|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1332 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 29,
If, therefore, the Committee on February 9th, when noti-
fied of the Clerk's refusal to deliver the ballots, had at once
taken steps to have them produced by an orfler to the Clerk
from themselves or the House,the testimony for the contestants
which had been dosed eight (S) days before, could have been
returned and laid before the House immediately. It is true
that the House has seen fit, of its own motion, without the
request of the Committee, and contrary to its action on the
order of January 18th, to order the transmission of these
ballots, but as they were not referred to the Committee until
the 25th instant, after the argument before the Committee
had been closed upon both sides, and when examination of
the ballots was impossible for want of time, it is respectfully
submitted, that lor all practical purposes, such order might
as well not have been passed or executed.
But again, the record shows that the respondents them-
selves are in a great measure responsible for the delay in the
transmission of the evidence.
To prove this, turn at random to any portion of the con-
testants' testimony, in the 2nd and 3rd Districts at least,
and it is apparent that the cross-examination, while for the
most part, on matters entirely irrelevant, occupies from four
(4) to twelve (12) times as much space as the examination-
in-chief This, of course, consumed the greater portion of
the contestants' time, and prevented not only an early return
of evidence, but the examination of large numbers of legal
witnesses, amounting in the Third (3d) District to three (3)
times the number actually examined.
In the Second (2d) District, as appears from contestants'
brief, page 13, the contestants were obliged to complain in.
writing, and insist that at least two (2) witnesses be exam-
ined daily in a session of three hours duration, promising at
the same time to consume but one-half an hour in examina-
tion-in-chief, and to leave two and a-half hours for the cross-
examination.
What a. waste of time there must have been to necessitate
such a remonstrance and proposition ! The different course
pursued by the contestants in the cross-examination of re-
spondents' witnesses is evidenced by the fact, that while it
required twelve sessions of three (3) hours each to examine
twelve (12) witnesses for contestants, the respondents exam-
ined twenty-five (25) witnesses in nine (9) sessions, averaging
only one and a-half (1 1/2) hours in length. In the Third (3)
District, we find the respondents burdening the record with
exceptions, statements, reservations and objections, but gen-
erally wholly fortign to the issue. One single example will
suffice for illustration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
