National Republican., 1888-05-04
Tho Ernnk-GIoyer Case.

EDIToR NATIONAL RErUBLICAN My attcn'
tion having been called oan article published
In your issue of yesterday, as an extract from
the 81. Louis Globe Democrat, purporting to
be the result of an interview with Nathan
Frank, and which reflects upon my conduct in
connection with the election contest case of
Frank VS. Glover. | desire space in your
columns for very brief notice of the same.
The said article is rare compound of stu.
pidity and Misrepresentation. In no single
instance has Its author pretended to state Il
fact In which he has not grossly msreprc.
scntcd it; and In several eases he.has wlllfully
made statements which are without the
slightest color in truth
rendered their ballots for me, which the clcc.
tion officers refused TO count The report
says no such thing, and Mr.. Frank knew i;
illegal votes were received and counted for
Glover, and that an improper alteration in
the returns increased his vote 10 votes The
report contains no such statement. What the
report does state is that, 1T is therefore seen
that the sitting. member has "A certified pu.
raity of 100 yotes. To overcome this majority
presented three clascs of voters in tabulated
statement. The first table contains the names
of 2i9 voters alleged to have been legal voters
who rendered their ballots for the contestant,
and which ballots were rejected by the officers
of election. The second table contained u list
Of Rersons whose Votes ties t. wa; alleged had
In addition to these two propositions the con.
tcstant contended tnat the returns In one of
the precincts had been altered from l03 FOR
Mr.. Glover to ll3, thus increasing his majority
10 votes"
II will not be contended that Mr.. Frank has
correctly quoted the report either literally or
substantially; and, in fact. think II must be
apparent TO all that lie knowingly and will
fully misrepresented its contents. Mr.. Frank,
further criticisng said report, In its statement
that the constitutionalityo Of the registration
"a "a ~ en- AZ
such issue was made, and with characteristic
disregard for the facts Involved, says: Now,
! challenge Mr.. Heard to point out a single
utterance in my brief or col. Broadhead's
argument where such a claim is made" IN
response to the challenge refer him to said
argument of Col. Broadhead, on pages 3, o. 7,
made against the ,constituionality OF the law.
ON page it will be found that while Col.
Broadhead was arguing this point, the follow.
ing questions were put by and answered by
"NIr. Heard. Your theory is that the pro
visions OF the law are UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN
that they are unreasonable upon the ground
that unreasonable conditions are imposed.
col. Broadhead. Unusual and unfair con
ditions.
MIR, Heard, So as TO make the law void
col. BrOadhead. Yes
On page twenty-five, in rcponsc TO ques
tion of Mr., Cooper, col. Broadhead uses the
following language: 1t Is question OF valid
ity. II is on the action of the officers them
the law"
In fact his main argument was made on that
point; The next statement of Mr.. Frank that
'the logical result of the report Is that Con
grcss cannot go behind the returns" Is little
less than idiOtic, since there is not Il sentence
in said report that intimates any such conclu;
sion on the part of the committee. The logical
result of the report is that the committee re-
fuse, In this case, ias did the committee IN the
case of Mclean VS.. BrOadhead, involving
precisely the same points To override the re-
elected.
should treat with the contempt which II
merits Mr., Frank attempt 70 reflect upon me
but for the fact that desire in that connection
TO convict him, by the record Of willfnl misrcp
re.i;entation and gross stupidity. lie says.
''the report Is really Mr. Hcard's report. II
bears his signature only, and the language
used was taken from Mr.. Gloycr's Counscrs
argument, am informed that but nine mem
| bC1S of the committee were present when the
| outline of the report was read, and II was
| never read to them as reported
| As 70 the report bearing. my signature
/ only Will say that nobody but Mr.. Frank Is
! 50 stupid as not to know that majority reports
stand for the committee, and are not signed
| AZ all; and that only, minority reports are
| signed, In this case, the report made by me
! Tor the committee Is not signed by myself or
| any one else; and, so far Mr., Frank has not
! found member of said committee who will
/ present any other report for him. The fact Is,
| that the report was read In full To- the com,
! mittec when eleven members were present,
| and In the exact form In which il was printed:
ana II MAS approved by every member pres.
| cnt. Therefore the statement that the report
was never read TO them as reported" Is AN
| unqualified fGlsehuod; and am confident that
| no member Of the committee, on any one else
whom Mr.. Frank had reason to believe pos.
| sessed any knowledge on the Subject, even
| told him any such thing, II so, however, let
| him give the naln0 Of his Informant, and thus
relieve himself oi responsibility for the charge
which must otherwise rest on him. Respect
| fully JOHS Il. HEARD.