Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1890-01-23


posed of repres, .stives Of every county in
the State They were here 70 discharge a
duty on vhich the safety and prosperity Of
the State deperdsd. and the Importance Of
the issue as well a. the law Of ,he land
justified this high tribunal, in going
back oi the returns ia order 10 ascertain
sud dsclsrs the true result OF theWest Vir-
cinil election. IL matters not, in the per-
formauCe of this duty, whether Gen. Goff
OF judge Fleming Gh0u'd receive the bene-
tit Tee ballot must be kept pure and our
elections preserved That is the principle
81 stake.
Why people sometimes talk about the
cost Of this contest Why you gentlemen
would put your hands in the State Treas
ary and
TAKE OUT EvERY DOLLAR To
mai1iain this principle. IL would not DO
20 impeach tins principle, and 1t Is the
sop.eme du'y Of the people OF the State
and their representative, in this tribunal
lo m'intain 10 al every hazard.
Judge Jorn5en then revie Sed the cir
cumsiauczs under which she GubernstOrial
commission vas created, snd briefly sum-
msrissd It's gcrk. L; Wa impossible for
him 90 Rade through the Is 600 pages Of
evidence. which bad been taken, and be
was compelled az the assembly would be
Co rely on tie reports Of the COMMITTEES.
This committee was similar 10 character to
commission In chancery. Il had been ap-
pointed to oibvssligate and pronounce upon
the facts. In any court the report Of a
majority of 8 legal commission is accepted
ard stands as hnsl, unlsss positive and
vicious error is shown in IT,
Having completed this elaborate and
forcibie statement Of the case, Judge John
son took up the reports OF the mel iofity and
minority OF the committee. In doing so
be paid 2 high tribute 20 the majority re.
port srd declared that he dedsd any one
90 produce single document which
showed broader fairness and aupier grasp
of the case than his report did. Toe legal
decisions of the committee were then
revis EeG az great length. The drst
point eas COTS motion 10 quash
the supplemental notice Of contest
because il was served after March y which
vas the end Of the time fixed by the orig
inal staiuts ia which 60 take depositlOns
The report Was quoted, showing that the
Joint assembly had Of iis own motion ex-
.eoded this time, bat even IL the assembly
had 60, taken this action the case would
have re NAMED the same. The estatute fix
irg the time Of the contes. was not man
dat0ry bul directory, and failure TO COM
ply with Is technical provisions would
uot vit.a.e action in the contest. Three
return notices served on Fleming by GOf
on January 30, March and May 6 we're
next taken up. Ga the first return notice
the speaker
FORCIBLY POINTED OUT
shat one specification wss illegal, because,
while 1t stated the number OF votes cast
Tor Fleming in a precinct whose votes we're
it entirely failed 70 siate the
vote cast for Cot. A seconO specification
was illegal on the same Just ground,
while the members Of the committee were
unanimous in qusshing the third speeih-
r.tlon fourth specification CT this
notice had been qusshed by the majority
MI th. committee They were justified IN so
doing Tue broad principles OF law and
ueot demanded Il, for which these speeln-
cations sst up technical violations OF the
I iaw. &c vas not sh0sn that Gen. Con had
suffered irom these violations, or that
fnu5 of any KIDD bad bsen committed;
/ G.frs return uot ICES OF March 5, and May
|6 Dad also been Quashed by the commit
/ tee. tbe prcprilty Of that action could Dos
| be called 10 question; no new fsc.s were
&c up 10 the-e notices, and it was evil
dent that they were filed at late
DAYS IN the contest, solely 10 order
/ 10 prevent Judge Fleming from answering
/ them or taking deposihons In defense OF
toe votes assailed by them. o. this point
Judge Johns0n's argument was remarkab =
ciesr snd conclusive. AZ this point a re-
cess wss iskea until 2:3O p. m.
Immediately on Resembling Judge
johnson took up the question OF compe
teut and admissible testimony. He quo
ted al, length from the report and from
various a1thCriii-s 10 law IN order TO show
that cilcums' antial
EyIDENCE WAS COMPETENT
20 Prove ,bs iilegzlity Of a vote, or the
polidcsi complexion Of voter. Circum-
-,sursl evidence was competent in case
OF J ie aud death. there certsi-ly should be
10 objection 90 accepting il in contest Of
this psculisr character.
Itit could not be proven that man was
a Republican or Democrat by his party
oGhsiiOns or his OEn statement, how
could q procf Of politics Re made in this
c1uu,ry Of Tree and secret ballot? How
could a contest be conducted at all? These
questions were OF special importance, be-
cause much Of the proof IN all the cases
was Of this character. BOth Republicans