National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-05-28


The Wallace-McKinley contested election case
was finally disposed of in tho house yesterday
The debate was opened by Mr.. l.. b. Taylor of
ONO, who spoke In support OF the claims of tho
contestee and predicted that If Mr.. Mckinley
were uiseated now he would be re-. elected TO the
forty ninth congress by an. increased majority
Ii Ohio believed that a wrong had been done 10
one of her sons 1t would not rebound to the adj
vantage OF those who had wrought it.
Mr. Cook, OF Iowa, went into the details of the
case, aud argued thereirOm that the Contestant
was entitl d To the seat.
=, Mr.; llurd admitted that under the laws of Ohio
the sitting member was not entitled 10 the seat
and yet he believed that Mr. Mckinley hau b sgn
elected ltappeared that in the returns which
had been made by the officers of the different
counties, humber OF votes were reported as hay-
ing been cast for persons bearing different nuuIe
from that of the democratic candidate. Hlsuame
was Jonathan 4 Wallace, and votes had been cast
"Mng WallUc," &c. The CanvassIng board of the
state had refused 10 regard those woes us having
issued tho certlfcSte CONTESTANT Of elec. aon
to the sitting member. lie believed that Tue can.
wasting board erred in their judgment, II those
votes had been counted las they should have been
Wallace would have received the certificate OF
election MI Mckinley was therefore occupying
seat u which he had no equitable title, and II
there were nothing more in this case than ju.i the
returns on which the canvasSing board rendered
igs decision he would have no hesitation I'm yuliir
that Wallace was entitled 10 the seat now. But
that was not the situation, The contest having
been be un, the whole question MS 10 the election
subject Of scrutiny. lie accepted IN tho
main MI that lhe majority stated IN matters Of
inct; and taking those statements with the al
missions Which accompanied them Wallace would
have plurality OF 20 votes. Now came the turn.
Ing point of the case. There were 50 votes ilat
were cast by illegal voters, aud every one OF them
for the contestant In most OF the cases the proof
OF this TACT was derived from the declaration Of
the voters themselves. DeduCtng from these SO
VOC, those about which there was dispute ana
he came 10 the conclusion that Mckinley was I'M
qncsi II bly, elected by about II plurality
Alr fulott expressed his a,tonlshmGng that his
colleague lMr. Hurdl should claim that there
were nunher Of illegal votes cast, and ridichled
the testimony upon which his co league based his
opinion, ana upon which he was forced To rise
above party and vote 10 retain the cOntGsiee in
his seat.
Mr. Mills believed that according to the law
ana lacts OF the case, Mr. Mex nley had been
inrly elected, and believed that no would be less
man man II no allowed party camor TO lead
MN ~ vote against his Convictions. To seat Mr..
Maace simply because The democrats mad ma
lorlly ~ the mouse, and against the sworn test-
mOny OF the voters Themselves, would be to rush
IN the lace OF al Intelligent public opinion.
MIR, Ranney, OF Massachusetts spoke In support
OF the minority report.
Mr.. Mckinley, the cOntestec made ten.minute
Fpet Oh III his avn behalf He invoked no tech
niCality, and declared that he did not wnnt n srut
winch cOuld be retained only by invoking them,
hut he asserted that, cuncedlng every technical.
ity. he would still have an unquestinlied mGioriiy
Of The votes cast In the ciPhteeutn Ohio distSiet
M. Turner OF Georgia, In rapid review of the
questions Involved in The case, closed the debate