CONTESTED-ELECTION CASE 
 
 OF 
 
 RINAKER vs. DOWNING-. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 Wednesday, May 13, 1890. 
 
 WAS] TINGTON. 
 1896. 
 
T 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JAMES A. CONNOLLY. 
 
 The House having under consideration the contested-election case of 
 Rinaker vs. Downing, from the Sixteenth Congressional district of Illinois— 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I wish that this contested-election case was not 
 pending before this House. Both these gentlemen, the contestant 
 and the contestee, are my personal friends. Each one of them lives 
 in a county adjoining the one in which I live. I practice law in 
 the courts of their county; I know their people; I know these men, 
 their character; they are my neighbors at home, and I would most 
 gladly avoid taking any part in the controversy between these two 
 gentlemen. 
 
 When I found that this contest was bound to come up here I 
 made up my mind that I would cast no vote and take no part in 
 it until I had carefully read every word of the evidence given by 
 every witn°ss, both for the contestant and contestee. I have done 
 so; every word of it. And I am now ready to cast my vote, which¬ 
 ever way it must be cast, against a personal friend. It is not a 
 pleasant duty. I do not voluntarily seek this opportunity on the 
 floor to show the reason why I am sure my vote will be right. I 
 have been invited and urged to do it. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it is beyond question that the House of Represent¬ 
 atives is the judge of the election and qualifications of its own 
 members. It is without question that the House of Representa¬ 
 tives has the right to make rules for the determination of ques¬ 
 tions as to the election and the eligibility of its members. It may 
 make those rules to-day. It may reverse those rules to-morrow. 
 We are a law unto ourselves within this Chamber, as to our mode 
 of proceeding, to determine whether a man is entitled to a seat in 
 this House or not. But we all recognize that however often we 
 may change these rules we still must always do it in a spirit of 
 fairness to all persons who may be interested in the rule or in its 
 change. 
 
 The act passed by Congress is not a rule of the House of Repre¬ 
 sentatives. It is not binding upon this House, I concede; but it 
 is binding upon every man who seeks a seat in this House. Gen¬ 
 eral Rinaker was bound by that law that Congress passed. Finis 
 E. Downing was bound by the law that Congress passed. They 
 were bound. This House is not bound. Now, what obligation 
 did that law impose upon General Rinaker and upon Mr. Down¬ 
 ing? What obligations were imposed upon General Rinaker by 
 the law. and not only upon him, but upon every citizen who shall 
 contest the right of anyone else to a seat in this House? The law 
 2400 3 
 
4 
 
 imposed upon him the right that he should, within thirty days 
 after the result of the election was declared, serve a written notice 
 upon the one who had the seat that he claimed, and in that 
 notice advise him of the ground upon which he contested his elec¬ 
 tion, Then, that law which bound Rinaker also bound Downing, 
 within thirty days after that date, to file his answer and to deliver 
 a copy to General Rinaker, making his reply to the charges that 
 Rinaker had made against him. Then that law said to General 
 Rinaker: “ Within forty days after Downing serves that answer 
 on you and the issue is made up you must take all your evidence.” 
 
 What would be the result if General Rinaker allowed the forty 
 days to elapse without taking any evidence? His contest would 
 be at an end. He would have failed to do that which the law 
 plainly imposed upon him as a duty. Hence, under the law, he 
 could no further be heard as a contestant in this House. 
 
 What further did that law impose upon Downing? After the 
 lapse of Rinaker’s forty days, when all his evidence in chief must 
 be in and scrutinized by Downing, Downing must then, within 
 the next forty days, take, on notice to Rinaker, all the evidence 
 he proposes to offer to this House in support of the seat that he 
 holds, and in answer to Rinaker's attack upon his right to that 
 seat. Then what does the law impose upon Rinaker? “In ten 
 days after the expiration of Downing’s forty days, you are re¬ 
 quired to file your evidence in reply to the evidence taken by 
 Downing and then not only is the issue made up, but the evi¬ 
 dence is all in and the case is prepared for the court of last resort. 
 
 The record is as complete as is a record from a nisi prius court 
 to the court of appeals, when it is all made up and signed by the 
 judge, and sealed by the clerk and filed in the office of the appel¬ 
 late court. There is the end of making further record in that 
 case. That is the law. We are not bound by it in the House as 
 a House. We can do as we please. We have the power. 
 
 Oh, it is excellent 
 
 To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous 
 
 To use it like a giant. 
 
 This law, that is put there not only to notify contestants for 
 seats, but to notify the individual voter as well, passed by the Sen¬ 
 ate and House and approved by the President, should not be 
 ignored by us. We who are here to % upliold the majesty of the 
 law should not ignore that law. Remember, then, that Rinaker 
 was bound by the law as written, and so was Downing. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been somewhat entertained by the 
 language of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bartlett] on yes¬ 
 terday, and also by the language of the gentleman from Massa¬ 
 chusetts [Mr. Moody] , when they portrayed to this House that x 
 
 here finally was a case in which all men connected with it had 
 acted honestly and fairly—a case in which all the parties had 
 sought to follow the law—and that fraud had never obtruded its 
 hydra head into the record of this case. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, from an intimate knowledge of all the f 
 
 surroundings of this case and of the district, to dissent most pos¬ 
 itively and decidedly from the statement that no fraud has inter¬ 
 posed. It may not be a legal fraud, but it is a fraud that honest 
 men regard quite as much as they do legal fraud. It is a moral 
 fraud. It is, by political chicanery and trickery, an attempt, by a 
 new device, to hold a man in his seat in this House for the entire 
 term for which that seat might be held- 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. May I ask the gentleman a ques- 
 
 2400 
 
5 
 
 tion? I stated on yesterday, and if I was to be corrected I called 
 on m3 7 colleague on the committee [Mr. Cooke of Illinois] to cor¬ 
 rect me, that there was not a charge in this record, nor was there 
 a sentence of evidence in it, which in any way attacked or im¬ 
 pugned the honesty and integrity of the election officials who held 
 this election; and now that that has been contradicted and dis¬ 
 sented from, I call upon the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Con¬ 
 nolly] who now has the floor, I call upon any man who is famil¬ 
 iar with this record, to name the allegation, to name the witness, 
 or to cite the evidence. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, now, if the gentleman had possessed 
 his soul in patience for a few minutes I was coming right to that 
 very thing. I trust he will possess it now, until I get through 
 with it. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. Oh, I am very patient. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. That is right; I am glad you are. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. But I will wait a long time be¬ 
 fore the gentleman makes his assertion good. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 say that there is in this 
 record evidence showfing fraudulent chicanery and trickery upon 
 the part of this contestee. upon the part of his advisers, and I say 
 now that this evidence shows that the new scheme hatched and 
 devised, one such as was never exposed in this House before, was 
 hatched and devised in a political party caucus. Now. Mr. Speaker, 
 I will come to that. Let us look at these two contestants. These 
 gentlemen are so much afraid that the people of that magnificent 
 agricultural district shall be deprived of the representative of 
 their choice. Let me call attention to where their hearts were 
 fixed in their choice. 
 
 In the first place, the convention that nominated Mr. Finis E. 
 Downing met in the county adjoining my own. It was in session 
 day and night for I do not know how many days, until more than 
 a thousand ballots were taken before the nominee was chosen. 
 
 Mr. MILES. Will the gentleman permit me an inquiry? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Why, yes; if it is not for the mere sake of 
 interrupting me. 
 
 Mr. MILES. It is not. Is that fact in the record? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. No, sir; it is not; but it is before the House 
 now. It is in the circumambient air. [Laughter and applause.] 
 I tell you there are many things that are not in this record; but 
 they are in my mind and knowledge, and I will tell you. I do not 
 propose to let the other side of this House use me as a monkey to 
 pull their chestnuts out of the fire. [Applause.] I am here in 
 this court of last resort. 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. May I ask the gentleman a 
 question? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. No, sir; I will not submit to any more of 
 this flea-biting. [Laughter and apjflause.] 
 
 Mr. BARTLETT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker- 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sherman). The gentleman 
 from Illinois declines to yield. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I said there were many things 
 here where we are bound by no law except the law of right, the 
 law of conscience, the law that commands every honest man to 
 bring to his aid in the determination of any question where he is 
 not bound by statute law all the knowledge that he has and all 
 the information he has obtained from every source. I have it; I 
 *c(K) 
 
6 
 
 will use it; I will act upon it. I am justified as an honest man in 
 doing it. 
 
 I said here, with reference to the choice of the people of that 
 district, Mr. Downing was nominated after the convention had 
 labored for days and nights, he all the time sitting there with the 
 single vote of his own little county of Cass, while the Congres¬ 
 sional timber of the district was being voted for by the great body 
 of the convention, until finally the mountain labored and Mr. 
 Downing was nominated. [Laughter.] They are not without 
 Congressional timber in that district, either Republican or Dem¬ 
 ocratic. The other convention nominated General Rinaker. 
 There were no sessions of days and nights. He stood like Saul 
 among the children of Israel, head and shoulders above all of 
 them; and it was the work of but a moment to select the man 
 upon whom all eyes were turned. There you see the very initia¬ 
 tion of this thing. Again, that district has normally between 
 5,000 and 6,000 Democratic majority. It had never been known 
 to elect a Republican. No Republican was ever able to be heard 
 of in an election in that Congressional district until after that 
 long convention, in which they finally eased themselves off by 
 nominating Mr. Downing. 
 
 Now, you talk about the choice of the people of that district. 
 You find first that his own party did not want to nominate Mr. 
 Downing; secondly, after he was nominated, instead of 5,000 or 
 6,000 majority, that had been common in the district, all they 
 could do, by hook and crook and pencil pointing and ingenious 
 figuring was to count him in by a majority of 40. Do you suppose, 
 then, that the people of that district, the Democrats of that dis¬ 
 trict, are lying awake at nights praying for the success of Mr. 
 Downing in this contest? This history that I have given you, and 
 which is true, indicates that there was no such desire; not by any 
 means. 
 
 Now, then, sir, I come to this fraudulent effort, to this political 
 trickery, that has manipulated this case from beginning to end. 
 
 The election took place on the 6th day of November, 1894. Un¬ 
 der the law, which Rinaker could not escape from, he must give 
 his notice within thirty days after the vote has been declared. 
 He gave notice on the 19th day of December. Mr. Downing filed 
 his answer on the 17th day of January. The same day the answer 
 was filed General Rinaker gave notice to Mr. Downing that he 
 would begin to take the testimony in his case in Calhoun and Jer¬ 
 sey counties, fixing the dates. Mark, that was on the 17th day of 
 January. 
 
 Now, let me call attention to what the record shows as to the 
 condition of the ballots in that county of Calhoun, which was 
 the first county that Mr. Rinaker’s notice stated he proposed to 
 take evidence in. When he subsequently took depositions there 
 in accordance with the notice, the county clerk came on the wit¬ 
 ness stand and, in reply to questions propounded as to the condi¬ 
 tion of the ballots, said that there were then in his office two 
 packages, I think, of ballots from two precincts in that county 
 the envelopes of which were not sealed; that the envelopes were 
 open and he did not know who had unsealed them, or whether 
 the ballots in those envelopes were the same ballots that had been 
 returned by the election judges or not. Let me tell you further 
 that on the very night of the election the reporters who were 
 watching the returns sent out a report of the result. They have 
 there, I believe, a telegraph line, but they have no railroad and 
 2400 
 
no ready means of communicating with the outside world. A 
 report was sent out on the night of the election to the Chicago and 
 St. Louis daily newspapers by a gentleman, a Democrat familiar 
 with the politics of the county, that General Rinaker had car¬ 
 ried the county by a majority of 26 votes. That is the county 
 where Rinaker, on the very day that Downing served his answer, 
 gave notice that he would begin taking testimony—the county 
 which the first reports stated that he had carried by 26 votes. 
 
 Mr. MARSH. What was the official return from that county? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. It was forty-eight hours after that before 
 any different report was sent out to the world. Hidden away as 
 they were there in Calhoun County, they were free to do as they 
 pleased; and that county, which was first announced as having 
 been carried by Rinaker, was the county in which two packages 
 of envelopes subsequently turned up open, so that the county 
 clerk could not tell whether they were the ballots that had been 
 cast and had been returned by the judges or other ballots that had 
 been stuffed in there in the interval between the first and the sec¬ 
 ond reports, so as to make the ballots that would be found in the 
 envelope conform to the second report. That was done by some¬ 
 body in Calhoun County. This gentleman—Mr. Downing—may 
 not have known of it, but he did not devise this plan himself 
 alone, because, while he is a lawyer by admission to the bar, yet 
 by practice he is county clerk and editor of a Democratic news¬ 
 paper at the county seat, and I do not believe that he devised the 
 trick of the injunction. But does it not appear obviously that 
 the men who did devise it knew something about the condition of 
 things in Calhoun County; knew something about these ballots 
 and how unsafe it would be to have Rinaker go down there and 
 expose those ballots open and show, perhaps, that some of those 
 ballots had not been cast, but had been subsequently stuck into 
 those envelopes, and did not bear the marks of the judges of the 
 precinct in whose envelopes they were found? 
 
 At all events, on that 17th day of January, Mr. Rinaker served 
 on Mr. Downing the notice of contest, and within two days after 
 that Downing and his lawyers have devised a plan whereby they 
 will prevent an official examination of those Calhoun County bal¬ 
 lots, and they will do it by a new scheme, and will do it before 
 Rinaker can know anything about it. They prepare a bill for an 
 injunction. They do not make Rinaker a party to that bill. 
 Mark you, Rinaker is not in that suit at all. They ignore him, 
 but they include every county clerk in the Congressional district. 
 They apply to the judge at Jacksonville, Judge Epler, who is hold¬ 
 ing court, but he declines to take part in the scheme. Then they 
 send to a distant county for Judge Lacey. I do not know whether 
 he is any kin to my friend from Iowa who is so voluble in sup¬ 
 porting his opinion here or not, but the name is the same. Judge 
 Lacey I know very well. He is a very excellent judge. I have to 
 practice law before him, so I am not going to say anything mean 
 about him here [laughter]; gentlemen will understand that. But 
 in fact there is no occasion to say anything mean about him. He 
 is a good judge and a splendid man, and lie is as intense a Demo¬ 
 crat as any State ever turned out—clean-cut to the marrowbone. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Now, I say Judge Epler, who lives in Jacksonville, and who was 
 holding court there at that very time, having declined to have 
 anything to do with the scheme, they sent to the distant county 
 of Mason for Judge Lacey to come to Jacksonville, where the court 
 2400 
 
8 
 
 was in session. Jacksonville is in liis circuit. He came, and when 
 Judge Epler had an adjournment of the court, at noon or in the even¬ 
 ing, Judge Lacey took the bench and Mr. Downing or his attorney * 
 
 presented the bill setting out the equitable reasons why he claimed 
 that those ballots should not be disturbed. Thereupon Judge 
 Lacey without any difficulty immediately granted an injunction 
 preventing an examination of the ballots. Calhoun County and 
 its open envelopes of ballots from that instant were protected, and 
 the door of inquiry was shut. They succeeded in protecting the 
 men who opened those envelopes in Calhoun County by this in¬ 
 famous injunction—I can not characterize it as anything less. 
 
 Now, tell me, is there no evidence in all this of that moral fraud 
 of which I have spoken in the conduct of this gentleman and of 
 his secret advisers? But the gentlemen say, ‘ * If he has been guilty 
 of a mistake”—they call it innocently a mistake—“if he has been 
 guilty of a mistake do not punish him or punish the people of the 
 district in consequence of it.” Mr. Speaker, it is folly to charac¬ 
 terize this as a mistake. The resort to the injunction for the pur¬ 
 pose of protecting those ballots from an honest inspection, exam¬ 
 ination, and recount was for a fraudulent purpose. It was to 
 suppress, to destroy, to make away with the ballots, or to keep 
 them there until their confederates might do what they chose in 
 preparing those ballots for examination, if the day should ever 
 come for such examination. Now, why did he say he wanted those 
 ballots not examined? Here is the act of Congress that says to 
 General Rinaker, “If you want those ballots examined,you must 
 give notice to the men who have them in possession to bring them 
 before your notary and have them there counted, and the result 
 declared by the mouths of witnesses in the presence of Mr. Down¬ 
 ing.” That is what the law says that Rinaker must do. 
 
 Mr. GRAFF. If he had not done that could he ever have had 
 those ballots examined? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. As I said before, of course not. The law 
 limited Rinaker to forty days within which to take everything. 
 
 The oral testimony of witnesses, the examination of the ballots 
 and the tally sheets, and the illegal votes—everything must be 
 done within the forty days. Rinaker was pursuing the law as 
 laid down and as binding upon him. In steps Mr. Downing with 
 this injunction. What was the pretense and excuse for it? Was 
 it honest? I say not. Every candid man who will look at it will 
 sa 3 r that it is simply a trick and nothing else. Let me read his 
 language. Mark you, he does not make Rinaker a party, but he 
 sets out that he and Rinaker were candidates for Congress; he 
 sets out that he was declared elected; he sets out that Rinaker has 
 given him notice of a contest of his seat. Then he says: ^ 
 
 And your orator says he has reason to believe, and does believe, and so 
 charges, that if such demand is made by said Rinaker, said officers will com¬ 
 ply therewith. 
 
 Of course they would. The law plainly and clearly requires 
 them to do it. He knew they would comply; hence he was safe in 
 swearing to it. 
 
 Said officers will comply therewith, and issue the subpoena as aforesaid, and 
 that said county clerks of the courts of said counties will comply with and 
 obey said subpoena and produce before such officer the said ballots so voted 
 in said county, and that the same will be opened and a pretended recount 
 thereof be had. 
 
 Do not gentlemen know that for years and years past, in almost 
 every county in the State of Illinois, that very thing has been 
 done? In every contested election case, from a township election 
 2400 
 
9 
 
 up to a legislative election, evidence has been taken before nota¬ 
 ries public under the law of Illinois similar to this law of the 
 United States. Ballots have been brought there; their contents 
 examined and stated before witnesses. That is the only way of tak¬ 
 ing the testimony in the case of legislative contests, just like the 
 contest provided for in this Federal statute. 
 
 He goes on further to say: 
 
 Your orator says that in case said ballots are taken and opened and a pre¬ 
 tended recount of the same be made, the same will be in violation of the pro¬ 
 visions of the statutes of the State of Illinois— 
 
 It will, eh? What provision, and what provision only, could 
 it be in violation of? That I will show the House in a moment 
 after 1 get through with what is contained in this bill. He resumes: 
 
 and will result in great and irreparable injury to him in this case; that said 
 ballots are the evidence of his election— 
 
 He did not rely, then, on the certificate of election. That he 
 already had. That is the evidence required by this House to seat 
 him; but he says here that the ballots are the evidence of his 
 election— 
 
 and if the same be so taken and opened as demanded they will lose their 
 efficacy and virtue— 
 
 And flavor, he might have added— 
 
 as legal evidence of his election, because the said ballots can not be legally 
 opened and x*ecounted — 
 
 Now mark this— 
 
 except in open court or in open session of the body authorized by law to 
 try said contest 
 
 There is his ground. There, for the first time in the history of 
 election contests, an attempt was made by a cabal of Democratic 
 politicians to put in opposition to the Federal law that provision 
 of the law of Illinois which declares that the ballots can only be 
 opened and counted in the presence of a court or in open ses¬ 
 sion of the body authorized to try the contested election case. 
 There is such a law. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 Moody] yesterday, when I interpolated into lus remarks the sug¬ 
 gestion that the injunction did not follow the statute of the State 
 of Illinois, said very promptly to me that it did—that it was in 
 the very terms of the statute of Illinois. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I did not intend to say so. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I think the gentleman said many things 
 which on reflection he will not stand by. But that is one of the 
 things that he distinctly said—that the injunction was in the very 
 language of the statute of the State of Illinois. 
 
 Mr MOODY. The gentleman is in error about my present 
 view as he is about very many things in this case. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. About your “present view” I do not know. 
 You may have reformed somewhat since yesterday. But there is 
 the ground taken by Mr. Downing. He says, in order to keep 
 Rinaker from inspecting these ballots and the condition of the 
 envelope in which they are contained, that if the court permitted 
 the ballots to be recounted, it would destroy the evidence of his 
 election. 
 
 Well, w r hat had already become at that very time of the evi¬ 
 dence of his election in Macoupin County? The evidence shows 
 that every one of these ballots had been opened and counted. 
 What had become of the evidence of his election in Cass County? 
 The record shows that in eight townships of that county the bal¬ 
 lots had been opened and counted, right in the very county and 
 
10 
 
 under the nose of Mr. Downing himself; and. I have no doubt, 
 from the time the count began and went on he himself wrote edi¬ 
 torial articles in his paper to inform the people of his county that 
 the recount of the ballots was going on. And yet he did not think 
 that that affected the evidence of his election. Why did not he 
 seek an injunction then? He did not. General Rinaker suggests 
 to me that the recount in Cass County was after the service of the 
 notice and the taking of testimony. Very good; it was after the 
 granting of the injunction. That was granted on the 19th day 
 of January. 
 
 After that date, right in the city in which Mr. Downing lived, 
 in the court-house where for eight years he was the county clerk, 
 and in which I know he entered his appearance every day, right 
 there, and no doubt with him standing by half of the time, a 
 count of these very ballots was going on—the ballots of that 
 county—that were to appear as evidence of his election; a count 
 that was lessening their virtue, where they were vaporing their 
 essence away, disappearing by that recount, and yet he had al¬ 
 ready obtained the injunction restraining all of the county clerks, 
 the clerk of his own county with the others, from permitting the 
 ballots to be taken and counted at all. Why does he permit them 
 to be taken and counted after the injunction right in his own 
 county and town? Did he want to let the recount run on and see 
 whether he would make or lose by it? I do not know. But it 
 went far enough, at all events, to demonstrate to him that he was 
 losing, and then he either drew the injunction on the clerk and 
 made him shut up the ballots or his party friends advised him that 
 if he let this proceeding go further in that manner that the evi¬ 
 dence would unseat him. Therefore he had better keep the door 
 locked and get the Democratic contesting treasurer to close the 
 contest just as quickly as possible. Now, see the juggling which 
 has been going on with reference to the matter. See how this man 
 and his party friends have been juggling with this case and the 
 ballots. After getting out an injunction he permits the clerk to 
 open the ballots in his own county, and no doubt stood by and 
 looked at theni as their count progressed. 
 
 Now, as to this injunction, what does it say—because undoubt¬ 
 edly it was granted in the very words this gentleman himself and 
 his counsel in their secret cabals drew up and in the -words of the 
 affidavit that they deemed to be necessary? What does it say? The 
 language is: 
 
 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the said 
 defendants as county clerks of their respective counties, and each of them 
 and their successors"in office, and their deputies, assistants, agents, and at¬ 
 torneys, and each of them has, and they are hereby, enjoined and restrained 
 from opening the ballots cast at the election held in their respective counties 
 on the 6th day of November, A. D. 1894, and now in the custody or possession 
 of said defendants, as county clerks of their respective counties, or from per¬ 
 mitting the same to be opened or recounted, or from removing or permitting 
 said ballots to be removed from the place where they are now k$pt, until the 
 same are ordered to be opened or recounted by a court of competent jurisdic¬ 
 tion of the State of Illinois or of the United States or by the House of Repre¬ 
 sentatives in Congress of the United States, after the 3d day of March, A. D. 
 1895. 
 
 There is the extent now of the injunction, fraudulently ob¬ 
 tained for the purpose, smirched with moral fraud, to say the 
 least of it, all the evidence showing that in Calhoun County the 
 ballots—and in some other county, I forget which now—had been 
 opened, and their validity as evidence in the case practically 
 destroyed. And it does not take many open packages of ballots 
 3400 
 
11 
 
 to overturn a majority of only some 30, 40, or 50, and there are 
 many men who can make the necessary changes with nimble 
 fingers and do the trick very quickly, and Brother Lacey would 
 never discover it. 
 
 But the injunction restrained these county clerks. Now, mark 
 you, Mr. Rinaker had nothing whatever to do with that. Bylaw 
 he knows nothing whatever about it. Now, some of these gentle¬ 
 men learned in the law say, Why did not Mr. Rinaker appeal that 
 case? Why? Have you, my legal friends, ever discovered a way 
 by which you can appeal a case which you are not a party to? I 
 never have. Neither in the State nor in the Federal law have I 
 ever discovered it, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, who 
 labored long to find a way to permit General Rinaker to appeal 
 that case, found none, first, for the reason that the suit was filed 
 to the May term of Morgan County court, and our statute requires 
 that a bill in chancery shall be filed ten days before the term of 
 court at which the case may stand for trial; and the subpoena 
 shall be issued and served ten days before the term of the court 
 at which the case is to be heard. 
 
 Now, this bill was filed and the summons in chancery issued in 
 January, for what term of court? Returnable to the May term 
 of the court. What would be the condition of things when the 
 May term of court arrived? Why, Rinaker’s forty days for tak¬ 
 ing testimony under the law of Congress would have expired 
 long before that. The whole ninety days, indeed, the time given 
 for Rinaker, the time given for Downing, the time given for evi¬ 
 dence in rei>ly, would all have expired before the term of court at 
 which these gentlemen so ingeniously made their summons return¬ 
 able. Was there no trick in that? There was, right in that cir¬ 
 cuit, a court to begin on the second Monday in February. Why 
 did they not go and file their bill in that court, where there might 
 have been a hearing on the second Monday in February? No; that 
 did not suit their purpose. The purpose was to chop the dog’s 
 tail off right behind his ears. It was to completely and effectually 
 shut Rinaker out from having opportunity to comply with the 
 law of Congress. 
 
 “And then,” said the little cabal of Democratic politicians, 
 with Downing in their midst, “pay no more attention to him, but 
 when Congress meets Rinaker will be there without any evidence. 
 He will beg the House to permit him to take evidence, because you 
 have got in his way. But there will be no trouble. With the 
 united Democratic vote and a few superserviceable mugwumps 
 there will be no trouble to turn Rinaker outdoors and send him 
 back to plod along his weary way in the State of Illinois.” That 
 was the scheme, morally tainted with fraud, for the purpose ot 
 circumventing the law x>assed by Congress. Some gentleman, I 
 believe it was a Pennsylvania gentleman, whom I understand to 
 be a lawyer, said tome, “Why did not General Rinaker appeal 
 that case then? ” Why, my dear Pennsylvania friend, have you 
 any way by which a stranger to a case could go into a court and 
 appeal that case? When Smith and Brown have a lawsuit, can 
 John Jones come in and api>eal the case? Not by any means. 
 “Oh, well,” my friend suggests, “Rinaker could have filed a bill 
 of interx>leader.” These learned lawyers, you know, the worse 
 they are confounded the longer the names of the different things 
 that they are willing to suggest. He might file a bill of inter¬ 
 pleader. Yes, he might, when the May term of that court came. 
 
 52400 
 
12 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Will my colleague allow me? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Suppose that Democratic judge, who was aid¬ 
 ing this Democratic member of Congress to suppress the evidence 
 there, had said that he was not a proper party, that he was simply 
 acting against the clerks, and the clerks only. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I was about to say that. He might file a 
 bill of interpleader when the May term of the court came; but he 
 could not do it without leave of the court. He could not file his 
 bill of interpleader before the May term, and under the law of 
 Illinois y ou can not file your bill of interpleader in chancery with¬ 
 out leave of the court, not leave of the judge. Many of these 
 gentlemen, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] 
 among others, have confounded the terms “ court” and “ judge.” 
 They are quite different. When the May term of the court came, 
 he might file his bill of interpleader for the first time. 
 
 Mark you, he could not appeal, for he is not a party to the case. 
 He can not become a party until the May term of the court. 
 He can not then become a party without leave of the judge who 
 granted the injunction, sitting in open court. Then, suppose the 
 judge who has so far cut General Rinaker out from his rights 
 under the act of Congress, suppose that judge, in furtherance of 
 the position he has taken, should say to General Rinaker, “ You 
 can not have any interest in this proceeding. If injustice has been 
 done you, your remedy is in the House of Representatives at 
 Washington; therefore I will not allow the filing of your bill of 
 interpleader.” I am speaking of the facts to show that by this 
 injunction they had effectually bottled Rinaker up, had effectually 
 nullified this act of Congress, and had done it by this injunction, 
 which did not follow the language of the law of Illinois. The 
 gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] a while ago said 
 that I misunderstood him when he declared that the injunction 
 followed the statute of Illinois; but he and the gentleman from 
 Iowa [Mr. Lacey] said the same thing. I read from the Record: 
 
 Mr. Lacey. Is it not the fact that the injunction simply copies the language 
 of the statute of Illinois? 
 
 Mr. Moody. That is true. 
 
 Mr. Lacey. The injunction uses the identical language of the statute; and 
 if there was any violation of the proprieties of the occasion, it arose from 
 simply copying the statute. 
 
 Now, I stated, Mr. Speaker, that this injunction effectually 
 bottled Rinaker up. It effectually nullified this act of Congress 
 that required him to get his evidence within forty days. He could 
 not do it with the injunction standing, not against him of course, 
 but against the county clerks. Now, these ingenious gentlemen 
 are driven from the position of saying that he might appeal the 
 case, and they find that that is not true, and that he could not 
 appeal it. They find that he could not file a bill of interpleader, 
 and if for no other reason, the judge would say to him, “Why, you 
 can not count these ballots now. You must count them within 
 forty days after the beginning of the contest. The forty days have 
 expired. Your right is gone, and hence you can not come in by 
 bill of interpleader.” 
 
 The injunction is granted, not in the language of the statute of 
 the State of Illinois, but quite as effectually nullifying the law of 
 the United States as if it had been in the exact language of the 
 statute of Illinois. Instead of this injunction following precisely 
 the language of the statute of Illinois, it follows precisely the lan¬ 
 guage of the bill filed and sworn to by Mr. Downing. 
 
 2400 
 
13 
 
 Mr. STRODE of Nebraska. But did not the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] state yesterday in answer to the gen¬ 
 tleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] that it did follow the exact lan¬ 
 guage of the statute? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I have read that from the Record. Mr. 
 Moody and Mr. Lacey both agreed that it did follow the precise 
 language of that statute, and I have shown they were both wrong 
 in that matter. 
 
 Now, sir, for the purpose of showing what the statute of Illinois 
 does say about this matter of opening the ballots, and where they 
 shall be opened, I read from the statute itself, first, the pro¬ 
 vision that the officer shall carefully preserve the ballots for six 
 months, and at the expiration of that time shall destroy them by 
 burning without previously opening the ballots; the ballots shall 
 be destroyed in the presence of witnesses, etc. 
 
 Provided , That if any contest of an election of any officer voted for at snch 
 election shall be pending at the expiration of said time the said ballots shall 
 not be destroyed until such contest is finally determined. In all cases of 
 contested election the parties contesting the same shall have the right to 
 have s&id ballots opened. 
 
 They have, therefore, the right to have the ballots opened. Mr. 
 Downing said they have not. The law of Congress says they have; 
 the law of Illinois says they have; but the judge to whom he went 
 said they had not. 
 
 In case of contested elections the parties contesting the same shall have 
 the right to have said ballots opened and to have all errors of the judges in 
 counting, revising the count, and the ballots corrected by the court or body 
 trying such contest. 
 
 Then comes this further provision: 
 
 But such ballots shall be opened only in open court or in session of such 
 body, and in the presence of the officer having the custody thereof. 
 
 Now, the court granted an injunction under the plan that was 
 agreed upon by those gentlemen, by a literal construction of the 
 law of Illinois; that is, if the House wanted to have these ballots 
 counted, it must conform to the law of Illinois, namely, have 
 them counted in open session. Gentlemen say the injunction did 
 not so say. The injunction does not; the statute does. The stat¬ 
 ute says they shall not be opened except “in open session of the 
 body trying the case.” The Committee on Elections do not try 
 the case. It is the House of Representatives that tries the case. 
 There, then, we come up against a question of conflict between 
 the State and Federal law. There is no doubt that Congress has 
 the right to prescribe laws to regulate the election of members of 
 Congress; and when Congress passes such a law it must be su- 
 I prerae on that subject. In the absence of any law, the State has 
 
 the right to regulate and make provisions for the election of 
 members of Congress, for the counting of the ballots, for the de¬ 
 struction of the ballots, if you please; but if Congress has passed 
 a law upon any one of those branches, then that law must be su- 
 I preme. 
 
 The Illinois law says the ballot shall only be opened in open ses¬ 
 sion of the house of “the body trying the case.” The law of Con¬ 
 gress passed in 1851 says that the evidence shall be taken not in 
 open session of the House, but that all ballots, papers, and evi¬ 
 dence of every kind shall be taken before a notary or any of those 
 other officers within the first forty days. There the two laws are 
 in conflict. The law of Congress says you must take your evi¬ 
 dence in forty days, and then says you must bring your papers. 
 
 JMOO 
 
14 
 
 The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] says “ballots are not 
 papers.” I presume he is the only lawyer in the House who 
 would say that as a matter of law. Ballots are papers. Well, 
 sir, the law of Congress says the ballots must be brought before 
 a notary, and if they are they must be counted within the forty 
 days. Then, Congress having now legislated upon the manner of 
 taking the evidence of the ballots, the law of the State of Illinois is 
 inoperative on that question. But the judge who granted this 
 injunction says clearly the law of the State of Illinois shall pre¬ 
 vail and the law of Congress shall be ignored. 
 
 Now, my friends on this side of the House, with a large Repub¬ 
 lican majority, let me say that you are confronted for the first 
 time here in your history with an attempt by a State judge to 
 absolutely nullify this Federal election contest law. If you by 
 your votes indorse or permit that nullification, in how many con¬ 
 tested election cases in the future coming from the States of the 
 South will you ever be able to get the ballots counted? Not one. 
 The Republican party had its very life and existence by maintain¬ 
 ing the doctrine that the laws of the Federal Government are 
 supreme as the law of this land and that no State law should be 
 allowed to interfere with them. We were cradled in that doctrine. 
 
 Now, after forty years of successful and splendid service for the 
 nation, we find Republicans on this side of the House forgetting 
 the early teachings of the fathers of the Republican party, for¬ 
 getting the doctrines that we were cradled in, coming in here 
 and giving effect to an injunction granted by a Democratic judge 
 to impede and obstruct the operation of a Federal law and hold a 
 Democratic member in his seat, which the evidence shows he is 
 not entitled to. The idea of Republicans doing this! Ah, but 
 some one says, somebody may be afraid that we are using our 
 great majority to unseat a man improperly. Are we too cowardly 
 to do right lest we may be criticised by some one for doing it? If 
 so, abdicate your power, pull down the standard of the Repub¬ 
 lican majority and in its place lift up the palmetto fiag of Democ¬ 
 racy—and surrender. [Loud applause on the Republican side.] 
 
 But gentlemen say that we have successfully seated two Repub¬ 
 licans and two Democrats; and it seems that gentlemen are afraid 
 that if we should seat the third Republican that that would be 
 destroying the balance of power. They are as afraid of this House 
 doing this as it is said the nations of Europe are of partitioning 
 Turkey, for fear it would destroj 7 the balance of power. Gentle¬ 
 men, we can not afford to be cowards. We can not afford here 
 to lower our flag and abandon a doctrine which is one of the great 
 doctrines of the Republican party, namely, that where Congress 
 has passed a law within its constitutional power to pass that law 
 shall be supreme. 
 
 As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this injunction was a trick. It 
 was obtained for a purpose morally fraudulent and was carried 
 out by the judge. I charge nothing upon him. He simplj' car¬ 
 ried it out by making an order in accordance with the literal read¬ 
 ing of the statute of Illinois, but that injunction tied General 
 Rinaker's hands. Now. the law that is on the Federal statute 
 book bound Rinaker and it bound Downing, but it does not bind 
 us. We can say, “Let the law go.” Congress made a law by 
 which General Rinaker was compelled to take the course he did 
 take or else abandon his contest. He could not do otherwise. He 
 would have been foolish to have been taking evidence in the mid¬ 
 dle of next summer; you would not have received it. 
 
 2400 
 
15 
 
 Mr. HENDERSON. Let me ask the gentleman a question. 
 Suppose that Mr. Murphy had not taken these memoranda during 
 the count in the contest for treasurer and that General Rinaker 
 was without any evidence at all. but still believed that he had 
 been elected, what would then be his remedy? And let me follow 
 that thought up with the suggestion that those of us who perhaps 
 do not feel satisfied to let this Murphy count take the place of a 
 formal count, where both parties are represented, might feel like 
 pursuing now the same course of safety to get at the ballots (if 
 the status has not been disturbed) that we would pursue if no 
 memoranda had been taken by Mr. Murphy, and General Rinaker 
 stood knocking at the door of public justice to have a recount 
 made. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I was about to turn to that feature of the 
 case. Passing now, Mr. Speaker, as I do, from all the fraudulent 
 nimbus that surrounds this injunction proceeding, I come to the 
 question of what General Rinaker's attitude would be if he had 
 given notice of a contest, had simply stated that the ballots cast 
 in the several counties when properly counted and enumerated 
 would show a majority ot a thousand in his favor rather than 40 
 in favor of Mr. Downing, and had set up no other cause of con¬ 
 test, except barely that the enumeration of the ballots had been 
 incorrect. In that case, if Downing had gone and done just as 
 he has done—locked up the ballots—how could General Rinaker 
 have obtained a scintilla of evidence to sustain his contest? But 
 if he did not within forty days obtain some evidence to maintain 
 the contest, what would be the result? 
 
 Now, suppose that this House meets, and Rinaker's notice of 
 contest is on file, and Downing’s answer is on file denying the 
 alleged miscount of ballots, and there is no other question in¬ 
 volved and no evidence on file. The case is referred to the Elec¬ 
 tions Committee. They open the papers; there is the notice of 
 contest and there is the answer. The committee say: “ Where is 
 your evidence, General Rinaker?” “Oh, 1 have no evidence. 
 Mr. Downing prevented the clerk from letting me count the bal¬ 
 lots, but I want to count them now.” What would have been 
 Mr. Downing’s answer in that case? He would have pointed the 
 committee to the act of Congress, and would have said: “That 
 law is binding on you, Mr. Rinaker; that law says that you must 
 furnish your evidence in forty days, and you failing to do that, I 
 am required to do nothing. You are simply in court with a dec¬ 
 laration filed, a plea denying it, and no proof to maintain it.” 
 
 That is what Mr. Downing would say. Does anybody suppose 
 that Mr. Downing and the gentlemen on that side of the House 
 
 1 would in such a case have come up generously and said: “Oh, 
 
 well, let us have Mr. Rinaker's evidence taken now; let us 
 piece it out for him; let us try to make a case for him? ” Indeed, 
 they would not. Mr. Rinaker would merely have failed to do 
 his duty under the law and would have to take the consequences. 
 
 1 But in fact General Rinaker obeyed the law of Congress, which 
 
 was made to control his movements in such a case, and Mr. 
 Downing and his cabal stepped in the way. They removed from 
 his reach the evidence that he wanted to take and which was nec¬ 
 essary to make out his case, removed it just as effectually as if 
 they had taken those ballots and dumped them into the Illinois 
 River. Suppose that instead of the county clerk being ordered at 
 Mr. Downing's instance to take these ballots and lock them up in his 
 vault Mr. Downing had got the ballots in his own possession and 
 2400 
 
16 
 
 had locked them up in his vault, and had said to General Rinaker 
 when called upon to produce them, “I will not produce them un¬ 
 til the House of Representatives in open session orders me to do 
 so,” would it be said then that Rinaker was bound to wait until 
 the House did come into session and order those ballots to be 
 counted? The House would undoubtedly order them to be re¬ 
 counted, unless some reliable evidence was supplied to take the 
 place of those ballots. Gentlemen have said that those ballots are / 
 
 in the same condition they were in when they left the hands of 
 the inspecting officers. / 
 
 Gentlemen, when they reflect upon the evidence in this book, 
 will see that they must revise that statement. No man can read 
 this evidence and fail to see that in certain townships in Calhoun 
 County and one of the others—I forget which—somebody had been 
 tampering with those ballots. My friend from Iowa [Mr. Lacey] 
 said it was stipulated in the record by these parties that the bal¬ 
 lots were in the same condition. Can the parties stipulate away the 
 rights of this House? Can the parties by a stipulation impose 
 upon us conditions that are improper, when the evidence shows 
 marks that require explanation, when the evidence shows that the 
 envelopes are not in the condition in which they were when they 
 left the election judges? 
 
 Mr. LACEY. In regard to the county in which Mr. Murphy 
 made the recount, do you claim there is any evidence of any kind 
 indicating that the ballots have not been properly preserved and 
 are not in precisely the same condition in which they were when 
 Mr. Murphy made that recount? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I do not think there is such evidence as to 
 that county. That is only one of the eight counties involved. 
 
 Mr. LACEY. Then we can safely see whether Mr. Murphy is 
 right as to that county by counting the ballots, can we not? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I do not know whether you can or not. 
 
 Mr. LACEY. Let us try it. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. There are eight counties in this district. In 
 one of the counties, Calhoun, as I said at the beginning—the one 
 in which Rinaker gave notice to first take testimony—the evidence 
 shows that in two of the townships the ballots had apparently 
 been tampered with after they left the hands of the election 
 judges. That county, on the night of the election, Rinaker was 
 publicly declared to have carried by 26 majority. Forty-eight 
 hours afterwards, when it was found how many votes were neces¬ 
 sary to elect Downing over Rinaker, the result as before an¬ 
 nounced was changed so as to give Downing enough votes to give 
 him the district by 40 majority. 
 
 Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman allow me a question? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. HALL. If you have in your possession all this evidence of 
 fraud, why did you not testify before the committee instead of 
 testifying before the House? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Are you through? Is that all of it? One v 
 
 attorney in this case, Rinaker, the son of General Rinaker, has 
 testified; and he has been ina most discourteous manner criticised 
 by the gentleman from Massachusetts for presuming to tell the 
 truth in this case. Now, if a man who was simply a lawyer in the 
 case, volunteering to testify, is subject to animadversion on this 
 floor, how much more would a juror who is to try the case be sub¬ 
 ject to animadversion for volunteering to testify and seeking to 
 influence the report of the committee of this House? My testi¬ 
 mony was not lost by keeping my mouth shut before the commit- 
 2400 
 
17 
 
 tee, because I knew I should have a chance to give it before the 
 full jury having the final right to try this case. Does the gentle¬ 
 man understand my position now? 
 
 Mr. HALL. I understand your position, of course. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I am glad of it. 
 
 Now, sir, this claim of a desire to count these votes is not honest. 
 It is for the purpose of carrying on the scheme that was com¬ 
 menced by an injunction to keep this man in his seat and make 
 the people of this country pay double salaries for that district 
 during the whole length of this Fifty-fourth Congress; because, 
 suppose the scheme that this committee now x^roposes in order to 
 carry out the injunction project should carry—suxrpose that this 
 case is recommitted and the committee ordered to take further 
 testimony and to examine the ballots—when can they report? 
 After the holidays next winter. Then, with all the delays that 
 may be proposed, when will it be possible to get a vote of the 
 House, even though the recount should show Rinaker elected by 
 a thousand majority? Would it be possible to get a vote and 
 unseat this man—to unhorse these schemers—much before the 3d 
 day of March, 1897? And is not this allowing them to carry out 
 their scheme? Is it not giving it the indorsement of this House 
 to permit that sort of thing? 
 
 Gentlemen concede the law is well settled that where one sup¬ 
 presses the primary evidence the party who desires to make use 
 of the proof shall have the right to introduce secondary evidence. 
 We all agree about that rule of law. But gentlemen say, in the 
 first place, Downing did not suppress the primary evidence. I 
 have said as much as I think is necessary to be said to show that 
 he has most effectually suppressed the primary evidence—namely, 
 the ballots. 
 
 Secondly, gentlemen say conceding that he did suppress the 
 primary evidence, and that the contestant has the right there¬ 
 fore to introduce secondary evidence, yet they do not seem willing 
 to depend on the secondary evidence that he has introduced; they 
 claim that it was a private recount; and the gentleman from Massa¬ 
 chusetts cited the case of English vs. Peelle to show that this House 
 had held that a private count of that kind could not be depended 
 upon—would not be accepted as evidence. The gentleman from 
 Iowa [Mr. Hepburn] has shown wherein that case differed from 
 this. It differed because the witness produced to give the second¬ 
 ary evidence was an unreliable and unsafe source to which to look 
 for truth; the House could not believe him. Secondly, in addition 
 to that, there had been no suppression of the primary evidence by 
 the party against whom it was sought to use the secondary evi- 
 -j dence; so that under no principle of law could he have been en¬ 
 
 titled to the use of that secondary evidence. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman answer a question? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, sir; if I can hear it. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. The gentleman has referred to the case of Stew- 
 ) ard vs. Childs. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. No, sir; I have not. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. I thought you referred a while ago to that case. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Well, while I am on my feet let me ask you in 
 regard to that- 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. That case is not now in the line of discus¬ 
 sion I am pursuing, and I do not care to be drawn away from that 
 
 line, 
 
 2400—2 
 
 
 hr 
 
18 
 
 Mr. TERRY. I would ask the gentleman if he is going to take 
 up the question of the assisted voters? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Indeed, I do not know exactly what I shall 
 take up; hut I do not suppose that I will discuss every possible . 
 
 question that anybody may raise in connection with the case. I 
 am confining myself to what I regard as the essential features. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Inasmuch as that is your State, I would like to 
 Rave your views upon the question. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Well. I will give you my views privately, if 
 you want them; but I do not want to burden the House with my 
 opinions. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Your private views are not what I want. I 
 want the House to have the benefit of your views upon the ques¬ 
 tion, as this is a matter arising in your own State. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I do not think that on that proposition my 
 views or the views of anybody else are of very much account. 
 
 There is one pivotal point connected with the case, and I wish to 
 keep as near to that as possible and not go off into the clouds. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. I would like the gentleman to explain whether 
 it is true that unless Mr. Rinaker has the benefit of all of the as¬ 
 sisted voters he could not be considered as elected. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I have not reached that point, although I 
 will say to the gentleman that I propose to refer to it later on. 
 
 It has been contended here, Mr. Speaker, in this discussion by 
 gentlemen that a man who gives substantial testimony as to the 
 count of the ballots in Macoupin County, that he did not have an 
 opportunity to make a count that was worthy of consideration; 
 that it was not an accurate count, and that they did not think it 
 was good for any purpose. Who knows best? Is it not more 
 reasonable to believe the man who testifies and says that he did 
 have an opportunity, the man who for three days sat there inten¬ 
 tionally observing every vote, and as he says, with a full opportu¬ 
 nity to make the count? And yet gentlemen of the House come 
 to us and say, “ We do not believe him.’’ Why do you not believe 
 him? He is an honorable man; the record shows that. He was 
 a man who was honored by the people who knew him with nu¬ 
 merous public offices; he was sheriff of the county, mayor of the 
 city in which he lived, a reputable and an honorable man; and I 
 may say that General Rinaker, from what I know of him, would 
 employ no other instrument for any purpose; that he would em¬ 
 ploy no man who was not as clean as a hound's tooth to do work 
 of that kind for him. He is that kind of a man. 
 
 Mr. Murphy is shown by the records to be worthy of consider¬ 
 ation; and nobody attacks the evidence; and the minority of the 
 committee concede in the report the fact that Murphy for accuracy, 
 reliability, and intelligence, is beyond all question or cavil. Now, 
 there he is, as truthful a man as any man in this House; he sat 
 there three days, and kept a careful tally on this count. It was 
 not expected at that time that this evidence would ever be re¬ 
 quired. True, Mr. Rinaker was contemplating the contest. He 
 had given notice, but had received no answer, but for the purpose y 1 
 
 of satisfying himself, without the slightest thought of ever being 
 able to use Mr. Murphy’s investigation, he had Murphy do this 
 thing and see how it was running. He found, as the testimony 
 shows, these various mistakes. Was there crime in that? Why, 
 
 Mr. Waggoner, the county clerk, near whom Mr. Murphy sat while 
 the count was going on, said that it was a well-known fact that 
 he was keeping the count. He said. ” We all talked about it in 
 
 2400 
 
19 
 
 the room and here is the reply that this county clerk (Mr. Wag¬ 
 goner), who was opening the ballots, spreading them out, calling 
 \ off the votes, passing them on to the next member of the count¬ 
 
 ing committee, and so on. He was examined under oath and 
 corroborated what Mr. Murphy had said. This was the question 
 that was propounded to him, and I ask your attention to his an¬ 
 swer: 
 
 Q. How did you come to pay such close attention to the vote of General 
 Rinaker for Congress? 
 
 A. I suppose for the same reason everyone in the room paid attention to it. 
 There was a good deal of talk about this matter then, and there were parties 
 standing near me watching the vote, and, as I called the vote, I naturally 
 looked for that vote part of the time. 
 
 There is the testimony of the county clerk (in addition to the 
 testimony of Murphy) that he himself and all the others in the 
 room knew that the count was being kept. Nobody questions 
 it, and nobody comes to say that Murphy’s count could not be 
 depended upon; at least that he was not honest in making it. 
 
 Now, I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that the very best cor¬ 
 roboration of the truth of Mr. Murphy's count is furnished by 
 the contestee [Mr. Downing]. How? After the forty days in 
 which Mr. Rinaker had to take his testimony had expired, Mr. 
 Downing knew what Mr. Murphy had testified to. Downing was 
 present and heard Murphy's testimony about what the recount in 
 his presence showed. Now, if that count is unreliable, if it could 
 not be depended upon, there were the ballots in the county clerk's 
 office, and all that Mr. Downing had to do to contradict Murphy 
 was to dismiss his injunction, notify the county clerk to produce 
 the ballots with his subpoena duces tecum, and count the ballots 
 there in the presence of himself and Mr. Rinaker. He could do 
 it, but Mr. Rinaker could not. He could dismiss the injunction 
 suit and call for the ballots and contradict Mr. Murphy if he de¬ 
 sired to do so. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Will the gentleman permit an interruption just 
 there? 
 
 M».‘ CONNOLLY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I would ask the gentleman if he is not aware of 
 the fact that in the only other contested election case under that 
 statute, even without an injunction, the clerks of some of the 
 counties in the State of Illinois declined to produce the ballots? 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. I wish to say to the gentleman right there that 
 in the case the gentleman referred to, in every county except the 
 county of Will, the clerks produced the ballots and they were 
 counted: and in that case no sx)ecial point was made upon it, but 
 the contestee in that case took the precise position that my col- 
 league takes to-day. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I do not know what position he took, but I know 
 the ballot boxes were not all produced, and some of the clerks at 
 least proceeded on the ground that the law did not authorize it. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. No point was made on it because it was not 
 l decisive in the case. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Now. I hope my friends will let me go 
 ahead and get through. What has that to do here? Why is the 
 gentleman from Massachusetts sitting on nettles so much and so 
 badly when I am suggesting this mode of contradicting Murphy’s 
 testimony? 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Iam not. I submitted to interruptions from the 
 gentleman yesterday, and I have not interrupted him unduly to¬ 
 day. 
 
 2400 
 
20 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. The gentleman sought yesterday to insist 
 that the testimony of Mr. Murphy was unreliable, and that this 
 House could not depend on it. If that is true, did not Mr. Down¬ 
 ing know that after Mr. Rinaker’s forty days had expired, and ( 
 
 after Murphy’s testimony had been seen and read by Downing? 
 
 If that was true, you Imow, gentlemen, every one of 3 r ou. and it 
 is conceded in this debate, that Downing had the right then, hav¬ 
 ing commenced the injunction suit, to dismiss the injunction suit, 
 serve on Mr. Oeltgen. the county clerk, a subpoena duces tecum 
 to bring forward those ballots, and he himself could have counted 
 the ballots and proved the unreliability and unworthiness of 
 Murphy’s count. He did not do it. He never proposed to do it 
 before this committee. 
 
 Mr. MOOD Y. If the gentleman will permit me to correct him, 
 
 I hold in my hand a brief submitted to the committee at the meet¬ 
 ing of Congress. In that brief the contestee says this: 
 
 Believing that if a recount is ordered the ballots and his rights under the 
 law will he fully protected, he is willing that a recount be had, and in any 
 assistance he can render in person or by and through his attorney and coun¬ 
 sel he is at the call and service of the committee. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. And his attorney stated before the commit¬ 
 tee, in arguing the case, that the ballots now were not worth the 
 paper that they were written on as evidence. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. He did not so state. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I have been informed by members of the 
 committee that he did. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. Why did he not come in with a resolution in 
 the House on the first day of the session, as he had a right to do, 
 and ask for a recount? Mr. Rinaker was an outsider and he could 
 not do it, but your friend was a member of the House and could 
 do so. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. As to the matter of a recount, this House 
 this winter has had an example of it. A sitting member, Mr. 
 
 Tarsney. from Missouri, with a contest pending, desired a recount 
 of the ballots, and in the first or second week of this session he 
 manfully came into the House and on the floor of the House offered 
 a resolution authorizing the Committee on Elections to go to Kan¬ 
 sas City and recount the ballots, but this House refused to do it. 
 
 At the very same time Mr. Tarsney was thus manfully proposing 
 to do that Mr. Downing sat behind him quietly in his seat, never 
 proposing to do the manly thing that Tarsney was proposing to 
 do. No; he sat behind the bulwark of an injunction that had thus 
 far protected him, and he proposed to stay under cover of that in¬ 
 junction just as long as he could; and when smoked out then to 
 have his friends come here, begging of the House to let him go 
 back and do what he might have allowed to be done if he had been 
 open and fair about it or his advisers honest, to get at the truth, 
 more than a year ago—what he might himself have done after Mr. 
 
 Murphy and Mr. Waggoner had testified as to what the ballots 
 showed. 
 
 Tell me, then, you gentlemen who come here and say that Mr. y 
 
 Murphy can not be believed, why did not Mr. Downing say that? 
 
 Why did not Mr. Downing contradict him? Why did he not 
 produce the ballots, as he might do, that would have contradicted 
 him? 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I have gone thus far on that feature of the 
 case concerning this miserable injunction, this scheme to set up 
 the law of the State of Illinois against the law of Congress. 
 
 Thank God, no Republican of the State of Illinois so far forgets 
 
 2400 
 
21 
 
 her position here on this question as for one moment to say that 
 the law was intended to nullify a Federal statute, or to impede 
 its operation. It was done by a Democratic judge in the interest 
 of a Democratic contestee, to keep him in Congress in his seat as 
 long as possible. 
 
 Now. Mr. Speaker, I turn to another feature of this case briefly. 
 The House has so kindly listened to me for so long that I will be 
 as brief as possible, and will not seek to do full justice to this 
 branch of the subject. 
 
 The minority of this committee say in their report: 
 
 While we do not agree in all respects with the conclusions arrived at by 
 the majority upon this branch of the case— 
 
 That is, about illegal marks of ballots, illegal votes, and so 
 forth— 
 
 yet, for the purpose of simplifying the issue between the majority and minor¬ 
 ity, we accept their conclusion. 
 
 So that as to all questions of illegal votes and matters of that 
 kind the majority and minority have agreed. 
 
 In determining that the contestant should be seated by a plurality of 30 
 votes, the majority of the committee have adopted two conclusions from which 
 we dissent: 
 
 First. They have allowed a gain of 39 votes to the contestant on account of 
 a private and unofficial recount of the ballots in parts of the two counties of 
 Macoupin and Cass. 
 
 Second. They have permitted the parties to retain certain votes which were 
 counted for them by the returning officers. These votes were those of illit¬ 
 erate voters whose ballots were prepared by the officers of election without 
 the voters first having made the oath required by law that they were unable 
 to mark their ballots by reason of their physical disability or inability to read 
 the English language. This ruling benefits the contestant to the extent of 32 
 votes net. 
 
 If either of these disputed conclusions be incorrect, then the report of the 
 maj ority of 30 shall fail. 
 
 Now, there were 39 votes that he received on a miscount in 
 Macoupin and Cass counties, which the majority of the commit¬ 
 tee think Rinaker is entitled to credit for. So that 39 votes, all 
 but one, wipes out ftie declared majority for Downing. 
 
 Now, then, we come to the other question. The minority say 
 there were 32 votes allowed to Rinaker that there is no question 
 were honestly cast by honest voters, by men entitled to vote, just 
 as the ballots were counted, and by men who were legal voters. 
 Now. these gentlemen who are so anxious to have the legal voters 
 of that district not disfranchised, remember the minority of this 
 committee say to you, We believe that these 32 voters shall not be 
 counted, some of whom were blind, some of whom were in invalid 
 chairs and could not walk into the polling x>lace. all of whom were 
 legal voters—one of them old Professor Turner, of Jacksonville, 
 known to all college presidents and educators from the Atlantic 
 ) to the Pacific, one of the leading educators of the country for the 
 
 past fifty years, a man notable among the best minds in the United 
 States, blind and old, who has been living in Jacksonville for fifty 
 years, led by a daughter up to the polling place; but blind as he 
 is, and heavy as the burden of years rests upon him, did not fail 
 in the performance of the last great duty of the citizen to go and 
 do his duty by voting his sentiment at tiie polls. 
 
 Professor Turner, led there by a daughter and confronted by 
 these judges, who have known him since their childhood, who 
 knew of the blindness that is on him—the minority of this com¬ 
 mittee say that the two judges, one a Democrat and one a Repub¬ 
 lican, who went into the bootli with him and prepared his ticket 
 • as they both knew he wanted it, and then marked it and deposited 
 
 in the box—that those judges did an unlawful thing, and that 
 2400 
 
oo 
 
 uu 
 
 Professor Turner, rounding out his century of existence, shall, 
 for the first time in his life, be disfranchised by the House of 
 Representatives of this Republic for which he has done so much. 
 Shame upon any committee who would insist upon any construc¬ 
 tion of the law that would disfranchise a man of that kind! 
 
 Another was a crippled old soldier, disabled in his country’s 
 service. They would disfranchise him and not count his ballot 
 because, forsooth, he is forced to spend his life in an invalid chair, 
 and, wheeled by loving hands up to the ballot box, he cast his vote 
 as he pointed his gun. [Loud applause.] Disfranchise him! Dis¬ 
 franchise him for what? F or the sake of seating the editor of a 
 Democratic newspaper as a Representative in this House. [Ap¬ 
 plause on the Republican side.] My God! where is the old-time 
 Republican pride? Gone! Crawling on your bellies to men who 
 will criticise you no difference how you vote! You had better 
 stand up like men and vote for the principle that you believe in, 
 and give the voter, the lawful voter, the right to cast his vote 
 once and have that one vote honestly counted. 
 
 Now, sir. these gentlemen say to me—two or three members on 
 this side have said to me—in private conversation, “ Why. you can 
 not count these ballots for the blind and the illiterate, because 
 your law says that they shall not be counted unless they make an 
 oath that they are blind and illiterate.” I said to each of those 
 gentlemen, “ Oh, no: our law does no such thing.” Now, the gen¬ 
 tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Brumm] —I have him in mind— 
 asked a question of my colleague [Mr. Cooke of Illinois] yester¬ 
 day: “ Does not your Illinois law say that a man whose vote is 
 received after it is prepared by the judges, a man who is blind or 
 illiterate, and his ballot is prepared by them, has to make oath 
 to illiteracy and blindness or that vote shall not be counted?” I 
 interposed and said, “No; our statute does not.” 
 
 Now, I want to show all gentlemen who will give attention to it 
 that our statute does not. and that our statute differs materially 
 from the Kentucky statute, respecting which the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts [Mr. Moody] read the decision. Now, mark you, 
 the evidence in this case, unlike the Michigan case, unlike the 
 Kentucky case, unlike any case these gentlemen have cited—the 
 evidence in this case shows that all of these assisted voters were 
 lawfully entitled to vote, either that they were blind, that they 
 could not read or write, or that they were otherwise disabled. 
 
 Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I would rather not, for I am taking too 
 much time. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Will the gentleman from Illinois yield long 
 enough to see if we can not fix a time for taking the vote? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I shall get through in a few minutes. 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the law of Illinois which this minority 
 say compels the voter who is unable to prepare his ballot to make 
 the oath before he has the right to vote. Let me say before I read 
 it that the legislature of Illinois could not prevent a man from 
 voting by any law it might make if he was, under the constitution 
 of the State, a voter. The State constitution secures to him the 
 right to vote. The legislature may prescribe the machinery by 
 which the vote shall be taken, but the right to vote is inherent in 
 the voter himself by the constitution. In the election machinery 
 provided by the State the legislature makes provision for the blind 
 and the illiterate or otherwise disabled voters. It provides a mode 
 by which such a voter may compel the election judges to recog¬ 
 nize his constitutional right and accept his vote. It is a section 
 2400 
 
23 
 
 of the law that does not pretend to confer a right or to impose a 
 duty upon the voter, but which imposes a duty upon the election 
 inspectors. What duty? Why, the duty of preparing for such a 
 voter his ballot if he makes the oath. He is not required, how¬ 
 ever, to even make the oath. Let me read the law, and I will try 
 to read it so that gentlemen can catch the point: 
 
 When any elector shall make oath that he can not read English, or that, 
 because of physical disability, he can not cast his ballot, or when such disa¬ 
 bility shall be 'made manifest to said inspectors- 
 
 Applause.] 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Is the gentleman reading from the Illinois stat¬ 
 ute? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I am reading from the Illinois statute. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Is the gentleman quite sure? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Quite sure. 4k 
 
 Mr. BRUMM. I was going to say that if the gentleumn was 
 reading from the Illinois statute, it is different from what is 
 found in the minority report as that statute. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. The gentleman from Illinois is certainly mis¬ 
 taken as to the statute. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I will read it now from the statute 
 book. I took it for granted that you had copied it correctly in 
 your report. I have been reading it from the minority report, 
 taking for granted that they had copied it correctly. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. The gentleman has been reading the statute of 
 another State. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Very well. I was depending on you. I 
 confess I ought not to have done it, but I did. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I suggest to the gentleman that if he has only 
 just now found out the statute of his State he can not very well 
 instruct the House about it. [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh, I am not seeking to instruct. That is 
 within the province of the gentleman from Massachusetts entirely. 
 
 hter.] I read now from the statutes of Illinois. I will not 
 
 depend upon your minority report any further. 
 
 Any voter who may declare upon oath— 
 
 Not that he must, but that he may— 
 
 Any voter who may declare upon oath that he can not read the English 
 language, or that by reason of any physical disability he is unable to mark 
 his ballot, shall, upon request, be assisted in marking his ballot by two of the 
 election officers of different political parties, to be selected from the judges 
 and clerks of the precinct in which they are to act, to be designated by the 
 judges of election of each precinct at the opening of the poll. Said officers 
 shall mark the ballot as directed by the voter and shall thereafter give no 
 information regarding the same. 
 
 Mr. BRUMM. So you were evidently wrong when you read 
 the statute awhile ago. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. No, sir; I was not wrong. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. Why, the gentleman was wrong. He was read¬ 
 ing from the statute of another State. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. My dear sir, the wrong, I confess, was in 
 depending on your report for the law of Illinois. 
 
 Mr. BRL T MM. What you have read now is entirely different 
 from what you read a while ago. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I have read the facts. Does the gentleman 
 understand? 
 
 Mr. BRUMM. Yes, sir; but I want to know whether this does 
 
 not differ from what you read awhile ago. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I do not yield any further; I can not. 
 
 2400 
 
3 0112 061893357 
 
 24 
 
 Mr. BRTJMM. Then you refuse to answer my question? 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. Why, in the name of common sense, do you 
 want an answer when you say you understand now? 
 
 Mr. BRUMM. Your present statement differs from your for¬ 
 mer statement. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. I made no statement. I read the law. 
 
 Now, gentlemen will see this statute imposes no new duty upon 
 the voter. A man who can not see has under the constitution of 
 the State of Illinois a right to vote just as much as the man who 
 can see. The legislature would not undertake to say that a man 
 who can not see shall not vote unless he does a particular thing 
 in the way of taking an oath that nobody else is required to take, 
 becau^ a law of that kind would be unconstitutional under a con- 
 stitutAi which says that every man of 21 years of age, resident 
 in theatate twelve months, shall be a legal voter and entitled to 
 have his vote counted. 
 
 Now, if the legislature had said that men 21 years of age who 
 have lived in the State a year and who are blind or lame or illiter¬ 
 ate shall not vote unless they make a preliminary oath, while 
 other men may vote without the preliminary oath, do you not 
 see that there would be a test placed upon the blind voter or the 
 lame voter or the illiterate voter which would exclude him from 
 his constitutional right to cast his ballet? All that this section 
 does is to impose a burden, a new duty, upon the judges of elec¬ 
 tion with reference to the blind man T>r_t.he illiterate man differ¬ 
 ent from the duty which the statute impoeea with reference to 
 men who can read and write or who can see. The statute pro¬ 
 vides that if such a man makes an oath it shall be the duty of 
 two of these inspectors to prepare his ballot for him in the booth. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from 
 Illinois has expired. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sherman). The gentleman 
 will state it. 
 
 Mr. MOODY. How much time has the gentleman from Illinois 
 now on the floor occupied? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. One hour and fifty-six minutes. 
 The Chair assumed that the gentleman was entitled to only one 
 hour, but did not call him down at the end of that time because- 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. How can I be taken off the floor by an 
 inquiry as to how much time I have occupied? 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachu¬ 
 setts addressed to the Chair a parliamentary inquiry, which was 
 entirely proper, and the occupant of the chair was attempting to 
 answer it. 
 
 Mr. CONNOLLY. The question has been answered—one hour 
 and fifty-six minutes; and that ends the matter, I presume. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. It does not end it, if the gentle¬ 
 man from Massachusetts makes the point of order- 
 
 Mr. MOODY. I make the point of order that we on this side 
 are now entitled to the floor. 
 
 The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman makes the 
 point of order that the time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
 expired, the Chair will so hold. He was about to state why he sb 
 held; but if the gentleman from Illinois does not care to hear the 
 reason he need not. The Chair holds that the gentleman’s time 
 has expired. 
 
 C