The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-07
And Peak and McQuOwen in Behalf of
the Defeated Candidates on
the Democratic Ticket.
POINTS FROM THE SPEECHES
POWER OF THE BOARD LIMITED,
THE REPUBLICANS COMMENDED.
Can DO Nothing More than Certify the
Result as Returned from Counties
Democrats to Close To-day.

\
FRANKFORT. KY, Dec. 6.-The food
gates of oratory were opened promptly
when the election commissioners took their
seats to-day and it rolled on for hours.
with a brief intermission at noon. The Re-
publican speeches were longer and more
elaborate than those of the Democrats, who
were apparently saving as much as possi-
bic Of their time for Judge Hargis, OF
Louisville, who will tomorrow make the
great argument for Goebel- d. w. Far
leigh. of Louisville, made the opening state
ment for the Republicans; r. F. Peak, OF
Shelbyville. performing a similar office for
the Democrats. A. E. Wilson, of Louis
Vile, spoke next for the Republicans. and
Lewis McQuowen, Of Shelbyville. replied
for the Democrats. A. F. Humphreys, of
Louisville, was put down for the close OF
the Republican arguments an a general
summing up Of the case. Judge Hargis will
close tomorrow. The arguments were car
ried on during the day in the greatest pos
sible harmony. Not a single word was ut
tered by any Of those participating in the
discussion that might not have been spoken
with propriety at a ladies' pink tea
There is one hundred times more wrangling
in the average justice shop cases than was
heard in the arguments of to-day, large
as the stakes are, for which the speakers
we're contending. The Senate chamber was
jammed to suffocating by an interested
| throng Of listeners. There was not po-
liceman anywhere around the building, nor
was there the slightest need of one. A
more orderly, quiet audience was never
gathered in a church. Commissioner Ellis
did all of the talking from the cench.
FARLE1GH'S ARGUMENT.
In deciding the course of argument to-
| day, ii was arranged that the Democratic
attorney should have the close. The Re-
| publicans agreed to open. and D. w. Far
| leigh, for their side, brought up the ques-
| ton that the board had no right to go be-
hind the returns of the county canvassing
boards. He claimed that no State in the
| Union permitted such action. saying that
the matter had been decided in all the
courts of the United States. from the Su-
preme Court of the Nation down. If it had
| been the intent of the statute. he claimed
| that the canvassing board had the right to
| go behind the returns, why should there
| have been anything in the statutes provid-
| ing for the creation Of contesting board?
| While Mr. Farleigh was citing his author
tiles. Commissioner Ellis interrupted sew
eral times, asking If the decisions did not
| show that the Court of Appeals had decided
that canvassing boards had judicial power.
Mr.. Farleigh then entered on a long argu.
| ment, designed to prove tnat they did not.
Commissioner Ellis asked Mr.. Fareigh IL.
in cases where a canvassing board had pos
tive knowledge that the returns were abso-
lutely void, the board was. under the state
statute, without power to apply any REM
edy?
Absolutely no, in my Judgment" was the
reply.
Judge Pryor, chairman of the commits
sioners. during a pause in Mr.. Farleighs S
argument. said: ST would like to invite the
attention Of counsel on both sides to this
proposition, and would like to hear argu-
ments upon it: Suppose this board does
undertake to examine returns, as the stat
utes say it has the power to do. how does
its power extend over the statutes?'
Mr.. Farleigh replied THAT is most i'm
portant question and / was just about to
enter upon it He then made arguments
based on the assertion that the board OF
examiners had no power to alter the certi.
fed results of the county boards. He quoted
authorities to show that the board had nc
right to examine anything but certified re-
suits, as anything outside of that was only
hearsay evidence and therefore not admis-
sible. Mr.. Farleigh concluded his argumen,
at n:45
PEAKS CONTENTION
R. F. Peak, for the Democrats. then en-.
tered on an argument to show that the
board was more than a counting machine
even while sitting as a canvassing board
as we'll as board OF contests. He claimed
tnat lie state board had more power thar
the county boards. You appoint them,
he said, land you surely have more power
than those you appoint. We don't ask yor
to go behind the returns" said Mr.. Peak
I'VE ask you TO consider nothing but what
comes before you from the county commits
sioners Of election.
Why" he asked. IF this board was
meant to be nothing but a mathematical
machine what the necessity of in.
serting the word examine in the law?'
Under the old law. Mr.. Peak said the
powers Of the board were defined as being
Ito meet and open the returns" The wore
examine he claimed had the effect o
giving the board the right to go behind the
returns upon the county certificates.
Mr.. Peak closed his address with vigor
| Gus argument that the board had every
right to so behind the returns and TO &C
| cept the mass of evi1ence regarding al
eyed frauds in the city OF Louisville which
secretary OF State Finley declined to re
,eive. An adjournment was then taken un
I'll o'clock.
Tnameo.ateiy on the opening OF the after