National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1880-01-19
CURRENT CAPITAL TOPICS.
Glaring Partisanship in Contested
Election Case.
A Governor who Ignores the Authority that
Seated Him-Eitz-JOhn Porter's Case
A Significant Indication of Confod-
crate Sympathy-SomoI Inter
esting FIgures-The Ute
Indian Inquiry.


Ihc contested election case OF the Second
district, Florida (3isbee vs. Hul), was heard
OH behalf of the contestant on last Saturday
night before the Subcommittee of tho House,
aud the facts presented in clear, logical and
unanswerable argument, by Judge Clampitt,
counsel for Mr.. Bisboe.
This case has attracted notable attention
because of the open aud fragrant injustice pnt
upon Republican Member of the House of
REPRESENTATIVES duly elected AMI certified by
the Court Of last resort in the State of Florida,
so TO be-and, no less by the reckless disregard
by the Executive Of that State, of his i'm
perative obligation doubtless upon grounds
of party expediency.
On the 9th of November 1873, an election
was held in the Second Congressional district
of Florida, for the purpose of choosing Repre-
sentative from that district in the Forty Sixth
Congress
Tho State Canvassing Board, on the 22d of
December following, declared Mr. Hulps
election, and on that day certificate was
issued to him by the Governor of the State.
On tho 9th of January, 1870, Hon. II. Bis.
bee, jr., who was tho Republican candidate
from the same district, filed with Mr.. Hull
notice of contest based on six specific
grounds-in which the general illegality OF
tue canvass OF votes by the State canvassing
board was charged, together with specific ale
cations of distinct fraudulent acts-alleging
that the Supreme court of Florida had, since
the issuance of that certificate of election by
the Governor rendered its decision, declaring
in effect the illegality of said canvass aud
certificate; and that, under its mandate, the
| said board of canvasscrs, on the 8th of Jan
| uary, 1872 made another canvass of the re.
turns, including one formerly rejected from
Madison county, aud declared Hon. H. Bis.
bee duly elected as Representative from said
| district having 20l niUorty over all other
candidates. That ut precinct No. 4, Madison
county, where he had majority OF 81 votes,
| no return was delivered to tho proper officers
| Of tho county, and the votes arc not included
| in the returns from that county; that 1Sl
| votes cast for him at u special poll in the
Madison district of that county and returned
by the inspectors, were not included In said
county returns. That 110 Democratic ballots
were fraudulontly substituted for the like
number Of ballots cast for contestant. That
in tile Ft Mason district of Orange county,
| all tue ballots cast were marked by tho in
spectors with distinguishing mark, to iden-
tify tho voters, In cOntravention OF tho laws of
the State governing said election, and that in
Brevard county some 200 fcticous votes were
| added to the true returns, in favor Of Mr..
| Hull, aud that the registration of votes in that
| county was not made by authorized officers
That no registration books were used, as the
law required, and no ballot-Doxos were fur.
nished the inspectors.
On these grounds Mr.. Bisbee builds his case.
| Tho contest turns upon the three counties OF
| Alachua, Madison and Brcvard, and there is
| no question ON either sido rs to any other.
The argument Of Judge Clampitt was
trenchant aud incsive on these several points.
First, taking the evidence US contained in
contestants brieL he showed conclusivoly the
election OF Mr. Bisboe, aud then appropriating
the contestee's brief he showed from it a clear
majority OF 6S7 for tho contestant
The supreme court of Florida declared Mr..
Blsbee elected, but the Governor refused him
certificate. on the ground that he had no
power to revoke the certificate already issued
although advised by carefully considered
opinion OF the Attorney-Genoral that II was
his duty-and notwithstanding he himself
owed his seat to the same line of practice III.
voked OF correcting and counting illegally
rejected votes, thus showing that sauce for
Drew's goose was not for Bisbee's gander, aud
that the right OF u case may depend on whose
OK is gorcd.
What tho Issue is 10 be or how much longer
Dtr. Bisbee is to suffer from this intrusion is
yet to be seen. The argument of contestants
counsel seems to have impressed the committee
deeply by its cogency aud force. Whether q
question of party expcdiency shall lead the
majority in Congress to commit crime is q
speculaton-rendered tho more painful by the
secret csbal of the caucus.