National Republican., 1888-05-05
IHrnnk vs.. IIcnri.

\ REwBriCNN reporter, meeting Mr.
Frank yesterday, asked him II he had read
what Mr. Heard, Of Missouri, said Us to hi,
interview In the GiObc DGmOrrm and If he
desired to respond to IT..
"lcs,' said Mr. Frank; "Mr. llcarl said
some things That ought TO he answered.
shall moi descend to swapping cpihcts such
Us stupidity aud misrepresentation Np-
Piled 10 me. recognize Mr. IIcard's su-
rrriority in that field aud will not attempt
to equal him, rs have no ambition to be
classrd with men who resort tO cpithcts aud
ralumny fUrwlnt ul reason and argument.
"iu answer tu Mr.. llcar1's charge that
misstatCd the content, Of the report, ! have
only To- refer To- Mr. Heard, own statement
taken from his report. That ycrilirs wlut |
stated. and It's use proves Mr.. Heard iuCapa-
bic ur understanding the meaning Of the
.tltcmcc, he himself used, win not call
This stupidity because HAT would bc tO
initiate Mr., Heard II H. simply mCapl"ity,
induced 10y blind part!.m>hip.'
"Whnt about the point made ON Mr.
Brnadhcads" said the reporter
Lot Mr.. BiOulhcad speak for himself, '
said MI Frank You will observe that
Argument To prove that he said the rcgi,tri.
tiuu law was Unconstitutional. MIR. Heard
quotes ~ follows
'Nlr. Heard. Your theory i, that the pruvi.
siuus ui the law Hru Unconstitutional, IN that
they nr' unreasonable upon the ground that
unreasonable conditions are Imposed
col. RuadhcHh nusuHl ana Unfair con
dtious.
'Nr. Heard. SoR, to make the law yolds
"tOl BiUHdhuud lrs"
ION page -, la response Ia a question or
MIR Cooper, Cul RrOa1hcud uses The follow
itts II L.. "a # ,n1
IT, !, on the action Of tho officers themselves.
II addresses itself tn the Nalidityof the law
IN fact lu, mah argument was made on
that point.
"Of course Mr. Heard means 10y The last
line. on the point NJ the cuucDmstttIiouulity
uf the law. Here i,u copy Of Mr. Bruad-
heals argument. You viii observe tlh,
quotation down tO the answer Yes" cones
from page : Now see what Immediately
follows That. Here II i, a
"Mr Heard. If understand you. thon
Huut point is that youi ease hinges, principally
NJ least. upon tie 30 votes which wer" cS
!It!dcd under this registration law, which YOU
hold tu he luconsttutiumals
"Nr. Bruadhrad. Nu do not hold that the
law j. Unconstitutional. We say that the votes
ought tH have been accepted, for two reasons
first, they were registered voters: second.
they had complied with the provisions of the
law The law provides that any one making
the oath required by the law shall be entitled
10 EtElSIlNIiOn. lnt voter j. tlfl'ltU 10 an
examination by the officer having the epowHr
tu register him and II he suh~cribps tO the oath
provided hy the law. prinu iurlc, he Is entitled
toNutc. His qualifications are fixed by that cS.
animation: and | say that the provision of law
which would deprive him of the right of
suffrage after he has qualified is void If the
construction uut upon II by the officers Is cor.
rect. because II l. mlrcasunnblr In that II
does not give him an opportunity tu appear
hri"rc the proper officer to show that he is cn.
titled To vote
"Mr. Heard /, a lawyer and htows what
tile law holds as to the suppression Of part
of a Witness knowledge when he IS on
the stand. Nj. Broadhcad stated in express
terms, ! 40 mt hOld INT Mc nW is uacOR-
H'tUfC"W Mr. Heard says that his main
argument was made in that point"
What about the quotation from page
95>', said the reporter.
Look al page -. aud read what Mr.
BrOadhcad said before this question was
asked. Here is the sentence Immediately
preceding the question refer TO this for
the purpose of showing that so mltch Of the
law as requires an unreasonable action on
the part Of the voters must he declared void
when we come to investigate the question
whether Il man who has shown that he l.
entitled To vote under the constitution has
had his vote rejected because lie was moi
able tO appear before that board and show
that he was entitled. The law does not re-
qilire unreasonable things, and it would be
unreasonable to suppose that 10000 voters.
nr even l.jW voters could within that brief
period 81 time. covering about six hours.
all told. in the two days that this board sat
rs board Of review, have been heard in
regard 10 their rights as voters, If they had
any such right. This is another instanceo of
lie 'EVpIrcSsiU rcri, S"ddcStiO inlSi,' Mr.
Heard as classical scholar can translate
this"
DO you desire 10 say anything in regard
To the single signature OF the rcpOrt?"
"Only This, that where report bears the
signature of the chairman Of y committee it
Is understood To bc the report of the com.
mittcc, and Mr.. Heard is not chairman Of
the committee on elections. 50 his signature
does not represent the committee. Mr.
licard'S contempt doe, not wihcr me, nor
does il change existing facts"
Anything else you desire to say
"ies The statement is not true that all
the members of the committee approve Mr..
Heard report BY the way, observe that
Mr., Heard StudiOusly avoids alludng to that
part Of my interview in which refer to the
insult which his report heaps On the people
OF Missouri and particularly the people of
ST. Louis
"ln conclusion, allow me TO say, what
can't comprehend Is the intense interest
which Mr.. Heard has manifested in the case
of Frank against Glover. from the moment
the papers were received by the clerk of tue
House to the time he handed in his report
II doe, not appear to me his zcalOusuess is
becoming II member Of y0pSi judicial
body: il rather has the appearance Of an at
tOIncN advocacy for u client