New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-10
THE NOYES ROCKWELL CASE.
ARGUMENTS HEARD BY TIE HOUSE COMMITTEE
on THE NETWORK CONTEST.


on THE NETWORK CONTEST
Washington. Feb. 8 (specIaD.-Thc House Commit
tee on Elections to-day listened 20 arguments In the
contested election Of Noycs against ROCKWELL "'
the XXVT1Ith New York District. Mr.. Rockwell ana
Colonel Moves were both present. william 4. suther-
land, OF Rochester appeared for tho CONTESTANT ana
Frederick Collin, OF Elmira, for the contes'ee.
Mr.. Sutheraid's argument was an admirable ex'
position OF the law and the facts in the case. and
evidently produced n favorable impression upon mem
| bers OF the committee irrespective OF party, an I'M
preston which did not seem 10 be materially weskeneH
by the rather scattering argument OF Mr.. Colln MI
sutherland welcomed every interruption and answered.
every question with readiness AID frankness wnch
showed not only thorough mastery Of the case but pr
feet confidence in the justice Of his cause. He traced
the history Of the election returns from the disputed
precincts from the time they were certified on the
night Of election day. the law required unul they
were passed upon and sustained BY The Court Of Ap
peas. He showed that every act performed by uio
inspectors and canvasses. subsequent to the night %
election day. in behalf OF Rockwell In fiat VlOlF
ton of the plain. clear provisions OF the statutes aS
interpreted by the highest judicial tribunal Of tho stte
and ROckWes counsel was forced to admit tsiat u ile
returns adjudged by the supreme Court and The touit
Of Appeals u be tho correct and legal returns hhd been
before the Board OF state Canvassers they would have
been compelled 70 direct tie certificate Ot election to
be gwen 10 Colonel N0yes Mr.. Sutherland commended
that this fact shifted the burden OF proof from the
contestant to the coltrstee and required that he should
make q case. which, as the record showed he Ind ut
terly failed to do.
Mr. Collins argument devoted chiefly TO an
attempt 10 that the judicial proceedings and d.;
csions did not affect the merits Of the case In the
least an attempt which, In view OF the questions asked
lv Democratic members Of the committee did not
gppcar TO them to be successful. Ia many words,
Mr. Collin cOnteadcd that the committee AID The House
are bound 10 Ignore mconscquenal and impcrtnent
the decisions OF the highest courts OF the state oil New
York and 20 adopt aud sustain irregular Illegal and
incorrect returns OF the votes Of the disputed pre-
cncts in order 10 retain Mr.. Rockwell in sent which
clearly belongs Colonel Noyes. In order to support
this contention, even 10 his own satisfaction MIR.
Colin was compelled 70 invoke statute passed since
the election Of $50. and decision hereunder which
bore 10 relevancy whatever TO the pending case.
In the half hour allowed In which ~ close the case.
Mr. Sutherland swept away the iimsy cOj~cbS win
which opposing counsel had sought 10 obscure tho real
issues and cnched his argument most ciieciualy
Mr. Rockwell did not appear 10 be wholly satisfied
with the argument OF his counsel and asked permission
10 supplement IL with statement In his own behalf,
o, matters which he said within m@ own per
,CnI knowIedceo in tie five minutes which lac &C
cupied Mr. Rockwell dd strengthen Ids case and
when the chairman OF the committee courieously nsdo
Mr. sutherland IL he sired 10 answer SIR. Rockwell
he replied in the negative. .
IL The committee adherS 10 TIE principe winch IL
laid down last Wceh when II decided III ihvOr oil The
Democratic contestant III the case OF craig again
-lev,art lOm the XXINth Pennsylvania District II
viii Inevitably award the scat to Colonel EOyc,, whose
case Is much stronger than Cras's IL T. whispered
that Senator Hi via al his Influence To procure
q reversal by the House OF the decision OF the COM
mittee. In it shall DO in favor OF tho Republican
cOnte slant.