New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-04-04
my rrIrGnAPH TO TIE TElpuXK J

1oy
=, REPRESENTATIVES to-day succeeded in muster
,,s quorum and the natural and expected
" .,,, fol,owcd. 4 more fragrant violation of law.
= oouItv. Of decency, or a more dastardly out
,r, q, voters. nearly 1000 OF whom were to-day
,,franchised 50 far as their representation in
'soru1d Congress is concerned. was never per-
.a,rated bv a Democratic majority in Congress.
,a that is saying great deal. No Democrat
Ca tho hardihood to assert that any fraud was
oorn,i,tcd at the election or to deny that Charles
:, 1,v received a clear majority over ONeill in
49, WIN Missouri District. and the Democratic
,or,,v of the Committee OH Elections was there
,,-s compelled to resort TO technical objections
I'll would have been brushed aside with scorn
-. mon who were not utterly blinded by partisan
-.,,,d,ce and passion. Moreover. in order 70 ac-
'o,,,tsh the wicked purpose Of the majority. the
-oter If the House was forced 10 make series
documentary rulings and decisions. many OF
.A,ch were unjust and unfair, some of which
ao,iy contradicted one another. and all OF winch
100 strongly tinged. not to say saturated. with
nar;isanship.
:, &c only fair to say that small minority OF
49,. nen,ocrats were emphatically opposed to the
.1,ort NJ the Committee on Elections, and on the
.ssoIut,,n declaring O'Nein entitled to the seat
'u..rtvsix Of them voted In the negative. Or these
,u,, Cochran. COMBS. Cummings. Dunphy'
,,endrix RYAN. Sickles and Straus-are from New
VII while thrse-De Almond. Hall and Morgan
.-s from Missouri. The others were Bryan OF
vo,raska: Cooper. of Indiana; Cooper Hntche-
-, and Pendleton. of Texas; Everett, OF MasSa-
0,nsstts. Geary Of California; Griffin. OF Mlcm-
an. Harris and Hudson, of Kansas Har'e' ana
o,,hvaite. Of Ohio; Marshall. of Virginia. Moses
- Georgia. and Sibley. of Pennsylvania. MesSrS'
vorn and McKeighan. of Nebraska fopullS'S'
o,.o voted In the negative. and lo' Democrats
,,Oro recorded in the affirmative only sN % '"e
..,noo, Democrats from Missouri voted 10 sea'
ONeill. ~ Co,o,.,
po..ars,n of Tennessee who had charge VI TIC
emo down INTO the area facing the Speak
or,s desk and became engaged In an ahlha'eu
oonoouv with Bourke Cochran. plying MIN Win
or,,,ments in behalf of O'Neill and importuhihs
him to vote for the resolution. me cS S;dr,!
arrasted the attention of DR.. Everett. o' " -
ahraetts who Immediately rushed Forward IN ms
most impetuous manner ana mae NJ!
third He was bitterly opposed 70 tle IeNo' ,
ZION and he plunged into the argument nD' Vi''
,,,b voice but with 9TH arms and both lc'',
shaking his head with such vigor ana S'ir'.i i,
raniditv that he seemed in danger OF dlSoCd.lhe
a few minutes later when MI COCHRAN aver
vainlv irving to be excused from voting had HIS
name recorded in the negative.
Flushed with his victory Coiohei ah as Pen.
resentatiye from n district in when his opponent
had been fairly and honestly elected cal'eu Wy
the case OF English against Unborn Oh lnt iiiu
California District. The report or the HldJ''i'
NJ the Elections Committee in this case 49, II
possible, a more fragrant outrage upon fairness.
decency and common sense than that III tiie
O'Nelll-Joy case II undertakes To annui a
precedent and to overthrow a principle which
have controlled whenever they We're appncdoe
the action Of successive Congresses III elecuoh
contests from the foundation Of the Government.
Mr. Hilborns plurality, Ike that of Mr.. JOY. was
small-beng only thrty-three-and or course
Democrat who he'd been defeated by SO narrow
a margin knew that Democratic House OF
Representatives would support his contest anu
seat him on that account II on no other or better
ground He therefore appealed from the ma
jority Of the legal voters in the lid California
District to the Democratic majority in Wasalng-
ton, and the Democratic majority or the fle'-
tons Committee Of course sustained the appeal.
The case turns on the vote Of a single precinct
at which the total number Ct votes cast was
seventy of which according TO the official count
and return thirty-seven We're cast for Hilborn
and fifteen for English, the remainder being
divided between an Independent candidate and
the Pr0hibtOnist candidate. or the oihcerS Tour
were Democrats. two were Republicans. one was
ProhbitOnist and one an independents
English attacked the official return from the
precinct. The State law requires that all ballots
shall be preserved and kept In the custody Of
the clerk Of the county in which they are cast
Tor one year or until any contest which may
trise shall have been decided. The ballots from
This precinct were so preserved. They were the
primary evidence 10 show the true state OF the
vote but the contestant did not seek To prove
his contention by that evidence. Within Few
Gays after the election he and the chairman OF
the County Democratic Committee procured the
ex-parte affidavi;s OF thir;y-fivc voters Of the
precinct to the effect that they had voted Tor
English. whereupon the latter served a notice OF
contest While this still pending linDOrn
obtained order from the court TO have the
ballots from that precinct recounted the pack
age was opened in the presence OF the Court ana
the ballots were found to be in the same cond!-
ton as when they were deposited with the
county clerk. All Of the officers OF the elecuoh
were present except one. and each OF them tes-
titled that the ballots produced in court were
the Identical ballots received by ana de-
posted In the ballot box on the day OF election.
Each ballot was marked on the back when II
was received by the Democratic inspector or
election and the Republican inspector or election
with their respective initials. and they testlned
mat these initials we're placed upon the p D., or.
by them before the ballots were deposited in the
ballot box. Four Of the election officers. VINO
were Democrats also testified that they had
voted for English The account OF the ballots
showed that errors had been made In the ofiicjal
return which, being corrected, reduced lflDorh
plurality TO four. but 1t was not alleged mat any
fraud had been commtted-much less was any
proof OF fraud brought. Neither was IL alleged
nor was any proof offered that the testimony
OF the election officers was false in any par
ticular. but. on the contrary. the testimony
showed that they were all men or excellent char-
acter and high repute.
The majority OF the Elections Committee. how
ever rejected the ballots which were the best
evidence Of the result. something which no other
committee OF Congress ever DID. and accepted the
testimony Of the voters. In order to do this the
Democrats forced to attempt to dlscredlt
the testimony OF the precinct election officers al
though there was not scinta OF proof 10 sup
port such an attempt
The debate was limited TO one hour on
side. the case for the contestant being submitted
by Messrs. Brown. Of Indiana. and Mcguire. OF
California. Their arguments consisted IN the
main Of mere assertions. unsupported by any
proof whatever. Mr.. Hilborn argued his own
case with great force and ability. and strong
though brief speeches on the same side were
made by Messrs. Bowers and Loud. Of California.
The vote on the first resolution proposed by the
minority. which declared that Hilborn was
elected. stood SO IN the affirmative to 15G In the
negative. Among the eleven Democrats who