Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 June 1882 — MACKEY VS. DIBBLE. [ARTICLE]

MACKEY VS. DIBBLE.

The South Carolina Contented Case in Cougvens—The Position of the Democrats Explained. [Washington Telegram to the Chicago Times.] The position of the Democrats in reference to this case is stated by Congressman Springer as follows : There was a caucus of Democrats held in the hall of the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon, May 18, at which a resolution was adopted simply declaring that the adjudication of the case upon the testimony now filed would be an outrage upon the sitting member, etc. This resolution did not state all that was tacitly agreed to in the caucus. There was a universal understanding that Democrats would resist by dilatory motions the taking up of this case or the consideration of it upon the evidence which is now presented. There was some difference as to whether the case should proceed to discussion before dilatory motions were resorted to, but a majority were of the opinion that its consideration should be resisted from the beginning. The grounds for this course are, from a Democratic standpoint, as follows : At the election in November, 1880, Mr. Mackey was the Republican candidate and Mr. O’Connor was the Democratic candidate, and the latter was returned as elected by a majority of over 5,000. Mr. Mackey gave notice of a contest. Mr. O’Connor was then a member of Congress and desired to remain in Washington until the 4th of March before going on with the taking of testimony. Hence an agreement was entered into that the testimony might be taken out of time or beyond the time required by law and as agreed to by. the respective parties. After the 4th of March the taking of evidence was begun, but on April 26, 1881, Mr. O’Connor died. The-Governor called a special election, which was held June 9, 1881, at which Samuel Dibble, the present sitting member, was elected, the Republicans making no content. After Mr. O’Connor’s death the contest was proceeded with by Mr. Mackey up to the time of the special election, he having the taking of testimony entirely in his own hands. All of the evidence taken, both by Mr. Mackey and Mr. O’Connor, was in his custody, and some of it was not returned to Washington until long after the special election. After the evidence was printed, Mr. Dibble discovered that it was of a most extraordinary character, and immediately proceeded to examine the original manuscript. It must be remembered that Mr. Dibble was never a party to the contest between Mackey and O’Connor so far as the taking of evidence is concerned, and took no notice of the case until after Congress met and the Committee on Elections were proceeding to consider it. Upon examining the manuscript forwarded, Mr. Dibble discovered that it was not the evidence which was originally taken in the case, and immediately presented a memorial to the House asking that the interlineations, erasures and suppression of evidence be investigated. This was referred to the Committee on Elections, and that committee refused to consider Mr. Dibble’s petition. He presented numerous affidavits before the committee in support of his statement, notably that of Mr. Hogarth, who was the notary public before whom the evidence was taken, and of Mr. C. Smith, a copyist employed by M.-. Mackey, who was also a Republican supervisor of elections and one of Mr. Mackey’s witnesses, together with several other affidavits. From these and other indisputable evidence appearing by the record itself, Messrs. Moulton, of Illinois, and Atherton, of Ohio, members of the Committee on Elections, summed up the facts as they appeared, which were conclusively established, as follows : The depositions of the contestant, with one or two exceptions, were taken before E. H. Hogarth, who was a stenographer as well as a notary public. All of the testimony taken before this notary, except three or four depositions, was transcribed from the stenographic notes in his own handwriting, and delivered to the contestant. These depositions so taken before and written out by the notary were never forwarded to the Mouse. They are not now and never have been on file, either in this committee or in the House. Some of these depositions were burned, and some of them were torn up by the contestant. The rest fvere retained or otherwise disposed of by him. In place of these depositions the conti stant sent to the House certain papers written by himself and his agents, which papers are now in the custody of this committee, and have been printed as the contestant’s depositions in this case. The method adopted by the contestant in the preparation of these papers was this: He took the depositions in the handwriting of Mr. Hogarth and remodeled them by interlineations, by erasures, by cutting out portions of the original sheets, and either omitting such portions altogether or substituting other sheets in their stead, by erasing sometimes nearly a whole page at once, and by inserting entire pages in the handwriting of the contestant, of which there was no original in the depositors written by Mr. Hogarth. The interlineations were in the handwriting of the contestant. The contestant deliverel the most of the depositions so remodeled to C. Smith, who wrote them over, including all interlineations and insertions, and excluding all erasures. Some of the depositions so replaced were burned, and others torn up. In some cases, after Mr. Smith had reproduced the paper in the form required by the coptestant’s erasures, insertions and interlineations, the latter corrected the remodeled paper by fresh interlineations, and it was then rewritten in full by Mr. Smith, to meet the full requirements of the contestant. None of the papers were written in the presence of the notary public. After these papers were so prepared they were never examined by the notary or compared either with his stenographic notes or with his manuscript before he signed the certificates. The certificates were presented to him ready for signature by Mr. Smith. These certificates, although signed in some cases several months after the testimony was concluded, were dated, respectively, as of the days. when the depositions for which the certified papers were substituted were taken. Mr. Smith, the employe of the contestant, sent these papers to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, not by mail but by express, taking a receipt therefor from the express company in the name of Mr. Hogarth. In view of these facts, which are not disputed by Mr. Mackey, the Democrats hold that there is not a line of testimony in the case which has been taken according to law, or which would be received in any court of ■justice in the land. The statute - expressly points out the manner in which

evidence shall be taken and transmitted to Washington, all of which provisions have been disregarded in this case. An unbroken line of judicial decisions in the country is to the effect that depositions taken and prepared and transmitted in the manner indicated can not be received and read in evidence in any case. These interlineations and erasures are in many cases of the most material character and change entirely the evidence of the witnesses. In one case a witness testifies that he refused to sign his deposition after it was read to him because it was not the one that he had made. Mr. Dibble has also additional testimony in reference to the falsification of the evidence in his case by Mr. Mackey, the contestant. In one of the cases now being tried in South Carolina for frauds in the elections, a witness who was a United States supervisor of elections testified that the return appearing in the evidence now on file before the Committee on Elections, which was shown to him over his signature, was not made by him, and that he made no such certificate of the number of votes cast; and other evidence shows that this return was in the handwriting of Mackey, and not in the handwriting of the supervisor. In view of these facts, which are not disputed,' the Democrats insist that it would be a manifest outrage to permit any member to be unseated upon such fraudulent testimony. Their position is that the case should be recommitted, and that Mackey be permitted to serve a notice upon Dibble to take evidence iu the case anew according to law, and when such evidence is received that the contest should proceed upon that evidence. A further fact is shown by an examination of the record in the ease —namely, that Mr. Mackey not only caused all of his own testimony to be rewritten, erased and interlined generally, but that he tov.k possession of the evidence taken by Mr. O'Connor in his lifetime, and caused that to be dotted full of interlineations and marred with erasures aud changed im many particulars, amounting to hundreds of alterations. The Democrats say that it would be strange, if Mr. Mackey was permitted not oniy to write his own evidence but to change, modify, and erase the evidence taken by Mr. O’Connor in his lifetime, that he could not appear here with a prima-facie clear right to the seat; but they will not permit the case to be adjudicated upon this evidence. Even if the Republicans obtain a quorum of their own members, the Democrats will still resort to dila(O y motions, such as motions to adjourn, for a call of the House, and to adjourn from day to day, until they force tins case back to the committee, and compel the contestant to come to the House with evidence taken anew in pursuance of the statute. They will not permit him to forge his own evidence aud claim a seat iu the House of Representatives through his own writing. This is the Democratic position in this case, and they propose to adhere to it to the end, no matter whether any other business is transacted or not. They are ready to go on at once with the appropriation bills, or any legitimate business of the House, but to permit this outrage to be done will not be tolerated for a moment, and iu this there is no difference of opinion among them. There will not be a break in the line on this programme until the case as now presented to the House upon forged evidence is abandoned by the majority. The Democrats insist that they are not filibustering against the taking up of a legitimate contest, nor will they do so, believing that the House should judge of the election, qualifications and returns of its members, but the extraordinary facts connected with this case, undisputed by the contestant —that the entire evidence taken by him was rewritten by him and his clerks, and that the evidence of the deceased contestee W3S altered in a material manner by tbe contestant—present a different case from an ’ ordinary election contest—a case in which a man endeavors to obtain a seat through the aid of the majority of the House upon testimony which he forged himself, and which would not be received in any court of justice in the land. If Democrats must be unseated, they must be unseated according to law, and not otherwise.