Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1871-02-08
The Lyndall- -Dechert Case Again.

The minority report of Mr.. Wallace
special committee, Graham aud Kerr, Re
publicans-in the contested election case o.
Lyndall vs. Dechert, clearly and successfully
disproves the majority report in some Oft the
most material points, and establishes beyond
controversy that Mr.. Buckalew, the presum-
ed author of the majority. report, made q
grave mistake when he alleged that if the
specifications of the petition were defective
and quashed, presuming all others to be. cor
rect, Mr.. Lyndall would have no case to con
test The minority report proves beyond
contradiction, from Mr.. Buckalew's OWL
stand dpoint, that Mr.. Lyndall was clearly
elected by over two hundred majority, and
that the majority inflicted grievous wrong
when they decided not to investigate the al
legations of fraud. In fact the minority
report so conc,usive!y exposed the fallacies
and wrongs of the Buckalew report, that
that gentleman deemed it necessary to sub
NIT a Supplementary" report-an unheard
of proceeding in legislative bodies. la re-
ference to this pettitoging effort, on the part
of the majority of the committee, the Pitts
burgh Gazette remarks.
Mr.. Buckalew, We see, has felt himself
forced to put In a voluminous answer TO the
report of the minority of the Special Com
mittee in the Dechert-Lyndall case.
This is the highest possible compliment
to the minority report. 1t shows hat that
report was, III itself,a a complete answer to the
T.lIa raai a
mIttee, and that the Democratic majority in
the Senate did not dare to let the majority
and minority reports go out together The
latter 50 thoroughly exposed the former that
to send the two out in one document was to
send the antidote with the bane.
1t was, therefore, found necessary to an
swer the answer-to put in some pettifog-
ging pleas and betog the case generally, lest
those Democrats OF the State should con
clude that the law vas unansYerable against
them.
The Special Committee, as appointed by
Speaker Wallace, consisted of five Demo
cratic lawyers and two Republican Iaymen
The Republican lawyers Of the Senate
were purposely left off it. The object clear
ly was to get up a majority report written
by lawyers, which the lay members of the
Committee could not answer.
And yet the report Of the minority, fran
cd by layman aud reported by laymen, so
completely upset the legal case of the ma
Jorlty, and presented the law so clearly, that
the majority were plainly put in the wrong,
and the whole burden of judicial decisions in
the Senate was shown to be openly and pal
pably against them.
So the Democratic lawyers of the Senate
have been compelled to answer this triumph
g. H..
swer, 1t Is true, is lame and inconciusiye,
and fails to reach single one Of the points
made by the minority in their report ; yet
not to answer it, even lamely and inconclu-
sively, would have beeu equal to letting
judgment go by default.
In presenting this second report from the
majority in the Senate, however, the major
lty have been guilty of another breach of
Parliamentary law. When a Special Com
m!ttee Is appointed on special subject, and
the majority and minority make reports on
IT, the jurisdiction of that Committee ends.
The majority have no right to make a sec
ond report. Such thing was never heard
OF before, in any legislative body. The first
report OF the majority and the adoption by
the Senate OF the resolution reported by that
majority, discharged the Committee 1t had
no right to meet again, and this second re-
port IN answer 10 the minority, was usur-
patton of power and in utter defiance of all
legislative practice.
But then this whole case is a series of
The reference of this contes-
ted case TO Il special committee was a usar-
patton the votes of Mr. Dechert, in favor
OF ordering the committee and adopting
their report were usurpations; the actions OF
the committee in excluding the petition of
the contestant was usurpatiOn; the ruling
of the Speaker, in allowing Mr.. Dechert to
vote IN his own case was usurpatlOn; the
action of the Senate, when an appeal was
taken from that ruling, in laying that appeal
on the table, was uSurpation, there being
no rule of the Senate permitting Il motion to
lay on the table, the uniform practice OF the
Senate beng to refuse to recognize such
notion and now VIC have the crowring
of report from the majority in
answer to the minority. afterthe Committee
was discharged. The last act is, of piece
with the rest.
The law of the case, however, remains
with the minority. The report of the mi
nerity is unanswered and unanswerable. Mr..
Buckalew may pettifog and befog the case,
but he cannot change the judicial decisions
cited triumphantiy by the minority, which
show that the well settled law of the State
was against Mr. Dechert and against the
action of the Democratic majority in the
Senate.