The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-14
THE HOUSE.
The Day Spent in Debating the Hurd- Romeis
COntested-Seat Case.

The Day Spent in Debating the Hurd -Romeis
Contested-Seat Case.
WASHINGTON, April 13.-Mr. Turner of Geor-
gia, called mp, as privileged question, the Ohio
contested case of Hurd vs. Romeis-Mr. Reagan,
of Texas, refraining from antagonizing it with
the interstate commerce bill, with the under
standing that that measure should lose none of
its rights as the special order. 1t was agreed
that the previous question on the election case
should be considered as ordered after eight
hours debate.
In this case there are three reports submitted
by the committee on elections-the majority re-
port confirming the right of the contestee Ro
meis, to the seat, minority report unseatng
the sitting member, and declaring that Mr..
Hurd Is entitled to the seat, and another minor
ity report taking the ground that neither con-
testant nor co2teStee was duly elected.
Mr.. Boyle, of Pennsylvania, opened the debate
in support of the majority report, and quoted
from the evidence to support him In his position
that there was not only no ground for unseatlng
Romeis, but scarcely any ground for contesting
the seat. 1t would have been more satisfactory
for him to have found in favor of the contestant
than against him. In a doubtful case. he would
have been found for his party, though he did
not regard contested election cases as political
questions. 1t had been alleged somewhere
that the action Of certain members
of the committee had been controlled by a
difference of opinion with the contestant upon
certain questions upon which the Democratic
party was not unit. If he thought that that
had the slightest weight in the determination of
this question: he would despise himself forever.
He did not believe that the Democratic party
would seat the contestant in this case simply be-
cause it had the power; he did not think it should
follow the Republican example which it had so
often condemned.
MIR. Robertson, of Kentucky, spoke in Mr..
Hurds behalf, and asserted that in Precinct B,
of the Eighth ward of Toledo, not OF the
statute laws of Ohio had been complied with.
Discussing the charges of illegal voting at this
precinct, he denounced the methods which, he
said, prevailed in Ohio elections. and remarked
that the tissue ballots of South Carolina and the
bulldozng of Louisiana must pale into insight
ficance when the country learned the methods
by which Ohio Republican elections were car
RED on.
Mr. Payne, Of New York, in speaking in sup
port of the claim of the sitting member, congrat
ulatec the House upon having been called upon
to decide case for future reference.
Mr. Martin, of Alabama, and Mr.. Croxton, of
Virginia, argued in favor of seating Mr.. Hurd,
basing their conclusions on the ground that the
charges that intimidation and bribery had been
resorted to on the part of the friends of Mr..
Romeis, had been sustained by the evidence
After speeches by Mr.. Dorsey, of Nebraska,
and Mr.. Dowell of Illinois, in advocacy of the
rights of the contestee, and by Mr.. Henderson,
of North Carolina, in favor of the seating Of tfe
contestant, the House adjourned.