St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-01-19
An Argument in His Behalf by a
Committee Minority

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1S.-The views
of the minority of the elections commit
tee on the Thoebe-Carlisle contested
election case were presented to the
house this morning by Mr.. Lyman, of
Iowa. The report says that had the
case been submitted TO the committee
on the record as made at the beginning
of the present session of congress there
would not probably have been dissent
ing voice. The vote would have been
unanimous for the resolution adopted
by the majority, but at the first meeting
of the committee the contestant made a
strong eX-parte, showing by at1idavits
and otherwise, in support OF the motion
to reopen the case. This eX-parte case
tended very strongly to establish that
great fraud was committed in the Sixth
district of Kentucky, resulting in the
apparent defeat of the contestant; that
there was evinced determination on
the part of Mr.. CarliSle'S friends to pre-
vent the announcement Of the result of
the election when it was discovered
that the contestant had been elected;
that forgery was actually committed TO
deprive the contestant of his certificate
of election; that election returns were
tempered with and changed, and tele-
grams sent out on the night of election
to have the returns withheld for that
purpose, and that the contestant was
prevented from establishing these facts
within the time allowed by
| law, for the reason that he was
betrayed and deceived by his at
torney The minority says that the con-
teStee made an eX-parte showing, to the
effect that the charges were untrue.
The minority says it was refused an
| opportunity to have the mass of affida-
| wits printed and examined, although
the majority afterward showed that this
request was reasonable, by ordering the
printing of the papers. The minority
| feels that case involving such grave
charges of fraud should not be settled
in this haSty, Off-hand manner by the
mere presentation Of eX-parte atfidayitS,
| and it
URGED A FITTING INVESTIGATION
of the case. Failing in this, it was UNI
able to vote as it would on every per-
SOnal ground have been glad to do, i'll
favor of the sitting members title to his
seat. 1t believes that reasonable
showing having been made by the con-
teStant, he should in all justice and fair
dealing be allowed to establish by legal
and competent evidence, if he can, the
allegations of fraud made by him. The
| minority do not see why, if the charges
be untrue, the cOnteStee should so per-
siStently oppose an investigation. and
his opposition is to its mind so strongly
corrObOrative of the claim made by the
contestant as to restrain them from sup
| porting the majority resolution without
an inquiry. PrecedentS are quoted in
support of the course recommended by
the minority, including synopsis of
Mr.. CarliSle's remarks in the Butter
worth case, and of Mr.. ButterWOrth' S
own declaration in favor of an inveSti-
| CATION into his right to seat. The mi
nOrity then states that the contestant is
WOrklngman, poor, IMMERSED i'll law,
and suffering from miSmanagemento of
the case and lack of money,
against whose character not one
word has been said. He is en-
titled to no more consideration than
any other citizen because he is work
ingman, but, on the other hand, it
should not be forgotten that he is en-
titled to no less. He is not partisan,
and has never been Republican. He
and his cOnteSee are members of the
same political party. He is, however.
the representative of that large class of
citizens belonging to both political par
ties united in labor organizations, and
ran as their candidate. In view of these
facts, the minority feels obliged in what
it believes to be the interests of exact
and equal justice to withhold its con-
sent to the majority report. This report
is signed by MeSsrS. Lyman, Lodge,
Houk and Johnston, of Indiana. Mr..
Rowell. i'll a supplementary report,
states that he cOncurs in the majority
committee report. only dissenting from
the practice of trying disputed questions
of fact upon eX-parte testimony. In
answer to the contestants charge that
the returns from nearly all the precincts
in one county were in the same hand
writing, or in other words, that the re-
turns were forgeries, Mr.. Rowen says
that the original returns were brought
before the committee, and they COM
pletely refuted it. No amount of testi-
mony can change the appearance of
these returns. Regarding the attack
upon the returns as a vitality material
point in the case, and in view of the
presentation of the original returns, Mr..
ROwell continues that he does not see
any good reason for reopening the case.