New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-21
THEY STAND BY MAYNARD
SOLIDLY FOR THE WHITEWASII-
ING REPORT.
FoRcIBLE SPEECHES BY SENATORS sAxroN AND
oCONNOR-LAME ATTEMPTS AT DEFENCE
OF THE ACCUSED JUDGE MADE By
DEMoCRATS-THE. Assem-
bly, DEBATE.

did d good job, one OF which the State may we'll
be proud. There was not break in the Demo
cratic ranks in either house The representatives
Of the great Democratic party of New-York. with.
out an exception declare that to steal an election
return is commendable act; to create fraudulent
certificates of elections Is virtuous and TO object
to such things presumes insincerity and ulterior
motives. There were Democrats in both houses,
notably in the Senate, who claimed TO be Cleve.
land men, and to represent the better element Of
their party. But they had no difficulty in ap-
proving Maynard's crime or in congratulating the
people upon his selection as Judge Of the high
est court in the State. They have committed
their party They have made his nomination .
logical necessity. They have placed the Democ-
racy behind him. have declared him pattern
and ideal; have rejoiced in his acts. as before
they he'd accepted the fruits Of them.
No issue could be palmer than the one they
have raised. The people are called upon to de-
eide between electoral methods. on the one hand.
which make canvassing boards merely ministerial
machines and election returns sacred; or. on
the other, methods which justify canvassing
boards in altering the figures handed to them by
election inspectors and which justify any man IN
stealing a return if he thinks it calculated to
interfere with the success Of his party and its
candidates. If there can be any doubt of the re-
suit Of an election this issue, New-York must
be well on its way back into the Dark Ages
The debate in both houses was perfunctOry.
In the Assembly, Mr. Hustled made strong and
able speech fully presenting the facts as they
have been presented so often before. He was
listened to by perhaps score OF members. Inc
rest were reading writing talking, stroling around
the chamber or entertaining themselves In ute
smoking, rooms. similar scene was presented
during the debate in the Senate. The sublece
under consideration the removal OF a Judgo
charged with high crimes and msdemeanors'
Eleven hundred lawyers, represented by the hover
Of their profession, had united IN
memorial u these men, representing
the peoples majesty, asking that "o
facts in regard TO the conduct of this Judge ~
ascertained and fttingly dealt with Ana yes
during the debate as to whether the action tneSe
IL 90 lawyers had advised be taken, rot more than
three or four members Of the majority ana
responsible party were in their seats, or even IN
the chamber This was Of course. an appropriate
mart OF their performance. 1t was illustrative.
The discussion in the Senate was dgnihed by
a iudicial and impressive speech from Mr.. Saxton,
and enlivened by one from Senator OConnor fun
NJ taunt and sarcasm Under the rule imposed
by Shechan and Cantor. only an hour was aiioweo
for the entire debate. II is idle to say that no
one of the hundred important phases OF the case
could be presented in that time. Senator SaNton
went directly to the heart OF the subject. lie
said he presented bis minority report because thas
of the majority. like the defensive letter Of Judge
MAYNARD on which il was based, was disingenuOus
and full OF misstatements and misrepresentation.
He did not like 70 characterize so harshly writing
IN which Senators had sgred their names, but
this was the gentlest language he couli possibly
cmploy From beginning TO end the majority re-
mort lodged the issue; and why it should 40
so. when the facts were admittedly not in ques-
ton he failed TO understand Mr.. Maynard, on
the morning of December 10. 1891, had taken
from the office Of the Controller Of this State
sealed envelope sent there through the mails, and
containing a certificate Of the votes cast in tho
county of Dutchess in the November election, cor
rccted by order OF the Supreme Court
That return was in the Controllers Office purs
suant % the directions OF the Court, and TO
the statutes. II It's way 10 the State
Poard of Canvas.ers, through the offices OF the
Controller and the Secretary of State. Under
the law being return corrected by order of the
Supreme Court, after a full adjudication Of the
electoral questions in dispute in that district. it
was destined to take the place of return, adj
Judged 10 be illegal and erroneous, which had
preceded it, The first return elected Democratic
candidate for State Senator. whose political in.
tarest-although by law the adviser OF the State
Canvassers-Mr MAYNARD represented. That re-
turn Mr. Maynard held, honestly, or otherwise, TO
be the one that should he counted; and, in order
70 prevent the counting of that one which the
courts had pronounced valid, he removed il from
the Controllers office and sat silent while tho
State Board of Canvassers denied all knowledge
OF it's existence and proceeded 10 count the re-
turn declared by the ultimate court to he illegal
and erroneous; because, they said no other return
had reached them.
""These," said Senator Saxton ARE the ad-
mitted facts. and the question on them
is Was AIaynards conduct right and law
full. or was il criminal? This question
the majority have not touched. They allege thas
the return which Maynard took was false one,
in spite of the Supreme Courts decision But
what of that? {? May an advocate steal puoilo
document because he thinks ii is not good IN iawH
MAY an election return he appropriated by an m
tcrested partisan because he dlsagrees with The
sunreme Court as TO It's character? They allege,
in spte of the Court Of Appeals decision. that
The .Mylod return which was counted was the
truc and legal return. But the Court of Appeals
udiciaiy declared that il was not. Is an advo-
cate 10 insist that ministerial officers of the people
shall act as he thinks instead of as the highest
court directs?
They alleec that the County Clerk who sent
the return to the Controller had no right TO send
il. but was restrained in that respect by existing
orders of the Court What of it? Is an advocate
entitled 10 take the law into his own hands, and TO
dispose of public documents without judicial def
niton of their status? We deny each OF
these alterations. Not of them Is true;
but if they were all true, they would
be beside the mark. Not one nor all can be
pleaded % excuse justify Judge Maynards
act Ii was an act of larceny, pure and simple.
1t was committed with criminal intent; and so
long as its perpetrator remains on the bench OF
the Court Of Appeals that tribunal, which we
should cherish and defend, will be naturally and