Year: 1868

W thc tOuitliticc3 WIS III TcitFtuC


TO matters not charged or mentioned


in the petition.


Within a day or two after we com


menced giving evidence in support o


our defence, witness was called anC


sworn to prove an illegal vote cas-


for John X. Robson, which had no


been specified in our answer. TO th,


surprise and astonishment of every


one not initiated in the contemplated


dodge, the contestants counsel obiec


ted TO the evidence on the grounC


that they were not bound to meet any


charge Of Illegal or fraudulent voting


for Robson but such as had been spe


Gifted in the answer. In vain my at


torneys urged the precedents set by


contestants counsel themselves, the


repeated decisions of the committe,


upon the very point, and the solemn


assurance Of the committee so often


given that the same latitude woulC


be allowed to both sides in theproduc


tion of evidence The committee BY


a strict party vote sustained the OBJ


lection and excluded the evidence


Similar offers were repeatedly made


by my counsel, and as often rejected


for the same reason. BY this decis


ion, after the committee had received


all kinds of evidence which the con-


testa1t could offer, we were prevented
from proving more than one hundred
illegal vOtes cast for John X. Robson,
some of the witnesses to prove which
were then in Harrisburg, while others
had already been subpened but not
yet arrived.


In reply TO what my counsel said
in reference TO the contestant having
offered, and the committee taving re-
ceived evidence not in support of any
charge or allegation contained in the
petition, IL. b. Swoope, one of Robi.
sons attorneys, said It was not true
"that all the evidence offered by
them was admissible either under
the original or the amended petition" ("
To this my counsel replied "that no
amended petition had eUer been filed
in the case" Mr.. Swoope then called
upon the clerk of the committee, who
produced a bundle of manuscript, en-
titled amendments to the petition" !"
but which had never been marked
filed, had never been printed, had new
er been read nor offered before the
committee, and which none Of my
counsel nor any member of the com
mite had ever read or seen or heard
Of No member of the committee to
this day knows when that document
was handed TO the clerk, nor will any
member of the committee even pre-
tend that he ever saw it or knew any
thing of its contents until some days
after the contestant closed bis evidence
This so-called amendment" not only
adds new names under almost all the
specifications of the petition, but also
contains thirteen new and distinct spe-
cifications not referred to in nor GOV.
cred by the original petition. And
yet this latter document wds not sign
ed By any voter in the district, nor by
any one else, icds not sporn 10 by dnv
one and not certified by any county Of
fcer, as the ldC requires the petition 10
be, and was certainly not presented
to the Senate, nor even TO the clerk
of the committee, until long after the
expiration of ten days from the meet
ing Of the Legislature. Immediately
on the adjournment of the committee,
my counsel prepared an amendment
TO the answer, specifying in detail the
great number of illegal votes polled
for Robson, which had come TO their
knowledge after the filing of the an
swtr. The very next day they asked
leave of the committee to file this
amendment TO the answer. This was
objected TO by the counsel for the
contestant on the ground that it was
too late, although it was only the day
before that any member of the com.
mittee saw the "amendment" to the
petition. The leave asked for by my
counsel to file the amended answer,
was refused by the majority of the
committee. 1t must be apparent to
every honest and intelligent man,
that the whole proceedings connected
with the preparation Of the so-called
amendments" TO the petition, and
the surroptious manner in which that
document was got before the commit
tee, can be characterized by no other
name than a scrUy trick, a deliberate
ly planned fraud, not only upon me,
but upon the rights Of the legal voters
of the district, which no honorable
member of the legal profession would
have perpetrated, and which no men,
ber Of committee, having any selfre-
spect, or any regard for the appe ar
ances of decency would have been
guilty of abetting.


So manifestly unfair we're these va
rious rulings of the committee and so
was it that they would work
gross injustice, that one of the Repub-
lioan members of the committee said
to my counsel, that at the proper time
he would himself move TO strike from
the records of the committee all the
evidence offered by the contestant
which could not have been received
under the original petition had the
same strict rule been applied to the
contestant which was afterwards ap-
piled to us.


After these rulings my counsel pro.
duced and offered TO the committee all
the evidence in their power which the
committee wonld receive, but at every
step was cramped and fettered by !
every legal technicality which the in !
genuity of the counsel for the contest
ant could dc~ien and which tncbn;cal |