Official returns of the election of Delegate from Alaska, members of the fourth territorial legislature, and road commissioner, held Nov. 5, 1918-Continued. WICKERSHAM VS. SULZER, DECEASED, AND GRIGSBY. 353 Territory of Alaska, ss: tally sheets and has been compared with and corrected thereto; that said original tally sheets are on file in my office. CHARLES E. DAVIDSON, First division Second division. Third division.. Fourth division. Total. EXHIBIT P. Contested-election case of James Wickersham v. Charles A. Sulzer. (Omitted in printing.) EXHIBIT R. [From the Valdez Miner, Saturday, May 17, 1919.] ATTEMPT TO FORCE SOLDIERS TO TESTIFY PROVES A FARCE-WICKERSHAM BLUFF FAILS TO WORK-NO PROOF GIVEN TO SHOW THAT WICKERSHAM HAD FILED CONTESTSOLDIERS REFUSE TO ANSWER. The taking of testimony in the contest alleged to have been filed by James Wickersham for the seat in the House of Representatives in Washington as Delegate from Alaska before Isaac Hamburger, notary public, was held in the district court room Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. At the opening of the hearing Attorney J. L. Reed announced that he represented Mr. Wickersham, the contestant, and that he would excuse from the witnesses subpoenaed Capt. M. H. Faust and Q. M. Sergt. Charles Odle. Attorney A. J. Dimond announced that he had been retained to represent the witnesses subpoenaed, and before proceeding further with the hearing he would ask the officer issuing the subpoenas on what authority the writs were issued. In reply to this question Mr. Hamburger stated that under the law governing contests a notary public has the authority to issue subpoenas upon the application of either party to a contest, that Mr. Wickersham had stated to him that he (Wickersham) had filed a contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and upon this statement the subpoenas had been issued. Mr. Dimond then asked what further proof, if any, Mr. Hamburger had that the contest had been actually filed, to which Mr. Hamburger replied that he had none. Mr. Dimond then requested that Mr. Reed, as the representative of Mr. Wickersham, produce proof that Mr. Wickersham had legally filed a contest with the Clerk of the House of Representatives as required by law. Mr. Reed stated that he would offer no proof. Mr. Dimond then stated that he was confident that no contest had ever been filed by Mr. Wickersham and demanded to know when and upon whom the notice of contest required by law had been served and upon whom and when the notice of hearing as required by the statutes had been served. Mr. Hamburger stated that he did not know and Mr. Reed stated that he had no information to give out. Mr. Reed requested that the record of the hearing show that he objected to Mr. Dimond's appearing at the hearing, declaring that the witnesses had no right to counsel. Mr. Dimond then stated that in his opinion the provisions of the statute governing contests in the House of Representatives had not been complied with, and that the whole proceeding was null and void, and that he would advise those witnesses whom he represented to answer no questions. He stated that these witnesses were ready and willing to give their testimony in any proceeding legally had, but that the present hearing was a farce. Mr. Reed announced that he was ready to proceed with the hearing and called Harry Shutts as the first witness. Mr. Shutts refused to answer to his name or to any further questions, and in like manner Emil Lains, A. A. Kott, Charles Agnetti, W. J. Cuthbert, D. H. Tyer, Thomas F. Griffith, Burr M. Snyder, H. G. Clifton, William R. Rogers, and H. Van Wyck were called and refused to answer. Mr. Dimond then announced that in behalf of these witnesses he desired to enter a protest against the entire proceedings. He declared that the issuing of the summons was an abuse of judicial process, and that Mr. Wickersham was fully aware of the fact when he requested the issuing of the writs. To this statement Mr. Reed took an exception. On or about May 9, 1919, Mr. Wickersham applied to Isaac Hamburger, who is a notary public, requesting him to issue subpoenas for a number of men in the Signal Corps of the United States Army at Valdez, Alaska, and some others. Mr. Wickersham assured Mr. Hamburger that a contest had been duly and regularly instituted and that all of the necessary preliminary steps had been taken. Upon such assurance, and believing that the entire proceeding was legal and proper, Mr. Hamburger issued the subpoenas requiring the attendance of the witnesses named by Mr. Wickersham. These witnesses all appeared at the appointed time at 10 a. m. on May 14, 1919. The witnesses, however, upon advice that no contest was or could be really pending and that none of the steps required by statute had been complied with, refused to be sworn or to testify, and no proof was offered or attempted to be offered that the requisite steps for maintaining a contest had been taken as required by law, There can be no question that there is no contest now pending for the office of Delegate from Alaska to the House of Representatives under the election held November 5, 1918. The contest proceeding is purely statutory. In the absence of the provisions of the statute above mentioned no contest whatever could be had, except under such rules and restrictions as Congress might specially provide. Each House of Congress by the Constitution is made the sole judge of the qualifications of its Members, and the House could seat one man and unseat another for any reason, or no reason, if it should see fit. But when it comes to the matter of issuing subpœnas to take depositions each and every one of the steps prescribed by law must have been substantially complied with before jurisdiction is acquired, or the witnesses are compelled to appear. In this case none of those steps have been taken. No notice of contest had been served upon Mr. Sulzer, and no notice was given of the time and place of taking the depositions, or names of the witnesses to be examined, nor could any such notice be given. It will probably be argued that since Mr. Sulzer was dead, and that it was therefore impossible to give notice, none was required; but such is not the case. Mr. Sulzer's death rendered it impossible for anyone to contest his seat until Congress should assemble and give permission therefor, and prescribe the procedure. As soon as the subponas were issued to the Signal Corps men the Miner wired Juneau to find out if any contest had really been started. Mr. D. B. Chace, the secretary for Mr. George B. Grigsby, made a full investigation and found that no contest had been made or could be made under the circumstances. The attempt, therefore, to get depositions at Valdez was absolutely null and void, and the subpoenas issued were issued without right, and no one was under any obligation thereby to appear or testify. The attempt of Mr. Wickersham to force the soldiers to appear before a judicial executive and tell how they voted, appears to have been a deliberate and conceived fraud, without legality, and shady in its methods in that Mr. Wickersham stated to the notary that he had already filed his contest, knowing as a lawyer that such contest could not be filed until a successor to Mr. Sulzer had been elected, and knowing also that such subpoenas were illegal until the proper steps had been taken toward filing the contest. The soldiers and citizens of Valdez are naturally very indignant over the attempt to defraud them of their privileges as American citizens in keeping the ballot secret, and public condemnation of the methods employed to bring these men before a notary is universal. THE WAY OUT. Followers of Mr. Wickersham in this city as well as those politically opposed to him believe that he should abandon all idea of a contest for the delegateship and go before the people in the June 3 election. These men rightfully claim that if Mr. Wickersham is wanted by the people of Alaska he will be elected; if he is not wanted, it is better for the Territory that he be deprived of doing further damage to our interests by giving a majority against him that will everlastingly retire him from politics in Alaska. From all parts of the Territory, from Democrats and Republicans alike, comes the demand that Mr. Wickersham decide the recent election by appearing again before the voters. That he fears to do this and prefers to go before men unacquainted with his proclivities for exaggeration is shown by a statement alleged to have been made in this city on his recent visit, when he said: “I do not want this office and would not make this contest, but so many persons have urged me to make the attempt that I will be forced to do so.” The recent illegal stunt pulled off in this city shows to what length the ex-Delegate will go to hang on to his salary as Delegate. It also shows that in ways that are devious and full of guile Mr. Wickersham is past master. If he has the indorsement of as many Alaskans as he claims, the election will be |