New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-26
FROM THE REPORT.
Try TELEGRAPH 70 THE TRIBUNE


icy TELEGRAPH TO TIE TRIBuSEl
Washington Feb 25-rn the House OF I,.presenta-
tives to-day the consideration Of the contested
election case OF Robert T. Van Horn Rcpubheam
agalns. John G. Tarsney 0)emocrau. from the Win
District OF Missouri. begun. The majority Of
Elections Committee No reported In favor oi
Mr. Van Horn. the contestant; one Republican
member nled a dissenting opinion. in which he
admits that the contestant is entitled 10 the scat on
tie record o; testimony submitted. bui contents
that the case should have been been reopenei arl
further testimony taken. and three Democratic
members contend that the case ought 10 be ~
opened and further testimony taken. as desired oy
the sitting member. The turns entirely upon
The question whether the returns from three ecc-
ton precincts In Kansas cry IN which all parties
concerned admit mat coo or more fraudulent ba.-
lots counted. shall be rejected outright or
whether an effort shall be made to purge those re
turns and show how many Of the fraululen; bal
lots were counted for each % the parties - the
contest TIE members OF the minority contend that
he latter plan should be adopted. and that u g. Is
the result will confirm the tile OF the sitting nom
ber They propose TO purge the returns by Inspect
ing the ballots deposited In the boxes and counted
(he ballots having been preserved. and comparing
them with the registration and poll lists and re-
jec;ng the fraudulent ballots bearing the name OF
either of the parties 10 the contest
VIEWS or THE MAJORITY
To this proposition the MEMBER Of the majority
demur or grounds which would appear TO be sound
and sufficient. In the first place, the sitting Nom
Der made no effort 10 have recount Of tho ballots
before the testimony IN the case was closed. al
though he fully advised OF the nature and
scope OF the testimony taken by the contestant
TIE excuse offered for This is that the State law
did not allow such a recount except in a contest
a State municipal Office To that answer
Is made that the sitting member dd not apply -
any cour; for mandate requiring recount he
had right 10 do under the act OF Congress rc,a,-
ing to election contests The Law is well settled
that negligence and the immater!aty Of the evil
dence proposed bar applications FOR leave 10 take
additional testimony IN contested election cases
after the expiration Of the time allowed 10y law.
But the majority assign additional and conciu-
sive reason why attempt to purge the tainted
returns should not he made. on this branch Of the
case It Is pertinent and .mpor,a1; to reproduce
some extracts from the report Of the committee
They as follows:
The proposition Is to Offer thcse alphabetical bal
lots In evidence, or. what is practically The same
thing. prove their contents and condition by
witnesses who them at the time OF this
recount IN October 1926. 1t Is submitted.
however. that such evidence Is not competent
and credible and ought not to BE- regarded.
as hereinbcfore stated N this report The
ballots. Ike the returns. nre tainted. They have
passed through the hands OF fraudulent ana corrupt
officers OF election ard thus their cretiby and IN
Hiegrty are Ges'Toyed This principle is one laid
found frequent recognition in the determination
which authorities have been heretofore cited in hs
report Being founded on reason and experience,
this principle ought not to be disrcgarded in this
instance
The committee not disposed. however, to take
advantage Of any mere techncaty In the consider
alton OF this subject. close the door against
the taking OF any evidence which IT might rcasona-
conclusion in the case. They recognized the rights
OF the honest voters at this election and desired II
possible to conserve them under the legal principle
that the entir" vote OF corrupted poll ought not
to be thrown out except 1t he impossible to purge it,
Conscious that there nothing in the evidence
that would enable them 10 purge the vote and
realizing that the resolution Of MIR Tarsney for the
reasons stated. would not furnish them such owl
dence they considered whether II was possible for
them TO extend the resolution by amendment 80 as
to secure additional and competent testimony which
would enable them 30 PICK Up the tangled thread
OF fraud woven b. these dishonest election officers:
ascertain true and honest vote OF the contested
and fraud-riddcn precincts with this object IN
bers OF tho committee ard carefully considered
some contemplating extended examination OF all the
ballots. and others looking to the taking Of verbal
testimony Of the voters to how they voted at the
election Upon the proposition to make AK extended
were confronted with the we-known principle al
ready often adverted TO- that having passed through
corrupt HANDS, they were incompetent as evidence
and unworthy Of credit The proposition to take tho
testimony Of the -oters seemed to the committee to
be equally futile and imprecticable
THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
The discussion Of the In the House to-day was
opened by Mr. strode OF Nebraska. member OF the
| majority OF the committee He said that there was
| substantial unanim.ty in the committee az to the
fact that In the election OF 1891 in Kansas City gross
and extensive frauds were committed, In pursuance
OF a conspiracy headed bv ON siey. recorder OF yot
ers not only to affect the Congress election Of 1891
but previous elections There was no difference ~
opinion as TO the prac.ioaby OF reopening the ca So
| for further testimony The committee believed n
could and should be done: and from. a state
ment Of the evidence adduced AID the laws OF the
State Mr.. STROBE asserted that very member would
| II AZ