New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-04
rny TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE

fBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.I
Albany June :,-Jhtil to-day tn cSensible reasons
~ the state Board OF Canvasscrs for stealing Demo
cratic Legislature In 1901 ver" unknown Bn' "'""'
At Hudson bef r. Judge Edwards. the counsel oi thc
members of tho Board-Frank Rice secretary OF
s,atn l,hn Eogart, state Engineer: Charles l. iaoor'
Attorney -Goncrnl Edward Wemple Controilfr' anu
Elliott r. Danfcrih. state Trcasurer-df pat forth an
cyeusc for that theft. In effect 1t was that Judge
D. ckhom Of the Court of Appeals. wrote such al
rinicllIcblc opinion Of the Osborne case That one
couId read n I'm tive or thee different ways. ana 'h"y
read II In a Democratic direction. Judge P"cKham up
n mi, time has been credited with writing lucu
English.
The action In tho course OF which this plea OF
stupidity rather than lnavishness submitted Tor
Messrs Rice. Tabor. Bogsr. Danforth ann "cmpie
,. tina, recently brought By John Brooks Lcavitt,
democrat Of N~w-York. for thc state Board OF Can
xo.sors TO show cause why ,hcy should not be pun
i.hcd for contempt In disobeying III" ORDER oi jung
Edwards OF ire supreme Court which was r'amrm'd
by the Court Appeals, that tho Mylod return sho"iu
h, rejected ard the true election return rom Du'S
County should be considered and acted upon ny inc
poard Mr. Lenviu today appeared before Judge
Edwards 10 make m argument upon his appNcatl'h
and J. Newton Fiero appeared 70. the members OF
IN. state Ioard Of Canvasscrs. All the members OF
the BOARD have been in Albany this week, doubtless
,c.ced 4, preparing this bclned defence OF their
action. Nr. Lcavitt. after submitting or''I anu
untdayi,s b support OF nis motion, said IN part
y,u h,c told the State Board Of Canvnscrs 70 abstain
from, ,cpatine the Myod return To regard true re-
mr., ARD n issue a certificate Of election % the sue
c...fui candidate for senator. The dcendnhts gave
stimulation that they would obey the decision OF inc Non''
Of Appas. Pending the decision Of that eour. NJ"
election return came into existence I'he co'e' i.''"
which ,ou have desired These defendants enereo in''
conspiracy To prevent that true election return from
Joachim, them But that conspiracy was not successful
for certified copies the return were served Oh December
81 ls upon the Secretary OF state ana con
t.oller The return hai always tr"i III Du'c"cs
County and certified conc. were sent TO AWsny'
Al H. m on December p? 1891, there were Two re-
turns ktore tho stat, Boad Of Canv1ses one the Mylo
rcturn and Other the correct return III" 'o''' v"
Appcok affirmed order 20 the state boari Oh ''
er for them TO disregard the Mylod return. TO regard 'e
c.rect return and ~ the ccr,aatesto III, mlh VINO
had the most vote We show that under ther own supu'
aton tie Bosr OF Canvassers were hound u regard inc
decision The decision WAS rca1 aloud ~ T. IN '"c
issued IN" cerinca" 70 Osbofn" ihey
80, n,naea q, obey the order Court They never
intended o anything e~e tsn canvS the M,'od return
% ono 4 defendants lawyers told Judge Cauy
Your Io,or Is n,sdo Judge Of the facts IL was PROB
ae that Judge BarUofd felt that The facts mehu Re-
Wow by mother Judge aud therefore gave permission 10
On ho,oio another Judge II you should rule thai THIS
coo Q. concmp, foundation you would pfacuoAy
.ay mat ,rt maudsmus has no force and IL llusory
for dendans could tight writ ord then not regard the
not n preceding with political motive
submit principles OF !rec government are Al
stake The oily biwark OF the people in thr lack oil
sodiers T., Shall We have southern returhihs
boards In Northern States. l see ie'olition) IN The
future II coIrts dc yndcatc themselves Tor I'VE
! shall have elias. election, in re future
J. Newton Zero th.n made the argument dono'
/ less prepared for him 10y Nessrs. Rice. TABOR
/ wemplc. Danforih aud Bogart lie argued that ~
! the application WINS mate nearly one and one-hali
Al
suspicion that 1t WAS not made I'm good faith hn'
for same Interior purpose MT disclosed lie fur,h"
| said
! rpon the merits. the contention III, part Q, tho
uoynv Marty has no foundation The ORIGINAL order viii
! rci renee to tive Mvod return ,as made ~ Justice
| tdaard. December !. 1891 rIol an aivra from this
orn.r Tho our, Of Appeals held the Signature Of
the county NJ, nec'ary md that the socaed
Mylod properly ntt,sti This disposed J tnn
entire content OIL the Court ~ tourt further sai
IN tho opinion the laor ha' sufficient interest
20 make the application. II II had b"cn made to the
,t.n,rsl Term II will be nCrd uat t Il assumed ba
the matter must cone up upon an u'onuadicted state
of fnct- on formal apple, alton, aud that must come
before the court below IN III proper branch THIS "a'
TIC Ucn.ial Term. appears fuu' IN P"plc * rel
Derby agt Rice opinion by Gray, IT.. handel down a;
the same time
The contention Of the Defendants i b'ied upon
the closing language 81 the opinion directing nn' tho
writ should be modified iy striking out tho provisions
REQUIRED certified by the clerk Of putehes' Comfy
and A. 80 modIncd affirmed and based upon tbs "a
icctlon order. mngnc IL should then apreat upon
the record This IL entirely different order from the
one which the Court Of Appeals made and which should
| stand a. the order Of this court. tn" Poari OF 'N
yss.cr- read this order modified and Affirmed ~ 10
| lows:
ut Is ordered that writ Of pcremptory mandimu
Issue out Of and under the seal Of ths Court command
ING and requiring state osrd 81 CanNa'eis that IN"
issue certificate Of election the Office II senator
the XVIII Senatorial District Of this state ana that
their certificate Of election the aid state Ioai Of ','
,asses certify aud declare that III" per-on VINO aPes
urpn the certified returns and statements made by u
Boards 81 Can,a.ses Of the counties Of Columbia ru
nam and Duchess, IN pursuance Of the statute ana u
order II the Court, 10 have received the grote' NUMB
Of vote, duly elected senator from the tnli AN'
senatorial District" aud abundontly Justified In
doing b, opnion and by the direction OF the Con
Of Aulcals. Tnc ground Of the alleged contempt
Cour; the rcfore utterly fails since the order Of the Con
II Apncal- complied with by the Board Of ca
ysscrs and round whatever exists for the contcnt
me reading the order thus cononded for adopted
the Board OF Canvassc:s. who We're acting In qna'
judicial capacity abundantv Justified by the Court
Appeals in the People ast. llasbou'k, iJ3 " y pa,
5sI wher, 1t is held that the MyIod return correct
stated the facts.
Here ended Mr.. Ficro's argument. which must
considered the first plea made for Themselves ,
Frank Rice Edward wemple. Charles F. Tabor. JOB
Iogart and Elliot Danforh. But their reading
the decision OF the Court Of Appeals decision
shared by few persons. Furthermore. according
Mr. Hero they left out Of Judge Ehwards's order.
affirmed bv the Cont Of Appeals. its most importa
sentence namely that which directed them to Ill
regard the Myod return Mr.. ficro and The STA
| Ioard Of Cania,,ers also strangely msrcad the co
Gliding portion Of the Court Of Appeals dcciso
p written By judo Peckham wherein he says:
Tho other ground for directing the state Canvlsscrs
omit to canvas this return remains II he consid re
The papers substance alesc that the Doad Of Cour
canya,sers Illegally result ietur
from III. inspectors Of election IN the whole county
male up It's own canvass IN opposition " such rctur
" and as a rr,ut gave rinetvtwo NOE plurality