National Republican., 1888-01-23
The Party Lash Cracks

The dispatch to the New York Herald
printed in another column, the interview
Of Mr.. Crisp, published in the Post yester-
day, the editorial in that paper on the
Thobe.Carlisle contest, the talk Of the
Democratic leaders, and the authoriz IL
statement of Mr.. Carlisle in answer to the
inquiry as to whether he intended, as 1t W ls
reported, to write a letter to the House
asking that the case be reopened, all show
that the party lash is to be applied and
democrats are to be whipped into line to
retain the free.trade Speaker in the seat to
which he was not elected.
Mr.. Carlisle says
have not contemplated such Il step. The
House must take its own course in the case
without diciatIon or attempted dlctation from
ne.
This is not 1le language of man
-,-stas.aae+ ..ae. 1.-THE justice of his cause 1t
comes = taIill grace from man who
claims to 10 above suspicion. and leaves
every man in the nation the right to say
''that John Griffin Carlisle knows that he
was not elected and uses the power Of his
great position to defeat the will Of the
people Of the sixth Kentucky district and
to crush the mech9nIc-the wood carver
who dared to interfere with his ambition" :"
Mr.. Crisp is reported as saying
MIR, ThObe has been afforded two opportun.
tics to submit his proofs, first in Kentucky
last February, and second, before the commit
tee on elections on the 9th Of this month.
Either Mr.. Crisp is misquoted or he
misstates the record, Mr.. Thobe has not
been allowed two opportunities, nor
even one, to present his evidence, and Mr..
CIsp knows 1t. 1t Is true that Mr.. Thobe,
under his notice of contest, had the privilege
Of taking testimony, but the attorney to
whom Mr.. Ihobe confded his case, through
ignorance, or the fact that he was bought
OFF, failed and neglected TO take the evil
dence. This was no fault of Mr.. Thobes,
nor was 1t his negligence, II was his mis-.
fortune.
Mr.. Crisp presumes upon the ignorance
of the public when he states that Mr. Thoba
was given the opportunity to sgETtC his
proofs "belore the elections committee on
the 18th Of this month" Mr.. Crisp evil
IDENTIFY does not know the law governing
election contests, and thinks no one else
does, or he would not make a statement SO
devoid Of truth.
The only thing MIR. Thobe could ID be-
fore that committee was to do what he did
do, and that was to make an application to
reopen the case that further testimony
might be taken. THE rnsc Inu rioscj jy
op0ntim 0t hur, ui nat Il prriici" NJ test.
mo,,U ro"h ,p's"ut,iG Nc dcri'us rJgl-
DdH,c, and M, Cr.p o0gh IN t,wr H@, a.
cLanU,u0oi Nr .omnOtc, an ci,riinS.
What Mr.. 1hobe did common law au-
thorzed him to do; that is, make an app)i-
cation to reopen the case, and present al.
ndaYits in support of this apple itIon.
AS q matter Of fact Mr Crisp and hii
committee denied common justice to NIr.
Thobc, and outraged deceney By its action.
The facts are that Mr., Thope presented his
application for reopenng, and made u
case iustifying the committee 10 directing
an investigation. Mr. Carlisle was given
one week to secure anidayIts to offset those
presented by Mr.. Ihobc These anidaylts
were laid before the committee In two.
hours speech by Mr. Hallam attorney for
MIR, Carlisle, and the minority members Of
the committee were even denied the prIyl-
lcge Of examining these alldaylts, ~ stated,
anduot contradictCd, by both Mr.. Lyman
and Mr., llouck on the floor of the House.
Mr., Ihobe was absent, but his attorney, Gen.
Sypher asked to he heard In response. lie
was at first refused, but finally granted
half an hour, but denied the privilege even
of presenting the memorial Of the people OF
the district asking reopening Of the case.
Mr.; Thohe telcgraphed asking further
time, only two days, and 1t was denied him.
lie presented a protest against the action OF
the committee, and Itrefused to receive IT,.