The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-04-30

authorized by him to take testimony or
cross-examine witnesses in the matter of
such contest, if, by the use OF reasonable
diligence such personal service can be
made; but If, by tie use Of such diligence
| personal service cannot be made, the SER
vice may be made by leaving duplicate
Of the notice at the usual place Of abode
of the opposite party. The notice shall
be served so as TO allow the opposite
party sufficient time by the usual route of
travel to attend, end one day for prepsr-
alton, exclusive of Sundays and the Cay
of serving. Testimony in Tebuttal may
be taken on FIVE days. notice"
Now, l ask my friends who centrovert
my position on this question. is there
line or letter Of that statute which is d.
rectOry? Is it not in every line and let
ter mandatory? Are you not compelled
to act within its scope? Can you do out
side OF it any legal act? l take it thst
the House has already answered this
question at the present session in the case
of the gentleman who contested the seat
of my friend from South Carolina Mr..
Aiken1. In that case the testimony was
sufficient to convince any man that fraud
and wrong had been done; and II that
testimony stood in proper form, uncou-
trsdicted before this House to-day, the
gentleman from South Carolina would
be ousted. But for the simple reason
that the evidence 10 that case had 6een
:aken before an officer not designated IN
the statute, the evidence was not consld-
cred and the contest was dismissed.
his was done by unanimous vote, not
only of the committee but OF this House.
Not that fraud was not proven, not that
the contestant had not made out fair
case upon the evidence, but for the SIM
pie and single reason that the testimony
had been taken before an officer not
named in the statute. Now, If the testI-
mony in this case was taken In any
other way than that prescribed In the
statute, can the committee consider II? l
undertake to say land L mean just what l
sayl that from the day the notice
Of Of contest was served upon Mr.. Campbell
up to the present time, Mr.. Cannon has
never taken word or letter Of
testimony from any source. 1 make
the assertion without fear Of con-
tradiction, that at no time was a subpoena
ever issued on behalf of Mr.. Cannon to
take one word of testimony before any
officer. But I am informed that there
was a certain tabulsted statement which
some one in the Territory certified to this
House and the committee; that it was GER
tilted under the hand aud seal Of the
secretary of that territory. l deny it. l
say this is absolutely not the case. l say
this: That the evidence itself establishes
the fact that long after this contest had
been commenced, after portion Of the
testimony had been taken as to whether
he was 8 polygsmist or not and as to
whether he had been naturallzed or not,
Mr.. Cannon then on his own motion,
and without the knowledge OF consent Of
the contestee, Mr.. Campbell, received
what purported to be tabulated state
ment of the votes cast at that election,
certified to by the secretary Of the Terri
| tory and brought here-not to the COM
mittee on elections for l assert here and
now that paper never was IN the posses
sion of this House never was among the
papers referred to the committee on
elections, never found is way into the
committee-room until the Oh day of
February, 2, more than two months
after this House had been organized aud
was sitting here and hearing this case.
say that it was never taken as testimony
to be used before the committee on q &C.
tons, II was brought here by Mr.. Can
non for a livery different purpose. and
wish to say now to my democratic friends,
YOU know, and the country knows, it was
brought here for q ve=y different purpose,
and that it served that purpose well. 1t
was submitted to democratic clerk Of
this House, and in opposition to the law
and in violation of the oath which he had
taken, and against every statute on the
statute-book which ought to have con-
trolled his action IN the matter, he judi
cislly decided this matter. and placed
the name of Mr.. Cannon as q delegate
from the Territory of Utah on the roll of
the House of Representatives. He judi
cislly determined that this man Cannon
was entitled to the seat as delegate from
the Territory of Utah upon this floor,
He assumed the functions Of Congress.
He assumed the functions OF court. In
violation of his cath and in violation of
the law he placed the name Of Mr.. Can
non upon the roll and gave him that
position which enabled him to claim
both his seat and his pay until after the
organization Of this House, when he was
kept out by the msjori'y upon this floor.
That, Mr.. Speaker, was the purpose OF
having that tsbulated statement, and
that was the purpose for which it
WAS used. 1t was never among
the papers referred by the
House to the committee, and never
found its way into the hands of the COM
mittee until the 9Th day Of February,
1882, when it again appeared as evidence
on the part of the contestant, and when It
had been suggested that no evidence had
been taken and the contest was Absn-
doned. 1t was never taken as evidence
under the statute, and you cannot consider
it for any purpose whatever IS part OF
the history of this case.
1t is said that you have this very un-
doubted authority, that you have here
the fact that the vote cast for Mr.. Can
non was some $4,000, and the vote cast
for Mr.. Campbell was some zoo. You
have this upon the same undopbted
authority that you have the other fact
that Mr.. Cannon is q polygamist. You
have both those facts,
Mr.. Speaker, let me- say to the gentle
man who urged this argnm mt upon the
authority. the undoubted authority of
Madam Rumor, but upon the authority
of nobody else, these. as facts, come to
us on the simple authority Of Madam
Rumor.
Itisno evidence, Mr.. Speaker, in this
case The contestee had q right to the
notice required by law, he had right to
he present and cross-examine the witness,
| Shak fba ~ If