New-York tribune., 1890-05-24
nv TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuNl.l

-. o. av voted on three Of the pending
election contests. which will be reported 10 ''o
House within few days Two OF uo '"'o' '
decided in favor Of the contestants ana ohe III l"N'
NJ the contestce In the first two cases the Dcni-
ocratic members Of the committee, OF course as
.r,ea from the views of the majority. not only be-
..use the contestants arc Republicans, but because
they are coored And vet IN at least one Va 'i'o
cases tho evidence is conclusive and overwhelming
that IL is difficult 10 conceive how any honest ana
compefent lawyer whether Democrat OF Repuon-
can could arrive at a different conclusion from the
one reached by the majority. That case is the con
test Of Miller against Elliott of the With South
Carolina District careful review Of which was re-
Gently published in The Tribune Einotts omc'dH
majority was $50 votes, but the uncohoran'coe"
and upimpeached testimony shows that Allcr was
denrived Of more than 1000 votes by two simple
devices The first was 10 reject every vooe 'o'V
for him which deposited In box other IMAM ''o
o,e labelled Representative in Congress
+. should be understood that State law OF sou'h
Carolina reauires a separate baotbox for each once
10 be voted for. and that ballot depositeo III "'
wrong box shall be rejected In oroer 10 "'"A'
this law still efcacious against Repuph'ahs 'ho
Democratic Judges Of Election-and the bemocrauo
coyerror Richardson had refused pointbank to
appont single Republican commissioner or rmdnasor
az election In the dstric-began early In the Gay 70
change the places OF the respective boxes soii0 VA
them PLAYED this Monte game until the polis ooou
The other device the old one OF stulhls u"A".-
boxes with Elliott ballots and then drawing out enough
Republican ballots 10 make tho NUMBER rcinaIn'is
correspond with the number of names on the pois'S.
The uncontradlctcd testimony in regard TO the extent
of the two kinds OF fraud above described was so COM
pete and convincing that the committee would nave
been justified probing the case no further ior IL
showed Milcr's election by at least 600 majority
Not only were election returns so saturated WIN
fraud that they fairly reeked but as the record shows
bevond the shadow Of doubt. the official acts OF the
officers of registration thoroughly rotten ana
corrupt and thousands OF Republican voters "ere
unlawfully disfrsnChised In word, every sohco VI
fraud that could be devised or employed to deprive
the Republicans Of the right OF suffrage ana 'h""''
the will of the majority used in order to return
for Elliott majority of ,355 in district "hioh
has an actual Republican majority of at least -oooV'
The returns of the election in that district III iooo
were stepped in fraud but a Democratic MAJORITY III
the House stood by Elliott. the benehciaN ol 'h"'
fraud and retained him in his seat kepnoho"n
House cannot act too speedily in his case ana give
the seat to the man who was fairly ana hohesu1
elected.
The other case decided to-day in favor OF the con
cs,ant WAS that Of Lancston aeanst Vcnsbe, Of the
Ivth Virginia District. The latter's majority over
Langston, according to the official returns was o4l'
The district has normal Republican majority OF apo"'
5000. In 1883 there were two Republican cahoida'cs
in the field one of whom credited with 32O' Vo'es
nv the official returns which gave Langston 1851
votes and Venable ,2o5 votes Although Lansstons
counsel had alleged many irregularities and attacked
the returns from many precincts, ana ciahed ior
him a plurality Of some $500 votes the case really
turned upon the vote Of two wards III the CITY VI
Petersburg and two outside precincts In one OF the
latter which was rejected BY the Returning Board ana
which the contcstee said shOud be counted LdngstOh
received l41 votes and Nenable go votes. In inc
other precinct the testimony shows that the eie'"on
and returns were tainted with fraud that 1t wonid
he an outrage 10 accept the official return AT al!
Al that precinct all election Judges were Demo
crafts They twice left the room while the polls We're
omen remaining away nearly hour each time ana
leaving loose packet OF Nenable ticket lying on inc
table within easy reach Of the baotboA' Alt@r 'Ic
polls were closed these Democratic election Judges
turned the clerks of election out Of the luFNroo "'4o
the election was held, permitted them to absent
themselves. They opened the box ana turned 'ne
ballots in a mass upon the table in pile; and then
picked them one by and separated tiehl ih'"
three piles and reported that Nenablc aa lob Lane
sion Sc and Arnold 10 votes. making an aGeIesaD "l
o2o votes Then the clerks when readmltjcd 70 tie
room looked at their poll books, and told the !ud;es
that vouId not do as they reported 20 votes more
than there were voters names on the polb0ohs.
They then bndfoded "Ned' Bayne twho was $"
drunk that he could not read the tickets ana nc or"
out twenty-six ballots. and then, win inc assistant
Of j. W. smith, he began 10 call out the balo's an"
with the aid of the clerks to make up return Con
him in Petersburg that he received some 500 VOtcs
which were not counted for him. and which, IL Is iar
10 presume, counted and returned ior NehaD'c.
~ course the testimony Of voter as to now ne No'
mnst be accepted valid evidence Inc oohc'u>io'
NJ the majority Of the committee from the tesmohy
addnced Is that Langston received puIalty OF soHc
300 votes. ,,,
The third case decided today was that OF ChalmeFs
against Morgan Of the Id Mississippi Dstrct' MOT
CAMS "majority.7 according TO the 0ihciai reuii'S'
exceeded 1000 votes. After thorough lhVesusdu"i
of the case the committee found that while contestant
had brought testimony to show gross frauds-ehoue" 10
reduce contesees majority 10 some 2oOo-he had not
nr,duccd sufficient legal evidence that Morgan du ,io
receive an actual majority IT is asserted ~ "ehef
Chalmers and the record sustalns the alieeauoh u
some extent. that the opportunity to take h"css'rS
testimony was denied 10 him by resort BY Morgan
poitical friends and supporters 20 means whch nave
become familiar 10 every person who has carefully
s,uded the Arkansas Of Featherston against tae
aud CLAYTON against Breckinridge and the fl0rlo!
case OF Goodrich against BULLOCK Inc report g., vi
teresing document and will provoke discussion III
tie House which will serve to enileen the c9nmiS Z
In recard To the present methods by winch thc Demo
"r.ts OF Mississippi succeed in rolling up big Demo
cratic maioritiesa In strong Republican districts
.eciston next week In the OF Goodrich AGAINST
Rnllock of the I'D Florida District Hln against
Danns: a,nst in T Hooker OF the Vim Mississippi D
trict careful study OF the record IN the riqr "a
cass a review Of which was publ shed IN The Tribune
several weeks ago. justidcs y" belleI that the com
mttee will decide in favor oi "oodleh tle hePnDHca
contestant. ,.,-.---.t-,.- ..-
The committee hopes 70 have all the remaining cas'a
except that Of Rrccldnridee of Arhsn,aS. reported u
tbc Uousn before the cud June IL was intended u
h. .ng the case ~ McDufc. agan, Turpn' oi inc INth
AI.hama District. p vote I'm the House n"Nt tues
dav hut Colonel Malsh. Of PennsvlVana. VINO wa,
~ nrcpare the view of the minority mas ncch ~
and IL f. probable that the matter VIII not p5 uIposcd
nj uu,u the Hr-t week IN June.
THE sub corpmittce Of which Mr.. Lacey, oi Iowa.
ie ehairman heard cX Attorney General Garland thls
,norrinr I'm explanation and support OF monon p
reopsn the Rreckinridgc case, 50 a. 10 nave NV
,ca fmony taken in his behalf. on MONDAY ne VIII
sphmit a formal application 10 have subpoenas issued
TO- vitnesscs not exceeding twenty five IN numoer
cnnsiaerattnn IN seems probable that the applcS
Ton will he granted n j. pretty evident that me
bspa writing ON the wall7 has become vilblc u The
Arkansas statesman.