(Indorsed:) Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Affidavit in behalf of contestant. Affidavit of J. W. Metcalfe. Filed by N. S. Paul, cl'k Com. of Elections. In the matter of contest for seat in 47th Congress from the 3d Congressional district of Mo. GUSTAVUS SESSINGHAUS v. R. GRAHAM FROST. Frank Kraft, being sworn, says he was employed by both sides in said cause to take the testimony; that after Mr. Metcalfe returned to him the testimony he carefully compared every sheet and page with his original short-hand notes of the evidence, and wherever the marginal suggestions of Metcalfe concurred with his said notes they were adopted by affiant and were by him written in in ink. That said marginal suggestions were in pencil except, probably in one or two instances. That there were no alterations made in the testimony while it was out of affiant's hands. That the only thing done to it were marginal memoranda, which were made in pencil, save in one or two instances, which affiant now thinks were in ink, and a pencil-mark drawn under or across the profane words of witness Dr. Justin McCarthy. The testimony was absolutely untouched in any way save as above stated. And affiant carefully examined each sheet as he did it up to forward to Washington; and when the same was placed in the box and shipped to Washington it was exactly the testimony given and nothing else. STATE OF MISSOURI, City of St. Louis: FRANK KRAFT. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of January, 1882. CHRISTOPHER P. ELLERBE, (Indorsed:) Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Affidavit in behalf of contestant. Affidavit of Frank Kraft. Filed by N. S. Paul, cl'k Com. on Elections. In the matter of the motion to suppress depositions of contestant. SESSINGHAUS 18. FROST. Before the Committee of Elections, Forty-seventh Congress. I, Charles M. Switzer, being duly sworn, on my oath say that I am an attorney at law in the city of St. Louis; that I have for the past eight months occupied the same offices with Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr., attorney for Gust. Sessinghaus; that I am intimately acquainted with the said Metcalfe; that though frequently during the months of August, September, and October, 1881, I observed Mr. Metcalfe making examination of papers which I thought from their size were papers in connection with the contested election case of Sessinghaus v. Frost, I never knew that the said papers were the official testimony in the said case; that I never handled or examined said papers; that I never saw any one handle or examine said papers except the said Metcalfe; that I never saw said papers lying around open or loose in said office except when in use by the said Metcalfe; that the said papers seemed to be kept carefully by the said Metcalfe, with no apparent chance of changing or tampering with them on the part of any one. I further say that during the periods above indicated it was my custom to be in said office during a large part of each day. I further say that I am a Democrat. C. M. SWITZER. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of January, A. D. 1882. [SEAL.] A. A. PAXSON, (Indorsed:) Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Affidavit in behalf of contestant. Affidavit of C. M. Switzer. Filed by N. S. Paul, clk' Com. on Elections. In the matter of the motion to suppress depositions of contestant. SESSINGHAUS ፐ8. FROST. Before the Committee on Elections, Forty-seventh Congress. I, Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr., being duly sworn, on my oath say that I am, and have been since the 3d day of November, A. D. 1880, attorney for Mr. Sessinghaus in the contested-election case of Sessinghaus v. Frost; that after the evidence in the case was taken by the notary public, Frank Kraft, the latter requested of me the use of certain memoranda made by me in the taking of testimony, for the purpose of correcting the spelling of proper names which appeared in the testimony for contestant; that having use for the same at my office, and desiring also to brief the testimony, I requested the said notary to bring to my office the testimony as copied from his short-hand notes made at the time of taking the same, the understanding being that in the casual examination of the testimony for the purpose of briefing it, if I discovered any discrepancies in the spelling of names or in the residences of voters between that manuscript and the notes made by me at the time the testimony was given, I should upon the margin of the sheets upon which the testimony was written indicate in pencil-mark the method of spelling and the residence as shown by my memoranda, it being further understood that the said notary would go over all the testimony again, compare my suggestions with his original short-hand notes, and if said suggestions were found to be correct he would change the manuscript in accordance therewith. It was further understood that I should keep such testimony, while in my possession, carefully and free from any chance or opportunity for tampering. In accordance with this under standing, the said notary left at my office, in the city of St. Louis, on the southeast corner of Fifth and Olive streets, from time to time, most of the testimony taken for contestant, the said testimony being brought to my said office and returned from there, wrapped up carefully in strong brown paper and tied securely; that at all times during the day and night when such testimony was not being examined and briefed by me, and with the exception of once or twice when said testimony was wrapped up awaiting the call of the notary as hereinafter stated, the same was carefully wrapped up and locked securely in my safe in said office; that said safe is a large iron one, with a combination lock; that no one except myself has a key and access to said safe; that the said testimony was never at any time taken out of my office by any one except the said notary or his agent, when said testimony was returned; that in my said office, and nowhere else, I made a hasty examination of said testimony for the purpose of briefing it; that in a number of instances where I found that his manuscript differed from the memoranda made by me at the time the testimony was taken, I indicated in the margin in pencil what my memoranda showed the testimony to have been, merely to call the attention of the notary to the same, at the same time drawing a line in pencil under the words which differed from my memoranda; that in no instance did I alter, change, or erase words or sentences or names in the body of the said testimony, but merely made marginal suggestions, and that the testimony itself was left absolutely intact by me; that I made no pen and ink corrections whatever, and that in the case of one witness for contestant, as referred to in the affidavit of the notary, I drew pencil lines under certain very profane words used by the witness, which words were in no respect material to the case, but that even in that case I left the words intact, only drawing a peucil line under them. I further state that I returned to the said notary the testimony absolutely intact and unchanged, leaving to the notary to make the changes suggested only so far as they were found to agree with his original notes. I further state that the notary afterwards assured me that my suggestions were in most instances in harmony with his original notes, and proper to be made. I further say that no one in or about my office, except my office boy, knew the fact that I had such testimony there until after all the said testimony was returned to the said notary and sent on to Washington; that my said office boy knew the value of said testimony and the necessity of watching and keeping it safely; that while I was absent from my said office said testimony was in my said safe as aforesaid, with this exception, that in one or two instances it was wrapped up and carefully tied, awaiting the call of the notary; that in no instance did I leave said testimony open on my desk during my absence. I further state that in the examination of said testimony I used every precaution and care to keep it safely and free from any possible tampering with, and that, as an attorney, I felt the necessity of the utmost good faith and fair dealing, being only desirous that the said testimony should be correctly reported so far as was possible, and having leisure time during the summer months in which to prepare materials for a brief. I further state that the use of the testimony at my office in the manner indicated above was, according to the habit and custom of attorneys in this city, a proper one; that it is a common thing for attorneys to take to their offices depositions and written evidence for the purpose of making examination and preparing briefs, it being a practice which no reputable attorney would take advantage of for the purpose of changing testimony; and without the strongest evidence of actual alteration, no high-minded attorney would charge another with having committed so contemptible an offense. I furthes state that the said Frank Kraft, as notary, was employed by the contestee as well as the contestant to take the testimony in this case. LYNE S. METCALFE, JR. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of January, A. D. 1882. [SEAL.] A. A. PAXSON, (Indorsed :) Sessinghans rs. Frost. Affidavit in behalf of contestant. Affidavit of Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr. Filed January 6, 1882. N. S. Paul, clerk of Committee on Elections. In the matter of the motion to suppress deposition of contestant. SESSINGHAUS 18. FROST. Before the Committee on Elections, Forty-seventh Congress. I, John R. Farrar, being duly sworn, on my oath say that I am an attorney at law in the city of Saint Louis; that for the past two years I have had a desk in the law office of Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr., attorney for Gust. Sessinghaus; that I have known the said Metcalfe intimately; that my desk in said office has always been placed close to the desk of said Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr, that at various times during the months of August, September, and October I observed Mr. Metcalfe examining and abstracting some papers, which I thought were papers used in the case of Sessinghaus r. Frost; that I never examined or in any way handled said papers; that I never knew, except as hereinafter stated, what the said papers were or that they were the official testimony in the said case; that Mr. Metcalfe seemed to be remarkably careful of the manner in which he kept said testimony; that I never saw said papers out of the safe in the office except when Mr. Metcalfe was present and making an examination of them; that I never saw any one handle said papers except the said Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr.; that the said papers never were left open on the desk of said Metcalfe in his absence, or in any other part of said office. I further say that I never knew the said papers was official testimony in the said case, but on one occasion during the aforesaid period the said Metcalfe told me that he was getting up the brief in the Sessinghaus-Frost case; that the papers he was using were important and should be safely kept, and that he would be obliged to me if I would say nothing to any one in or about the of fice as to what he was doing. I further say that it was my custom to remain in the said office during said period almost constantly. I further say that I am a Democrat in politics. JOHN R. FARRAR. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of January, 1882. My commission expires June 29th, 1885. [SEAL.] FRANK OBEAR, Notary Public, City of Saint Louis. (Indorsed:) Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Affidavits in behalf of contestant. Affidavit of John R. Farrar. Filed by N. S. Paul, clerk Com. on Elections. GUSTAVUS SESSINGHAUS, CONTESTANT, v8. R. GRAHAM FROST, CONTESTEE, Before Committee on Elections, Forty-seventh Congress. Now comes R. Graham Frost, by his attorneys, and represents that on this day the committee adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That the motion of the contestee for the suppression of the testimony in said cause be overruled and the testimony be ordered printed without prejudice to either party." This contestee respectfully protests against said order to print, as the same cannot be executed without prejudice to this contestee, for the reason that if the question of tampering with the depositions is still open the very evidence of the changes, alterations, and erasures will, in passing through the printer's hands, be destroyed or so blotted, marked, and handled that no satisfactory investigation can be had. This contestee protest that as alterations of only one class were examined, and if it is proposed to investigate the many others not examined, that it should be done now before these papers are worked over or handled by others. Respectfully submitted. WASHINGTON, Jan. 17th, 1882. R. GRAHAM FROST, His Att'ys. (Indorsed:) Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Protest against the order to print. Filed Jan'y 17, '82. N. S. Paul, cl'k Com. on Elections. GUSTAVUS SESSINGHAUS V8. R. GRAHAM FROST. Contest in the Forty-seventh Congress. Frank Kraft, of the city of St. Louis, Mo., on his oath states that he was the notary employed by contestant and contestee in the above-entitled cause. That all, or very nearly all, of the transcript of the testimony taken on behalf of the contestant was made by my several assistants and from short-hand notes dictated to them by me. That in many instances breaks and gaps were left in the transcript so turned in by them, by reason of their imperfect notes or inability to read their notes, the same being left to be supplied by myself when the work of revision was instituted. That this imperfe t, partly open, uncompared, and uncorrected copy of my assistant's notes was the manuscript submitted to Mr. Metcalfe and none other. That thereafter, the same being returned to me by Mr. Metcalfe, I began and completed my revision, comparing and correcting each page of the manuscript from my original short-hand notes. That in this work of revision, comparison, and correction I was in no instance governed by the marginal notes made by Mr. Metcalfe, giving my original short-hand notes the preference, save and except only in the spelling of proper names. That I did not begin to revise and correct the depositions in this case until after their return to me by Mr. Metcalfe, and having once entered upon this work I used my original short-hand notes, erasing, altering, and interlining as they showed the depositions to have been given, and immediately thereafter signing and sealing each day's proceedings; and no one single page of the depositions given in this cause was ever again out of my possession until it was forwarded by me direct to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, at Washington, D. C. That the depositions of the contestee, Mr. Frost, were not at any time in the possession of Mr. Metcalfe, or any one else interested in this cause, until they were opened and inspected at Washington. That in determining the spelling of proper names occurring in the depositions given on behalf of the contestee, Mr. Frost, I made reference to and had the use of original memoranda made by counsel for contestee before and during the progress of taking said depositions. STATE OF MISSOURI, City of St. Louis, 88: FRANK KRAFT. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of January, A. D. 1882. Notary Public. (Indorsed:) Affidavit of Frank Kraft. In case of Sessinghaus vs. Frost. Referred to 2d subcom. Filed Jan'y 24, '82. N. S. Paul, cl'k Com. on Elec's. Frank Kraft, being duly sworn, on his oath states: It is not my intention in giving affidavits on the motion to suppress to change in any respect the affidavit first made by me in this matter. As I stated then, I desired the use of memoranda from which names and address had been read during the course of the depositions, as I desired to correct the spelling of names of persons and of localities. When I called on counsel for contestee, Mr. Donovan, he allowed me to take whatever I needed or requested, but he did not know what use I made of same, or give me any directions, or make any requests, and never interfered with me in any way whatsoever in the faithful performance of my duty as an officer. Lyne S. Metcalfe, jr., importuned me to let him have the testimony itself as tran scribed, and I did give him possession of it for review and correction of the spelling of proper names. I trusted to his integrity to write correctly the names of persons and localities as given by the witnesses. I could rely on my notes of testimony in all respects but this, and hence I took Metcalfe's written suggestions, believing when I adopted them that I was giving names and localities as they were given by the witnesses on the stand. STATE OF MISSOURI, City of St. Louis, 88: FRANK KRAFT. Sworn to and subscribed before me this thirtieth day of January, A. D. 1882. C. D. GREENE, JR., Notary Public. (Indorsed:) 47th Congress. Committee on Elections. Gustavus Sessinghaus r. R. Graham Frost. Affidavit of Frank Kraft, made Jan. 30, '82. Filed Feb’y 1, '82. N. S. Paul, cl'k Com. on Elec's. ROBERT SMALLS vs. GEORGE D. TILLMAN. FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Contestant charges that the vote as cast was not truthfully set out in the statement of the State board of canvassers; that large numbers of votes cast for him did not enter into the result as stated therein; that large numbers of ballots were counted for contestee that were not lawfully cast for him; that polls were returned for him that should have been rejected; that a large number who desired to vote for contestant were prevented from so doing by reason of violence and intimidation; and that United States supervisors of election were prevented from performing their duties. Held, That no legal election was held in Edgefield County, because the will of the electors was suppressed by violence and intimidation, and the return must be rejected. That the vote of the other counties should be corrected as shown by the evidence, on account of intimidation and violence and stuffing of ballot-boxes. The House adopted the majority report. |