New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-20
THE ANSWER A BOOMERANG.
COLONEL BLISS ON MAYNARD'S REPLY.

Maynads letter in which the Judge tried to defend
bis course in regard To the theft OF the correc'eo
Duchess election returns. Colonel Bliss said
"Yes j have read the letter Of Judge Maynard with
good deal OF care. The feature that most interests
me In IL Is the frank avowal that he in combine
with other unnamed persons, to defeat the law
While j thought before that Judge Maynards acuoh'
as an individual violation OF the PENAL Coue'
this seems 10 me 10 come dangerously near an adms-
sion OF guilt OF conspiracy within that code. sec
ton 1853 declares that If more persons con
spre for the perverson obstruction OF justice or OF
the due admin stxtion Of the laws they are guilty OF
a misdemesnor. Now, what greater perverslon or
obstruction Of justice Of the due administration vi
the law there be than 10 prevent me reaching
the Board of State Canvassers OF the return Oh an
election which the supreme Court has declared " 10
the correct return
Bear in mind that Chapter AGO OF the Laws Vi
1850 expressly provides that whenever IL shan ap
near by affidavit that errors have occurred In inc
determination of the Board OF County Canvassers Ill
any county, the supreme Court may require ''o
board TO reassembe and TO correct such errors anu
then declares that far the same shall vary Irohi
The original certificates and statements, the s'aue
ments and certificates made under the order Oh 'he
court shall stand in lieu thereof and shall III all
places be treated with the same effect as IL suc COT
rected statement had been part OF the orishai re
onlred by law This act Of 1850 has been oirecuy
Iphed by the Court OF Appeals as proper ana coh-
stlmtional.
aNow under this law the County Canvassers Of
Dutchess County In pursuance OF the orer
of the Supreme Court. They made correct canvass
and tho return Of that canvass was required Dy inc
supreme Court to be forwsre' TO the certain omcer'
designated by statute to whom all returns were 10 NO
forwarded. The object of forwarding them "ae' Oh
course to get them into the hands OF the boaiu Oh
state Canvassers, that they might there DC can
vassed instead Of the Myod return already before the
Appeals had both declared fraudulent
GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY.
at seems TO me clear therefore. that the gentlemen
who went into this combine 10 prevent that return
from reaclng the proper officers guilty of con-
splracy for the peIveron or obstruction OF justice Ut
OF the due administration of the laws
As YOU say, Judge Maynard says the action OF his
associates and himself justified by the stipulation
entered into by counsel to which he appeals But III
the first place remember the Court of Appeals has held
that every citizen of the state is directly interested IN
The proper canvassng of the returns. How could hVe
LAWYERS. no matter how eminent they might be- enter
into stipulation the effect Of which would be 10 pre-
vent the act of Judge Maynard and his associates from
being criminal piracy They could not b.nd any
body but themselves. Their agreement-if they made
onc-that no corrected should be forwarded dd
not justify any in stealing such return If for
warded.
But, further than that, the very stipulation to
which Judge Maynard appeals as his JustlnCatOh II
stipulation entitled in five certain proceedings ana Is by
Its express terms limited TO those one Of them related
10 Dutchess County. but It a proceeding against
the State Canvassers. Judge Maynard says that this
stipulation prevented the same persons or anybody
else from applying to the supreme Court and getung
mandamus against the County Canvassers requiring
them 10 do something not covered in any form by
the other proceeding in which the stipulation had
been made 1t is sufficient TO call attention to this
sb,,r Tho ol.e itv Of Ind
sition 1t is absurd. and lie knows 1t 10 be absurd.
Moreover at the very time that this stipulation
was entered into, II | remember correctly, and am
sure do, the proceeding for a mandamus TO the
County Canvassers had already been begun, and
was known 10 have been begun, but the supu-
lation not made 10 cover IT, 1t was not Included
in the proceedings rected as covered by the stipul"
ton and from the very nature OF the could not
be embraced in il. The proceedings covered by the
stipulation proceedings, all OF them, against
state officers all but against the state Canvas
and the other one against tho Secretary OF STATE
They were proceedings which could be under the
stipulation taken to the Court Of Appeals within tho
lime that the stipulation called for which required
the proceedings referred to by it not only TO be taken
TO- but decided by. the Court Of Appeals before De-
cember 80 The proceedings 10 pconvene the County
Canvassers TO have correct return made ana TO nave
the appeal from that taken to the General Term ana
from the General Term to the Court OF Appeals eoud
not every one knew, nave been Drought 10 ue
Court of Appeals in time for argument and decision
before the day fixed in the stipulation The Court OF
AppeaIs heard the covered by the stipulation on
the last day that It sat for hearing argument, which
was | think December IL, and then adjourned 10
December 20 TO give It's decision
MAYNARD's EXCUSE WAS NOT VALID.
But Judge Maynard says IL was understood that
10 other proceedings were 10 be taken. Passing by
the fact as already stated. that the proceeding had
j. curic ppt
an the Republican side had any such derstandng
and that the stipulation contains nothing Of the SORT
And as | have already said no such understanding
could have justified Judge MaynarPs action. may
further say that from things that occurred during the
contempt proceedings against Emans. am personally
satisfied that the idea Of claiming the elect OF the
stipulation which Judge Maynard does, did not present
,e 10 the Democrats until they found out that those
proceedings were going 10 furnish q means OF un-
ealthing the criminal acts Of Judge Maynard and his
associates.
But Judge Maynard appeals TO order OF Judge
Markham made on the 30h of December, the day AFTER
the Board of state had counted the false
returns as justifying him. Now rs to that matter IL
sufficient that 1t was proceeding brought by
Osborne as reatOr. against the County Canvassers in
that case Mr.. Fero Of Albany, was the counsel OF Mr.
Osborne An order TO show cause was granted Dy
Judge Mayham on December 90. returnable December
90 which the day on which 1t was known the de
OF the Court OF Appeals In the cases argueo Do
fore il would be rendered II was an oruer 10 sho"
cause why mandamus should not issue requiring ''e
County Clerk to retain in his possession any other
return than the Myod return. and to re-
fraln from filing any other return with the sam
state Canvassers That order to show cause was maze
and served after the corrected returns had been naeo
10 Albany and reached the several State onices.
at on its face, looked to the fact that IL was not
TO be brought up until after the Court on Appeals mao
Id rein and
The Cont Of Appeals allowed the Mylod return to be
countd TO secure the counting OF that on the theory
that no other return before the State Canvassers
After the opinion of the Court of Appeals was rendered.
mn December 90 the original Of that. as OF all the
ou;nons was sent TO the secretary OF states once I'D
order that all interested might examine them MI fiero'
borncs counsel examined the opinion with reference
. al uxs self and other council.