New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-22
PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT.
JUDGMENT AGAINST HILL. MAYNARD q
co. REAFFIRMED.

JUDGMENT AGAINST HILL. MAYNARD &
co. REAFFIRMED.
THE STEALING OF THE LEGISLATURE OF 1892 BY
THE DEMOCRATIC STATE BOARD OF CAN
WASHERS AGAIN REBUKED BY DEMO
CRATIC JUDGES
Albany, Dec. 2.-The Democratic Court o. Ap-
peals in plain terms to-day declared that David q.
Hill. Isaac H. Maynard and the Democratic mem
bers of the State Board OF Canvassers or 1871
Frank Rice John Bogar Charles +. Tabor, Eliiot
Danforth and Edward Wemple stole the Democratic
LEGISLATURE OF 1892 The theft of the Legislature
was based upon fraudulent election return, pur-
porting TO be record OF the vote Of Dutchess
County at the election OF 1884, and brought to
Albany By John j. Mylod.
The Court Of Appeals In 1891 declared that return
an Illegal one. and ruled that It must not be con-
sllerel: and furtho. ruled that nothing should De
considered except a correct election return from
Duchess County. which had already been nled win
Secretary OF State Rice with Governor Hill and
with Controller Wempe. The return filed at Con-
troer Wemple's office was stolen by Isaac II. May
nard and never reached the Controller but the
other two returns those sen; to Governor I'M ana
Frank Rice reached their destination safely. In
the face of the command Of The Court OF Appeals
and the delivery OF the correct election returns the
State Board OF Cahvassers OF 1891 nevertheless d'd
consider the Myod return and by its use managed
TO give a certificate Of election to Edward OsDorhe
tho Democratic candidate for Senator In the
Duchess County District. Osbornes vote gave
majority to the Democratic party IN the Lesisid-
ture and led 20 the gerrymander or the Legislative
and Congress districts Of the State IN the interest
of the Democratic parry, and then to the election
of Edward Murphy, jr.. as United States senator
The people at the last two elections nave passed
Judgment upon this series of thefts by the men
controlling the organization Of the Democratic party
IN this State The Court Of Appeals composed Oh
three Republicans and four Democrats to-day up
held it's own opinion delivered In lS9l. rive OF ue
members Of the court. two Democrats. Gray ana
Peckham and three Republicans, Andrews Finch
and Bartlett concur In this opinion. which was
written by Judge Gray. There were two judges
Democrats Earl and OBrlen. who dissented from
the favorable opinion.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The case decided was brought by John Brooks
Ieavitt a Democrat. Mr.. Leavitt repudiated the
theft OF the Legislature by his feow-DemocIa'S'
and obtained permission from John j. Platt Editor
~ "rhe Poughksepsle Eagle" and William c. Daley,
Of Poughkeepsie who originally forced the filing OF
the true election returns. 70 bring suit IN me gu
preme Court TO punish for contempt FRANK flcT'
Edward Wemple. Charles F. Tabor, Eiiiot Dantor'h
and John Bogari for disregardng the true electoh
return and canvasslng the fraudulent Mylod re-
turn Justice Edwards. OF the Supreme Court on
Aprl ( lS9i adjudged the State Boarl OF Canvassers
guilty OF contempt and fined them 1911 y as costs
and counsel fees Justice Edwards Is Democrat.
The amount OF the fine nothing In sucn cas''
II was the principle annunciate1 the opinion given
that the My.cd re urn fraudulent one. justice
Uerrck n Democrat, and Justice Putnam. Repub-
uc,n O, the General Term Of the Supreme Court
affirmed this Judgment. Now II Is again af'lrmeu
by the Court OF Appeals. which. In part says
The return attested by Myiod contained. according
10 unconradcted allegations. the result OF an legd
ard erroneous canvass. which would alter the result
of the election There nothing In the modlnca,-
finn I'm our order no suggestion In the language ol
the opinion that left the defendants at hDertyi .e
changed IN its direction as to the MyI0d return;
They could not consider that return, lnrE cou r
consider any Other return showing the correct re-
suit OF the canvass This was PLAIN from the oFder
and was the clear expression OF cur OPINION
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS OvERRULED.
,The appellants object. however upon otner
grounds not related the question OF the meaning
Of our decision They object that no writ Of man
daus was either granted or served under the oroer
~ December : 1891 That is immaterlal as 1t con-
Germs the question OF whether the defendants nave
deliberately done something which they Kne" the
court had decided they should not do. ana had mus
neglected or violated duty which the court wouid
have through the form Of a writ prescribed by the
perform had the stipulation which they made upon
rho granting Of the courts order for the writ OF
mardamus not prevented the actual Issuance OF
that writ What constitutes the contempt mere y
that the defendants. knowing Of the order tor me
ns nc VIEW hing which the issuance the writ
contcmned and defeated the will " the court
Tho appellants further say That ne ordor was
no, which 1t was in the power OF IN" Supr tha
we have held that Section tl5 Of the present code
OF tiNl Procedure applies where the OBJECT o.
Tho proceeding Is TO restrain state oncers or
boards and requires the Injunction order 10 ISSUE
M the General Term. People eN rel Derry W.,
appellants to question the effect OF the ordsr OF
December I. 1871. on any such ground. LhoIr
Tho order and they cannot now be heard TO as
sail tho Jurisdiction Of the court 10 make H.
II is sufficient excuse ior me SohnucI o pa pa ne
who have neglected or dssobeyed an order 81 me
court after appealing from and after stpulatlng
proceed In accordance win thc HeCs'on o. .sV
dicton to make such an order j. is true mat
Jurisdiction cannot b" conferred ny consent ot
narfles but a question relating 10 the authority
- hranch OF the court to make the particular
order may be- efrectuay waived. The supreme
Court had jurisdiction OF the parties, aI,ho .
tho authority to order the writ OF mandamus
may have been vested In the General Term
Beyond that consideration. however. II Is evident
In disobedience OF the order OF December I, lN5l;
but also In the evasion OF their stipulation, ana
in their dsresard Of our decision st rs has orr
Will as that OF the courts below. nc respected
when communicated to the parties 10 an acton ,,
or proceeding. Both with respect TO TINS point
and To the preceding point discussed. IL may again
be observed that the defendants. by their formal
supul1tion estOpped themselves from oplectlhS
either TO the non-issuapce OF the writ or manda-
mus. to the right OF the court TO order It's ssu-
FLAuES DO DAMAGE ~ CLEvFLAND.