New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-01-19
THE IHOBECARLIsLE CONTEXT.
REPORT OF THE MINORITY or THE ELECTIONS COZ


MITTEE-A TWO HAsTY DECISION.
WASHINGTON Jan. Is tSpecdp-In the House
to-day Mr.. Lyman. Of Iowa, offered the views of
the minority of the Elections Committee in the
1hobe-Carlislc case and they will be printed to-
gether with the report Of the majority 1t is ex-
pected that the matter will come before tho House
for action on Friday. The views Of the minority
are signed by Messrs. Lyman, Lodge and Houk,
and were formulated by the two first named MEN,
bers They do not hold that Carlisle is not en-
titled to the scat, but they do maintain that a
proper regard for the rights of the contestant re-
Quires that the case should be DeOpened and thor
oughly investigated. They think that it will be
O dangerous precedent IL the House should refuse
to do so under the circumstances. They allude To
the haste with which the decision was arrived at
after the reading Of the nfidavits in MIR. Carl-
isles behalf. In regard to the status Of Thobe
the minority advert the fact that he was not
candidate of either the Republican or Democratic
party. Although himself Democrat, he repre-
sented especially the workingmen of his district
The fact that he is workngman and depends
upon his daily toll for the support Of himself and
family does not in the opinion OF the minority en-
title him to any greater consideration, and neither
does II entitle him TO any less consideration than
II he were not working man and representa-
tive of working men.
The report adds that at the first meeting of tho
committee the contestant made strong parte
showing by afIdavits and otherwise in support of
the motion to reopen the case. This ex parte
committed in the With District Of Kentucky, re-
sulting in the apparent defeat Of the contestant;
that there was cvinced q determination on the
part OF MIR. Carlise's friends to prevent the an
nouncement of the result OF the election when it
was discovered that 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 kilograms sent out on the night Of election to
have the returns withheld for that purpose: and
chat the contestant was prevented from estab-
ishing these facts within the time allowed by law
for the reason that he WAS betrayed and deceived
by his attorney. The contestee made ex parto
showing to the effect that these charges I'M
true.
The minority does not see WHY IL the charges he
untrue, the contestee should persstentIy oppose
an Investigation and his opposition is to their
minds so strongly corroborative Of the claim made
by the contestant to restrain them from sup
porting the majority resolution without an in
quiry. Presidents quoted in support OF the
course recommended by the minority including
synonsis Of Mr.. Carlisle's remarks in the Butter
worth case and Of Mr.. Buttnrwortbs own decara-
tion in favor Of an investigation into his right
% the seat.
MIR. Rowell in supplementary report states
that he concurs in the majority committee report
only dissenting from the practice of trying dis
putcd questions of fact upon ex parte testimony