Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-19
THORP EPES CASE.
RETORT OF THE MINORITY OF
THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE.
UNUSUAL HASTE OF MAJORITY,
Denial Of Due Time 10 the Minority,
Ia which TO Formulate It's Views
Abstract of Argument in Favor of
Tpes.

WASHINGTON. ID. c., February IS
L)-Rtpresentative Miers. of Indi-
ana. who is the Democrat on the sub
committee Of Elections Committee No. 8.
to-day submitted TO the House the minor
i.y report in the Thorp-Epes con-
tested election case. from the Fourth Vir-
gnia District The report which is quite
voluminous document. making nearly
eighty pages of typewriter matter. starts
ou by saying; I'VE feel constrained,
So The beginning of this discussion. to
point out TO the House the methods by
which the majority Of the committee
reached its conclusion in this case The
natter was argued on the 1lth Of jan
uary. 1SSS before the full committee. and
was committed the following day. by the
chairman OF the committee to a sub-com-
mttee. composed of Mr.. Walker. of Vir-
gnia; Mr.. Crumpacker, Of Indiana and
Mr Miers. of Indiana. The majority Of
She subcommittee submitted their report
Co the full committee on February 10, 1885,
That report was not read in full to the
C1mmittee, and its contents were not
known 10 the minority until il was print
Cd by order Of the House. The committee
reiused TO grant the minority time 10 sub
NIT their views, and the report was
adopted without argument. without dis
clsslon. and without knowledge on the
part OF some OF the members of the COM
mittee that it would be acted on at that
time
UNUSUAL HASTE.
Such haste is most unusual, not to
say most unfair. and IT is not strange
that the result reached by such methods
should be erroneous. If the recon-
mendation Of the majority is adopted by
the House, a gross outrage will be per-
petrated not only upon the contestee, |
but upon the country and upon the |
House itself: a precedent will be set, |
and a rule Of action adopted which will |
De- most dangerous.
The report OF the majority Of the |
committee disregards the plainest prin- |
cpies Of law. il misstates and garbles /
evidence: IL DISTINGUISHES the entire city |
~ Petersburg and the county Of Lunen- |
te ana eleven other precincts in the |
district because by no other method was
r possible TO award to the contestant a |
seat upon the floor of this House. his
Wholesale slaughter of the election fran
chse IS not justified by any evidence in
This report contains what is called by
Che majority a fair statement of the pre-
y0us history Of the district and its pO-
ltlcal conGition.' This so-called far
statement is full of misstatements. and
s. based upon no evidence in the record,
or out OF it, IL IS not true that when
The State was redistricted, every county,
including the city Of Petersburg. was un-
der the control Of the Republicans. The
State was redistricted by the Legislature
0f 1912 There were sixteen members
n that Legislature from the Fourth Vir-
g.nla District Fourteen Of these mem
ters were Democrats. one was a POpu-
lst. ana one was a Republican. In 1890
James +. Epes was elected 20 Congress
AS a Democrat, and his seat was not con-
tested In 1892 he was reelected, his seat
vas contested, and he retained his seat
in 1894 W. r. McKenney was returned
rs "A Democrat; the seat was contested !
ty r. r. ThOrp, and Mckinney was un-
seated. but he took not a line OF evil
dence was unable by reason Of sickness
10 defend the case. and permitted 1t to so
Dr. default.
ALLEGED CORRUPTION.
The statement in the report OF the ma
Jointly that the elections in this section
81 the State have become VIGOROUSLY
corrupt false and untrustworthy. etc,
s unsupported by evidence. On the con-
tlary. the evidence ia this case shows
just the contrary. It IS a matter Of sur
Prise that such wholesale SANDERS of an
entire section Of the State should find J
llace in the deliberate conclusion OF
judicial tribunal such as the Committee
Oh Elections should be-
There was no serious division in the
Democratic rankg According TO Major ,
uFifn contests |
ant only eighry-three votes In the city
o. Petersburg were cast for Palmer and
hlckuer and the record shows that !
Hose Democrats who failed 70 support =
Bryan did not support the contestant II A
This case. c
There was very serious division among =
me republicans Of the district as 70 the
,tndldacy OF the contestant. X. i. Thorp. =
2 be convention which nominated him ala
not have a majority Of the delegates from G
ne district II was only part OF the fuil
onyentiOn. The other part OF that con-
.entlon nominated one Charles Gee. :
hese two candidates remained In the II
.s'd for months, each claiming TO De the =
Regular nominee" =
THORP's RECORD. ~
The report then goes on 70 show mat "
"nen ThOrp ran for Congress In 1874, ne n
was free-silyer man. sfumping the as | Il
iici as the champion Of free silver, ana Il
ecelying the vote Of Populists. IT was p
ne ee-sver wing OF the Republican OF
district Convention which nominated him q
NNl The canvass was nearly over a
men the contestant got on the ST. Louis
.aliofm and Gee was induced 20 WITH "a
.a" The report shows that he WAS d.
.I1Die to carry with him all Of those II
nom ne had been telling Of the efficacy ~
Z "ee silver. The Populists deserted | ~
,m body. and very many free-silyer | ci
,,,p1biicsns did the same. In the face Nc
such a record. Il IL not strange that Ia