Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-11-28
Little Falls, was one Of the bribed. and j.
V. Brewer went all through northern Minne-
sofa disbursing Washburn' g corruption fund.
Domnellv,s Second BRIEF.

V. Brewer went all through northern Mime
sofa disbursing Washburn' 8 corruption fund.
Donnellv's Hec0nd Brief.
MIR. Washburn, through his attorney,
made reply to the brief from which we
have quoted, but has not been considerate
enough to furnish the GLOBE copy. We
can form some idea of it, however, from
Donnelly's reply. The following is his
opening:
In his brief the contestant, Ignatius Don
nelly, confined himself strictly to the facts
as presented in the printed testimony, and
to the authorities and laws applicable thereto.
The sitting member, in his answer, has gone
out of his way to traduce and abuse the CON
testant; he has dragged in matters not in
evidence in this case he has put a stump
speech in the belly Of his plea he has
sought to arouse tho partisan prejudices of
a portion of the committee of elections, and
he has rounded almost every sentence of his
brief with sneer or an insult. Having
bought his nomination at the hands of the
Republican party; having bought up every
thing low and disreputable in the district to
secure his election he very appropriately
concludes by purchasing the services of q
firm of Democratic attorneys, who seek to
use that which should have been cold and
formal presentation of the law and the
facts, as channel through which to vent
their disappointed ambitions and their per-
sonal hatreds. There is little ventured in
the assertion, that there has never before
been presented to Congress q case showing
such vast and shameless corruption as that
OF the sitting member, as revealed by the
printed testimony and there has certainly
never before been presented to this commits
tee SO shallow, or SO insolent law-brief as
that prepared by his counsel. The commit
tee of elections of the House of Representa-
tives is supposed, and justly, to weigh the
evidence and the law applicable thereto,
without partisan bias or prejudice. How
base then must be the man who, in a pro-
ceeding of this kind, so much as touches
upon questions of politics much less who
seeks to embitter Democrats against the
contestant by perverted extracts from
speech alleged to have been made by him
! many years ago? What does the contestee
mean? Why does he not appeal to tho
prejndices of the Republicans? Does
he insult them by suppos-
ing that they are in his
| favor in any event, with or without law or
facts to justify them? Or does he intimate
That the law and facts being upon the con-
testant's side he will save himself by arous-
ing against him the partisan hostility of the
Democrats on the committee? The counsel
who would thus seek to inhame the passions
of judges that he may strike down the rights
of parties, is worthy to have practiced be-
fore Jetfries.
Let US consider in order the points pre-
| sented in the contestee's brief:
THE VOTE OF THE DISTRICT.
He claims that Washburn must have been
elected because the district has heretofore
been Republican. That is to say, once Re-
publican, always Republican. But be is un :.
fair enough to omit the fact that from 1869
| to 1871 this district was represented in Con-
gress by Democrat, the Hon. E. M. Viii
| son. He omits the further fact that in 1873,
| for the first time, the Greenback party ap-
| peared in the field. He tells you that in two
years, from 1872 to 1874, the Republican
| majority fell from 5000 to 1900, q loss of
1000; is it improbable that in the two years
from 1876 to 1878 it should fall from 1000
to less than nothing?
If we take the vote in tho district for Gov
| ernor in 1877 we find that the Republican
| candidate for Governor had majority, out
| side Of Hennepin county, of 5,554.
If we take the vote for Congressman in
| 1878, in the same counties, outside of Hen
| nepin county and Kittson and Polk coun-
| ties (and the contestee's brief virtually con-
| cedes that the counties of Kittson and Polk
should be stricken out), we find that the
! contestant has majority Of 1,481.
Thus IN the counties outside of Hennepin,
the contestant wrought a change in one
year of 1896 votes, in a total vote of 38,97O!
And yet his brief tells US, that because
the contestee's party, led by very popular
gentleman, carried the district, as against
the Democrats alone, in 1876, by 2,O96 ma
jority; that, ergo, Washburn carried it in
1878 by two or three thousand majority over
Democrats, Greenbackers and Workingmen
united in support Of the same candidate.
And when we couae to Hennepin county,
We find that in 1876 the Republicans carried
it by 600 maj ority; in 1876 the Democrats
carried it by 1924 majority change of
| 1858 in two years; while in 1878 it is claim
ed that Washburn carried it by 1886! In
other words, Washburn claims that he ran
ahead of the vote for the Republican can
didate for Congress in 1874, 2,976 votes;
! and gained on the Republican candidate of
| 1876, 4,5Oa votes. Can any one believe this
to be possible. The county of Hennepin
gave Hayes in 1876, 731 majority; it is claim
cd that it gave Washburn, two years later,
1886 majority. Washburn's alleged ma
jority in Hennepin county is sol votes more
than the total voee cast for the Republican
candidate for Congress in 1874, although
| that candidate was himself a resident of
the county. Washburn's alleged
majority in Hennepin county is
very nearly as great as the total vote cast in
the whole county for his predecessor in Con-
gress, DR.. Stewart, two years previously!
Hennepin county is large and populous
county. It contains twenty voting precincts
outside of the city of Minneapolis, and it
must be remembered that in these country
precincts the contestant, Donnelly, had q
majority of 1876 over the sitting member, so
that the whole of this enormous increase
came, not from Hennepin county, but from
the city and township of Minneapolis, which
be claims to have carried by $3.50 majority
How he carried it the testimony shows. It
shows further that out of IS Judges of cleo
ton in the city of Minneapolis only were
avowed friends of the contestant, while 80
were avowed friends of the sitting member.
(See printed testimony, page 1879 In out
of Is precincts all the judges were favorable
to Washburn. ~ .-..... IL
It is 10 wonder, therefore, that as CON-
pared with the votes of 1876 and 1877,
Washburn's pretended gains and actual
losses stood az follows: ...-...s.
Gained in Minneapolis over Stewart,
1910. ....t....... 4, GUY votes
Lost in rest of district, as compared
with Piiisbury, 1877. ...........6 1856 votes
Defeated in this Republican district,
outside of Hennepir, Polk and
kittson counties, by ma ority of. !, 4Sl votes
Carried minneapolis by an alleged
majority Of. $3.50 votes
To state such claim is to answer it,
The brief then reviews at length the ille-
gal votes cast, the unorganized counties, the