The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1882-06-09


tons IN, or additions to the above. and that
they again made oath to the truthfulness of
the said dispositions in every particular.
The 9Th OF March was agreed upon by the
subcommittee for the hearing of argument on
said memorial. On said date, in pursuance to
said notice, the subcommittee met the parties.
and Mr.. Dibble proposed to the committee to
file one additional affidavit corroborating those
first filed BY him. 1t had previously been sub
mitted, SO he said, to Mr. Mackey, and the lat
ter stated to the committee in the presence of
Mr.. Dlbble, that he was well acquainted with
the party whose name purported to be signed
to said affidavit, and that he personally
knew that the party could neither read
writing nor write his name although
the affidavit appeared to be signed BY the
person making the same, and that If
the same vas filed he desired time to file Others.
Mr.. Dibble did not deny the assertions of Mr..
Mackey, but simply stated that he knew nothing
about the affidavit except that he had received
il by mail. The subcommittee took the affi-
davlt, examined it, found that it was only Gu
mllatiye, that Mr.. Dibble had had it in his own
possession for four days, but had given no notice
to the committee of the san1e that it threw no
additional light Oh the affidavits already fled
except that it was cumulative. and that they
would adhere to their former ruling limiting
the time Of filing ex-parte affidayits to March g.
of Mr. Dibble and Mr.. Mackey relative to the
alleged alterations and perversions of the REQ
ord, and an adjournment had until March 49,
In the committee the majority members of
the subcommittee with great care examined
not only the ex-parte afidavits submitted by
Mr.. Dibble and Mr.. Machey but also the testi-
mony in the printed records which was alleged
to be forged and altered. In the light Of tie ar
gument of counsel on sither side, printed and
oral, on March 49, after full argument by the
several members of the subcommittee at
meeting called expressly for the purpose, they
decided to override the motion Qf Mr.. Dibble
to strike from the record all the dispositions
heretofore taken by Mr.. Mackey, and he was
further ordered to forthwith file his brief in the
case, the Goth of March being agreed upon for
final argument. The subcommittee met on
the Doth OF March, and during that day and
the day following heard able and exhaust
arguments on the part of Mr. Dibble by Gen.
H. E. Paine, one of the ablest lawyers in cleo
ton cases that has appeared before the COM
mittee during the present session, and who for
many years was member of Congress and
Cha rman of the Elections Committee, and by
Judge Wilson on behalf of MI. Mackey
The bries submitted by Gen. Paine
Is in print, and contains twenty-seven printed
pages. From first to last it discusses the dis
puted question Of the forged and changed tes-
timony, and is one of the closest arguments
that can be made upon that side of the case.
Judge Wilson's argument on behalfe Of Mr..
Mackey was equally exhaustive, but oral, and
is not in print
The facts of the case touching the election of
Mr.. Mickey or Mr.. O'Connor were not contro-
verted or argued by either Mr.. Paine or Mr..
Earle. who appeared before the committee for
MI. DiOble, nor by Mr.. Dibble himself. No as
sertion was ever made to the committee by
fl,on oG 4l,o& 10,
with the evidence in tho case, Mr.. Mackey ytas
not clearly elected. After argument, the ma
jority Of members OF the subcommittee, after
consultation and a careful review of the evil
dence submitted to them and d full and
careful consideration of the arguments Of
Gen. Paine and Judge Wilson, con-
Guided that the charges of forgery and alter
atoms of the record made by Mr.. Dibble were
utterly and wholly unfounded, and that the
retutation of said charges by the affidavits sub
mitted by Mr.. Mackey utterly dispelled any
doubt or shadow of doubt that had been at
tempted TO be cast upon it by Mr.. Dibble, and,
further, that the evidence of Mr.. Mackey's
election in accordance with the returns made by
the precinct managers on the night of the cleo
ton of Nov. 2, 1880, was incontrovertible,
and that the returns clearly showed that his
majority was 879, counting it as it had been
counted by the said Democratic precinct man
ayers. The majority of the subcommittee re-
quested Mr.. Miller, of Pennsylvania, to block
out a report and submit it to them. This
was done, and the same was put in
print, each member of the majority TAX
ing printed copy thereof. Another meet
ing of the majority of the subcommittee
was held, this printed report YVES carefully
supervised by the three gentlemen composing
the majority, adopted by the three and then
reported to the subcommittee, and it was
adopted. On April this report was submitted
to the full committee and discussed at length
by the members of the subcommittee. The
same allegations of forgery and alterations Of
the record which had been originally raised by
Moulton and Davis, members of the sub-com-
mittee, both argued at great length to the full
committee that the report OF the subcommittee
should not be adopted. Not only the members
of the sub committee, but others of the full
committee who had in the meantime examined
the same question, took part in said discussion,
aud, after an exhaustive argument and
investigation on the part of the
full committee, the report of the majority
of the subcommittee was adopted by
vote of II to 3, again affirming the declara-
ton that the testimony in this case had not
been forged or altered. Mr.. Miller was ordered
to report the case to the House, which he did
on the 10th of April and on the 18th of April
Mr.. Moulton, on behalf of the minority of the
full committee, submitted a minority report
recommending that the contest of Mackey
against O'Connor be dismissed. In that minor
ity report of twenty-five printed pages, sixteen
OF those pages are taken up in the discussion
of the case in an effort to demonstrate that the
testimony had been forged and changed, estab-
fishing beyond doubt that this question had not
only been examined fully by the sub-commit-
tee, but also by the full committee,
and passed on by them. From April 5 to
May Is period of one month and ten days,
no step had been taken by Mr.. Dibble, but, it
being publicly understood that the case was to
be called up in the House early in the
week, commencing May Is, Mr. Dibble
on May Is filed in the House memorial
recharging the forgery and alteration of the
printed record, and asking that the case of
Mackey vs.. O'Connor be recommitted to the
Committee on Elections, with instructions to
investigate as to the genuineness and anthem
ITCHY of the said testimony and charges made
by him concerning the alteration and perver-
sion Of the same by Mr.. Mackey. This me-
mortal was referred to the Committee on Elec-
tons, and on May 16 was discussed by the
members of the committee for over three hours.
The whole case was again gone over, the
several memorials which Mr.. Dibble had already
filed we're again inquired into The same ques-
ton which had been twice discussed before the
subcommittee and once before by the full COM
U1lJl0o, anu WHICH 0aQ D0eu argued aI Bf6dI
length, not only by counsel for
Mr.. Dibble, but by members of the
subcommittee, was thoroughly sifted. The
printed testimony was examined, the evidence Of
every witness upon which the majority report
of the committee was founded, was carefully
compared with the affidavit of Mr.. Hogarth,
heretofore referred to- and also their non-ex-
parte afidavits fled as aforesaid by Mr.. Mackey,
and it appearing to the committee that the tes-
timony of all these witnesses had never been
changed in any particular whatever, that their
genuineness and authenticity was clearly and
irrefutably established, this memorial of Mr..
Dibble was oYerruled by vote of II to 8, but a
single men Der of the full committee being abb
sent. 1t will be seen, therefore, IN recapitula-
ton, that the question Of the alteration of the
record raised by the Democratic members oil
the Hous@ and which they charge has never
been investigated by the Committee on
Elections, is utterly unfounded aud it
has been argued at great length by
counsel on either side before the snb-commt-
tee, twice passed upon by the subcommittee,
twice by the full committee, and exhaustiyey
reviewed by the minority of the Elections Com.
mittee in its report filed in the House April r.
In arriving at the conclusion that Mr.. Mackey
was elected by majority OF $40, that comm t.
tee accepted the returns precisely as counted
by the precinct managers of the three counties
COMPOSING the district, every one of whom IN
every precinct in the district was e Democrat
It is noticeable fact that at no precinct in the
dIGfricf was a SINGLE Ranuhlican connected with