New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-02-12
DISCUSSING THE sMArLSELLIorE CASH.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE At LAST
BROUGHT BEFORE THE HOUSE,

THE CONTESTED ELECTION CASE At LAST
BROUGHT BEFORE THE HOUSE.
Washington, Feb. III (speciaD.-By vote Of 13I to
80 the House to-day decided to consider the contested
election of smalls against Elliott of the With
South Carolina District Only twenty-four Democrats
voted in the Affirmative They were Cummings and
Tracey, New-York; Bynum and Holman, Indiana;
Chipman, Michigan; Crisp. Georgia; Dorgan, South
Carolina; Foran, Cultivate and Yoder, ohio Glass.
Tennessee Hooker Mississippi Johnston, North Caro-
lima; Landes and Lawer, Illinois; Macdonald. Mnnc-
sofa; Maish Pennsylvania; Mckinney, New-Hamp-
shire; Moore, Texas Morse, Massachusetts; oFerraI
and Wise, Virginia; Thompson, California and wlker.
Missouri OF these, sx-Crisp, OFerrall, Cultivate,
Malsh, Johnston and Moore-are members Of the
Elections Committee. The negative vote was solidly
Democratic that the matter had been left to thai
party consideration Of the would have been de;
MED by vote of nearly four to one.
The vote to-day docs not indicate probability
that Smalls will be awarded the seat to which, as the
testimony in the conclusively shows he Is en-
titled. onefourth OF the Democratic votes for con-
sderaon were by members Of the Elections Com1
mttee who in committee, voted against Smalss IL Is
probable however, that several Democrats who voted
for consideration to-day viii vote to award the seao
to the contestant and It is barely possible that enough
of them will do SO turn the scale in his favor
Chairman Crisp, who opened the debate and supf
ported Eliotts claim evidently realized that his task
was one of extreme difficulty, and 1t was only af'er
ne had cut loose foo the testimony pertinent 10 inc
case and had undertaken to show why smaiis ougna
not to have been elected that he spoke with his usai
Auency He delivered rather good stump Speech
which however had nothing whatever TO do with tho
case With apparent seriousness and without inc
trace of smile he sought to demonstrate that Elliotrs
maioritys would have been much larger had It noS
been for the fact that Democratic voters in the Win
south Carolina District were intimdated and pre-
vented from voting by Republicans.
Mr.. Rowells reply to Crisp was most effective ana
his analysis OF the evidence and statement OF the case
in behalf of the contestant were thoroughly conVne-
ing No impartial man who listened 10 his srgumons
could escape the conclusion that Smslh was 'sriy
and honestly elected by decisive majority ana tn~e
Elliott is the beneficiary Of series OF me most
outrageous election frauds ever perperateo Dy Dcm',
Gratis even In the State of South Carolina
Mr. Cr,sn In his speech, reviews the evidence
IN the case first calling the attention OF the houso
TO the alleged fraud IN the Pocotago precinct "nefS
rore ballots we're found in the box than there were
names ON the poll list There was no evidence ~
show who put I'm the surplus ballots At the sugses-
tion of yampneld the son-in-law Of the con'estanp
enough ballots were drawn from the box TO make hs
number remaining tally with the number on the poll
list The drawing out OF the excess seemed TO have
heen done In accordance with the law, II the presohcs
~ the Federal Supervisors Of Election and the SOM
in-law of the contestant. The minority Claimed thss
In the precinct OF Brick EplscOpai Ohurcus - '~
had been Illegally rejected on the ground that 'na
voters had not been properly registered. Ine evS
dence did not show that the votes had been iiessln
rejected He then referred to Gadsden precinct wnefs
the managers of the election refused TO serve and
where after 10 O'Clock election day. the federes
s,,peryision appointed three managers Inc Vote OF
this urec.nct had properly been thrown OUT ana
ra,ther the contestant his attorney had claimed
that n should be counted. But the minority OF the
committee contended that the 451 votes there cast on
smalls should be counted. Mr. Crisp ds@
c,.yed that tho position Of the minority
,r.s that the district, being negro district muse
necessarily send negro to Congress He referred %
The conviction of saals for accepting bribe whhs
state Auditor and contcnded that that conviction hze
injured him with the colored people.
Mr.. RoweI Of Illinois, said that no lawyer unr
derstandng the first principle Of evidence woud' in
moment contend that the question Of smaiiss gum
or innocence illustrated single proposition pcsnn@
on the right OF either claimant TO seat ne 90
elaed that the laws of South Carolina had been amso
10 disfranchise the Republican voters Oh tnst osa
Under those laws there had been syssemano snoH
10 deny to colorcd voters the right 10 register ana u
change their registration certificates The eenuema
from Georgia had spoken about the intimidation oa
coored Democrats by Republicans OF the same race.
The Governor OF South Carolina had recently ant
uounced tho paramount political question In SOUTH
carolina 10 be the maintenance Of Aneiesaxcn eont
troll that was one patent fact in response to .sAe