Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1888-01-15
CARLISLE CONQUERS.
Settlement of the Disputed
Election Case.
THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES.
ThOebe's Claim Decided Untenable
By an Ov. rwhelming
Majority.

Majority.
| Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD
WASHINGTON, January 14.-Every
member of the House Committee on
Elections was in attendance to-day to
resume the consideration Of the
Thoebe-C Carlisle contested election
case. Hallam Of Covington, KY,
appeared in behalf Of Carlisle and
Sypher appeared for the contestant.
DAMAGING TESTIMONY
Hallam read an affidavit showing
that the poll books in Boone and Car
roll counties made it that the returns
were correct. He read an affidavit by
Policeman Solar, of Covington, where
in he says that he has several times
recently been approached by counsel
for Theobe asking him to make an
affidavit that he had seen Carlisle and
Detective Harris entering the office of
the of the State Journal one evening
after the election. He had been told
that it might be to his interest to
make such an affidavit, and that in the
event he was out of employment he
he could make money by making
such an affidavit.
THE NoTARY's DEPOSITION.
Hallam then read an affidavit
of Chas. Findley, notary. who took
the deputatiors for the contest
ant. Affidavit says that Thoebe
told him he did not like to pay out
any money in the matter; did not
want to 60 into it and would like now
to get out of it. The labor people
had forced him into it, but they had
not backed him up as promised. He
added that if it had not been for the
slurs cast upon him and Wood to the
effect that they had been bought off
he would get out of the case. He in
tended to send his papers to Washing
ton and let Sypher make what he
could out of the case, which he ex-
peeled would be d good deal.
CARIsLE's AFFIDAVIT.
Hallam next read Carlisle 8 affidavit
that he had read the affidavit of Chas.
Maander, filed before the committee,
and that the statements therein, con-
corning him we're untrue in every
particular. He was not in the office
of the Kentucky State Journal on the
night OF November 3, 1886, nor at any
time since the Congressional election
of that year. He did not at any time
that evening 60 toward the residence
Of Hon. H. A. Barry, did not see
Detective Harris Of Covington, nor
did he attend conference anywhere,
nor hold a conversation on the SUBJ
ject of the election in the Sixth Con-
gressional DItrict on said evening.
He resided d the time with H. f.
Queen and was,Mot outside Of the house
on that evening. He never attended the
conference held to consider said cleo
ton or to influence the result of the
same, nor does he know of any such
action on the part of his friends or
supporters. He did not endeavor to
ascertain the result of the election
that evening nor authorize any one so
to do.
The statement made in the affidavit
Of Geo. II. Theobe that no tickets
were printed with the name of John
G. Carlisle, nor distributed outside
certain named precincts, was untrue,
as the supply was
PRINTED IN EACH PRECINCT
In the district, and the affiant person
ally sent them in to every county to
be used, except in Campbell county,
where the tickets were left in the
hands of the chairman OF the county
executive committee to be distributed.
The affiant also denied that he had
conceded to Horace Cambron that he
was defeated and was heartily glad of it.
The affiant was not in Covington Oh the
evening of the day preceding the cleo
ton, but was there on the morning of
that day, at which time he met Cam
bion and had
A SHORT CONVERSATION,
The substance of which was that
he did not suppose that he
was beaten as returns had been re-
ceived from only few precincts in
the county, adding that if it should
turn out that he was beaten it would
be very good thing for him per-
sonally as he had neglected his private
business for ten years and worked
faithfully in Congress, and it was
about time he was doing something
for himself Affiant says that all
statements to the effect that returns
from any counties in the district were
held back or delayed for four, five or
six days are untrue. On the con-
trary, the poll-book and ballot boxes
were publicly opened and the votes
officially counted and certified on the
third day after the election in every
county in the district, except in
county Trimble, where they were
opened by mistake by the county
officers in the presence Of the entire
board Of canvassers on the second
day after the election and officially
counted, but on discovery Of the mis-
take, were sealed up, and remained
so until when they were again opened
and. counted by the board.
WOODS STATEMENT.
Hallam next referred to the state
ment that Wood, the leading attor-
ney, had been bribed in: Carlisle's
interest, and the intimation was that
the bribery had been done by one of
Carlisle's relatives. 1t had also been
stated that Wood had told Thoebe
that there was money in the case for
both Of them if he would consent to
drop the contest. In reply he read
Woods affidavit declaring it is not
true that he stated to Thoebe that
the difficulties in his case were few
and it would be comparatively easy
for him to get his seat in Congress,
and that the facts developed were
sufficient to GUST Carlisle. On the
contrary he repeatedly advised Thoebe
that it would be necessary to make
diligent exertion in getting evidence
and procuring funds, whereas Thoebe
furnished but $43, which the labor
unions supplied.