The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-07
TESTIMONY ALL In.
The Argument in the Kentucky Con.
test Has Begun.
WILL BE CONCLUDED TODAY.
1t Is Royal Legal Battle Between
Renowned Lawyers.
THE SESSION WAS HARMONIOUS.
THE SESSION WAS HARMONIOUS.
Republicans Claim the County Election
Boards Certificates We're Final.
THIS IS THE PRINCIPAL POINT IN CONTEST
Democrats Contend that Suite Cam
wasting Board Has Right to Re-
woke County boards Actions.


Frankfort. Ky, December 6.--The food
gates OF oratory were opened promptly
when the election commissioners took
their seats today, and It rolled on for
hours with brief intermission at noon.
The republican speeches were longer and
more elaborate than those OF the DENT
ocrats, who were apparently saving as
much as possible of their time for Judge
| Hargiss of Louisville, who tomorrow
makes the great argument for Goebel. D.
w. Farleigh OF Louisville made the OPEN
ing statement for the republicans, Il, II.
Peake OF Shelbyville performing similar
office for the democrats. A. L. Wilson OF
Louisville spoke next for the republicans,
and Lewis McQuowen OF Shelbyville re-
piled for the democrats. A. p. Humphreys
of Louisville was put down for the close
of the republican arguments and gem
eral summing up Of the case. Judge Har-
giss closes the ball tomorrow. The areu-
ments were carried Oh during the day in
1
single word was uttered by any of those
participating in the debate that might
not have been spoken With perfect pro-
priety anywhere
The senate chamber was damned 10 sur
location by an interested throng " listen
ers There was not policeman anywhere
around the building. nor was there tho
slightest need of one. more orderly.
quiet audience was nevsr gathered In a
church. Commissioner Ellis did all the
talking from the bench. In beginning his
argument Mr. Fairleigh brought up the
question Of the right of the board to go
behind the returns of the county canvas
sing boards He claimed 1t had no snch
right; thai no State in the Union permit
ted such action. saving the matter had
| been decided In all the courts up to the
| supreme court Of The United States. He
| cited authorities in support OF his position.
II il had been the Intent of the ststutes,
he asked, that the canvassing board had
the right to so behind the returns why
should there have been anything IN the
statutes providing for the creation of
contestng hoard.
| Commissioner Ellis asked Mr. Fairleieh,
I
had positive knowledge that the returns
were absolutely void the board was un
| der the statutes OF the State without pow
or to apply any remedy.
| absolutely So In my Judgment was
| the reply THE right OF the board TO
canvass the returns gave 1t no power 10
alter the certified returns of the county
boards
Mr.. peake. for the democrats. then en-
| CHI m hs
hoard was more than a counting machine,
even while sitting as a canvassing board,
as well as a board of contests. He claimed
that the State board had more power than
the county boards. You appoint them,
he said, "and you surely have more power
than those you appoint"
! Mr.. Peake said the first thing he desired
to take up was the matter of amenden
resolutions, and th's thing which hah peen
! introduced by the republicans came WIN
eingularly bad grace from him lie
/ dwelt ,lpon the fact that amended returns
were admitted In the case OF Green couh-
| ty upon motion of the republicans.
| I'VE are again convinced he SAID, tbat
under the law the board has every right TO
take under consideration everything thht
comes before 1t from the various county
election commissioners. We do not ASK
YOU 10 20 behind the returns. We ask
| before you from the county coi'liSS'N
ers of election"
| Mr.. Peake claimed that the State board
had the right 10 determine whether me re-
turns before the board are genuine. some
of the returns before this board' ne said'
"are not returned at ALI
He claimed that In the case OF Knox
county. where the returns were MADE uh.
| der stress OF d power of mandamus, the
hoard had right to review and TO throw
| n out. as not being the voluntary act OF
officers OF the election
Mr.. Ellis asked II the returns from
Knox county were In court They we're
produced, and Mr.. Peake read the STATE
| ment OF the election commissioners OF thal
county that they had made the re,lrl M
der order OF the court. is that statement
mart Of the original reportY" asked MI.
Ellis.
1T came from the secretary OF state In
the same envelope as the original GER
! tihcate.'
Mr.. Peake then argued that r.'urn
made under such circumstances was CIGAR
ly within the reyisionary powers OF me
hoard and he asked that the board go tt-
hind the returns and declare tho vote 'oid
on the ground that the certificate was the
act OF partisan judge and not the county
lofficers The word examine in ,.at
portion OF the election law defining the
power OF the board. was then brought ur
by the speaker.
"Why,'' he asked. "if this Doa.f wls
meant TO be nothing but mathe1la,.eal
machine, what was the necessity Ct in
sorting the word examine in the aW,
Under the old law the powers NJ the board
were defined as being TO met and open
the returns. The word examine hal the
effect OF giving the board the right % 20
behind the returns under the ire'iIn-
stances. =
orous argument that the board had every