Show CONT CONTESTED ESTE D ELECTION I 1 i OBY or OF utan UTAH I 1 I 1 ico it maxwell vs TS geo Q cannon eng ent of jl albert halbert E brine counsellor counsel sor for member I 1 B before 11 forg fore the on detection elections ff the house hruse vf of cf the united un d a DC D C 1871 1874 CONCLUDED CON my friend frien the counsel who last add reused tou you you dou on behalf of the contestant te stant tella you that we admit the vote of three or four precincts to have been impeached and ae destroyed st royed and he be thinks that the impeachment peach ment and destruction of the vate of these precincts have deprived the sitt silt drig frig member bembe r of hla his entire vote in the e territory because there Is nd DO proof of the pre pise aise number hudyber of votes vot escat mst at thee these poi pol polls Is alid and therefore then fore when they are elected ejected you w V lii ili bo be unable to as attain the precise number of votes renaa renja remaining liling for each plat out of the ag stated iu in the governors but iribe first farst place in tt tead ad of admitting adm lUlng we me denied that any had uben been impeached or destroyed dem den tr troyed Jred and in the next place it t Is enough jh fo ku oy r that mr cann hasa haba majority of many maity thou ands ands anda kib fabso solute iule ihle pre precision elsion in uhe the colu volu columns of tens and unit luid hind if the contag rit tit had in fa natt fat nae nat t eo four pol poi 1 9 out of that would nut not minnie mjnnie eU a majority of fiore than without some thing further from him bhim forit forat Is not wy y probable but absolutely icer tain that 20 41 00 votes J were not cast at u for fortha thi m ealier alone nione or for both claimants torether together the contestant cannot therefore by the mere exclusion of these polls shift the burderi of proof and compel us to show abow that their rejection did not destroy mr cannons bannona Can cann nona onla majority of votes he must himself show that it did so pe destroy orrl orri it the chairman of the committee bitted of elections would woold be ver very y unfortunate ir if after having himsel himself r received a majority or of more than soom votes his conic competitor rould by impeaching four polio romper him ta tor prove the thet thee votes voles of ali tuil the other precincts in his libs dis orlise ma his feat teat bt of course if this thia exclusion of votes should be garried carded far enough it would reach a point where the burden of proof would be shifted but the contestant had hardly made a perceptible approach to that point in this enee enbe it id is quite unnecessary to add that the proofs in the case care do enact dispose of this objection T enteen 17 poll books of salt sait lake county are produced at the end of tile the y are proven the deposit ion of D bockholt on page 88 they show the D names ames and nud number erthe arthe persons persona who voted in each precinct now jannes janaes wood and 0 D hand hands handy whose alimony pages 10 29 la is jivok il ed to invalidate the election in salt balt lake city testify as to the thie same barne voting place the city ball to make the argument mi strong as possible against mr cannon let it bf be assur nel uel neI wat that was the ath pre precinct net where tho iho vote wa castlar ilir il gest behig 1679 und and that all of this vote was cast for mr cannon this being rejected there them remain in this county alone votes i so that after deducing all that mr ir maxwell N la X well weli received in the entire Teni tory 1942 there remain for mr mn cannon 2012 oli a majority or of 70 votes in salt lake nake but if we suppose that the city ball precinct was the ad at which the next highest number of a votes was cast then rejecting tills poll 0 it there thene remain votes voted dez dej ducting allar all ali mr maxwell received in the entire territory 1912 we have for mr cannon 2794 or a majority in salt lake county of votes he asserts that the case of wallace vallace v simpson was tile tiie last cae lne ca e decided by the house involving the question wb whether ether the majority candidate being ineligible the tile mi bority candidate Is ir if eligible en titled to the seat and he thinks that even if the committee of cf Elect elections lons ions repudiated the deport le in that case so far as it was favorable to this doctrine yet the house houfe must b be presumed to have adopted the doctrine by the admission of mr urr wallace to the conte contested sted seat on each of these points the counsel mistaken the case of wal lace v simpson is not the last case involving this quentien ques qu estien tien this case was WM reported by the committee on oa the day of acted u upon n by the house M may ay 1 h 1870 but bul B t the case of rice v zeigler which I 1 have already cited was re ported by the committee june 10 30 10 1870 4 and decided july 11 1870 and if the commit committee tige tide will rd the debate in the mouse house they will see thiet hat only one representative de fended bended this feature of edthe the import xe ie port that although the other grounds of the report ere substantial and sufficient nici fici fi ent yet the intense disgust with which the house received this thia doctrine might have deprived mr wallace of his seat sent buffor but iop fop the fact that the motion to reconsider had been laid on the table before they understood the real nature of the case he ile thinks that the pro cislon relating to the qualify qualification cation catlon of rep from the states has haf elul elui lity to legates delegates Dc from the territories because the itself does not api SPI apply I 1 y to the and in support of his itter etter po be lie refers to lo mr hir WO Vt ter er to justice story and also niso tf tri certain lucieal authorities but while the proposition that the constitution does not riot appl appi to the territories in pred prid precisely sely the sane san fan c manner in which it does dees te tc the states slates Is 1 true trae the proposition that it docs ducs notary not apply at all is wholly destitute of truth while the authorities which he rites 0 eo o all sustain the farmei proposition not one of them sustains pu ru stains the latter on the tibe contrary rry nry hey all support the doctrine that the constitution applies to the territories co teo far as the nature of the case cage pe permits permit r of counse course it apply ta the territories in precis ly the ibe asime same mannerns to the states nor does it apply to congress in prue an cately fely feiy tho the same bame manner as if it applies to th the judicial ur or department part ment of the goderum ent but bui it api ap pile just as truly and certainly to toone ong of these thebe departments as to the other indeed it if Con artas does dors not derive its UP the territories from the it has no such guch power for congress possesses no power emanating hm frem any other source A power born bom of the ton von must live lite b by y the constitution and unless leavine the strict letter of the constitution StI ution tulion you yon look to is if s spirit you will wili ind tind in the clause which authorize con pressa to mare make all sli needful rules and athons for the TerrI territories tories and other othen property of the united states no hasis basis for I 1 tho the exercise of any ans power at all by con ress ness in those territories which likou lik ilk eutah cUtah tah tab gate fate 6 lre are been acquired since the adoption of the constitution you yoa will be obliged to accept the doe doc doctrine trind tring of the dred scottye cealon that the clause in question has bas rig ilg no application to sula subsequently equen aly acque acquired re d t territory e r you will win be compelled c belled to base the power of i angress over oter the new rie ile hieb ries nuon uton the inevitable consequence of imade j thi rl atto to acquire territory this would make our case ma eten stronger than it is mr junko junk o curtis cummis lu lo his dip dis hug orin lon ion gondocs does d docs acs oca n not ot claim that that clause f the power powen as attiq to the new territories lle lie ile rats rests altogether upon its spin spirit arid arld be lre expressly admits that the towe power r Is limited hythe bythe by the tha pra of the constitution ons t and altho aitho although tigh it that thor the letter 0 of t those constitutional tr visions which to representatives from fromi ili pil he e states loes loea nat epply apply exactly to the case casek of af celip delegates te from dqra 1 the te territories still Itis dust just aa cel cei certain US usi that thau apik spirit dogs does cawi cavi can a delegato Dele uele sato be admitted who la not tt ti of the tilted states stales obviously riot agid i simply cimpl y because tha the 6 MI or of tilt tiit constitution forbids dait dalt it the tho to abd aba amao fsr far as in the nature of aings it is applicable for bida if and ab d this covers the Whole ground for precisely the same game reh rea reasons Delip delegates tes cannot be Admitted who are otherwise dis qualified quail bed Bcd under the constitution boppre r reasons W qualifications or other othen than those axed by tha the constitution itself without a 0 of f the of that instrument instrument of course gourse the allous a may ma hate the physical lacal poirer power to ix exclude ellide a dee dek del dei agat wh who gitas olias liaa the qualifications prescribed in the bilg for representatives just as it hatalhe hay haT ethe athe physical powen power to exclude a so qualified but it has no auch buch power warranted by the parit of the constitution while in many respects the tile fron froni tb the e representative in delab t this respect they are alike al ailie ilc lle lie while I 1 in many rejects repee ts the of the constitution relating to representatives ii kib srm are b nelt neit appie applE eabIe to lo Del dei delegates cotes in m this respect hey my friend egy evy ay that gome some indian agent has recently recommended the repeal of the law iak lak ita ata vacating 1 eating serres reserves re of utah he does rbt tell us where we may find this report but until he be shows either that a of an indian gent agent is operative to repeal A lair laliot of congress or ortha tha iha t congress has been pleased in i accordance with auch such recommendation 0 o repeal its own law alid arid ani aal then in further arthe r flows that lipor por pou the repeat repeal of the net act these re ry crucs would stand bland subh sukh indian res rei reserves erves as arc bre closed against by the whites until he shail shall hate hrs this his be will haye hare produced po no eyen eten eten to show that any euy votes cist cast by the occupants ot of these fes feb ertes ervey i acie wore te fraudulent and void told he lit beems seems vcr think that the hever heter tery very fact that cudd these reserves ehda thit that until treated vacated they possessed the tha character cha eha of indian closed to he overlooks the tery very words of 1 the emp rep aling calme acl act which are I 1 zed in n brief tb the wards or as chef e words course that hyi byi 44 no martof pant of the kosct of ing the the repealing act to tot gny gay that reservations had been constituted lawm reservations under tender the ibe net act of 1853 by an orden order of tha president dent of the ahe united states he asks whether I 1 would say that if you bata had hat a claimant of a seat scat worthy of expulsion you mast must nev ner nth rth eless first admit hini him and wen men turn tarn round and expel him if this question shall ever become a practical one I 1 shall be very ready to answer my no embarrassment ron for the but inasmuch sr mr cannon Is in his bid seat and the he an U stion stin 1 19 by this thib cast essi I 1 win postpone postpone its discussion until it shall shail be in order my friend alo aio algo com complains that an attempt by the coutee tant to enlist papers ld in thia traxl has heen been mysteriously thwarted and ind thinks this proves that the sitting member manber and kind his fits case fire siro enveloped in an of diabolism balt duli I 1 think that the diabolism wad was in theat theall tempt ouse wB papers for lor that vur Pur pose an ana that it if any such attempt was made it ought d hato havo been thwarted I 1 cannot I 1 m sure be required to rep reply to the fierce diatribes which without the tha slightest warrant ot 0 in the record of this thib case has hab out of or a well filled afy repository c of old exploded flinders seen nt tit atthe life and character of the Bi ember it cannot be required ot of me that I 1 should so far forget thet the difference bet between weeti aher committee of elections and a maas mass as to anwer answer such I 1 have not lapard herd that utho rules of evidence or of procedure heretofore ob aberi cm ed by this committee haw haq beeri been abolished for tho the benefit of ther thor idd co la in this case I 1 do not kocir k nosy U upon a W what whal hat hal principle the tho hearsay h earda statements of the counsel whether poured po U up upon maln in ruil full volume from the har bar agues ngu of others or filtered through a jumbled massot massof mass of yosip accumulated in the territory of utan uro oro to bo be ree nee received elved as evidence ta in ibis case cased javen ven though the conte stee were aa depraved and base as the contestants contest contestant antz antl represent bonito be beaud and the c contestant mome more r re pure pun and anid annd it if possible thadgis thann than his trienna bim 0 o brylko belldo not see that yop yog could chanze change your rules of evidence either eitner la lil pt the one or saint against the others upa what principle can the tha cop contestant evi etl evidence depee here extracts troma froma a report ago ina in a cleat election fon cae to which abo tb con was not a he had no r to correct ru rom mom etao 0 rove falsehoods upon what principle of 0 evi dence dance ca nou ou rem ren receive ve m a this cas case a story told by jacobs bacols wilean mi mord moro ihan a stora gentlemen I 1 havo haro the to demand and aad I 1 do demand that thal the regis of that co to which un mn cannon is as 10 loyal al and true truo as the bet bert amon among you to ekich which whick he turns with a trust as unfaltering and abi dingas your own under which J ht has righta rights as an sacred tod bod inalienable as youre ebal be abrown oscr him to lo shield kanip aa in the lic ilc be shielded from proceedings asid sald punishments not warranted by the tho lavroff theland rholand i he land I 1 have bave the abt to demand and I 1 do demand law not popular clamer justice lust lugt mee tee not malice evl evi dence ce not slander blander control the tho cation catlon cat tono 0 this thu caso paso T |