• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1887. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 1009 r clined to submit to cross-examination, and without the consideration the chairman of the Committee on Elections in a former case to the of which it will hardly be contended by anybody that a case is made right of cross-examination, and his eloquent argument illustrating how against the right of the contestee to his seat. dangerous it is to consider at all ex parte testimony. · Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Is there any claim here tha.t Ur. Page !1r. PETERS. Did these witnesses voluntarily refuse to testify? was elected? Mr. ROWELL. They voluntarily refused, and one of them volun­ Mr. ROWELL. No, sir. Hema~etheclaim, butthecommitteeab­ tarily tried to get other witnesses to refrain from appearing in the case solutely ignore that portion of his claim, and the purpose here is to de­ when summoned in rebuttal. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know bow diffi­ clare the seat vacant. Further than that under 1he permission to in­ cult it is to get attention in this House, and I know that there are dozens troduce testimony in rebuttal, in utter disregard of all rules of law or of members-a good many dozens of them just now-considering this ignorance of them, the same utter disregard which characterized the important question by engaging themselves with their correspondence­ proceedings of this contestant from the time he commenced writing his gentlemen who are sitting here at their desks occupied with matters notice of contest down through the taking of testimony and until the which necessarily involve their attention and draw it away from this final argument and during the final argument before the committee­ ca-se; and I know also, that in a little while those same gentlemen, under in disregard of the rights conferred upon him by the resolution of the their solemn oaths, will vote ay or no upon this case without know­ House and in disregard of the best settled rules of evidence known to ing anything about it. the law books, the contestant proceeded again totaketestimonyin chief Mr. BUTTERWORTH. You say that one of the witnesses refused • after the opportumty to meet such testimony had passed away under to be cross-examined. Was the testimony which that witness had given the resolution of the House, and that testimony so taken in chief is of a character damaging to the contestee if it was true? presented by the majorityof the committee to this House, and you are 1t1r. ROWELL. Yes, sir; it was, and of a very damaging charader asked to follow their judgment based on testimony not cross-examined, to the witness also. where the witnesses refused to submit to cross-examination and testi­ Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It was a case, then, in which cross-exam­ mony taken in 'chief. at the time when rebuttal testimony was only ination was peculiarly desirable? permissible. I am talking from the record. Mr. ROWELL. Yes. I wasjustcomingtothatbranchoftheques­ I am telling the facts ascertainable by every gentleman in this Hall, tion. Because every criminative witness in this case is self-stultified; and I state these facts because I want to call the attention of this because nearly every criminative witness in this case who permitted House to this proposition first. When determining whether a person himself to be cross-examined was obliged to admit that hewas guilty is entitled to a seat here, although we under the Constitution have the of willful perjury; bec:l.-use every criminative witness in this case ac­ JlOwer to disregard every rule of law, every right pertaining to honest knowledges himself to be a cheat and a purchasable man-for all these and fairdealing-although we have the power to do it, yet as men and reasons it becomes more important that we apply the well known rules Representatives we have not the right to do so; and it is our duty to of evidence to the consideration of this case. apply the well-known rules of law recognized in the courts to this I challenge contradiction of the statement I now make, that every case in our consideration of it. witness produced who gave testimony gomg to affect the right of the Therefore, while I admit you have the absolute power, I ask gentle­ sitting member to his seat-every such witness by his testimony, w betber men, as Representatives engaged in a solemn duty, to refuse to con­ be was cross-examined or not-confessed himself to be not such a man sider any ex parte testimony presented here not cross-examined, where as you would rely upon to prove any fact. I charge again that wher­ there was no opportunity to cross-examine it, and to refuse to consider ever any witness ventured into deep water and dared to mention any any testimony which was properly testimony in chief which was il­ name in connection with his testimony, that witness was overwhelm­ legally and unlawfully brought into this record as testimony in re­ mgly contramcted; and the only escape of any one of this class of wit­ buttal. And why do I ask it? Because from time immemorial the nesses so self-stultified from contradiction was an escape in the well­ the courts sitting among English-speaking people have been ascertain­ known refuge, ''I do not know who the party was.'' fig what sort of rules are necessary in regard to the admission of tes­ Now, they start out in this case with the township in which the con­ timony designed to prove or mtended to prove any fact, and they have testee lives, and they brmg three witnesses, named respectively Powers, made for us a body of rules. Wood, and Lawton, who undertake to prove that there was some cor­ And in that body of law, as the resultant of the best wisdom of all ruption about those polls. This was early in the taking of the testi­ the courts, we have well-defined principles which tell us that certain mony for the contestant; and caution had not become quite so lar~ely kinds of testimony is competent and admissible to prove a fact, and developed as it was afterward in that examination. Hence, those three that certain other kinds of testimony is neither competent nor admiss­ witnesses who testified to a neat little conspiracy that they had gotten ible to even tend to prove any fact, and therefore ought not to be con­ up were careless enough to mention quite a large number of 'respectable sidered in connection with the faet by any judicial tribunal. One of names, and every name that they were careless enough to mention is those rules is that whoever takes the affirmative of an issue must intro­ in the record here, and its owner is a witness to contradict in toto the duce all the testimony that bears upon his side of the issue before the testimony of those three witnesses. And we did not stop there; we other side is called on to answer, that he may not divide his testimony, impeached those three witnesses until, if they had been capable of it, mtroducing a part aud refusmg to introduce a part, and that the only they would have hidden their faces in shame. varittion of this rule is a variation allowed in the discretion of the So that the mujority of the committee have ignored the whole ques­ court when the :parties and witnesses and all who are to be affected tion of that township of Johnston on that kind of testimony and have are present and subject to its control, so that no injustice may be done. left it out of their report. The majority of the committee-and now I shall therefore, in my argument, utterly and absolutely disregard any I come down to an investigation of the facts-say in their report that testimony which was properly testimony-in-chief sought to be intro­ the grand canvassmg board of the State of Rhode Island made a mis­ duced in rebuttal under the resolution of this body. take in the figures. On this point my friend from Georgia, the chair­ .Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Let me ask you a question right there. man of the committee, has certainly not exercised the care with which What purpose did Page have in contesting this seat if he had no hope be usually investigates matters of this kind; and because he has not in of getting it for himself? this case exercised his usual care I call upon this House to investigate Mr. ROWELL. He did have hope. He argued very elaborately a little for themselves. He tells you that the grand canvassing board before the committee that he was entitled to the seat. I suppose his of the State of Rhode Island, the grand committee of the General As­ hope was based upon the idea that political neces..<ri.ty required a decision sembly of that State, made a mistake in footing up the figures, and got m his favor, and that, as his political friends were in the majority in the opposition vote too small by 9, whereas the ~ntleman's supposed this House, they would, in obedience to that political necessity, assign discovery grew out of the fact that the printer in Washington who the seat to him. printed one portion of the testimony had changed a cipher for a nine; Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That they would hold another election in and a single turning over a leaf in the printed testimony or a reference the House.

Load more

  21

Copy Link