New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-04-08
MAYNARD INQUIRY SHUT OFF
ADJOURNMENT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
"SUBJECT TO TIE CALL OF THE CHAIR"
REFUSAL OF THE MAJORITY TO PROMISE THE
REPUBLICANS CHANCE TO EXAMINE WIT
NEssEs-wHAr COULD BE PROVED BY
Me. SIlTuERLAND'S EVIDENCE.
tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE -RrBU,


Albany April THE alleged investigation ny
the Democratic Legislature of the charges made
by the Far Association OF the City Of N,w-l ork
that Judge Maynard, of the Court of Appeals
stole the election returns Of Dutchess County
| came to an abrupt end to-day 1t was David B
Hill, undoubtedly, that pulled down the blind
and put a stop to the public looking in upon
further exposure of tie theft by him and Judge
Maynard Of the LEGISLATURE Mr.. Hill looked
extremely sour to-day as he emerged from
the Executive Chamber, which he is occupying
while Governor Flower remains in seclusiOn, under
a pretence of illness at the Executive Mansion ;
and the Hill Democrats reported that the Deputy
Governor was in bad humor variety OF
matters He had resolved they said, to refuse
TO permit the Republican members of the Senate
and Assembly judiciary Committees to summon
any witnesses, and had also resolved to give them
little time in which to prepare minority report
on the investigation. As for the majority report,
Mr. Hill himself wrote that week ago Friday,
before the investigation began: and all that the
weak Democratic members Of the Judiciary Com
mittccs will have 10 do will be to sign it,
When the investigating committee met to-day,
Senator Saxton, Republican, stated that he had
understood that the Republican members OF the
Joint committee would he permitted to summon
certain witnesses: and he desired TO have sub
poenas issued at once This motion seemed to
disturb the Democrats, and Assemblymnn IIahlo
Democrat. at once moved that the committee
| should adjourn until Monday.
Il gave notice to this committee sail Mr
Savton, that, when the counsel for the de-
icnce-or, rather, the counsel for the com
| mittcc. as they are callcd-got through, we
wanted some witnesses subpoenncd; AMI / am
going to ask that some witnesses be subpoenaed
l.,,.. linn
l. Sutherland present, and are willing to take
his testimony now. Before this committee adj
ionrns. | want to take the decision of the com
mittcc whether We will have the privilege OF pre-
senting some witnesses here
"IIavc you any objections" said Assemblyman
Sulzcr, "to stating what the testimony will be
Of these witncsses?'
YES" replied Mr.. Saxton, Il have obcc-
| ton 20 stating whnt the testimony will be Of all
these witnesses, because in some eases | cannot
| tell"
What witnesses have YOU" inquired Senator
Rocsch, outside of the one You have mentioned?
We propose" answered Mr.. SaNton. to call
William \. Sutherland, Charles +. Cossum. judge
George l., Ingraham Judge J. Rider Cady. John l.
Plaft George NJ Moss and Hiram Johnson. These
are all the witnesses we ask for. We propose TO
.hovy by Mr. Sutherland that various facte-and !
will specify them, if You desire it-that various
statements madc by JUDGE Maynard in his written
letter 10 the Chief Judges OF the different branches
II the Court of Appeals are not true ana we
propo-e TO show by Mr.. Patt that Mr. Maynards
connection with tins Dutchcss County matter
did not begin on the first day OF December. but
he was present in DutchesS County from the
very day after election. steering this whole mat
T ter from the beginning"
This information evidently did MI please
the Dcmocmts. and they pushed their mo
lion 20 adjourn the committee, Sulzcr moving
that an indefinite adjournment should be taken
that the committee should adjourn subject 10
thc call of the Chair Senator SaNton prot
that his motion 20 summon witnesses preceded the
motion 10 adjourn. This led senator kocsch u
rnrn solemnly to James w. Ridgway. one of the
Democratic counsel OF the committee, and say to
hin, is the committee 10 understand that their
counsel has finished the presentation OF tesu-
uony?7
Yes answered Mr. Rdgway, firmly
4 vote WAS then taken, and the Democratic
Senators and Assemblymcn defeated Senator S'N-
ton, motion. Thus the Republican demand ior
.uhpoenncs for witnesses was refused senator
SaNton Indignantly said
Mr. Chairman 1 po.sibl" hao the committee refuses
, mt, ~ to subp,.nac witnesses in tli, matt'rl l
want To provo by sutherland that the statements IA
Judge Maynld'- letter To the eho.t that MI sum, '"'
,.d a stipulation at Hudson December D. and that
the ,oIo.tion wa. and unexpected to Judge Maynard
4 ,,l nut ON the contrary, Dcccmb'r > all of the
H.putlican counsel srned written proposition ana dN'
crI .c same to state Board Of tlnN','rs proNus
f e .p.d dy Of all the cases to the court oil
,ruc,l. that Board ot CanNa-tts subsequently,
80 ,,r. december D. made formal denial Of the written
nop-iton siy1ug tia. after consulting Their conhs'' 'J
'o,rud,,i n enter INTO tn stpnaioh cit h' "ll'O'n
,.itio, for a stipulation incoruoat into one Of
I,~l
,.,oro Judre Edwards December .; that Judge May
,ora haa cop,s this affidavit In his hands at The a'eu
mn, a, Hudson on December D. and did not deny that this
,ror,.iton for such stipulation had been made bY
p,,,,l,lcan counsel and refused by the stat Bonid
Of Can,acrs that 1t was becans" Judge fd"adS upon
hearing Of thi, asked Maynard why the proposition ought
no, 10 be accepted that Maynard offered to consult MS
eff .nts and try procure the authority 70 sign ' S'u
atlon .. -, ,, ,,,,r
ma, A. wa. not intmated the argument either Ut lud
.on or before Court OF Appeals That ne" t'tu'n
oud be sought by the cpu hcan counsel from D"ch'Ss
coruty and thus Introduce new controversy uat couli
not be- Ias,ed upon by tho Court Of Ama'S was ias,
that IT, wa, distinctly announced In the argument at huu
son y Mr. sutherland as part u his argument, "'''
Judge Barnard mad just sr'n0d m'"'a"'us
reourng a Dutchess county rttufh' ""u
a., ,ews hal been elegnphcd to Hudson
which was further reason why Judge fA"aru'
ought 10 grant this mandamus against the MSloi i'I"
,l.o that IA the Court OF APPEAL, Mr Suth'f'hu III ''
oral argument and in printed OileIs' u'o'"''u V''
rc.1 and truthful was ON IT, way TO th' 7'.o
cy,.rs pursugnt 10 the command of Judge l'nrhaiu;
h, Judge MAYNARD was surprised by t':s argument
fr the next dy h. submitted supplemental brlet III tno
sherwood walker case, but made no luF'ner '''"' " WV
bricf ~ the DutchcSs
This /, the statement made by Mr. Sutherland a. 10
what hs will testify Mr. sutherland Is mere o''o''
mis- committee now. II the committee Is not gong u
take his tsstmany now then -"y we lnVenu ~ ~
,hr.e rae,s by Mr.. Sutherland. and ask that no be
,,,od IN aupcar here Moiday. Here seems 10 Oc
/, dcfrmrr. / don't know why there should not DC
testimony the other side. ~
is ,Lat the decision Of the majority III
ouircd Senator Mullin, Rcpubhcan
"Thc Chair does not understand lt tha' way
at all. answered Senator Ro'sch' win 'rou'''u