National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-22
MR. plnnLE,s srArEMENr.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,, U. s.,
WAsftfNgroN. ID. C.. Mny 20. 1850,

WASHINGTON, u. g., May 20, 1852.
To the Editor OF THE REpuBJIcANi
In your article to day concerning the Mackey.
oConnor contest find you have been misin-
formed in so many particulars that am induced
TO ask you to publish the folowing
First-It is stated in the article alluded to that
only twelve precincts are in dispute. This Is not
80. Mr.. Mackey disputes nearly every precinct,
and claims an election by large majority, while
deny that he was elected Mt ALL These questions
involve nearly every precinct in the district
Sccoud-It is stated that the twelve precincts
alluded to were In due form of law returned TO
the county canvassers." II is only necessary to
remark that the ballot. box and return Of Book
hart's, one of the twelve precincts, was In tho
private custody Of Mr.. Mackey's attorney, at the
time of the county and State canvasses, and was
not produced by him on either occasion, did
not know that it had ever been claimed that this
box had been "iu due form OF law returned to the
county canvas'ers" until saw this article.
Ihird-lt Is stated that the Election Committee
said to Mr.. Dibble, If YOU propose to prove that
the testimony that establishes the vote Of thes1
precincts has been tempered with you shall lie
heard. " No such offer was ever made TO me.
On the contrary, asked for an Investigation,
which involved this issue. submitted afidavits,
aud Mr.. Mockcy admitted, that !hIs testimony had
been written out in long hand by Mr. Hogarih,
the notary, from stenographic notes; that II had
then been delivered TO Mr. Mockey, who had 1t
rewritten; that the rewritten copies, and not the
originals, are now on file purp)rting 10 be the
original deposiuons.
turtncr submitted tne afuuNlt OF Mr.. MnckCy'S
principal copyst, who was one Of his witnesses;
was Republican supervisor at that election was
one OF those chosen TO watch tho boxes until and
during the county canvass (and who had been q
Republican State senator), to the effect that Mr.
Nackcy had altered with lis own hand the dopo.
sltions furnished the notary, and had destroyed
the originals; and that the copies made and now
on file here accorded with the alterations, and
not with the originnE. sintcd TO the committee
that II wns due both 10 Mr.. M9ckey and to myself
that grave charge should he Investigated regu-
larly with privilege OF cross examination of wit
neSses on both sides; and that could name other
witnesses, whose testimony could not obtain OK
cept under the power of the House. which re-
quested them 10 invoke, as the witnesses were
offered to show, on the iice Of the manuscript,
in Mr.. Mackey's own handwriting, that he had
altered certain parts Of It, The committee would
nm, gave the rest OF the day to file further Gf
fdavits, and gave Mr.. Mnckcy two days longer, in
addition TO time previously allowed, and set day
hdayit corroborativc Of Mr.. MNckcy's alteration
and destruction of the original depositons, and
naming several other persons who were cognlz ant
of the fact. This was excluded, because filed II
day too late, although copy had been served on
Mr. Mackey as soon as possible
These charges cover all of the dispositions in
favor Of Mr. Mockey, including those referred 10
in your article.
on the testimony Of fourteen witnesses. and stress
is laid upon their alndavitS, and on Hogarth's
affidavit that he has compared their dispositions
As to eight Of Tie fourteen witnesses, their afIi-
dnvis are part Of batch of thirty niue ahdavits
similar in form, taken in one day before the same
notary, in Charleston, three days after the charges
| had been flied in Washington, and requiring care
| ful scrutiny of ovcEtwO hundred pages OF printed
| matter, and an accurate personal recollection of
the exact figures testified rs the vote of thirty
| precincts at examinations held year before.
And to the affidavit of Hogarth, II is utterly un
| reliable 1t was made in Augusta, Ca February
a. and 1t states II Is made in response to an an
neXed letter of Mr.. M0ckey, dated Washington,
| February %. In reality 1t was made in response
to personal application. and after secret inter
| view.
The parties concerned will understand what
mean when mention the house OF Sarah Frazer,
| n colored woman, No. 92S Walker street, Augusta,
| Ca, on February %, as well as Mr.. Hogatth $
| presence in Charleston, s. C., on February g. l
counsel, TO Mr. Hogarth for copies of certain depo-
! sitons to be prepared by him from his steno-
graphic notes. In concert with any reliable stenog-
| rapher In Augusta.
Mr. Hogarth declined to furnish the copies, unless
prepared by himself alone, without the presence
| of any other stenographer Further, am lelia-
ply informed by gentleman VINO has lately seen
ures tianspOsiuons, and interlineatons Com
| ment is unnecessary.
SiNth-Thc statement that I was one of Mr..
| OConnors counsel is only true TO this extent,
| that. Mt the request of Mr. Browning, who was Mr..
| oConnor's attorney in his contest in my county,
examined several witnesses, and cross examined
| some others. did this personal and political
| friend of Mr. o'Connor, and while examining such
| witnesses, J. of course, represented him. L had
nothing to do with the stipulations of counsel or
the general management ofthe case Respectfully
yours, SAMUEL DlBBLE.
representations, the correctness of which we have
no reason to doubt. Mr. Dibble isenhuedto room
for his reply. His attack upon MIR. Hogarths tesi-
mony is relied upon by him, but the Committee on
Elections did not appear to be affected by it.-ED
| REpUpIICAN1