The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-06
Interview with NIackoy,s Attorney,


Vincennes Special to Commercial Gazette.
''The status OF the Mackey case is easily un-
derstood," said MIR Chambers ''The contestor's
attorney has announced that he has no other
witnesses having taken the testimony of but
two besides that Of Mr.. Mackey, the contestae
Captain Briggs ev1tdentiy rests his case upon the
testimony Of Mr. Mackay. He has stated the
facts strongly against himself as the facts in
the case will warrant No honest witness can be
found who will state them stronger"
What is the substance of his testimony and
its legal effect
"The General Assembly decides tho case
The giat of Mackey's testimony bearing upon the
point of his residence is that in the fall of 1883,
shortly after his marriage, carpenter work be-
ing scarce in Sullivan, he aud his father con-
ciudei to hunt the boom in the South and profit
By it awhile. In September he first went to
Nashville, and failing to get work
there went to Shebyvle. where he
found employment. Shortly afterward his
wife followed. For awhile they boarded. After
ward, as a matter of economy, they set up
housekeeping with portion of their furniture.
The balance and larger portion remained in Sui
livan. In the meantime his father went to Chat
tanooga and got work. the mother remaining In
Sullivan to care for the home In September,
1884, the older Mackey returned to Sullivan.
Bob remained in Shelbyville until May follow
ing. when he returned also. He left the furni
ture he had with him i'll Shelbyville, not know
ing what the situation was at home as 70 getting
work, and intending to ship it to whatever desti-
nation he might finally determine upon after his
arrival home-elther to Sullivan or elsewhere.
He was at homo about one month, and then
made trip to Nebraska in search of more fa-
vorable location He found none, after travel
ing about fifteen hundred miles, and returned to
Indiana and has not been out of the State since"
Upon what points of the testimony, in Your
opinion, does the contestor rely to defeat Mr..
Mackey?"
lean only infer fror. the methods of exam
lnation and the witnesses introduced. take it.
however, that reliance is placed chiefly upon
three facts. First, the length of time he was
absent; second, that he took his wife with him
and went to housekeeping; third, that he voted
As to the first two propositions l think it is we'll
settled in Indiana that they cut but little figure
IN determining a mans residence. Upou these
propositions it is we'll to refer the case of Gull
bertson IS. The Board of Commissioners of
Floyd County, sd Ind, page Bel In this case
it was agreed that Mr.. Culbertson, OH the 6th
day of August 1870. left Indiana with the inten-
ton OF ceasing to be resident thereof for
indefinite time, taking with him all the NOM
ners of his family. Then he rented house in
Paris and occupied it one year; did not return to
Indiana until November, 1872-nearly two and
quarter years--yet he was held all this time
citizen OF the State OF Indiana
"As to the third proposition, it is held by all
courts that voting is strong circumstance tend
ing to prove citizenship. but, so far as know,
it is not held to be conclusive evidence of that
fact
Mr.. Mackey's explanation Of his VOTE con-
tinued Mr.. Chambers. relieves him entirely
from the charge that he is thereby excluded
from denying that he acquired citizenship in
tennessee His testimony clearly discloses that
ne refused to participate in the election. claim
icg that he was not citizen of Tennessee; that
: friend aud an attorney of his IN some business
matters there, TO whom he was indebted $3.50.
vas candidatofor the Legislature; that much
no voted for him, but cast no vote for any other
candidate, for the reason that he had no right 10
vote. He also says he paid no poll-tax, which is