Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1889-07-09
BROOKE COUNTY CASE.
A CLBAN AND ABLB STATEMENT OF THE
DEMOCRATIC POSITION.
Difference Between Ohio Oouniys Votes and These
REJECTED in Brooke COuniy-Judgs KaIwslIs
Published Opinion Crtcissd-MssHs.
Kse Sprigg and Lively Talk.
Special cOrcsponde7lce Of ne R,giaer.

GRAFTON, W. VA, July s.-Under a
sensational display head, in the hteuigmeer
Of July Let, there appeared what purport-
ed to be an opinion upon the decision Of
the Committee in the Brooke county cases,
from no less parsonage than Judge Max
we'll, one of the Republican members Of
the Gubernatorial Contest Committee The
opinion, as published, had a fsby odor
about il. So the REGISTER determined TO
investigate. 1t did not seem meet ard
proper for committeeman to be rushing
into print to make political capital for his
party, simply because an editorial state
ment had appeared in the opposition pa
per. Besides, when such tactics were re-.
sorted to, it was only fair that the public
should hear the other side if possible, and
then make up its mind as to the merits Of
the question. The Democratic members
of the Committee heretofore have
been very reticent, AID nm
der no consideration would permit
themselves to go into print, claiming that
it would be improper to do so, but the in
discretion Of Judge Maxwell in permitting
himself TO be manipulated for bolsterir
purposes and
PARTY EFFECT,
has 30 incensed the Democratic members
Of the Committee that for the nonce they
have waived their rule of keeping silent
and permitting your correspondent to get
at the facts which will prove very interest
ing reading. 1t will be seen that Jndge
Maxwell places himself in rather queer
position. 1t seems that he has has ore
opinion for the public and another opinion
on the sems subject for the committee
But here is Chairman KEGS statement, in
an interview with the REGISTER reporter
which is verified by Messrs. Sprigg and
Lively:
The REGISTER representative remarked
to the Chairman:
"Mr. Kee, have heard il inhmstfd
that the opinion Of Judge Maxwell, which
appeared in the Intenigencer in relation TO
the Brooke county matter, Was net deliy-
cred before the Committee AZ II appeared
in that paper. Have you anything to say
about ii?"
WHAT CHAIRMAN KEE SAYS.
Mr.. Kee replied: ~ have only this TO
say. that while the opinion as published in
the IntelIgencer may be the opinion Of
Judge Maxwell, il was not delivered to or
before the Committee as published.
"Was there reporter Of the InteHigeHccr
or any other newspaper, in the committee
room when the Brooke county matter was
decided?" the REGISTER man asked.
"There was no one present." responded
Mr.. Kee, Except the Committee and the
Clerk at the time the question was dis
cussed, as TO the vote OF G. l.. Caldwell, F,
which was the list case In the Wellsburg
and Cross Creek District question" "
Had your Committee ever decided the
question of the constitutionality OF the
statute requiring a voter to cast HIS vote in
the district in which he resided before this
Brooke County case was considered?"
1.-THE Committee had, and Messrs. Max
well, Morris. Lively and myself held that
the statute was constitutional and, ~ q
regulation should be enforced, and before
we took up Brooke County |, and perhaps
Mr.. Lively, had frequently voted with
Messrs. Maxwell a1d Morris, and rejected
votes cast for Judge Fleming, on the
q ound that the voter had voted ont OF
his district, and several such votes had
been rejected.
"What difference, Mr.. Kee, ia there be-
tween the votes rejected in Brooke county
and those that were involved in the ONO
county casep Judge MOxwell intimates
in the opinion referred to, that the Ohio
county votes stood upon the same basis al
those rejected in Brooke county. How II
thie?"
THE DIFFERENCE.
"The difference" said Mr.. Kee, "i
this, that in Ohio county there were sever
districts verging into the city of Wheeling
Votes were contested there by Gen. Gof
on the ground that they voted without
the limits of the district in which they re
sr rectively resided. In every instanc'
there was conflict of testimony AZ TO th'
location Of the district line. II
Brooke county there was M
conflict of testimony. 1t was Clearly
shown by the proof and admitted by The
voters themselves that prior to 1877 tbs
district line between the districts Of Wells
burg and Cross Creek was the north side oI
Fleet street. There could have been nc
change in that district line except by the
order of the County Court. Thst Court
can speak only by its records, and the rec
ords OF that Court do not show any change
made. upless il has been done since the
taking OF the depositions read before the
Committee. II is, in fact, shown thai
steps have been taken since the last No
yember election to have the County Court
change the boundary line Of the district oi
Wellsburg, 80 as to embrace within i''
limits the territory annexed TO the city ol
Wellsbury by the decree OF the Circni'
CouIt in 1871"
when was your attention first called
TO the opinion Of Judge Maxwell az pub
lished in the IntelligenceT, and did you
after that, have any conversation with him
about il, and have you any objection to
giving the REGISTER the substance Of any
conversation you may have had in relation
to the matter"
AN INCORRECT INTERVIEW.
81 never saw the opinion OF Judge Max.
we'll. as published, until the morning OF
the fourth Of July. then called his At
tention to it, and be said that while that
was not his opinion as be had delivered 1t
TO the Committee, still 1t was the opinion
az he had furnished it 10 the re-
porter of the InteligenoeT, except ~
to the statement Of the Ohio county mat
ters. / asked him 10 max what was in
correct in the opinion that was published
and be took his pencil and marked that
part of it referring TO the Ohio county mat
ters. Judge Maxwell in the opinion
aforesaid, puts himself on the broad basis
that it was the duty of the County court
OF Brook county after the annexation Of inc
said territory TO the corporation OF hells-
burg. in 1877, TO change the district line
between Wellsburg and Cross Creek dis-
tricts an az 10 include within the district Of
Wellsburg the annexed territory. Now,
have to say in reply to that, that 1t was
NOT THE DUTY or THE COURT
to do any such thing unless 1t intended to
include within the district Of Wellsburg
that part of Cross Creek district which was
ANNEXED 10 the city OF Wellsburg in 1871.
The County Court did not do 80, and there
fore IL is fair and just to presume it never
intended TO do 30. 1t was no more its duty
In 1887 to do 80 than ii was at any time
hefore or since, so far as the facts appeared