesome, a dangerous belief. · It is the kind of vague theory to which agitators opposed to every form 

of order and society appeal. And I do think that when an honest man, 

whose affiliations are with the working classes, and who ran as their 

especial candidate, comes before this House asking simply for a hearing-for this contestant says that if there is one majority against him 

he does·not desire to be seated-! do believe that it can do no harm to 

any man or any body of men or to the interests of the people to allow 

a hearing of -the case . . It has been said that in the Cincinnati case the committee went out, 

spent sonie time and a great deal of money, and then came back without enough to hang a report upon. Suppose they did; when alJegations of this sort are made in regard to an election to this House, and 

when the contestant is such a man as I have stated, I think this House can afford, as has been said in the· report of the minority of the committee, to temper justice with a very large measureof generosity. And 

I can not reconcile to my mind the policy which has been alluded to 

by my colleague on the committee, the gent1eman from Ohio [MI·. 

COOPER], of limiting contests. I can not see why the contesteeshould 

desire to assume the attitude which has been assumed by his friends 

·and counsel in this case. The examination of the case has been bur~ 

ried. Every effort has beeri made to stop the investigation. It seems 

to me (speaking for myself) that if allegations of this sort were made 

in any contest as to my right to a seat, I should for my own sake wish 

the matter to. be probed to the bottom. 

For these reasons I signed the minority report, because I think no harm and no injustice can be done by a further examination of this 

case. I do not base this position upon the question of affidavits or upon the printed record; I urge it simply as a ma.tter of good policy, 

of exact and equal justice to aU. [Applause]. 

Mr. CRISP. I now ask unanimous consent that the contestant [Mr. 

Thobe] be allowed to address the House, if he desires to do so. The SPEAKER pro ternpore. It is customary to grant such requests 

by unanimous consent. The (.."'hair hears no objection. 

Mr. CRISP. I hope that members will remain here, so that we may 

vote on this question this evening. 

Mr. THOBE (the contestant). Mr. Speaker, I am not here wHh any 

set speech prepared by my attorneys or anybody else. I claim simply 

that right which every American citizen has the right to claim under 

the law, to hear that which may be advanced against him and to reply 

to it. Now for the first time have I seen the affidavits which have been 

before the committee. I dispatched to lihe chairman of the committee 

Monday morning before I left home, Cihcinnati, to come here, to please 

withhold the report of the committee and prevent action of the House 

untillarrivedin Washington. I brought with mea protest, and I would 

like the Clerk t{) read it . . 
; 

602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

The Clerk read as follows; 

To the honorable the OommiUee on Elections, 

House of Representatives, Fijtlelh (Jongress: 

I, George H. Thobe, on my own behali and on behalf of a majority of the 

qualified electors of the Sixth Congressional district of Kentucky, protest hereby 

against your committee reporting adversely on the question of reopening the contest between myself nnd John G. Carlisle until I have had an opportunity to examine the affidavits iiled by 1\ir. Carlisle and to file counter-affidavits 

thereto. - I represent to your committee that upon the mere request of Mr. Carlisle he wns given one week in which to file affidavits adverse to those tiled by me in 

support of the motion to reopen the case; yet, notwithstanding the opportqnity granted to him, your committee, within one hour after discussion on the 

motion, decided -ad'Versely thereto. 

Right and justice demanded, and still demu.nd.'l.. ~ least a reasonable time in 

which I may examine the affid3.vits tiled on behau of the Speaker of the House, 

and oppose them by affidavits of citizens of equal standing and reputation. 

This, by the action of your committee, has been denied me. I do not care to call the attention of your committee to the fact that I 3om the first 

candidate of the Union Labo1· party, myself a mechanic, and whose friends are in 

the humble walks of life, ito contest for my right to a seat in the House of Representatives, nor that the contestee is the Speaker, but I do call your attention 

earnestly to the fact that I am contesting only for the freedom of elections and 

the right of the electors to choose whom they will to represent them, be he 

lawyer or be he mechanic. · There is not an affidavit, so fnr us has been stated in the public prints as having been filed on behalf of the Speaker, but can be controverted successfully. If othe1·s were filed, of which I have had no notice, I am entitled to the same rights, so far as asserting my title to my seat, as is the distinguished Speaker. 

If any proof were needed to establish the fact that my cause was mismanaged 

and betrayed by Logan A. Wood, the fact tlult he delivered up letters to the contestee which were given to him by me while we occupied the r-elation of 

attorney and client should be all-sufficient. The obligations of confidence do not cease when an attorney is discharged, nor whether he quits a cause be- cause of the refusal of a client to perform for him political services at a nominating convention. • I deny his stat;ement that I only furnished him~3. I furnished him over $250. I .charge that if the" poll-books of Carroll Co;mty," exhibited before your committee, were other than I have charged them to be, then they were not the 

b~~~~f.oks which were in the office of that county clerk when examined on my . 

I call the attention of your committee to the disparity of resources possessed 

by me compared with those possessed by the Speaker of the House, the con- testee, since, in defiance of the laws of Kentucky prohil;Jiting such acts nuder · pains s.nd penalties, the county clerk of Carroll County, a sworn office"!', takes · beyond the limits of his county, not in obedience to a subprena from any court nor from your committee, a portion of the ~·ecords of his office; and not only 

beyond the limits of his county, but beyond the boundaries of the Commonwealth. 

I deny as utterly untrue, in every particular, the affidavit said to have been .. filed, to the effect that I said that I did not want to go int-o the case. and would 

like to get out of it; nor that if it had not been for the "slush" cast at me and at L. A. 'Vood, I would get out of the case; nor that "I intended to send the papers to Washington, that General Sypher might make what he could out ot it;" nor that I thought "that it would be a great deal." 

I do not know the full extent of that affidavit, because no time was given to examine it; but so far us I have been ad vised of it by the publw prints, I charge it to be untrue. As t-o all other affidavits filed herein, of which I have not been advised, I claim 

tho right to e.xftmine and refute them. 

I charge that the sole reason why the deposition of Col. R. W. Nelson was not taken and presented to your committee, was solely because of the insistence by 

counsel for the contestee that the names should be given of the gentlemen whom 

he met, or who met him in Covington, after the election, when it was said that 

Cal'lisle was beaten unless something coul-d be done; but that befor~refusing to proceed further with his deposition Colonel Nelson had deposed thal; they were close personal and political friends of Speaker Carlisle, and gentlemen of high 

standing, and influential in Covington. 

I charge that the statements as to the confe-rence of certain friends of Mr. Carlisle h~ld after the election are true; that it was matter of common notoriety 

after the election that such conference was held; and a reopening of .this case would establish the facts charged with reference to it. 

There are many gentlemen of standing in the Demo-cratic J>arty other than 

those who have disclaimed knowledge of such conference. 

Neither the qualities nor the abilities of myself nor of .the Speaker enter into 

the question; but the same rights your committee granted to him. I demand for 

myself in the name of law, of right, of justice, and of the people of th;e Sixth 

Congressional district of Kentucky, who elected me their Represent.•l.tive in Con- gress, and who, if the action of your committee be not reversed, will be denied 

their choice at the polls. 

I claim only the right wbioh the humblest citizen may claim uniler the law- to hear that which has been advanced against .my cause, and to reply to it. 

GEORGE H. THOBE. 

Swom and subscribed to before me this 17th day of January, A. D. 18SS. [SEAL.] ROBT. V. HUGHES, 

Notary Puhlic. 

Mr. THOBE (the contestant). ·Mr. Speaker, I submitted that sworn statement, which bas just been read, to the Committee on Elections, 

and it was rejected, disregarded, and returned to me by the chairman, 

with the following letter: 

HOUSE Oll' REPll.ESENTATivEs, U. S., ·wa.sh.inglOll>, D. 0., Jawuary 18, 1888. 

Sin: The chairman of the committee received inclosed affidavit yesterday. To-day he submitted it to the committee, and was directed to return it to you , with statement that so far as this committee is concerned the case 1·eferred to therein is closed. 

Very respectfully, 

CHARLES F. CRISP. 

J. H. SYPHER, Esq. 

Here, then, is a flat and .indignant refusal of the committee to even 

hear me; and they indecently rushed the report through the committee and submitted it to the House before I could reach the CapitoL If 

I was a criminal chnrged wilhraheinous crime I could not have been 

treated with less respect to my rights as a citizen by this partisan committee. 

M1·. Speaker, I made this contest in good .faith, and not by word or 

by a single action have I ever shown it was .not in good faith. I was legally elected by the qualified voters of the Sixth district of Kentucky. It was commonlyunderstoodandannounced that mymajority 

was over 2, 900. In Kenton and Campbell it was laFger than the entire 

'Vote in:thetOther six counties. 

Much stress has been laid by the gentleman from Ohio [Ur. CooPER] 

upon the affidavit of Cambron, who made an affidavit as to what Mr. 

Carlisle said in an interview printed in the Cincinnati Evening Telegram. Now whab was it he did say? We have been able to find, 

after much trouble, one copy, and perhaps the only one which is preserved, of that paper of November 3, 1886. We had these printed 

[holding up a pink copy] and scattered throughout the district. Let 

me read from this copy: 

[From the Evening Telegram, last edition, Vol. 2, No. 18'7.] 

CINCINNATI, OHIO, l.~vember 3, 1886. 

MR. CARLISLE TALKS. 

The Telegram met 1\Ir. Carlisle in Covington this morning nnd had quite a. chat with him. The Sp~n.ker is smiling, and looks on his very probo.ble defeat 

with the utmost composure. He said : 

"The result is entirely owing to the fact that Democrats felt nb concern what- e>er in my election, and would pass the polls with the remark that 'that man Thobe would not get 100 votes!' Why, there was money, and plenty of it, furnished by manufacturing concerns back of this movement. They went round 

quietly before the election, and were thoroughly organized in every p1·ecinctin 

the district. The district was flooded with their tickets just before the election. 

If my information is correet, and I hnve no reason for doubting it, 1\:Ir. Thobe 

will be the next Congressmn.n.; .and I will feel n. sense of personal 1-elief that I 

have not felt before for ten years. I will feel that a heavy load has been lifted 

fromme." · 

The other copies of this edition have been burned or destroyed by 

Carlisle's partisans. For this copy a gentleman was offured :!)20, and 

perhaps it is the only one in existence in that neighborhood. 

That was the talk. I tlo not come here and ask for my sent. I say 

simply, gentlemen, I ask for simple justice and fair play. I have a memorial here containing the signatures of 3, 000 'Voters-more signatures 

of voters than perhaps some members received 'Votes at their election. 

(Laughter and applause.] All we ask is simply to investigate n.nd 

learn just what my majority was in the district. In fad, I had .an admitted majority of over 2,000 when the polls closed. 

There was particular stress put upon the fact that the contestee's 

affidavit was here. I sa.w only a little synopsis of it. I dicJ not know 

to what extent it went. I should like to have had time to have put 

in that protest,and to have stated what is the opinion of gentlemen in 

regard to this matter of mine of equal standing in their community 

with any upon this floor. 

But I must submit, it is a pitiable spectacle for the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives to bolster himself up by his own affidavit to 

maintain himself in a seat in this House upon a fraudulent title. 

If yon do not grant this prayer to in'Vestigate this election, but close 

down, I do not think you are doing justice to the election laws and to 

the ballot-box of this country. One of the speakers during this debate 

has said-the gentleman from Ohio. [Mr. CooPER]-that the time had 

expired, and therefore be had 'Voted against opening the case. 

The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia, stated 

that seven dn.ys were only used to take proof. That is true) and I will 

tell you how it was. A icw d~ys after the election Senat<>r VooRHEES was interviewed, and in that published interview he said, '.l Why 

Thobe will stand but a slim chance of a hearillg, much le...~ of the seat.'' 

And the attorney I employed, Logan A. Wood, in whom I had full con- fidem:e, about the beginning of December, 1886, in apublished card of 

over .a column and a. h~lf~ referred to it, and quoted language of a gentleman from Kentucky, Hon. Mr. McCREARY, where he was &'lid to 

have stated in an interview that if Carlisle's majority was 10,000 I 

would still oontest. In that c..<trd or repmt my attorney says the f:bmds 

are so glaring on all hands that they can be easily proven. 

Mr. :McCREARY. L~t . me ask what paper that n.lleged interview 

was in? 

Mr. THOBE. In the Cincinnati CommerciaL 

:Mr. McCREARY. By whom written? 

:Ur. THOBE. By my .attorney, Logan A. Wood. 

Ur . .Af.cCREARY. And that purports to be an interview with me? 

J\Ir. THOBE. No; that interview is copied from the Courier-Journal, which purported to contain an interview with you, and he (Wood) 

replied to it. .:. :row, gentlemen) I wish to explain to the members of the committee 

and of the Ho11Se why I think it no more than just that I should have an opportunity of reopening this case. . I ask simply to have justice 

and fail.· pln.y, nothing more .. The very fact that I . intrusted these letters to that attorney, Wood, and went to my work da,y by day, he telling me that I should not lose any time, that he would attend to it, and 

I working, so that by my wages I could pay him-and I did pay him 

between .$250 ru1d $3001 although be states in his affidavit that all thn.t 

he eYer 1·eceived wa.s $43. That statement is false, and he knows it. 

It is true that I recei'Ved a small amount from an organization in Cincinnati; but on the second day after the election I paid him, Wood, in 

the presence of:five or six witnesses, wentto the bank and drew out all 

the money I had there, $95, and on the 16th of November I paid him 

$50 more, .aJld then afterwards sums of$25 and $10, mn.king up the 

whole amount I stated, in the aggregate being not less than $2-50. 

But now be comes and &'tys that "Tho be only paid him $43." H&" 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 603 

said in that card there was no question that gre..'l.tfrauds had been committed; that they were so glaring that theycould be-easilyproved wh€n 

the time came to take testimony. And, by the way, in this card which 

he published, he refers to three or four prominent Democra-ts who were 

heard talking on the street corners, using such language as, "'This is 

getting dangerous for the Speaker and his party. We must buy the 

'l'hobe party off." Then, in his own room, he &'\ys to me, "Thobe, 

we have g{)t them; they are getting afraid; we can make some money 

out of them." This part of the st-atement he denies, but he does not 

deny having the conversation. 

But I still had confidence in him; that he would go on and attend to 

my c..'\Se; and I urged him day after day to do so. In the meanwhile 

he told me that Carlisle's answer was enough to unseat him. I said 

time and time again if I could not show the people that a fraud had 

been committed, and that I was legally and fairly entitled to the seat, 

I would not make the contest. . 

I said, '' If I can not do so I will decline to enter it.'' I was bones t 

in my intentions. In the last seven days my attorney did take a little 

testimony in Covington; and if you had -seen Carlisle's attorney sitting there laughing and smiling while that was going on you would 

know what he toought it would amount to. It was then being reported, gentlemen, that the Thobe case did not amount to anything, 

and that they still had hopes the case would not be opened and Thobe 

would not have a chance to prove the facts that he alleged. It is not 

to be expected, gentlemen, that men holding positions in that Democrati-c stronghold will volunteer to give testimony against one of their 

own party in such a case. But you can get that testimony by having 

a proper committee duly authorized. They arc honest men and will 

tell the truth, and you will find that a conference was held by Carlisle's friends and that something was done to bring in enough >otes 

from these six outlying counties to 'overcome my majority of 2, 062 in 

Kenton and Campbell Counties. 

· ·Gentlemen, Here are something like 31 000 voters whose names are 

appended to this memoriaL They are not bankers nor wealthy merchants, bu.t they are men like myself, who labor in the shops, factoTies, 

and farms of the Sixth district. Two-thirds of them are voters living 

in Covington and employed across the .river in Cincinnati. Here are 

the papers, and the names will show for themselves. 

It has been stated that I was getting voters from Cincinnati to sign 

their names to this petition, because it happened that I w-ent there to 

the factories to ask them to sign. B~t the facts aTe that those persons 

that I went to there were employed in the factories of Cincinnati, but 

not a man bus signed this paper except those wlw lived and voted in 

that district. Still an effort has been made to show that ·au of these 

names were fraudulmrt. Why shouJd this House det-ermine to refuse 

to reopen the case? No previous House of Representatives has disregarded such a petition. No American Congress has ever attempt-ed to 

deny the right of petition and do justice in such a case. "' If you do so 

in this case, you establish aprecedent without a parallel in the history 

of our eountry. 

Gentlemen, I am sorry that the working claS3 of our country have 

begun to lose confidence in the security of the ballot; and if the ballot 

is not pure and honest, what laws can you make that will bejust and 

secure the rights of the people? [Applause.] 

I am proud of Kentuch--y, where I was born, but there are mnnl 

thipgs there that I am not pr<md of. Twenty-seven years ago I was an 

apprentice boy at my trade. If I had then been in a lawyer's office 

'reading law, perhaps I might stand a little different now. 

But I do not consider it a very great ho-nor exactly to be a member 

of this House. [Great laughter.] Gentlemen, what I meant by the 

remark was this: that I think the mechanic -who invents something 

useful, the farmer and the miner who discharge their duties faithfully, 

are just as honorable and noble, and just as much entitled to respect, as 

any citizens of this country. If every member here were 1ike the Kentucldan whom we all adm:il'e, who would rather be right than be President, these seats would be :filled by the right men. When you can 

~ay that in your long lives of public service you were never influenced 

y pecuniary or selfish motives, but had a single eye to the welfare of 

your people, then we would hc'l.Ve the legislation we ought tQ have and 

there would be ~ealized what Ingersoll has beautifully said, that under 

this flag of ours the weak-est must be protected and the strongest must 

obey. 

I am not here asking for favors. Simple jasticeis all I ask, and that 

is all that those petitioners in my district are asking. In seeking to 

reopen this case I do not make any capital or propose to make any, because I am a working m:m. .I am sorry some people think they might 

be under some obligation in regru:d to their vote in this matter because 

of the difference between myself and the distinguished Speaker. But 

I do n-ot dwell on that for .a moment. The humblest citizen has as much right and is entitled to as much as the highest. · 

Gentlemen, I do not wish to take up much time. If I had had tiine 

to look O\er those affidavits I might have made some-notes in regard to 

th~~· I did make a few while the discussion was going on. J, eferen ce has been made to the fac!i that in some cases the ballotboxes were opened before the proper day for counting the vote. That was in Trimble County. The ballot-boxes were opened and the ballots 

counted on the second day, while the law directs that that shall be 

don.e on the third day. Some 300 votes were counted for 1\-Ir. Carlisle 

and 3 for me. In every county I received some votes. 

When I have met some of the first m.en in that district and I have 

asked, ''Do you honestly believe M:r. Carlisle was elected? '' they answer, "'N{)." The feeling there-is that :hir. Carlisle was not elected, 

but was defeated, but you can not expect those gentlemen to come for- ward and testify. If, however, you put them on the "Wit;uess-stand 

they will tell the truth. 

My local attorney in Covington told me what had been said on the 

Sunday after the election. by a prominent _politician: ''We will fix that 

fellow; he has been a. Democrat for so many years and has now turned 

against us, and we will fix him." I have no party there)o back me, 

no officials in those co1rnties to tnke my part as the Democratic party 

has. The Republican party is doing nothing in my behalf down there. 

and I never asked them to do anything for me. I have simply asked 

for justice. The great majority of the votes I received came from the 

workingmen, who had been trying, for long years to get a fair cb-a-D:ce. . 

Gentlemen, canyon afford to not investigate this mat'"tJCr thoroughly? 

I make no threats and do not want to be understo~:ni so. I expect to 

never lose confidence in the ballot, whi-ch is the only remedy I see by· 

which the people can redress any wrong that may beiliU this country 

and its people. 

Mr. BRUMM. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt hlm, I 

will suggest that he send that memorial up to the desk and have it 

made part of his remarks. 

Mr. THOBE. I will do so. 

To the Con!JTcss of the United States: 

The undersigned, citizE."ns and electors of the Sixth Congressional district of the State of Kentucky, respectfully represent: That at the election for member of Congress In the said district, held on Tuesday, the 2d day.ofNovember, A. D. 1835, in accordance with the acts of Congre...<:S and the laws of the State of Kentncl:cy in Umt behalf made and provided, there was not a fnll, fair, and im- partial expression of a majority of the qualified voters of said Congressional dish·ict in regard to their choice for a member of Congress for said district in the Fiftieth Congress of the United States, for the following reasons: . 1. That in the matter of the appointment, service, and qualifications of the election officers, there was an open, intentional, and corrupt violation of law, in that; the said election officers we1·e not appointed in the interest of a fair election and an honest count and return of the vote so cast, bnt were appointed to aid and assist in the election of J. G. Cal"lis!e, the candidate of the Democratic party, to the injury and prejudice and defeat of George .H. '.rho be, the opposing candi- date .of the Union Labor party. 

2. That gTOss frauds were perp etrated and committed by ~he supporters Gnd 

partisans of John G. Carlisle, in his interest and for his benefit, in the counties of 'fiimble, Grant, Gallatin, Campbell. Carroll, Boone, Pendl.eton, and Kenton. 3. That the returned majority of 82.5 >otes which it 'vas alleged was received 

by John G. Carlisle in the said Congressional eleetio.n is false and frnndulent. 4. That your memorialists further charge, in consequence of the outrageous fmuds perpetrated at the election an din the district aforesaid, John G. Carlisle was falsely and wrongfully returned as a member-elect from said Congressional distri~t, and he, the sa.id Cal.'lisle, now occupies and holds said 'Seat to the in- jury and p1·ejudiee of a majority of ti1e legally qualifiedelectorsofthe said State and Congressional district. 5. And beoil.llse in many election pre.cinets ·in the counties of the said Sixth district of Kentucky the polls were not opened until after the hour .of 6 o'clock, aad were closed before 4 o'clock of said day, in open violation of the laws of Kentuck-y, thereby preventing ma.ny persons from voting for said Thobe who 

otherwise would have voted for him. · And your memorialists herewith present a ·number of affidavits in suppm-t -of tl:;le allegations herein contained, and they aver that the charges therein can be sub~tantiated by a great numher of reliable and credible witnesses. 

Wherefore your petitioners respectfully request in the interest of good govern· ment and of honest and impartial elections, to the end that an h-onest ballot and a fuir count may be had in the Sta.te -and district aforesaid, that y6ur honorable body may direct to be made and make a thorough and searching investigation into the matters herein set "forth as to the conduct, and results of said election in the State and Congressional district lli"Mcsaid, to the end that full and com- plct~ justice ma.y be done in the premises. 

Mr. Spea.ker, the sjguers of this memorial are voters of the Sixth 

Kentucky district. Does any member of this House suppose these 

3,000 voters would sign such a petition if the contest was not being 

prosecuted in good iaith? They are in earnest and so am I, and all we 

ask is justice, and we do :not believe you can afford to deny us. Great 

. stress was.laid on the poll-books of Carroll County. The gentleman 

who inv-estiga.ted them on two or three occasions told me they were in 

one handwriting. Private marks were made on them. He made a. private mark on each one of those poll-books that no one else knew. 

I feel now certain in my own mind tha-t those poll-sheets presented 

here to the committee were not the original .ones. I have every reason 

to believe that the gentleman sent iu my behalf put a private mark on 

tliose poll-books. If those produced have that private mark, right 

and well. So much for the great stress laid on the poll-books from 

Carroll County. But I assert here and now that if this House will reopen this ~a.se and investigate the matter honestly and thoroughly, it 

will be found t1mt the poll-sbeets produced on behalf of the Speaker 

.are as false and fraudulent as the certificate on whicl1 .he holds his se..'lt 

in this House. Those poll-sheets are spurious and were manufactured 

and dumlJed upon the committee and this House to save the Speaker. 

Mr. BRillll\L Were you present when these poll-books were before 

the committee? 

Mr. THOBE. I was not, and .I never saw them. The committee 

aecepted these spurious papers with~mt question. 

Gentlemen, if I can notproYethatthat conference of Carlisle's friends was held after the election, and that something w::tS done, as I have 
• I 

604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 'J .ANUARY 20, 

charged, to change the honest result, I am willing to rest my case on that. 

If a committee would go down to Covingtonandsubprenagentlemen 

of hlgh standing there and examine them, then if we could not prove 

that a conference was held I would give up the fight. I am positive 

about it, gentlemen. It was common talk. Not enough votes were polled to overcome the large majority of the workingmen in those two 

counties, which was 2,062. Ifmyattorney, L.A. Wood, had been true 

to me, there is no doubt he could have proven these facts; and because 

he was not true to me I wish to have this case reopened, in any way you 

gentlemen see fit, and I am certain that we will prove up this case to 

your satisfaction. The people there do not wish to volunteer t·heir testimony, but their testimony can be had by a committee. Another 

thing, gentlemen; it has been said again and again in conversation by men of character and high standing, "Mr. Carlisle was defeated; but 

then, look at the man Thobe. It is betterto say nothing about itand 

let Carlisle hold the seat than to have that man ThobE~." But, gentlemen, the people have made inquiries in regard to this man Thobe, and 

they have found that he is not quite as bad a man as they thought he was. They have found that he has six children, and that he sends them to 

school. He has a boy eighteen years old now in the State of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], at Atlanta, working at bricklaying, 

and another going to school at Lexington. I own my own home, where 

I was born and raised, in Covington, and when I went to Indiana some years ago, the first thing was to get a home, and I own a home there 

still. I have always takeri an interest in elections and in the affairs of 

this Government, and all I ask is justice in this matter. During our campaign we distributed some sixty thousand copies of our ''platform,'' 

and the two paragraphs that we dwelt most upon were these: 

Fourth. Should encourage home industries, make such libe.ral appropriations for internal improvements as shall meet all the industrial demands of the coun- try and develop its resources, and so afford employment for otherwise unem- ployed labor; and should prohibit the importation or employment of all con- tract, convict, or pauper labor. 

Sixth. Should maintain and protect the purity and freedom of the ballot, and 

the rights and interests of citizenship at all times, in all places, and under all 

circumstances by the whole power of the Government, State and National. 

Gentlemen, the workingmen are in earnest in this matter. It was talked about at all their public meetings, and all they asked or ask 

now is justice and fair play. I well remember that when I used to 

1·ead the Bible as a school-boy the Ark of the Covenant always seemed 

to me the most sacred thing possible, but I believe to-day that every 

citizen ought to think just as mnchofthe pallot-box. The ballot-box 

should not be handled like a plaything. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. THOBE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLIKEN. ·rt has been stated, or the opinion has been ex- pressed here in the course of the debate, that the gentleman [Mr. · Thobe] at one time gave up his case, and that his present movement 

in asking it to be reopened was inspired from Washington. What I 

desire to ask is whether that be true, or whether it be true that he is now proceeding of his own motion, inspired by what he believes to be 

the justice of his case? 

Mr. THOBE. It is utterly untrue that I did not want to go into this 

contest, or that I ever thought of abandoning it; utterly untrue. I can prove by twenty or thirty of the leading workingmen of Covington that on the first Sunday after the election, when my first attorney said to 

them that it would be an easy matter to prove fraud and to seat their 

candidate, I insisted on the contest. I was not forced into it by anybody else, and I will state again that in no instance have I said anything or done anything that could in the least imply that I did not enter into 

the contest in good faith. 

Mr. LODGE. Will the gentleman permit a question? 

Mr. THOBE. Yes, sir . .I like to be asked questions. ~fr. LODGE. On page 51 of the report of the committee is the affidavit Of Horace Cambron, from which I read: 

Affiant says that he never caused to be published in said paper any item to the effect that Mr. Carlisle admitted his defeat, nor was any such item ever published to affiant's knowledge; but the files of that paper prior to a change of 

ownership about six or seven months ago were notpreserved, and affiant does not know where to find a copy of said issue. 

Is that paper in which the affiant denies that any such publication was made the one in which it was made? 

Mr. THOBE. That is the paper. 

1\fr. LODGE. I ask the gentleman to send the paper to the Clerk's 

desk that the publication may be read. 

Mr. THOBE. November 3 is the date of the paper. I ask the 

Clerk to read the passages which are marked. 

The Clerk read as follows from the Evening Telegram, published at 

Cincinnati, Wednesday evening, November 3, 1886: 

There a.re yet eight precincts to be heard from in Kenton County, and all in 

Campbell, except Dayton and Bellevue, so that it is utterly impossible, judging by the surprises already received, to form any accurate idea as to the result. 

MR. CARLISLE TALKS. 

The Telegram met Mr. Carlisle in Covington this morning and had quite a chat with him. The Speaker is smiling and looks on his very probable defeat 

with the utmost composure. He said: 

"The result is entirely owing to the fact that Democrats felt no concern whatever in my election, and would pass the polls with the remark that 'that man Thobe would not get 100 votes.' Why, there was money, and plenty of it, fur· 

nished by manufacturing concerns back of this movement. They went round 

quietly before the election and were thoroughly organized in every precinct in ·the district. The district was flooded with their tickets just before the election, 

If my information is correct, and I have no reason for doubting it, 1\:Ir. Thobe 

will be the next Congressman, and I will feel a sense of personal I'elicf that I 

have not felt before for ten years. I will feel. that a. heavy load has been lifted 

from me." 

CARLISLE-THE BIG KENTUCKIAN PROBABLY A DEFEATED MAN. 

At 12 o'clock the indications are that Bon. John G. Carlisle is a. beaten man. But for more definite information see next edition. Republicans are claiming the election of their candidate by 500. 

Mr. STRUBLE (to the Clerk). Read the name of that paper. 

Mr. THOBE. It is a Carlisle paper-the Evening Telegram, of Cincinnati-the issue of November 3, 1886 .. Mr. BOUTELLE. Do the names of the publishers or editors appear? 

Mr. THOBE. The reporter of that paper who wrote the article was Mr. Horace Cambron, formerly a lawyer, who stated to my local attorney that he would hate to make an affidavit in regard to the interview, 

because Mr. Carlisle was a particular friend of his, and he bad named 

his son after the Speaker. [Laughter.] In thatinterview Mr. Carlisle 

says: 

If my information is correct, and I have no reason for doubting it, Mr. Thobe 

will be the next Congressman. 

How did he get his information? Some particular friends of his gave 

it to him; and I can say that if I wished to do so, I could mention the names of half a dozen prominent gentlemen who said to others the day 

after the election, "Mr. Carlisle is defeated, but he won't be defeated 

to-morrow." 

Now, gentlemen, can yon afford to pass this question by without a full investigation, when, if you do so, every man in that district will 

believe that I was elected? All I ask is simply an inv~stigation. 

One word more and I am done. I was legally elected a member of 

this House by the legally qualified voters of my district. I was defraudedand cheated out of my legal majority by ballot-box stuffing and 

false counting. · I was betrayed and sold out by my original counsel in 

the contest. I have been denied the right to furnish the legal proofs, 

to expose the frauds committed, and to establish my right to the seat 

to which I was elected . . I submit my appeal for justice to this Honse, 

and in the name of the industrial classes who voted for me, and of whom 

I am proud to be an hnmblo member, and in the name of the three 

thousand signers of this petition, I respectfully demand that justice be 

done in this matter. [Applause.] . Mr. McCREARY. In justice to myself as well as ~fr. Thobe, I wish 

him to state again in what connection he referred to me, so that if nec- essary I may make the proper explanation. . Mr. ROGERS. I raise the point of order tha,t there is so much con- fusion on the floor members can not hear what is going on. Mr. THOBE. I wish to be understood--

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The contestant will suspend a mo- ment. Gentlemen of the House will be seated. Does the contestant 

yield to the gentleman from Kentucky? 

Mr. THOBE. Yes, sir. 

1t1r. McCREARY. In order that justice may be done to myself as ell as to Mr. Thobe, I ask him to repeat what he has stated in the course of his remarks in reference to myself, so that I may understand 

exactly the purport of his language. 

Mr. THOBE. That was in the Commercial of December, 1886. It was in reply to an interview published in the Conrier-J ournal in refer- ence to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. McCREARY], wherein it was stated that if Carlisle's majority was ten thousand, I would still 

contest the election. In reply to that my attorney, Logan A. Wood, 

wrote a column and a half, and also dwelt on the interview published 

before that with ''the Tall Sycamore of the Wabash," in which he saicl 

that I would not even get a hearing. The article tow hich I refer could 

be read if the House desired, showing the exact language that Logan 

A. Wood used, mentioning Mr. McCREARY's name, and also varion~ 

other names. . Mr. McCREARY. Was that a statement in Mr. Wood's card, or did 

it purport to be an interview with me? 

Mr. THOBE. Oh, no; he just wrote, a card after reading what the 

Conrier-J onrnal said. 

1\fr. McCREARY. Mr. Wood wrote a card after reading what the 

Conrier-J ournal said? 

Mr. THOBE. That is it exactly. 

Mr. 1\fcCREARY. Mr. Speaker, I think it proper I should say now that I never at any time said that no matter what the result of that election might beMr. Thobewould contestit. I was never interviewed at 

Louisville about the Carlisle-Thobe election, andlneversaidatany time 

anything in regard to it, except that I desired the returns t.O be counted 

fairly, that I believed they would be so counted, and that when theresult was announced, I wanted it to be in accordance with the l~w and 

with the votes as they had been cast by the people of that district. [A pplause.] 

Mr. MATSON. I wish to ask the contestant whether he did not 

state the alleged interview with Senator VooRH~ too strongly when 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. ..605 

he said the Senator had stated that he (Mr. Thobe) would not e.ven get a bearing. · 

Mr. THOBE. Those are the words. 

Mr. MATSON. Let me refresh the gentleman's memory a little. 

Did not Senator VOORHEES state, or rather did not the alleged inlierview rt>present him as stating, that Mr. Carlisle was very popular 

wit.h both sides of the House, and that the Republicans would be very 

sorry to see him lose his seat? Was not that about it? ~Ir. THOBE. If you will look over the files of the paper to which 

I have referred--

Mr. MATSON. Have you the paper? 

Mr. THOBE. No, sir. 

Mr. MATSON. Do you say the language represented to have been 

used in that interview was that you would not even get a hearing? 

Ur. THOBE. My attorney wrote a column and a half in reply to 

that article. The language was that I would stand but a slim chance 

of getting even a hearing. 

Mr. 1\IATSON. I wish to say that I read that article myself; and 

I am sure that Senator VooRHEES was not represented as saying that 

the gentleman (Mr. Thobe) would not even get a bearing. That is my 

l'ecoUection. 

Mr. THOBE. "Would stand a slim chance." 

Mr. MATSON. No, sir; the language was not anything like that. 

Several M.El\IBERS. Regular order ! 

The SPEAKER pro tempm·e. The regular order is for the contestant 

to proceed. 

Mr. THOBE. Mr. Speaker, I would not like to see party lines 

drawn on this question. I trust that members will vote as their con- sciences dictate. When I left home the impression prevailing there, 

especially among the industrial classes, was that, there being a majority of Democrats in this House, they would vote solidly against investigating this matter. I told them I did not believe that statement; 

that they would be fair; and I hope they will be fair now. All I ask is a simple investigation, and the facts I have stated can be established. 

The people there have no doubt of the future, but say that it did look 

doubtful at one time, but it is all cleared up now. I ask that the memorial to which I have referred be made a part of 

my remarks as read. · Mr. CRISP. What is that request? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The contestant asks that a memorial 

to which he has referred be made a part of his remarks. • 

Mr. CRISP. Is it understood that all the names are. to be printed? 

M:r. ROGERS. He says he does not desire the names printed. 

Mr. THOBE. I will state that there are twelve hundred more on the way. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. Without objection the memorial as 

read will be printed without the names. There was no objection. 

It is as follows: 

Memorial for reopening the case for new testimony from Grant, Gallatin, two pre<:incts of Pendleton, four precincts of Trimbl,e, and the Eighth ward of 

Covmgton (Kenton); also from Kenton and Campbell Counties. 

To the Congress of the United States: 

The undersigned citizens and electors of the Sixth Congressional dio;trict of 

the State of Kentucky respectfully represent: That at the election for member 

of Co_ngress in the sai~ district, held on Tuesday, the 2dday of November, A. D. 1886, m accordance w1th the acts of Congress and the laws of the State of Ken- tucky in that behalf made and provided, there was not a full, fair, and impartial 

expression of a. majority of the qualified voters of said Congressional district in 

regard to their choice for a member of Congress for said district in the Fiftieth 

Congress of the United States, for the following reasons: 1. ':!'hat in the matter of the appointment, service, and qualifications of the 

elect10n officers there was an open, intentional, and corrupt violation of law in t.hat the said election officers were not appointed in the interest of a fair el~c­ tion and an honest count and return of the vote so cast, but were appointed to aid and assist in the election of J. G. Carlisle, the candidate of the Democratic 

party, to the injury and prejudice and defeat of George H. Thobe, the opposing 

candidate, of the Union Labor Party. 2. 'l'hat gross frauds were perpetrated a.nd committed by the supporters and 

partisans of John G. Carlisle in his interest and for his benefit in the counties 

of '.rrimble, Grant, Gallatin, Campbell, Canoll, Boone, Pendleton and Kenton. 3. That the returned majority of 825 votes which it is alleged w~s received by 

John G. Carlisle in the said Congressional election is false and fraudulent. 4. That your memorialists further charge in consequence of the outrageous f~auds perpetrated at the election and in the district aforesaid, John G. Carlisle was falsely and wrongfully returned as the member elect from said Con- gressi~n~l district, a~d ~e, the sai~ C_arlisle, now occupies a.nd holds said seat to the IDJury and preJudice of a maJority of the legally qualified electors of the 

said State and Congressional district. 5. And because in many election precincts in the counties of the said Sixth 

district of Kentucky the polls were not opened until after the hour of 6 o'clock 

and were closed before 4 o'clock of said day, in open violation of the laws of 

Kentucky, thereby preventing many persons from voting for said Thobe who 

otherwise would have voted for him. 

And you! memori!llists he!ewith present a number of affidavits in support of 

the alleg~t1ons herem contamed, and they aver that the charges therein can be 

substn.ntiated by a great number of reliable and credible witnesses. 

Wherefore your petitioners respectfully request, in the interest of good gov- ernmen~ and of honest and impartial elections, to the end that an honest ballot 

and a fa1r count m~y be had in the State and district aforesaid, that your hon- ora~le ?<>dy may direct to be ~ade and make a thorough and searching investigation mto the matters herem set forth as to the conduct and results of said 

Congress in the said district was held on Tuesday, the 2d day of November, A. D. 1886, in accordance with the acts of Congress and the laws of the State of Ken- tucky in that behalf made and provided; and your memorialists represent that at the election held upon the day last mentioned there was not a full, fair, and 

impartial expression of a majority of the qualified voters of said Congressional 

district in regard to their choice for a member of Congress for said district in the 

Fiftieth Congress of the United States, for the following reasons: 1. That in the ma,tter of the appointment, service, and qualifications of the election officers there was an open, intentional, and corrupt violation of law, in that 

the said election officers were not appointed in the interest of a fair election n.nd an honest count and return of the votes so east, but were appointed to aid and 

as5ist in the election of J. G. Carlisle, the candidate of the Democratic party, to the injury and prejudice and defeat of George H. Thobe, the opposing candidate, 

of the Union Labor party. 2. That gross frauds were perpetrated and committed by the supporters and pa rtisans of John G. Carlisle in his interest and for his benefit in the counties of 

Trimble, Grant, Gallatin, Campbell, Carroll, Boone, Pendleton, and Kenton. 3. That the returned majority of 825 votes which it is alleged was received by 

John G. Carlisle in the said Congressional election is false and fraudulent. · And that your memorialists further charge i,n consequence of the outrageoWJ frauds perpetrated at the election and in the district aforesaid, John C. Carlisle was falsely and wrongfully returned as the member elect from said Congressional district, and he, the said Carlisle, now occupies and holds said seat to the injury and prejudice of a majority of the legally qualified electors of the 

said State and Congressional district. 

And your memorialists herewith present a number of affidavits in support of 

the allegation herein contained, and they aver that the charges herein can be 

substantiated by a great number of reliable and credible witnesses. 

'Vherefore your petitioners respectfully request, in the interest of good gov- ernment and of honest and impartial elections, to the end that an honest ballot 

and a fair count may be had in the State and district aforesaid, that your honorable body may direct to be made and make a thorough and searching investigation iuto the matters herein set forth as to the conduct and results of said 

election in the State and Congressional district aforesaid, to the end that full 

and complete justice may be done in the premises. 

Mr. CRISP. I move that the House do now adjourn. [Cries of 

"Let us take a vote!"] Very well, I will withdraw that motion and 

demand the previous question upon the adoption of the 1·esolutions, 

which seems t() be the desire of the House. 

Mr. LYMAN. I desire to offer a substitute for the resolution proposed by the committee. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. But the gentleman from Georgia has 

demanded the previous question. 

Mr. CRISP. I do not desire to exclude that, of course. Jtfr. LYMAN. I supposed not from our conversation. I do not 

wish to discuss it, but ask to have it read. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the contest of George H. Thobe, an elector residing in the Sixth 

Congressional district of Kentucky, questioning the election of John Griffin 

Carlisle as a member of the House of Representatives and his right to represent 

such district in this House, is of such importance to the sitting member, and to the people of the country, regardless of party, that it is entitled to a full, thorough, 

and impartial investigation, and without expressing any opinion upon the 

merits of such contest: Bi it resolved, That all the papers be printed and referred to a select or subcommittee of the Election Committee of this House, with power to sit during the 

sessions of Congress, and to send for persons and papers, administer oaths, and 

employ a clerk and a stenographer, and to visit such places as may be necessary to ascertain the full truth; a.a.d the expenses necessarily incurred in the execu- tion of this order shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The :first question is upon agreeing to 

the substitute of the gentleman from Iowa. - Mr. LODGE. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 125, nays 132, not 

voting 66; as follows: 

YEAB-1.25. 

Adams, 

Allen, C. H. 

AllenE.P. 

Anderson, A. R. Anderson, J. A. 

Arnold, 

Atkinson, 

Baker,C.S. 

Baker, Jehu 

Bayne, 

Boothman, 

Bound, 

Boutelle, 

Bowden, 

Bowen, 

Brewer, 

Brower, 

Browne, T. H. B. Browne, T. M, 

Brown, C. E. Brumm, 

Buchanan, 

Bunnell, 

BUlTOWS, 

Butlet", 

Bynum, 

Cannon, 

Caswell, 

Cheadle, 

Clark, 

Cogswell, 

Conger, 

Crouse, 

Dalzell, 

Darlington, 

Davis, 

Dingley, 

Dorsey, 

Dunham, 

Farquhar, 

Finley, · Flood, . Foran, 

Fuller, 

Funston, 

Gallinger, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

Goff, 

Grout, 

Guenther, 

Hare, 

Haugen, 

Henderson, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Hermann, 

Hiestand, 

Hires, 

Hitt, 

Holmes, 

Hopkins, A. J. Hopkins, S. I. 

Honk, 

Hovey, 

Hunter, 

Jackson, 

Johnston, J. T. Kean, 

Kennedy, 

Kerr, 

La Follette, 

Laidlaw, 

Laird, 

Lehlbach, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Long, 

Lyman, 

Mason, 

McComas, 

McCullogh, 

McKenna, 

McKinley, 

McKinney, 

Milliken, 

Moffitt, 

Morrill, 

Morrow, 

Nutting, 

O'Donnell, 

Osborne, 

Owen, 

Parker, 

Patton, 

Perkins, 

Peters, 

Plumb, 

Reed, 

Rockwell, 

Russell, C. A. 

Ryan, 

Sawyer, '- Scull, 

Shively, 

Smith, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, J. W. Struble, 

Symes, 

Taylor, J.D. Thomas, G. M. Thomas, 0. B. Thompson~.-A. C. 

Turner, E. tJ. 

Vandever, 

Wade, 

Warner, 

Weaver, 

West, 

Whiting, William 

Wickham, 

Williams, 

Yardley, 

Yost. 

election in tlie State and Congressional district aforesaid, to the end that full and A bb tt complete justice may be done in the premises. A d 0 ' 0 L Barry, 

Biggs, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

Bliss, 

NAYS-132. 

Blo~nt, Burnes, 

Breckinridge, C. R. Campbell, T. J. To the Congr~ of the .U,nited States: I A~d:~~~~: G. A. Breckinridge, WOP Candler, 

The undersigned mttzens and electors of the Sixth Congressional district of Bankhead, 

the State of Kentucky respectfu}ly represent: That an· election for a m.ember of Barnes, . _ 

Bryce, Caruth, 

Buckalew, Catchings, 
606 .. OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE. JANUARY 20, 

Ohipman, 

Clardy, 

Clements, 

Cobb, 

Compton, 

Cothran, 

Cowles, 

Crain, 

Crisp, 

Culberson, 

Dargan, 

Davidson, .A. C. Dibble, 

Dockery, 

Dougherty, 

Dunn, 

Elliott, 

Enloe, 

Fisher, 

Fm·uey, 

French, 

Gay, 

Gibson, 

Glass, 

Granger, 

Greenman, 

Grimes, 

Hall, 

.Allen, J. M. 

Bacon, 

Belden, 

Belmont, 

Bingham, 

Brown, J . R. Burnett, 

Butterworth, 

Campbell, Felix 

Campbell, J. E. Carlton, 

Cockran, 

Collins, 

Cooper, 

Cox, 

Cummings, 

Cutcheon, 

Hatch, Mcl\fillin, 

Hayes, McRae, 

Heard, 1\,Ierriman, 

Hemphill, 1\Iontgomery, 

Henderson, J. S. 1\foore, 

Herbert, Morgan, Hogg, Neal, 

Holman, Newton, 

Hooker, Oates, 

Howard, O'Ferrall, 

Hutton, O'NealLJ.H. 

Johnston, T. D. O'Neill,·J. J. 

Jones, Outhwaite, 

Kilgore, Peel, 

Landes, Perry, Lane, Phelan, 

Lanham, Pidcock, 

Latham, ·Rice, 

Lee,! Richardson, 

Lynch, Robertson, 

Macdonald, Rogers, 

Mahoney, Rowland, 

1\faish, Rusk, 

1\Iansur, Sayers, 

Martin, Scott, 

Matson, Seney, 

McAdoo, Shaw, 

McCreary, Si.m.mons, 

NOT VOTING-66. 

Davenport, Lagan, 

Davidson, R. H. M. Lawler, De Lano, 1\faffett, 

Ermentrout, 1\fcClammy, 

Felton, McCormick, 

Fitch, McShane, 

Ford, Mills, 

Gaines, 1\:lorse, 

Glover, Nelson, 

Grosvenor, Nichols, 

Harmer, Norwood, 

Hayden, O'Neill, Charles 

Hopkins, S. T. Payson, 

Hudd, Penington, 

Kelley, Phelps, 

Ketcham, Post, 

Laffoon, 

So the substitute was rejected. 

Snyder, 

Sowden, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Charles 

Stewart, J.D. Stockdale, 

Stone of Ky. Stone of Mo. Tarsney, 

Taulbee, 

Thompson, T. L. Tillman, 

Tracey, 

Townshend, 

Turner, H . G. 

Vance, 

Walker, 

Washington, 

Wheeler, 

Whiting, J. R. 

Whitthorne, 

Wilkins, 

Wilkinson. 

Wilson, Thomas 

Wilson, W. L. Wise, 

Yoder. · 

Pugsley, 

Randall, Rayner, 

Rome is, 

Rowell, 

Russell, J. E. Sherman, 

Spinola, 

Steele, 

Taylor, E. B. Thomas, J. R. Weber, 

White,J.B. 

White,S.V. 

Wilber, 

Woodburn. 

1\Ir. CRISP. I ask unanimo.us consent _to dispense with the reading 

of the names. Mr. STRUBLE. I object. 

11fr. CRISP. I understand tpe p1·evious question is still operating 

upon the other two resolutions. 

1tlr. BOUTELLE. Had not we better have the vote first announced on this? 

The SPEAKER pro tmnpore. The Clerk will first announce the 

pairs. · • The following pairs were announced until further notice: 

Mr. BURNEIT with Mr. GROSVENOR. 

M"r. SPIKOLA with Mr, THOMAS, of illinois. -Mr. GLOVER with Mr. GAINES. 

Mr. COCKRAN with Mr. WHITE, of New York. Mr. CmrniNGS with M:r. FITCH. 

M:r. BACON with Mr. WEBER. .-Mr . .ALLE}l", of Mississippi, with Mr. HAYDEN. M.r. C.A~1PBELL, of Ohio, with Mr. BUTTERWORTH. 

Mr. DAVIDSON, ofFlorida,withlli. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania, until 

J anuary 23. 

Mr. McCORMICK with Mr. PENINGTON, until January .28. 

Mr. ERl'tiENTROUT with ?lf.r. KETcHAM. Mr. FELIX, C.AJUPBELL with Mr. HOPKINS, of New York. 

Mr. COLLINS with .Mr. D.A VENPORT. 

Mr. MILLS with Mr. PAYSON. 

:Mr. HUDD with Mr. BELDEN. 

Mr .. MORSE with Mr. HARMER. 

Mr. RAYNER with 11fr. JOHN R .• BROWN. 

Mr. NORWOOD with Mr. Ro:MEIS. 

11Ir. LAFFOON with Mr. CUTCHEON, on this vote. 

Mr. CARLTON with Mr. DE L.ANO. 

Mr. BELMONT with Mr. SHERMAN. 

Mr. RANDALL with Ur. KELLEY. 

Mr. FORD with Mr. STEELE, on this vote. 

Mr. McCLAMMY. I am paired with Mr. NICHOLS. Were he pres- ent, I would vote" nay;" he would vote '~yea." 

Mr. LANHAM. My colleague, Mr. MILLS, is absent from the House, 

by reason of sickness. 

Mr. BRUMM. It seems to me that several gentlemen sitting around 

here-- [Cries of "Regular order!"] 

The SPEAKER pro tempo1·e. For what purpose does the gentleman 

rise? 

Mr. BRUMl\L There may be an error in the recapitulation of the 

vote. We heard the name of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 

TILLMAN] announced as having voted '' nay.'' He voted '' ay '' on the 

first call. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct; but the gentleman 

himself corrected the vote immediately. 

The result of the vote was then announced aa above recorded. 

The SPEAKER p;·o tmnpore. The question is on agreeing to the first 

resolution reported by the committee. 

Mr. CRISP. On that question I demand the yeas and nays. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolutions. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That George H. Thobe was not elected a Representative to the Fiftieth Congress of the United States from the Sixth district of Kentucky. Resolved, That John G. Carlisle was duly elected a Representative to the Fiftieth Congress of the United States from the Sixth district of Kentucky, and is 

entitled to his seat. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempoTe. The Chair desires to know if the gentleman from Georgia demanded the yeas and nays on both resolutions. 

Mr. CRISP. On the first one only. 

Mr. BRUMM. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry. Are we to vote on the report of the majority or of the minority first.? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the first 

resolution reported by the majority of the committee. 

Mr. CRISP. If it is the wish of the House, there is no objection t o taking the vote on both resolutions; the one tha .. t Mr. Thobe was not, 

the other that M:r. Carlisle was elected. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the vote being 

taken on both resolutions? 

There was no objection. 

M:r. CRISP. I ask that the Clerk again report the resolutions. 

The resolutions were again read. 

11fr. KERR. I ask j.f we have the parliamentary right to have the 

two questions divided. 

The SPEAKER pt'o tempore. The Chair submitted to the House the proposition that the vote should be taken on both resolutions, and no one objected. 

The question was taken; and there were- yeas 139, nays 3, not voting 181; as follows: 

YEAS-139. 

.Abbott, Dockery, 

.Anderson, C. L. Dougherty, 

.Anderson, G . .A. Dunn, 

Bankhead, EUiott, 

Barnes, Enloe, 

Barry, • Foran, "Biggs, Forney, 

Blanchard, French, 

Bland, Gay, 

Jlliss, Gibson, Blount, Glass, 

Breckinridge, C. R . Granger, 

Breckinridge, WOP Greenman, Bryce, Grimes, 

Buckalew, Hall, 

Burnes, Hare, 

Campbell, T. J . Hatch, 

Candler, Hayes, 

Cannon, Heard, 

Caruth, Hemphill, 

Catchings, Henderson, J . S, Chipman, Herbert, 

Clardy, Hogg, 

Clements, Holman, 

Cobb, Hooker, 

Compton, Howard, 

Cooper, Hutton, 

Cothran, JohnstQn, T . D. Cowles, Jones, 

Crain, Kilgore, 

Crisp, Laffoon, 

Culberson, Landes, 

Dargan, Lane, 

Davidson, A. C. Lanham, 

Dibble, Latham, 

Lee, 

Lynch, 

Macdonald, 

Mahoney, 

Maish, 

l\1ansur, 

Martin, 

Matson, 

1\Ic.Adoo, 

McCreary, 

McKinney, 1\Icl\fillin, 

McRae, 

Merriman, 

1\Iontgomery, 

Moore, 

Morgan, 

Neal, 

Newton, 

Oates, 

O'Ferrall, 

O'Neall,J.H. 

O'Neill, J. J . Outhwaite, 

Peel, 

Perry, 

Phelan, 

Pidcock, 

Rice, 

Richardson, 

Robertson 

Rogers, 

Rowell, 

Rowland, 

Rusk, 

NAYS-3. 

Brumm, 

.Adams, 

.Allen, C. H . .Allen, E. P . .Allen, J . M. 

.Anderson, .A. R. .Anderson, J . .A. 

.Arnold, 

.Atkinson, 

Bacon, 

Baker,C.S. Baker, Jehu 

Bayne, 

Belden, 

Belinont, 

Bingham, 

Boothman, 

Bound, 

Boutelle, 

Bowden, '"'~" 

Bowen, 

Brewer, 

Brower, 

Browne, T. H. B. Browne, T. M. Brown, 0 . E :-- Brown,J.R. 

Buchanan, 

Bunnell, 

Burnett, Burrows, 

Hovey, Laidlaw. 

NOT VOTING-181. 

Butler, 

Butterworth, 

Bynum, 

Campbell, Felix: 

Campbell, J. E . Carleton, 

Caswell, 

Cheadle, 

Clark, 

Cockran, 

Cogswell, 

Collins, 

Conger, 

Cox, 

Crouse, 

Cummings, 

Cutcheon, 

Dalzell, 

Da1>liugton, 

Davenport, 

Davidson, R.H.M. Davis, 

DeLano, 

Dingley, 

Dorsey, 

Dunham, 

Ermentrout, 

Farquhar, 

Felton, 

Findlay, 

Fisher, 

Fitch, 

Flood, 

Ford, 

Fuller, 

Funston, 

Gaines, 

Gallinger, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

Glover, 

Goff, 

Grosvenor, 

Grout, 

Guenther, 

Harmer, 

Haugen, 

Hayden, 

Henderson, D. B. Henderson, T. J. Hermann, 

Hiestand, 

Hires, 

Hitt., 

Holmes, 

Hopkins, A. J. Hopkins, S. I. Hopkins, S. T. 

Houk, 

Hudd, 

Sa~ers, 

Scott, 

Seney, 

Shaw, 

Shively, 

Simmons, 

Snyder, 

Sowden, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Steele, 

Stewart, J.D. Stewart, Charles 

Stockdale, 

Stone of Ky. 

Stone of 1\:Io. 

Tarsney, 

Taulbee, 

Thompson, T. L. Tillman, 

Townshend, 

Tracey, 

Turner, H. G. 

Vance, 

'Valker, 

Washington, 

Wheeler, 

Whitthome, 

'Vilkins, 

Wilkinson, 

Wilson, Thomas 

Wilson,W. L. Wise, 

Yoder. 

Hunter, 

Jackson, 

Johnston,J, T. Kean, 

Kelley, 

Kennedy, 

K err, Ketcham, La Follette, 

Lagan, 

Laird, 

Lawler, 

Leblbach, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Long, 

Lyman, 

Maffett, 

1\:lason, 

1\fcClammy, 

McComas, 

McCormick, 

McCullogh, 

McKenna, 

McKinley, 

1\IcShane, 

Milliken, 

1\fills, 

Moffitt, 

Morrill, 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 607 • I 

Morrow, Phelps, Spinola, Morse, Plumb, Spooner, 

Nelson, Post, Stephenson. 

Nichols, Pugsley, St-ewart, J. W. Norwood, Randall, Struble, 

Nutting, Rayner, Symes, 

0'Donnel1, Reed, Taylor, E. B. O'Neill, Charles Rockwell, Taylor, J.D. 

Osborne, Romeis, Thomas, G. M. Owen, Russell, C. A. Thomas, J. R. Parker, Russell, J. E. Thomas, 0. B. Patton, Ryan, Thompson, A. C. 

Payson, Sa-wyer, Turner, E. J. 

Penington, Scull, Vandever, 

Perkins, Sherman, Wade, 

Peters, Smith, Warner, 

Weaver, 

'lVeber, 

West, 

Whit.e,J.B. 

White,S.V. 

Whiting, J. R. Whiting, William 

Wickham, 

Wilber, 

Williams, 

Woodburn, 

Yardley, 

Yost. 

·1\fr. PETERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the names of members voting. · 

Objection was made. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the 1·esolutions reported by the 

majority of the committee there are-yeas 139, nays 3. No quoru.m 

has voted.· 

Mr. HOGG. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

Mr. CRISP. I rise to a question of order. I desire to ask if the 

House should now adjourn whether the vote upon the pending resolutionswould not be the first thing in order to-morrow morning after the 

reading of the.J ournal? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is inclined to think so, as the resolutions present a question of the highest privilege. 

The motion of 1\fr. HoGGwas agreed to; andaccordingly(at 6o'clock 

and 3 minutes p. m.) the~ouse adjourned. 

PRIVATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION'S INTRODUCED AND REFERRED. 

Under the rule private bills and joint resolutions of the following 

titles were introduced and referred as indicated below: 

By Mr. ROGERS: A bill (H . .R. 5518) granting a pension to Henry 

Kauffield-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. LANDES: A bill (H. R. 5519) for the relief of William H. 

Pursley-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. TOWNSHEND: A bill (H. R. 5520) for the relief of DeWitt 

Anderson-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HITT: A bill (H. R. 5521) for the relief of James A. Fenleyto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. TOWNSHEND: A bill · R. 5522) for the relief of Elijah 

Martin-to the Committee on Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5523) for the relief of George Cook-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5524) for the relief of Hiram Somerville-to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. POST: A bill (H. R. 5525) granting a :pension to Mrs. Jane 

Potts-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. OWEN: A bill (H. R. 5526) to correct the military record of 

Thomas Lindersmith-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5527) granting back pay to Willis A. Grahamto the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. HOLl.IAN: A bill (H. R. 5528) granting a pension to Mrs. 

Mary C. Murray-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HOWARD: A bill (H. R. 5529) granting a pension to Flora 

Heath-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By l\1r. HOVEY: A bill (H. R. 5530) for the relief of Thomas Harris-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

By Mr. GEAR: A bill (H. R. 5531) granting a pension to Solomon 

W. Reed-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. -

Also, a bill (H. R. 5532) granting a pension to Ursul Voiturier-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By l\1r. FINLEY: A bill (H. R. 5533) granting a pension to James 

N. Guthrie-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5534) for the benefit of the soldiers of the late 

Forty-ninth Regiment of Kentuch.""Y Volnnteer Infantry-to the Committee on Claims. · 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5535) granting a pension to Louisa J. Tuckerto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By M:r. LAFFOON: A bill (H. R. 5536) for the relief of Robert C. 

Speed-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. BLANCHARD: A bill (H. R. 5537) for the relief of Bertrand 

and Gaudin Cazes-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By l\1r. COMPTON: A bill (H. R. 5538) authorizing the Secretary of 

the Treasury to issue bonds to Albert V. Conway, substituted trustee 

for certain registered United States bonds redeemed or assigned by the 

Government upon forged assignments-to the Committee on Wavs and 

Means. ~ 

By Mr. SHAW: A bill (H. R. 5539) for the relief of John J. Cough- lin-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. RUSK: A bill (H. R. 5540) for the relief of Mary .Ann Furlong and Hattie M. Cranford-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5541) granting a pension to Christine Bergnerto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · By Mr. C. H. ALLEN: A bill (H. R. 5542) for the relief of 1\Iary 

Danahy-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5543) granting a pension to Michael Griffin-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. FORD: A bill (H. R. 5544) granting a pension to John 

Shine-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5545) granting a pension to Nancy F. Jenningsto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. . 

By Mr. J. R. WHITING: A bill (H. R. 5546) granting a pension to 

David Keys-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CRIPMAN: A bill {H. R. 5547) for the relief of Patrick 

Hart, Unitad States Army-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. BLAND: A bill (H. R. 5548) for the relief of Gillem Rogers-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. SAWYER: A bill (H. R. 5549) for the relief of Warren 

Shaw-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By l\ir. WILLIAMS: A bill (H. R. 5550) for the relief of Sarah 

C. MorTison-to the Committee on Naval Affairs. 

By 1\Ir. \viCKHil'I: A bill (H. R. 5551) granting a :pension to Mar- cus De Moss-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. KENNEDY: A bill (H. R. 5552) granting a pension to Mary 

E. Bell-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HERMANN: A bill (H. R. 5553) granting a pension to R. B. 

Vunk-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By 1\'Ir. HARMER: A bill (H. R. 5554) granting an increase of pension to Joseph W. Tyler-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By 1\1r. NEAL: A bill (H. R. 5555) granting a pension to David Cofffiet-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HAUGEN: A bill (H. R. 5556) granting a pension to Elias 

C. Weldon-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. M.A. SMITH: A bill (H. R. 5557) for the relief of Elijah 

W. Dobbs, Mariano G. Samaniego, and H. C. Hooker-to the Select 

Committ.ee on Indian Depredation Claims. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5558) for the relief of William Franklin Groundsto the Select Committee on Indian Depredation Claims. 

By Mr. BUTI.ER: A bill (H. R. 5559) granting a pension to Capt. 

John "'AI. Ellis, of Tennessee-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. J. T. JOHNSTON: A bill (H. R. 5560) granting a pension 

to Oren M. Harlan-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5561) granting a- pension to Benjamin F. Peer-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. -

Also, a bill (H. R~ 5562) granting a pension to 1\'Iary Bolen, widow 

of Andrew Bolen-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By M:r. J.J. O'NEALL: A bill (H. R. 5563) for the relief of James 

Grace-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. M:ATSON: A bill (H. R. 5564) for the relief of William M. 

Handley-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. OUTRW AITE: A bill (H. R. 5565) for the relief of Henry 

B. Hunter-to the Committee on Claims. 

By Mr. KENNEDY: A bill (H. R. 5566) granting a pension to Robert E. Kersey-:-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, a bill (H. R. 5567) granting a pension to John M. Dowell-to 

the Committee on Inv~did Pensions. 

By Mr. MILLIKEN: A bill (H. R. 5568) for the relief of Hozear 

Knowlton-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

PETITIONS, ETC. 

The following -petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk, 

under the rule, and referred as follows: · _ 

By Mr. C. H. ALLEN: Papers in the case of Mary Danahy and of 

Michael Griffin, for relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions .. By l\1r. G. A. ANDERSON: Petition of 118 citizens of the Twelfth 

district of illinois, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the 

Committee on the District of Columbia. 

By Mr. BLANCHARD: Lett-er of C. A. Pierson, of Louisiana, re- lating to his war claim-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. BOUTELLE: Petition of John Dillon, for an invalid pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · 

Also, petition of Sarah Boden, for a dependent mother's pensionto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. BOWEN: Letter of the Clinch Valley Coal and Iron Company of Philadelphia, and telegrams from Pula-ski Iron Company, Pulaski, Va., and also from Pocahontas, Va.-to the Committee on Ways 

and Means. 

By Mr. BURROWS: Petition of Erastus M nrphy and others, citizens 

of Berrien County, Michigan, for amendment of the patent laws-to 

the Committee on Patents. 

By Mr. BUTLER: Petition of 1\Irs. Caty Jones, for refereilca of her 

claim to the Comt of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. FELIX CiliPBELL: Petition of citizens of Brooklyn, N. 

Y., with outline specification, for the erection of a monument in that 

city in memory of prison-ship martyrs o{ the American Revolution-to 

the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. T. J. CAMPBELL: Petition of Reinhold Werner, Company 

D, Twenty-eighth Regiment New York Volllnteers, for a. pension-to 

the Committee on Invaiid Pensions. 

By Mr. DINGLEY: Petition of A. J". Robeitsandothers, of Norway, 

-· 
608 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. J .ANUAI{Y 20, 

Me., for the establishment of a Government postal-telegraph systemtothe Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. DUNHAM: Resolutions of the Grand Army of the Republic, 

of Indiana, for ar~ea.rages of pension to Mrs. Mary Hawke, widow of Arthur J. Hawke, late lieutenant-colonel Forty-ninth Indiana Volunteers-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By :M:r. ENLOE: Petition of bi. A. McKinney, administratrix of J. 

P. McKinney, of Henderson County, Tennessee, for reference of her 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. ERMENTROUT: Memorial of James Cunningham, against 

the reduction of postage-to the Committee on the Post-Officeand PostRoads. 

By 1lfr. FORD: Petition for the relief of John Shine, late of Company L, Seventh Regiment Michigan Cavalry-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. FULLER: Petition of 25 attorneys of Des Moines, Iowa, for 

increase of salaries of United States judges-to the Committee on the 

Judiciary. 

By Mr. GEAR: Petition of Solomon W. Reed, for a special-act pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petition of Ursul Voiturier, for a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. · By Mr. GLASS: Petition of C. Jones and of J. B. Harper, of Gibson 

County, Tennessee, for reference of their claim to the Court of Claimsto the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. GOFF: Petition of J. R. McMillan and 97 others, for therelief of the State troops of West Virginia for services rendered in the war for the preservation of the Union-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

By Mr. GROSVENOR: Petition of the Marietta (Ohio) Centennial 

Monument Association, for aid to erect a monument-to the Committee on the Library. 

By Mr. GROUT: Memorial of Fred. L. Houghton, for repeal of law 

prohibiting advertising on fourth-class matter-to tlle Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. HARMER: Petition of the Pneumatic Gun Carriage and 

Power Company, relating to House bill No. 1555, to provide for the 

public defense-to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

Also, memorial of the Philadelphia Board of Trade, in favor of a protective tariff-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Me. HEARD: Petition of citizens of Dallas County, and of the 

Sixth district of Missouri, in favor of granting a pension to Daniel 

Bills-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. HERMANN: Petition of John Cain, for relief for teamsters in 

the Mexican war-to the Committee on Pensions. · By Mr. HIRES: Petition of the gold and silver beat~rs of the United 

States, for increase of duty on certain articles-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. HITT: Petition of Erastus Colton and 116 others, citizens of 

Shirland, Winnebago County, Illinois, against the admission of Utahto the Committee on the Territories. · · Also, petition of 117 citizens of the Sixth district of illinois, for prohibition in the District of Columbia-to the Committee on the District 

of Columbia. 

By M:r. HOOKER: Petition of William Evans, for reference of his 

claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. HOPKINS: Petition of Ike Wertheim and others, of Richmond,_andofW. J. Sen.buryandothers, ofLynchburgh, Va., for increased 

compensation of letter-carriers-to the Committee on the Post-Office 

and Post-Roads. 

By Mr. J. T. JOHNSTON: Petition and papers of Benjamin F. Peer, 

for special-act pension, to accompany bill-to the Committee on Invalid 

Pensions. 

Also, petitions of Mary Bolen and others, for a pension, to accompany 

bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. KENNEDY: Petition of Robert E. Kersey for increase of 

pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. MORROW: Resolutions of a mass-meeting of citizens of San 

Francisco, December 28, 1887, against Chinese immigration-to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

By Mr. NEAL: Petition and papers in the case of John Massoner, to 

accompany House bill 4731, for his relief-to the Committee on War 

Claims. 

Also, petition of Mary J. Fowler, of Monroe County, Tennessee, for 

reference of her claim to the Court of Claims-to the Committee on War Claims. 

Also, petition of David Coffiet, for special-act pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

Also, petition of John Stewart, of Bledsoe County, Tennessee, for 

payment of his war claim-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. NELSON: Petition of C. G. Odell, of Eagle Bend, ~finn., for 

additional pension legislation-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. NUTTING: Petition of M. M:. Carter and 47 others, citizens 

of New York, for repea.I of limit of arrears-of-pension a-ct-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. CHARLES O'NEILL: Resolutions of the Board of Trade of 

Philadelphia, for a protective tariff for the protection of American in· 

dustries, und condemning the doctrine of free trade-to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. OWEN: Petition to place the name of James B. Burton on the muster-roll of Company A, Second Regiment Indiana Volunteersto the Committee on Military Affairs. 

By Mr. PATTON: Petition of 25 citizens of Twentieth district of 

Pennsylvania, in favor of Government telegraphs-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads. 

Also, petition of Bucknell University, of Lewisburgh, Pa., in favor 

of international copyrigbt law-to the Committee on Patents. . By Mr. PHELAN: Petition of Willi:l.m H. Park, of Hardeman 

County, Tennessee, for reference of his claim to the Court of Claims-· 

to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. POST: Petition of Henry Kreiling, John McGinnis, and 

57 others, members of the Grand Army of the Republic, of Peoria, 

Ill.. for repeal of the limitation on the payment of arrears of pensionto the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. PUGSLEY: Petition of 199 citizens of Ross County, Ohio, 

including J. B. Dixon Post, Grand A1·my of the Republic, for the pas· 

sage of a service pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. RANDALL: Petition of Frederick Welz, for a pension-to 

the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. SAWYER: Petition of Warren Shaw, of Pembroke, Genesee 

County, New York, for relief-to the Committee on \Var Claims. 

By M:r. SENEY: Petition of Toledo Produce Exchange, favoring 

telegraph posth.I system-to the Committee on the Post-Office and 

Post-Hoads. 

By Mr. HENRY SMITH: Memorial of the Merchants' Association 

and Chamber of Commerce ofMilwaukee,Wis., for apublic buildingto the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. 

By Mr. SYMES: Resolution of Denver (Colo.) Chamber of Commerce, for confirmation of title to cemetery land-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

Also, six petitions of sundry citizens of Colorado, for a Government 

postal-telegraph system-to the Committee on the Post-Office and PostRoads. 

By Mr. G. :M:. THOMAS: Paper in the claim of P. 0. Collins-to 

the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. S. V. WHITE: Petition of John H. Turney and others, for a pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. J. R. WHITING: Petition of David Keys, for a special-act 

pension-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS: Petition of Sarah Morrison, for relief-to the 

Committee on Naval Affairs. 

By Mr. W. L. WILSON: Papers to accompany bill for the relief of 

John Lyons-to the Committee on Military Affairs. I 

The following petitions for an increase of compensation of fourthclass postmasters were severally referred to the Committee on the PostOffice and Post-Roads: 

By Mr. ATKINSON: Of citizens of Eagle Foundry, Pa. 

By Mr. BANKHEAD: Of citizens of Alabama; of I. B. Tult and 

others, of Belmont; of Thomas White and 50 others, of Corona; of S. L. 

Gelrnorre and others, of Rye, Marion County; of M. T. Wreigte and 

others, of Barnesville; of H. H. Sarten and others, of Humphrey; of 0. 

C. Young and others; of I. A. Johnson and others, of Alabama. 

By Mr. T. H. B. BROWNE: Petition of citizens of Accomack, Va. 

By Mr. BUTLER: Of citizens of Myers, Greene County, of Harmony, Washington County, and of Edson, Hawkins County, Tennessee. 

Also, of citizens of Logan tor, Vinco County, and of Maples, Granger 

County, Tennessee. 

By Mr. ENLOE: Of J. I. Dale and 65 others, of Buchanan, Henry 

County, Tennessee. 

By Mr. GLASS: Of citizens of Dry Hill, Tenn. 

By Mr. GOFF: Of H. T. Edwards and others, of Baxter County, 

West Virginia. 

By Mr. HERBERT: Petition of S. J. Bonzeman and 23 others, of 

Violette, Crenshaw County, Alabama. 

By Mr. S. I. HOPKINS: Petition of C. B. Finch and others, of 

Olcl Hickory, Botetourt County, Virginia. 

13y Mr. T. D. JOHNSTON: Of G. M. Harris and others, of Montford, 

McDowell County, North Carolina. 

13y Mr. LEE: Of citizens of Owens, King George County; of Frederick H uJl, Virginia. 

By Mr. McCLAMMY: Of citizens of Rise, Moore County, and of 

Snead's Ferry, and Richlands, Onslow County, North Carolina. 

By Mr. NEAL: Of 'f. B. Mosely and others,Laynesville, Sequatchie 

County, and D. R. Reed, of Odgcn, Rhea County, Tennessee. 

By Mr. OATES: OfL. W. Simmons and 250 others, of New Topia, 

Barbour County, Alabama. 

By Mr. O'FERRALL: Of Josiah Strader and others, of Giles County, 

Virgmia. 

By Mr. OUTHWAITE: Of T. W. Norris and 55 others, of Alton, 

Franklin County, Ohio. 

By Mr. PUGSLEY: Of citizens of Reesville, Clinton County, Ohio. 
1888. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 609 

By Mr. ROGERS: Of citizens of Brazils, Saline County, .Arkansas. 

By l\Ir. ROWLAND: ·Of citizens of Whitley, Stanly County; and of 

Hornet, 1\Iecklenburgh County, North Carolina.. 

By Mr. SCULL: Of citizens of Pocahontas, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. . By Mr. WHEELER: Of William F. Ford and 36 others, of Ford ton; 

of William B. Gross and 30 others, of Alabama, and of A. A. Simpson, 

of Simpson, Ala. 

By Mr. WHITTHORNE: Of W. S. Cotham and others, of Hickman 

County, Tennessee. , 'Also, of J. F. Black and others, of Giles County1 Tennessee, and 

of A. J. McClarer, of Williamson County, Tennessee. 

By IHr. YARDLEY: Of D. C. Leaw and others, of Brownsburgh, 

Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. YOST: OfcitizensofMount Sidney; of :Letcher, B-ath County, 

Virginia. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.· 

SATURDAY, January 21, 1888. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. W. 

n. MiLBuRN, D. D. 

The Journal of yes~erday's proceedings was read and approved. 

TRUST AND POOL COli! BIN ATIONS. 

1\Ir. BACON. I submit a report from the Committee on Manufh,ctures, and ask its present consideration. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

The Committee on Manufactures, to which was referred House resolution 69, 

relating to an investigation of certain trusts, respectfully report back said reso- lution with the accompanying resolution as a substitute therefor, and with the 

recommendation that the original resolution lie Oil the table, and that the substitute be adopted in lieu thereof. 

Mr. PAYSON. Let the substitute be reported. 

The Clerk read the substitute, as follows: 

Whereas it is alleged that certain individuals and corporations in the United 

States engaged in manufacturing, miniRg, or dealing in some of the necessaries 

of life have combined for the purpose of controlling or curtailing the production or supply of the same, and thereby increasing their price to the people of the 

country, which combinations are known us associations, trusts, pools, and like names, but are not incorporated uuder the laws of any State; and ~ 

·whereas such combinations not only injuriously affect commerce between 

the St-ates but impair the revenues of the United States as derived from its 

duties on imports: Therefore, Bcso!vecl. That the Committee on Manufactures be, and the same is hereby, di- rected to inquire into the names and numbers and extent of such alleged com- binations, under whatever name known, their methods of combination or doing 

busiuess, their effect upon the prices of any of the necessaries of life to the people 

of the country, upon its internal or foreign commerce, and its revenues from import dnties, together with any and all other matters relating to the same which may call for or suggest legislation by Congress, and report the same to the House with such recommendations as the said committee may agree upon. And for these purposes the Committee on :Manufactures is authorized to sit 

during the sessions of the House, to employ a stenographer, to 3;dministeroaths, 

examine witnesses, to compel the attendance of persons and the production of papers. 

And the expense of such investigation shall be paid out of the contingent fund 

of the House. . 

1\Ir. RANDALL. What is proposed to be done with it? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman asks unanimous consent 

that it be considered now.· 

:M:r. HANDALL. I object. I do not object to its reference. 

l\Ir. BRECKINRIDG E, of .Arkansas. The gentleman concedes what 

he can not withhold. Everybody knows-that be can not object to the 

reference of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution will be referred to the 

House Calendar. 

f::URVEY AND ALLOTll.fENT OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House a letter from the 

Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Secretary 

of the Interior of an appropriation for surveying and allotting the Indian reservations for the current fiscal year, for pay of special agents 

and necessary expenses; which was referred to the Committee on .Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. -

PRESSMEN, TREASURER'S OFFICE. 

The SPEAKER pro tempo're also laid. before the House a letter from 

the Treasurer of the United States, submitting an amended estimate 

for salaries of pressmen in his office for the next fiscal year; which was 

referred t<> the Committee on Appropriations, andordered_to be printed. 

ARICKAREE, GROS VENTRE, AND MANDAN INDIANS. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate for carrying 

into effect the agreement between tbe comm~ioners of the United 

States and the .Aricka:t:ee, Gras Ventre, and 1\landan tribes of Indians; 

which was referred to the Committee on Indian .Affairs, and ordered to 

be printed. · 

TREATIES WITH KICKAPOO INDIANS. _ 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid.before the House a letter from 

XIX-39 

the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Secre· 

tary of the Interior of appropriation for fulfilling treaties with Kicka· 

poo Indians; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

and ordered to be printed. 

PRESSES, TREASURER'S OFFICE. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before, the House a ·letter from 

the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an estimate from the Treas- urer of the United States of an appropriation for the purchase of additional presses for the use of his office; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. 

SHIP JOANN A. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore also laid before the House a letter from 

the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the matter of the ship Joanna; 

which was referred to the Committee on War Claims. 

PETER TARGONE. 

The SPEAKER pro t~mpore also laid before the House a letter from 

the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmitting a copy of findings of fact in the case of Peter Targone; which was referred to the 

Committee on War Claims. 

RED CLOUD AND RED LEAF INDIANS. 

The SPEAKER po tempore also laid before the House a. letter frorh 

the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting an ~timate from the Secretary of the Interi01· of appropriations for the payment to the Red 

Cloud and Red Leaf baads of Sioux Indians for ponies taken by the. military; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and 

ordered to be printed. THOMAS C. DICKEY. 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 

consent to take from the Committee of the Whole the bill (H. R. 484) 

for the relief of Thomas C. Dickey, and put it upon its passage. 

The SPEAKER p1·o tempore. The bill will be read, after which the 

Chair will ask for objections. 

The bill was read, as follows: 

Be it enacted, etc., That the. Secretary 'or the Treasury be, aud he hereby is, au- thorized and directed to pay to Thomas C. Dickey, late postmaster at Murphy, N. C., the sum of $275, out of any moneys in the Treasury no~ otherwise appro- priated. 

Mr. BREWER. Has that bill been considered bv a committee? ~ 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina. It has been considered and 

has received a favorable report. 

I\fr. HOLMAN. I wish to inquire of the gentleman from North Carolina whether this case is not covered by existing law. 

1\IIr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina. No, sir; it is not. The bill 

passed the last House, and it is a proper bill. · The SPEaKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the present con- sideration of this bill? · There was no objection. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read .the third time, and passed. 

Mr. JOHNSTON, of North Carolina, moved to reconsider the vote 

by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to recon- sider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

UNSATISFACTORY J\:i:AIL SERVICE. 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask mianimous consent to offer for 

reference the resolution which I send to the desk. 

The resolution was read, as follows: 

Resolved, That the Postmaster-General be dil·ected to inquire into and inform 

the House of Representatives of the cause and foundation of the grievances 

complained of in the subjoined editorial taken from the Capital, a daily news- paper published at Topeka, Kans., under date of January 11, 1888, and also to inform the House whether the almost universal complaint prevailing in the West against the present unsatisfactory mail service results from the appoint- ment of inexperienced and incapable employes or from inadequate and insufficient appropriations to meet the wants of the Post-Office Department and the 

needs of the people, or whether it results from other causes, and if so, what. 

[From the Capital, official State paper.] 

THE MAIL SERVICE OF KANSAS. 

Never at any time in the history of Kansas has t.here been in the United States 

mail service such au utter disregard of the rights of the people as at this time. 

Notwithstanding the great iucrease iV population, the stupJd attempt on the part 

of the Administration to make a record for economy has cut down the clerical - force necessary to properly distribute t.he mails at large offices and in the mail 

tra.ins, and it is consequently too small to do the work. Tons of mail matter pass through Kansas on the trains westward that can not be disposed of by the 

force allowed by the Post-Office Department. The result is that it is carried 

past the towns where it belongs, and brought back after two or three days' ab- sence in Colorado or New Mexico. It is not the fault of the railway clerks, be· cause the Department asks of them a task that it is not possible for them to per- form. The people of Kansas have been patient, and the press has been lenient over this Democratic folly. l\Iails going west are so heavy that men working to the extent of their strength, doing more than double duty, can not handle them. 

Appeals to the.Departmentat Washington for adequate help to take care of this 

importantpublicserviceare unheeded. The railway mail service through Kansas has become criminally neglected, lihd it is time this att.empt of the Democratic 

party to make capital by a show of false economy should be brought to the at- tention of Congress. In reply to continued appea.Js for the Department to send a ma.n to examine the railway mail service in Kansas, a man came, and over· looking the tons of mail that could not be distributed in time to be thrown off at the towns where it belonged, he su,.cceededin having two or three clerks fined