The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-04-04
Massachusetts Contested Election Case.

Judge Harris speech in the Field-Dean
election case from the State Of
Massachusetts,, and his general management
IS chairman of the committee on elections
Judge Harris has done most excellent SER
ice at the head o. the Elections Committee
his session, fighting a combined opposition
without and not little detection within his
committee and party. He has pluck. sense,
In admirable temper and vigor of thought
Is well as of action, and despite the almost
neXplicable course of few Democrats,
brought Dean through yesterday with flying
,olors. His closing speech for the contestant
On Wednesday evening was not only unan-
swerable as an argument, but one of those
bugie calls which inspire whole army to
action. Of course it will be claimed by the
that the seating of Dean was a
mere exhibition of partisan brute force, and
this too without reference to the fact that
Butler, the ablest Republican politician and
lawyer in either House, most vigorously sup
ported the Democratic side of the question.
Where so many have done well it is perhaps
invidious to mention names, and yet the
Post feels that rousing tribute is due to
Judge Harris exhibition of power as an Or
ganizer and party le,der. The Democracy
everywhere should lift its cap to him.
From the partizan standpoint OF the Post
the compliment paid Judge Harris is no
doubt deserved; but in view of the facts and
justice of the case, it is compliment which
Judge Harris should not have coveted.
There is no question about the validity Of
the claim of Mr.. Field to the seat, notwith-
standing Gen. Butler, protested Republi-
can, voted for Mr.. Dean, Democrat, which
decided the contest in his favor. The laws
of Massachusetts, were framed with great
deal of care and precision, to prevent any
thing like fraud or false returns in elections
There is a provision for declaring the vote
every hour as the election progresses. I'M
medately after the polls are closed, the Sc
lectmen and U. S. Supervisors, in cities Of
twenty thousand and upwards, count the
ballots, sum up the result and make public
proclamation thereof. If there is doubt as
to the correctness OF the proclaimed result,
ten voters may ask for a revision by the
board of aldermen.
In the case of Dean and Field, candidates
Tor Congress In Boston, the returns by the
selectmen and supervisors, showed that Dean
was elected by seven majority. 1t was be-
lieved that there were inaccuracies in the
count, and the necessary form of application
for recount of the result as announced, was
observed, and the three aldermen-two De-
mocrats and one Republcan-designated to
perform the duty. After careful examina-
ton and counting of the ballots, they came
to the unanimous conclusion that Mr.. Field
was elected by five majority. The certificate
of election was issued to him and he took his
seat. Notice of contest was made by Mr..
Dean, evidence taken, and the case submit
ted to the election committee for determine
ton. 1t was referred to sub committee of
three-Messrs Springer, of Illinois, and Cand-
Ter, of Georgia, Democrats, and Mr.. Hiscoek
OF N. Y, Republican. A majority Of this
subcommittee of three, Messrs Gambler and
Hiscock, presented report to the effect that
Mr.. Fields was entitled to the seat, and Mr..
Springer offered a minority report in favor of
L
Mr.. Field was not entitled to the seat and
that Mr.. Dean was. The report OF the COM
mittee was adopted by vote OF 100 to ll9.
Mr.. Butler, in his speech favoring Dean,
and also Mr.. Springer, quoted remarks of Mr..
Stebbins, one of the aldermen, as applica-
bic to the case in question, which were made
in reference to . senatorial contest, and en-
deavored to create the impression that they
were made in the Dean Field contest. To
read Mr.. Buffers remarks, and the connec
ton in which he used the quotation from Mr..
Stebbins, would make it very clear that Mr..
Stebbins meant the'case of Dean and Field,
and that votes had been thrown out upon
very frivlous technical grounds. Mr.. Frye,
however, exposed this disreputable trick,
and had read as part OF his speech against
the fierce protest of Mr.. Springer, certifi-
cate from Mr.. Stebbins. affirming that there
were no votes thrown out at all in the con-
test for Congress, but that the revised count
added to the aggregate number OF votes as
reported by the selectmen's count, yet CIV
ing Mr.. Fields the majority in the corrections
that were made. Notwithstanding this dam
aging exposure of the deception attempted
by Messrs Butler and Springer, the Demo-
cratic column could not be sufficiently
shaken to consummate the ends of justice,
Six or seven Democrats voted TO seat Mr..
Field, and among them Mr.. Gambler of Ca,
who, as member of the special committee
to examine the case, was emineptly qualified
to give fair verdict. We do not think any
fair minded man can read the debates en- the
subject without arriving at the conclusion
that Mr.. Gambler was clearly right, and that
Mr.. Field should have been assigned the
seat. Judge Harris remarks are not report
ed in the Record, he having withheld them
for revision but we doubt very much
whether he was able to break the chain of
facts and arguments presented by Mr.. Frye
and Mr.. Harris of Massachusetts,. So clearly
was the determination Of Congress in giving
the seat to Mr.. Dean, partizan, that even
the Baltimore Gazette, the most rabid DEM
ocratic paper now published, says that the
Democratic party cannot afford to profit by
such political injustice. Whatever may have
been the presidents, two wrongs never yet
have made right and If Judge Harris has
not adduced some new facts and stronger
arguments than those presented by Messrs
Butler and Springer, we may safely conclude
that he has not relieved the seating ct Mr..
Dean OF very palpable partizan wrong.
We will take the occasion to remind the
very efficient representative from this dis
trict, that there is very perceptible modifi-
cation of partizan feeling among his consti-
tuants, and that the aspiration of the people
is for equal and exact justice, whether it op-
crates in favor of one party or the other.
In this case there was no party necessity
which could be appealed to in justification
of an unjust partizan verdict, inasmuch as the
seating OF Mr.. Dean does not affect Demo-
cratic preponderance in the House. 1t is a
matter of record now, and the testimony is
before US of Democratic Congressman and
Democratic newspapers protesting against it
as unjust and not in accordance with the ev-
idence in the case. The popular mind is not