The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-07
The Committee on Elections Hear
Mr.. Sypher, His Counsel.
He Claims that Carlisle was De-
feated and by Negligence.
That the People Did Not Come to
the Polls on Election Day,
And Finding That Thoebe was Victo
rious, Voted the Next Day-A Sc
lect Committee Asked for
to Visit the District.

WASHINGTON, Jan 6.-There was full
meeting of the House committee on cleo
tons TO consider the Thoebe- Carlisle con.
4 tested election case. The contestant,
Thoebe, was present with his counsel,
Messrs. Sypher and Steever, of this city.
No one formally represented the speaker.
Mr.. sypher began the presentation OF Mr..
Thoebe's case Immediately after the COM
nliytee had been called to order, taking up
II the brief already submitted with the
- tord, which assumes as the basis of the
ise that the State election laws were vio-
lated in the appointment of judges OF
election. This infraction OF the law, he
asserted was sufficient to warrant favor
able consideration OF Mr.. Thoebe's claim,
but II the committee did not agree in this
view, he was prepared to present evidence
to satisfy them of his clients election. The
record alone, he said, wouldn't reveal the
facts in the case, and il was the duty OF the
committee TO at once send subcommittee
TO the district TO ascertain the facts while
IL could be done. Already important
BdHtin bttii it WIS NIt-
pared to prove by afIida,its. Taking up
the details Of the case, Mr.. Sypher said
that ON the night OF the election II became
apparent to the judges Of election at Gov
ington, KY, that Mr.. Carlisle had been
defeated by more than 1000 votes. AT
o'clock they sent for Mr.. Carlisle and
brought him in carriage TO the house Of
friend. lie (Sypher) could give the
name OF the friend and the location Of the
house, but he would not do so unless the
committee urged him, as he didn't wish to
state all he knew at this stage Of the case.
After consulting with Mr.. Carlisle, they
telegraphed TO have the returns OF the out
side counties withheld.
"Who are 'they'?' inquired Mr.. Heard.
"They-why friends OF Mr.. Carlisle" ="
replied Mr. sypher.
Continuing he said II was fact that the
returns Of the six outlying counties were
withheld for five days and Mr.. Carlisle
had publicly confessed that he was de-
teated.
tk,YYou do not attach any Importance to
= ~ b point, suggested Mr.. Heard.
- mo, ! just mention it." replied Mr..
syghhcr H., .,.,..,.
first, said Mr.. Heard.
Yes" replied Mr.. Sypher, ''and
think he ought to have stuck TO IT,"
Mr.. Sypher said that in seven OF the
eight precincts OF Carroll county the poll
books were written, signed and certified,
as 10 all the names, in one handwriting,
and IL was evident that all OF them must
have been written after election by one
man, as he couldn't have been in all the
Nruetnala ~ nttaa ON a1aaffat, Ia.
Mr.. Sypher next read the affidavit OF
John J. Pierce in support OF his state
ments. In this paper Pierce tells that the
signatures on the poll-books were in one
hand, "a peculiar hand" while the sigma
lures OF the election officers 90 their oaths,
were in different hand writing.
Continuing his statement, the counsel
said that Mr.. Carlisle had failed Of election
through neglect. In some precincts no
tickets were printed until o'clock, and
there was virtually no election held in
some precincts. In one case only the three
judges voted-two for Carlisle and one for
Thoebc. In Boone county 200 votes were
east on election day, but the returns finally
showed 567 votes. In Carroll county there
was practically no election. lie could
show that voters failed TO 90 TO the polls
on election day, but when they found that
,hlFit iNfA NfNll hfitllfu Nutl NOifl ANi
next day. Not only was this the case In
Carroll county, but also In every one OF the
outlying counties
Mr. Sypher quoted from statement by
J. J. Blakcly, who was, he said, prom
inent Democrat and an attomeyof Coving
ton, 20 the effect that twenty-four names
appeared 10 have been added 10 one Of the
poll.books after the signatures OF the judges
,--hnd been affixed.
Continuing, the counsel said he would
state something which he had no ailida
Wits TO support, but which could be proved
by witnesses. After the election, seven o
Mr.. Carlisle's friends met in conference nj
the federal building 10 endcayor 10 say,
Mr.. Carlisle. They sent for an eighth
gentleman, a prominent and honorable
gentleman, Col. X. w. Nelson. They told
him that Mr.. Carlisle had been defeated
and they wanted him 10 confer with then
10 devise some means Of changing the ~
suit. Thercupon, said Mr. Sypher, Col
Nelson took his hat aud left, declaring
that II they were up TO anything Of thai
sort, they must count him out. "Mr
Carlisle dare not contradict this, gentle.
men," said Mr. Syphcr. "IIe Is Demo
crat and Kentucky gentleman Of as high
standing as Mr.. Carlisle"
The counsel next took up an affidavit b,
the contestant, 10 the effect that Mr.. Car
lisle'sfriends had corrupted his (Thoebc's
attorney; and induced him 10 abandon III,
case and suppress testimony, In III,
course OF general statement Of the trans
action, Mr.. Sypber said that they had
been given the name OF the man who had
purchased the attorney Wood, and i
their iniormants told the truth, that mar
was a relative Of Mr.. Carlisle's. The pric,
named for Wood was $780, "IIe sole
cheap" added the counsel.
Touching Mr.. Carlislo's refusal 10 Join
him In taking testimony, Mr.. sypher re
marked, "He did not dare meet me; h,
dare not now 90 into that district and tak'
- testimony" Thocbe's affidavit was mex
read where he accuses Wood Of delaying
the taking of testimony, and with tellinl
him (Thocbe) that there might be mono!
In II for both Of them II they would with
draw the contest.
Mr.. sypher declared that there wa
enough evidence In his brief 10 warran
the committee In seating his client, but
II did not think 10, certainly there was a
least sufficient ground for q rcopening o