New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-19

eras Of which Osborne one, was made possible
conclude from Judge Mayrads letter taken in connec-
ton Win o,hc well established fact, at the atatc
clrd acted IN the whole mntier upon MS aaVce 'slo
that he Is. therefore 70 large extent. Responsible ior
the commission Of the greatest political crihe 'ia'
ever disgTaced the history Of the Empire state
THE MYLOD RETURN CAHNASsED.
on the evening of the day when the decisions in
The several election cases were handed down by the
Court 0. Appeals. the Board of State Canvassers had
their closing session. Judge MAYNARD was preesnt.
The Board proceeded, I'm spite OF the protests Of Re
publican counsel TO the Mylod RETURN. ana
granted a certificate Of election to Osborne Judge
Maynard we'll knew that the order in the Dutchess
County case made by Judge Edwards. rs affirmed by
the Court Of Appeals prohibited the state Board from
canvassng the Mylod return" and required them TO
canvas only such corrected return might afterward
BE- sent to them. lie knew that the corrected returns
had been sent according to law, ard prevented by his
act from being present before the Board. lie knew
that certified copy Of that return had been served
on each member II" knew that the act u the board
In canvaSslng the "MyOd certificate was In defiance
Of the order Of the court ~ last resort and most da
gerous attack upon law and popular government. II
the true return from the Board until the court had
decided the matter, he knew the decision had then been
turn while UNFOLDING the other. There was
no longer any ground for fear that the
nard's language. create new controversy Tie
whole controversy then settled. 1t surely was
to speak ont, and forbid the consummaton OF great
public wrong. lie staes in his letter that his rela
clslons were handed down. Perhaps that is true.
although know that on the day after he appeared
Mayham. But when did his duty cease a man
and citizen Certainly he could not dvest himself
0t 5ne s G that Sd % hi him "a ns
attorney for the state Board Of Canvassers.
The only Inference which can nationally be drawn
from Judge Maynard's acts is that they were intended
10 accomplish exactly what they did accomplish.
They could have had no other purpose than the one
which was finally scrved-that Of having the Illegal
"Mylod return counted. instead of the one which
had been decided to be legal by the supreme Court
MAYNARD's DISI INGENIOUS LETTER
Judge Maynard has attempted TO justify his course,
In letter TO which frequent reference has been made
in this report. That letter makes his look much
darker than IT did before because it makes confession
Of startling facts that had up to that time.
only been suspected. But. aside from the tone the
letter is dlsingcnuous throughout II Is full OF bubbles
and evasOns. Take. for Illustration the statement
that he could not testify before Judge Learned as
referee in the contempt proceedings, at Albany on
the st day Of February last because II was c0nsultl-
tioa day in the Court Of Appeals. The fact is that
he had Just taaen his seat In the court and had not
listened 10 arguments In cases which called for con
sultation. But, even II he had been thus engaged
IT cannot be possible that he could spare
hour 10 testify upon subject which involved his
character and reputation. Again, he apparently aims
TO -ive the i'm preston all through his letter that
The Mylod certificate vas a,tackcd only on the
ground That II had not been properly attesied. 40
know better than lie does That the Republican
counsel INSISTED upon all occasions that the certificate
was bad, not OILY In form. but IN substance and
the Court Of Appeals hem II 10 be fundamentally in
valid. nasInuch IL was 10 use their own language.
both Illegal and erroneoI-."
The letter. when carefully analyzcd. shows that
Judec Maynard rests hi, defence upon these three
propositions:
turns transmitted to the state Board was breach Of
The stipulation made December :.
second THAT County Clerk Emans. In mailing the
certified copies December ~ violated the stay orders
above described granted by Judge Fursman aud Judge
Third That he Oaynardl was justified in dong
what he dd by the fact that he acting attorney
Tor m" state Board 81 Canvassers. aud the various
Let consider these defences In their order
iirst-lt j, evident that II the stipulation was In
mittri 10 the state Hoard II void and imperative
No lawyer or body u lawyers could siipulate away
the rights Of the people or th" duty q AN officer Ia
obey the law. Least Of all could Inv officer Of
the State dcccuuy make agreement which would
agreement Of inelr legal riehtS Nobody was an.
thoriged TO sign AWAY the privileges which belonged
"a The entire body Of voters In the XVIII senatorial
District.
CONSTITUTING THE STIPULATION.
But an examination Of the stipulation clearly shows
tni II does not admit Of the construction which judge
Maynard has placed upon #. II doe, not I'm terms
by reasonable Implication cover the proceeding
before Judge Harnprd asnnst the County Canvasscrs
which resulted I'm the corrected statement That cas-,
Lad been decided two days before the stipulation was
made The only Duohess County Included in
NE stipulation WIS the one p,nGing before Judge
Edwards against Ia" state Canvass'rs. Nv its terms
II provided that TIE proceedings of the STATE Board
not # NE Dutch,ss County Clerk, be suspended until
The decision of the Court Of App al, AMI that the
canvass then be completed In accor lance with that
decision. Tnre 10 nothing In the paper. from begin
Ming to end from which II can possibly be Inferred
nnt there was an Intention 10 hay" the County
Clerk prevented from performing his statutory duty
10y transmitting the corrected return 10 the state
board.
immediately after the stipulation made. the
Ciac side of the controversy commenced a pro
cc-ding with Judge Mnynard's knowledge a' the cir
cunisnnC.s prove. on the relation Of Osborne for a
corrected return from Dutche,s County. That pro
c.ding wa carried on In one form or another nnui
chat one either side entertained the Idea for
moment that The preceding 70 obtain corrcctei re
ON the contrary everything ,D Ia show that such
CHIN ever made until December - WHEN pro
ceedng Wan commenced hy Osborne against the STATE
Emans 20 rcinin In his possession the corrected ~
.ane ~tl me state HnrI That was a colusive prp
cc,~ling In which only the Democratic side OF the
Judge Ma, ham. Judge who has always shown him
self be ths willing tool II those who desired to ac
compu-h questionable party ends, 1t was commenced
the day after Judge Maynard distracted the records
from the Controllers Office. and doubtless insti
.r,d by him ia order that he might have kind OF
mittcd
THE ORDER OF JUDGE MAYnAM
The final order IN the proceeding was granted De
ccmber 30 by Judge Mnylam. The relator. Mr.. Os-
borne. represented 10y Mr. FIero. and Judge May
nard appeared nominay for the State Board OF Can
vusscrs, although according 10 his letter his relations
VITA the Board rs their attorney had ceased the day
before There is 10 room for doubt but that his APP
pearance before Judge Mnyham was really I'm Os-
bOrnc's Interests aud that the whole proceeding
sham and a naud. The order made by Judge May
lam M that lime l. the adudicata mentioned ~
Judge Mnynam's letter and We see that what h.
points out rs a Justification. when properly under
stood. but adds darker shade TO lis offence. He
states in his letter that when the stipulation
gcscd the 9Th Of December. II was entirely un-
suspected by him and yet that proposition
made in letter signed by the Republicans the
second Of the month. and banded to the members Of
he state Beard for whom Judge MAYNARD acting
rs counsel. The letter appears IN the records sub.
mitcd 10 the Court Of Appeals. and contains the tot
lowing clause showing that there Was intention
# staying the transmission OF the Duchess County
returns
Pending the acceptance OF this offer Il. e. TO sub