|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1876.] OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES. 1333
In the cross-examination of costestants' witnesses, (James
McKenny,) the respondents' counsel filed as exhibit.
Without connecting in the remotest manner with the case,
a card bearing the following inscription :
"GILMOR STREET M. E. CHURCH.
"Dear Friend :—Come to our meetings, corner Gilmor and
Mulberry streets, each day at 7 3/4 P. M., (except Saturday.)
"Rev. THOMAS L. POULSON, Pastor."
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world,
and lose his own soul."
Leaving out all consideration of professional propriety,
nothing could be more absurd or more unjustifiably wastfui
of time.
It is with gratification that the contrast afforded by tht
action of respondents' counsel, in the First (1st) District, if
noted. In this District the cross-examination appears to have
been reasonable and proper, and to have been conducted with
a clue regard to rignt and professional courtesy. The re-
spondents in this District are equally responsible, however,
for the exclusion of the registration and election records, and
for delay in commencing their rebuttal, as will be seen
hereafter. It is further apparent from the record that,
in all the Districts the contestants had closed their evi-
dence on or before February 1st, and offered then to immedi-
ately examine any witnesses that the respondents might pro-
duce, waiving the ten (10) days notice of their names, thefactf
to be proved by the, and all the other legal forraalties, whick
the respondents had always and everywhere most strenuous-
ly insisted upon.
Of this offer the Respondents did not see fit to avail them-
selves until the twenty-first (21st) of February.
It is safe, therefore., to assert that if the respondents' coun-
sel had fairly observed the rules of evidence in their cross
examipation, and had proceeded with their rebuttal imme-
diately upon the dose of the contestants case, and waiver by
them of all formalities the evidence on both sides could have
been transmitted to the House, certainly by the first (1st)
instant, and at least a month sooner than that date, if res-
pondents had chosen to avail themselves of their legal right
to proceed with their evidence before another magistrate
simultaneously with the progress of the contestants cases.—
Notwithstanding, however, all these delays, and obstacles
to a full, fair and free investigation, it nevertheless appears
that the evidence from the First District, was returned on
the 9th inst., from the Second District on the 15th inst.,
and from the Third District on the 17th inst., so that the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
