National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-20

that there ought to be no split in
the Republican party, and that the surest
way TO avoid the prohibition question
was 10 ignore II. We consider it the
duty Of the Prohibition Republicans to
be equally generous and to do all that in
them lies TO remove all stumbling blocks
IN the way Of full harmony between the
two wings Of the Republican party, and
those Democrats who, calling themselves
anti-Pr0hihitionists, recognize prohibit
ton 90 be- n dead issue, and are ready to
oppose Bourbon rule on liberal basis.
Mackey-O'Connor Contested Case.
The action of the Democratic House
caucus 81 Wednesday evening is con-
strucd In some quarters 20 the effect that
The Democrats intend 10 filibuster to de-
feat the unscaiinR Of Dibblc, the sitting
member from the Second South Carolina
District Dbble was elected in June of
1881 TO on OUT In the language of the
governors proclamation, "the unexpircd
term Of VI. r. O'Connor deceased"
Mackey had instituted contest
against O'Connor, and claiming that
be. and not O'Connor, had been
elected In November 1880 the
Republicans paid no attention TO the
spocialtrlcction, by virtue Of which Dib-
BILE claims his seat There are over sixty
election precincts In the three counties
comprising the district, but there Is no
dispute over but twelve. These twelve
precincts we're counted by the Demo-
cratic managers Of the district, and In
due form Of law returned by them TO the
county canyassers There was not,
and is not now, any dispute as to
how the vote Of these districts
was counted and returned by the
managers. There is no disputing
the fact that counting them now rs the
Democratic managers counted them on
the night Of the election, Mackey was
elected by eight hundred and seventy
nine majority. There Is no disputing the
fact, that II IL had not been for the stufling
Of the ballot.boxes in every poll in the
district but eight that Mackcy would
have had over nine thousand majority.
Now, what do the Democratic managers
Of the House propose to do about this2
Why raise a side issue that the evidence
has been tempered with and therefore is
not reliable. The Election Committee
said to Mr. Dibblo, "If you propose TO
prove that the testimony that establishes
the vote Of these precincts has been
tempered with you shall be heard" The
fact Is, he dare not make such an asser-
ton. When he filed his memorial
charging generally that the testimony
had been tamrercd with tho commit
tee gave him time 20 file his ca pdrts afIi.
dayits 10 substantiate the charge. In re-
turn Il gave Mackoy time to file afidavits
in rebuttal.
The testimony showing how the vote
of these twelve precincts was cast and
counted by the Democratic managers de-
ponds on the evidence Of fourteen wit
nesses. If the testimony Of these
witnesses has not been changed Mackey
should be seated. This Is the pist of the
case. Thisis the only point in the case, and
all that there is Of IT, On this point there
is First-the testimony Of these fourteen
witnesses in the printed record. Second
the nflidavits, filed with the committee
in answer to Dibble's memorial, Of these
fourteen witnesses that they have read
their testimony as printed in the rec
ord, and that il has not been changed,
but just as they gave IL. Third-the
affidavit of the stenographer who took
the testimony in shorthand, that he has
compared the dispositions of these four
teen witnesses in the printed record with
the original shorthand notes in his pos
session, and that they compare in every
particular.
This efIectually disposcs Of the general
charge of Mr.. Dibblc that the evidence
has been tempered with.
But the case does not rest here. Mr..
Dibble, as appearsby the record, was one
of the counsel Of Mr.. O'Connor. Four of
the precincts in dispute are in his home
county, and three of them were thrown
out at his suggestion to the county can
vassers. Neither he nor Mr.. O'Connor's
counsel in the other counties introduced a
line of testimony to dispute or discrcdit
these fourteen witnesses. Why should
not these twelve precincts be counted by
Congress precisely as the Democratic
managers counted them?
We do not believe n sufficient number
of Democratic members can be induced
to filibustcr on such showing. Noparty
has ever filibustered on an election case,
and no party can afford TO filibuster on
such case as that of Mackey VS.. O'Con-