Year: 1879

ant Of their disqualification, and there
fore without being guilty of any orimi
nal offence yet such charge raises
a most serious presumption Of fraud ir
the conduct of the election. Nor car
We ignore the knowledge that the
Grand Jury at its recent session found
true bills of indictment against thir.
teen different persons for voting lille
gally, and some Of them repeating VI
this election.


Now what could be more calculated to
promote the determination of this case
according to sthe very right Of the mat.
ter" than the presence and assistance
of counsel, who are familiar with the
facts, and who are prepared TO intelli-
gently question the witnesses, WHO shall
be produced What could more tend
to unravel the complexities ofthis case,
lay bare the the truth, expose fraud, il
fraud there be, and hasten a righteous
decision ? What harm could possibly
result from the presence and services
of counsel!


Would we, as judges, be thereby de.
prived Of any Of the means Of arriving
at a proper conclusion! Manifestly
not. Then, what motive, other than a
desire to throw obstacles in the path oI
this investigation, to cripple Mr.. Evans
in his efforts to prove his right tc
the office he claims-to prevent and
render impossible the determination o1
this case according to the very right o.
the matter, will be imputed by the
public to those who vote for the ex
clusion of counsel from this case 4?


1t has been whispered about, and is
matter Of common rumor, that certain
members Of this body have held secret
meetings at which 1t was determined
that the decision Of this case upon its
merits was to be prevented-that Mr..
Evans was not to be permitted to have OF
communicate with counsel during the
presentation of his case, and that all
possible obstacles were to be thrown in
his way. Can it be possible that we,
bound by our solemn oaths to deter
mine this case according to the very
right of the matter, should sanction any
such infamous scheme


If the members of the Court Of En-
rors and Appeals in this State, were,
before the prosecution of case, to
secretly meet and agree to deprive
counsel of the right to be heard, to
render impossible a righteous decision
of the case, to- wrongfully throw OBJ,
stacles in the way of the parties liti'
giant, they would be driven from their
office, amid universal execration and
contempt. The moral sense Of the
community would be outraged at the
spectacle of the judiciary prostituting
their high office, and violating theil
sworn duty. We are sworn judges in
this case.


Let it not bs said that we have viola.
ted our duty. Let us do all we can
to determine this. case according to the
very right of the matter, and let us
not refuse the presence and asssistanc,
of counsel to aid and facilitate righ.
teOus decision.


Merris Observation-Disclosures the
elaborate and somewhat impudent ar
gument of the gentleman l still hold tt
the opinion that it would be unwise ir
this Council to admit Counsel in this
matter. If we admit Counsel on one
side we will have to admit counsel or
the other and the natural consequence
would be great loss of valuable time
and the piling up of unreasonable ex
pense. This matter is already estab
lished by precedent. Under the Re,
publican administration there was a
similar case in the action Of Simmons
VS.. McGill. Then Mr.. Paynter moved
that Simmons be allowed Counsel; and
a portion of the Republican member
ship who then voted against the ad.
mission of Counsel are those now in
this case ask from us a similar request.


BY the record Mr.. Evans himself vot.
ed against admitting counsel. The idea
then advanced was that Council should
be Judge of the case. The motion was
lost and the case was conducted by
council. am opposed to incurring the
expense that the admission of counsel
would naturally cause. In view of the
fact of Mr.. Evans position upon that
occasion it seems to be very indelicate
for him to come here to ask for privi
lege which lie by his own vote refused
to another.


Mr.. Rodney-I am not acquainted
with this matter of precedent. If it has
been as stated the precedent is wrong,
and it is time it was righted.


Col. Taylor Il would quote another
case in the action Of Plunkett VS.. Dill
Ion. Mr.. Dillon employed Hon. Thomas
+. Bayard as his counsel; he, sir was
also refused. Council has established
the precedent and it is not in the pow
er of this council to change it. This
is the arbitrary principle which the
gentleman is complaining of. Mr.. .Chand-
Ter, yes and Mr.. Evans himself voted
for the same principle which the gen
tlemen, now condemn as being arbitrary.
II is rather indelicate in you gentlemen
to ask this privilege. Why gentlemen
we can find precedent for anything in
this council. Then there were twelve
of you on your side of this chamber
and six of us on this. Things are re-
versed somewhat now you know. You
opposed then what we oppose now.


You shook your finger al us and
went 60 far as to tell us that the min
ority had no rights which the majority
were bound to respect. This was in
augurated by members of Mr.. Evans
own party. Here Mr.. Paynter stepped
up to him and whispered few words.
Mr.. Taylor then continued: My at
tention has been called to another sim.
liar action in the case of Febiger VS..
Rowe. OF the facts in this case l am