New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-22


tanning to the disputed election cases. The second
is that the return which he distracted from the
Controllers Office ought never TO have been sent
there, since there were orders of the Supreme
Court existing which forbade the County Clerk
to transmit it. The third il that this return was
procured by the Republicans after stipulation
had been made by them with the Democrats, pro-
viding that other relief should be sought than
that which had already been demanded when the
stipulation was made 1t is plain on the face
of it, that these are curiously inadequate deences
even if true in fact, for the abstraction OF
public document from public office. They simply
tend to show that that document, when IL ma"
reached its ultimate destination, ought not therc
TO have received attention. Admitting TINS IL
cannot justify any one, no matter what may DC
his authority. in appf ,prating the document III
is not pretended that there was judicial order
In existence directing the State Board OF Gan
vassers or the Secretary OF State or the Governor
or Controller to refuse to receive this return, 50
that Judge Maynard cannot and does not claim
that he was acting under express Judlclai
authority The return was made by Judge
Barnards order after full public tral OF the
facts in dispute between the Republicans ana
Democrats in Duchess County. suppose 'he
Judge erred did that enttle Mr.. Maynard TO as
pose as he pleased of document Juqiclally cie-
ated? II was a public document-that canno'
he denied. 1t was not, therefore, the property
Of Controller Wemple, for the taking of which
Mr.. Maynards client could have excused iini'
True or false. valid or of no effect it was still
public record, the property of the State OF New
York passing. as the law provided, through the
office of the Controller upon certain statutory
destiny. How is it possible to justify the inter-
nf Official. WITH tfc
orderly progress of that document on any such
ground as that it was not entitled 10 the con-
alteration of those 70 whom it was addressed!
II all that Mr. MAYNARD alleges therefore, were
strictlv and literally true he would none the less
be guilty Of unlawfully abstractng public record
from q public office where it was deposited ac-
cording to law AS part of his defence Judge
MAYNARD has produced letter from Mr. Wempic
in which Mr. Wemple is made 10 say that ne
ALWAYS considered that Maynard had full authority
10 do as he considered proper IN the taxing Oh
this return and all other matters connected with
the election disputes. This is in direct conflict
with the testimony given by Wempe in the con-
tempt proceedings before Judge Cullen on January
10. at Brooklyn. He then testified that ne hau
no knowledge or information about the aostrac-
ton of this letter. if it was taken out OF MS
mail by any one it was done without his authority
he did not know that the return had been sent
to his office and, if il was, he had not empowered
ANYBODY to remove it. But MIR. Wempie
authority expressed or implied, could not POSSIBLY
excuse Maynard. II he had himself surrendered
the return. the fact would simply be that he was
guilty of the larceny, instead of Maynard lie
,yould then have been in the same position that
Frank Rice is. The return was not his property
nor that of any officer, individual or board. The
themselves for whose
information and action it had been sent to Albany,
coula NOT have given it away. They might have
disregarded it, have rejected its statements, have
declared il false or illegal, or whatever they
nleased. but they could not have made any other
nhvsical disposition of it than that which the
law directed. 1t was the property of the people
NJ the State of New-York, and no authority what
ever. except an act of the Legislature, could have
presumed to remove it out of the orderly course
which by law it was destined 10 take.
Equally beside the question is it for Judge
MAYNARD to allege that the clerk of Dutchess
County had wrongfully transmitted IT, suppose
he had, that did not put 1T into Mayharo
possession or justify him in assuming any conuoi
over it, II documents are wrongfuliy useu Mere
is abundant remedy in the courts Al any tiiiie
I'M TO the moment of the State Boards hhal
action. the court could have prevented 1t from
giving consideration to that paper, and, obviously,
~ Mr. MAYNARD thought that judicial orders had
been contravened and disobeyed in It's trans
mission. his course was, not to take the ID" LII
his own hands and carry of the document as IL
il were his property, but to address the courts
and secure the remedies provided by law buu
lust as the defence that he possessed Wempe
authority is shown to be an after-thought, con-
tradicted point blank by Wemples testimony be-
fore Judge Cullen, so the defence that the return
had been improperly transmitted is SHOWN 10 De
false and silly If Maynards present straits were
not SO desperate, it would be amazing that now III
the face of Judge Cuen's decision lie shou!d
have the effrontery to aege that the transmission
was in violation of the stay granted by Judge
Jnrrabam. That matter Judge Cullen has dis
posed of. He said in his decision; That at the
time of mailing the returns the clerk did not
know of the granting of the order OF MI Jusnce
Inrraham is clear, both from the testimony OF
Mr Lawn and the affidavit of Emans himself
The effect of that order merely TO stay
fnrtbcr proceedings upon the part Of the clerk
II did not REQUIRE him TO take affirmative action
N nndo what had bcea done or justify him IN
taking such action"
II il too late, in the face Of this decision, Tor
MAYNARD now 70 claim that the clerks action
violated Judge Ingrahams stay especially as, 70
make that claim he must argue that stay should
operate before it is filed. All this, however, lie
does, and in the next paragraph ne
finds himself under the necessity of claiming
that an order vacating stay cannot
opcrate until it is filed. The facts were these
Judge Fursman on December 1l' had stayed
Judge Barnard's order directing the clerk to for
ward the return; on December 10, Judge Cullen
vacated that stay. Judge Cullen's order, May
nard says, was filed at Poughkeepse until after
8 o'clock on the evening of December Fl. That
evening, at twenty minutes before 6. the clerk
mailed the returns Half an hour later Judge
Ingraham granted his order staying Judge Cuilens
order, but Judge Ingrahonl's order was not hied
at Poughkeepse until the next morning Now,
SAWS Maynard, the clerks transmission violated
Ilor n-anntinn IL