The news & observer., 1897-02-06

days notice before the meeting of the
legislature: that notice was given 81
DAYS before But the law is silent as to
when the contestee shall give notice Of
taking of testimony He said that Brough-
ton contemded that Young had also ito give
80 days notice and Commissioner Mar
com, before whom the evidence was
taken, sustained this contention. Young
then, on the 18th of January, gave 80
days petice SO as to conform to the re-
quirement or ruling of the commissioner.
Cunningham spoke in support of the
minority resolution, and said this was a
case in which the citizen presented HIM
self 30 this Legislature merely for justice;
mostly to submit the evidence and the
facts. Able lawyers assured him, said
the speaker, that q subcommittee had a
right to take evidence in this matter.
In his speech in the House yesterday in
the contested election case of Broughton
VS.. Young, Col. Cunningham said:
Il trust that / may be possessor of
the spirit OF the ancient Greek, who
prayed that no unxind words might fall
from his lips.
I'VE have before us to-day an impor-
tant matter for the consideration of this
body, and / appeal to you to consider the
petition OF Mr.. N. 3. Broughton, the con-
testant in this case, and permit a hear
ing before the close of the session comes
''It has been over 80 days since the
election. and the end of the session will
soon be here, and Notwithstanding the
fact that this committee have refused to
allow the dispositions in this case, still we
believe that there is spirit and sense of
justice in this body, which will bury
passion and prejudice, and party, and
seek to do what is right id law and equity.
'"The contestant in this case only asks
to be heard, he is man OF fine parts, an
honorable. upright, energetic and pro-
gressive citizen of this city and State, OF
the highest character and integrity. He
comes to you appealing to justice.
Neither himself, his counsel, or
his friends demand or ask anything but
a hearing of the facts and evidence in the
matter
Il have listened patiently for days and
hours in the Mecklenburg cases to evil
dence and to speeches and the law. The
same question as to the Mecklenburg
case, regarding the 80 days notice, was
introduced by the counsel for the con
testee in this case, but it was passed
over, and the trial proceeded with by the
committee. All right, cry the majority of
the committee, when Ransom and Reid,
two Democrats, are to be placed ON the
block to be sacrificed, but when it comes
to placing one of our men upon trial,
then ii alters the case, we must discard
justice and equity, and forbid a hearing
Of the evidence or taking of dispositions
in the Broughton and Young case and
proceed with the full Interpretation Of the
spirit and the letter of the law. Now,
Mr.. Speaker, and gentlemen, | appeal to
the honorable members of this body, TO
have respect for the Great Charter, the
bulwark of Eiglish liberty, not to dis
regard that privilege, the writ OF habeas
corpus, where the right of a citizen of
his county can be brought to trial and
be heard upon the merits in his case.
Mr. Harris, the counsel for the contestee,
has never said that he is not prepared to
offer his evidence: has never denied his
having been carefully and actively at
work, working up his case upon this
question. Then why should the Legisla-
ture Of North Carolina, sitting as q court
of Justice, to deal fairly with the con-
| testant, and contestee refuse to hear the
case and have all matters submitted to
| the committee and the report made and
passed upon here on the floor of this
| House.
t'The counsel for the contestant, Col.
Douglass, informed Mr.. Harris, the coun-
sci for the contestee, on the Bird day OF
January, that his dispositions in this case
were closed, and why should he then
postpone the giving OF the notice TO have
| the case come upon at once, and wait
until the 10Th of February, until about
| the close of the session?
The Mecklenburg case and this case,
| I take it, are similar. The counsel for
| the contestees in the Mecklenburg case
never waived the 30 days notice; they
knew that under existing circumstances
| that they must be ready and come be-
fore the committee when called for.
why then, Mr.. Speaker, and gentle
men, should the law apply in one case
and not inanother?
"The gentleman from Cumberland ap-
plies the law very adroitly to each side
of the case; he denies any disposition to
make party issue Of this case, but pre-
fers to act as a patriot and q statesman.
In the Mecklenburg case the law is inter
preted to mean the unseating of two
Democrats in the Wake case, the retain
ing in his seat OF Republican.
II call upon the gentlemen upon the
other side to permit justice TO be done III
this case Of Broughton vs. Young, and
to let the precedent of the past guide us
in this matter
"The gentleman from Chatham stated
before the committee that the request
of Mr.. Broughton had been granted in
previous legislatures. He supported his
declaration by quoting the law to sns-
tain him in what he said, and added that
he believed the committee had full power
to proceed with this case, as no question
had been raised heretofore as to the
rights of committee along this line.
"The counsel for the contestee did not
deny when the counsel for the contest
ant declared in a speech before the COM
mittee that much time had been con-
sumed through courtesy in delaying the
case in order that matters of a personal
and business nature might be considered
by him and attended to.
What are we waiting for? Is this
delay to thwart justice? Will the menu
hers of thiq bnpnra hIa hodv rpiect thia