The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1882-06-09
MAGKEY VS.. DIBDLE.
FnlI History of the South Carolina
Election Case.
An Interesting Document from the
Republican Congressional Com
mittee.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE REPUBLICAN,
CONGRESSIONAL COMMIT EE,


The following statement has been prepared
by Mr.. Miller, of Pennsylvania, and has been
Endorsed by eleven out of fifteen members of
the Election Committee of the House. relative
to the contested-election cas- which the Repub-
lican majority of the House are now attempt
ing to consider, and which!the Democrats are
determined shall not even be discussed on the
floor of the House.
JAY A. HUBBELt, Chairman
D. B. HENDERSON, Secretary.
SACKEY VS.. o'CoNNoR.
This case ARISES out of contest from the
Second Congressional district of South Caro-
lima, and was referred to the second sub COM
mittee Of she Committee on E ections, COM
posed of Judge Waite, of Connecticut; Judge
Richie, Of Ohio Mr.. Miller, of Pennsylvania !;
Mr.. MoultDn. of Illinois and Mr.. Davis, of
Missouri. The parties, as they stand on the
record, are E. w. Mackey, contestant, and NJ.
?. OConrpr, contestee At the general elec4
ton held the I'd day of November 1880, these
two parties were voted for, and the State Board
of Canvssiers of the State of South Carolina act
ing upon Isturns made to them by the county cam
vassers, declared DIR. O'Connor elected, and the
ecrtifcateof election was accordingly issued to
and the parties III due time proceeded to take
the testimony, which is contained in the printed
record. After the testimony in chief on
either SIDE had been completed Mr.
OConnor on April 26, 1881 died, and
on the ga day of May, 1881, the Governor of
South Caiolina, assuming that vacancy was
caused in the represent alton of the State by Mr..
O'Connors death, ordered q special election to
fill the same. At that special election Mr.. DID
In estt hon r.Epi
turned elected, receiving but Z, 344 votes in
district that on Nov. 2, 1880, Mr.. O'Connor
claimed gave him 1869 votes The Repub-
hcans of the district, claiming that Mr.. Mackey
and not Mr.. O'Connor had been elected Nov O.
1880, and the death of O'Connor had created
no vacancy, refrained from voting at said spe-
cial election. On Jan. "a, 1882, the print
ed record was received from the
printer On the same day Mr.. Dibble
filed protest with the Committee on
Elections denying the said committee had
any jurisdiction to inquire into the right by
which he aeld his seat on the floor of the
House, and alleging that the death of O'Con-
nor, the coltestee, had abated the contest of
MackeyO 'Gonnor, and that there was no con-
test pending to his DibbIe's) right to the seat.
This protest was argued before the sub-com-
mittee by eminent counsel on behalf of Mr..
Dibble. On Jan. ~ and % and on Jan. 81 the
puD-COIllAIbb00 buOullbbS0 d I6pOIG VI Tic Iull
committee overriding the protest and the mo-
ton of Mr.. Dibble to dismiss the contest.
When MI. Dibble was made aware Of the action
of the Subcommittee he made request
that his protest and memorial be argued
before the full committee, which request was
granted, and on Feb. 8 the same was re
argued by counsel of Mr.. Dibble and after
due consideration the action of the sub
committee was sustained by the full COM
Foo xyOta Of IN IN fho
day-Fb. S-the clerk of the committee,
in accordance with the rule relating thereto,
issued an order to Mr.. Dibble to file his brief
within twenty days, the time fixed for all con-
testees within which briefs were to be fled
After notice on the 18th of February, Mr.. DID,
BILE filed second protest with the Committee
on Elections, reciting the fact that he h been
notified by the clerk to file his brief within
twenty lays from the receipt of said notice,
again leasserting that the committee had no
jurisdiction to inquire into the right by which
he heldhis seat, that the contest of Mackey VS..
OConnbr had abated by the death of O'Connor
that hewas a member Of the House regularly
sworn, against whose right to the seat there
was not at the time of his being so sworn in
single paper of any description in the possess
sion of the House or of the Clerk of the House
questioning his ri ut to seat, and that he
would not consent to any assault upon his
right as such member, and that he was COM
PEELED, for reasons set forth in said memorial
to protest against being served with notice to
file briefs in the said case of Mackey vs.. O'Cou-
nor.
This memorial was also argued on said Feb.
7 before the full committee, his protest over
ruled, and, by vote of the committee, the
clerk WIS directed to notify him to file his brief
within The time prescribed by the rules This
gave him until Feb. % in which to file his brief.
On the 21st of February, seven days before the
expiration of the time in which he was directed
to file his brief, Mr.. Dibble filed third memo
rial with the subcommittee, setting forth that
without waving any of the objections hereto
fore raised by his protest. he alleged and
charged, first, that Mr.. Mackey had willfully,
surrepttiously, frauduently and corruptly al
tered and perverted the testimony of the
witnesses who were examined in
the said case of Mackey VS.. O'ConRor;
second, that the testimony filed with the
Clerk Of the House of Representatives i'll the
said case was not the testimony of the W.T.
nesses as given upon their examination in the
said case. He closed his memorial by request
ing the committee to make an investgat on Of
these matters, and to ask leave Of the House of
representa- tives to summon the witnesses whose
disposition accompanied his communication
together with such other witnesses as might be
named by Mr.. Mackev and himself touching
the truth of the charges therein contained in
the case if contestant denied the said charges
or to take such other means IS may be fair ana
lawful to ascertain the same, and that the testi-
mony on file in the case of Mackey vs.. O'Oon-
nor Ge striker out and declared to be fictitious,
unreliable and void.
This memorial, it will be observed, contained
three distinct prayers. At the time said men,
orial WIS flied it was supplemented by the affi-
davits Of E. H. Hogarth, the notary and stenog-
rapher who took the greater part of TIE
tes immy for both parties of G. Smith. who
had been a clerk to Mr.. Mackey; of W. A.
zimmerman. witness in the case of Robert
Chisolm, James Whaley, and Malcolm j. Brown
ing all of South Carolina, and who were attor-
news for Mr.. O'Counor; of William E. Earle,
attorney for Mr.. Dlbble, and Charles E. O'Con-
nor; Of M. P. 0 Conner, who also acted as
one of the attorneys in the case. On the 1st
OF March, eight days after this memorial and
these atfidavits had been fled with the COM
mlttee, the subcommittee Iii charge of the
case met In pursuance of notice to Mr.. Dibble.
He WIS asked whether or not he required any
additional time to file any further ex-parte
affidavts corroborating his charge of alteration
of the record, and without objection on his
part the close of that day was given him for
such purpose. At the same time the Commits
sloner gave Mr.. Mackey until the evening Of
March 8 to file such counter afidavits as he
might desire to file, and expressly stated to the
parties that, unless objection was made then
and there, no further time or delay would be
given to either of them to file further afidavits.
Within the time specified Mr.. Mackey fled with
the clerk of the committee his, own affidavit,
but MIR. Hogarth, the notary aforesaid, de-
posed that he had examined the deposit
tons of fourteen witnesses as contained
in the printed volume of the testimony
that be had compared them with the original
stenographic notes of the said depositions in
his possession, and that the dispositions cor
responded in every particular with the original
stenographic notes Of said dispositions; also,
the deposition of G, NJ. Magrath, who deposed
that he was employed to assist in writing out
much Of the testimony of Mr.. Mackey in the
case, and that the dispositions of such wit
nesses were correct copies of the originals as
read to him and transcribed by Mr. Hogarth ;
also. the deposition of T. A. huguenin, who
was one of the Democratic Board of County
Canvassers in Charleston county, and a very
material witness for Mr. Mackey, who deposed
that be had read his deposition in the printed
record and that he was sure there had been
no garbhng of, or alterations In, or additions
to the said deposition; and he further sYore
that the same was true in every particular :
also, the affidavit of the said @. Smith, the same
witness relied upon by Mr.. Dibble, and the only
one that charged alterations of the record, that
he had read the printed record of his testimony,
and that to the best of his recollection it was q
correct copy of the same; also, the afidavits OF
eighty-four Of the ninety -four witnesses called