The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-19

Why the Minority of the Elections Commits
Voted Against the Speaker.

why the Minority OF the Elections Committee
Voted Against the Speaker
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1.-THE views of the
elections committee the Thpbe- Carlisle con-
tested election case were presented to the House
this morning. by Mr.. Lyman, of Iowa. The re.
port says that, had the case been submitted to
the committee on the record as made at the be-
ginning of the present session of Congress,
there would not, probably, have been dissent
ing voice. The vote would have been unani-
nous for the resolution adopted by the maiori-
ty; but at the first meeting of the committee tho
contestant made strong parte showing, by
afidavits and otherwise, in support of the
tion to reopen the case. This ex parte case
tended very strongly to establish that great
fraud was committee in the Sixth district Of
Kentucky. resulting in the apparent defeat OF
the contestant that there evinced deter
mination on the part of Mr.. Carlisle's friends to
prevent the announcement of the result OF the
election when it was discovered that the con-
testant had been elected; that forgery was act
ually committed to deprive the contestant of his
certificate of election; that election returns were
tampered with and changed, and kilograms sent
out on the night of the election to have the re-
turns withheld for that purpose, and that the
contestant prevented from establishing
these facts within the time allowed by law for
tho reason that he was betrayed and deceived
by his attorney.
The minority says that the contsstee made
ex parte showing to the effect that these
charges were untrue The minority says it was
refused an opportunity to have the mass of affi-
davits printed and examined. although the ma
Jority afterward showed that this request was
reasonable. by orde-ing the printing of the pa
pers. The minority feels that a case involving
such grave charges of fraud should not be set
tied in this hasty. off-hand manner, by the mere
presentation of ex parte affidavits and it urged .
fitting Investigation Of the case. Failing in
this, it was unable TO vote, as it would on every
personal ground have been glad to do, in favor
of the sitting members title TO his seat 1t be-
lieves that reasonable showing having been
made by the contestant, he should in all justice
and fair dealing be allowed to establish, by le-
gal and com petent evidence, if he can, the alle-
cations of fraud made by him. The minority
do not see why. If the charges be untrue, the
contestee should so persistenty oppose in
vestigation. and his opposition is. to their
minds. strongly corroborative OF the claim
made by ft1e contestant restrain them
from supporting the ma 10 rity resolution without
an inquiry. Precedents are quoted in support
of the course recommended by the minority, in
cluding synopsis of Mr.. Carl.sle's IS remarks in
the Butterworth case, and of Mr.. Butterworth's
own declaration in favor of an investigation into
his right to a seat.
The minority then states that contestant is q
young man. poor, unversed in law. and suffering
from mismanagement of the case and lack OF
money, against whose character word
has been said. He is entitled to moro con-
sideration than any other citizen because he IL
aworkngman; but on the other hand. il should
NOT be forgotten that he Is entitled to no less.
He is not partisan, and has never been Re
publican. He and contestee are members of the
same political party. He is. however. the
resentative Of that large class of citizens belong.
ing TO both political parties united IN labor or
ganizations. and their candidate. If
view of these facts, the minority fesls obliged,
in what it believes to be the interest of exact
and equal justice. to withhold its consent to the
majority report This report is signed by Messrs.
Lyman, Lodge, Houk and Johnston of Indiana.
Mr. Rowell iii supplementary reply. states
that he concurs in the majority committee re-
port, only dissenting from the practice of trying
disputed questions of fact upon parts testi-
mony. In answer to the contestants charge
that the returns from nearly all the precincts in
one county We're the same handwriting, or,
in other words that the returns were forgeries.
Mr.. Rowell says that the original returns
brought before the committee and completely
refuted it No amount of testimony can change
the appearance of these returns. Regarding
the attack upon the returns q vitality material
point in the case, aud in view of the presenta
ton of ths original returns, Mr.. Rowell addA
that he does not sec any good reason for reopen
inc a