Statement of Receipts and Disbursements on Account of Transfer Tax for Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 1893 (Continued). Paid clerk hire, counsel fees and disbursements. $3.297,418 80 5,044 14 $3,302,462 94 $64.401 32 49.727 30 5.156 57 38.080 71 3.071,687 09 73.409 95 $3.302.462 94 DOCUMENT NO. 28. REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO TAKE PROOFS IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTEST FOR SEATS TO THE CONVENTION FROM THE SIXTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT. To the Committee on Privileges and Elections: The undersigned, the sub-committee appointed to take the proofs of the parties in the matter of the contest for the seats of the district delegates to the Constitutional Convention from the Sixth Senatorial District of the State, respectfully report that they have attended at the city of Brooklyn and at the village of New Brighton, in Richmond county, for the performance of the duty with which they were charged, and have taken the proofs of the parties to said contest, and herewith submit the same for the consideration of the committee. Dated June 27, 1894. CHARLES C. LESTER. The sub-committee appointed to take testimony in the matter of the contest of John C. Kinkel, Charles L. Pashley, William Deterling, J. Lott Nostrand and Charles J. Kurth, contestants, against James W. Riggs, Eugene Curran, George W. Roderick, William M. Mullen and Thomas W. Fitzgerald, contestees for the office of district delegates for the Sixth Senatorial District of the State of New York to the State Constitutional Convention, assembled at the Common Council Chamber in the City Hall, in the city of Brooklyn, May 15, 1894, at 10 A. M., pursuant to appointment. Present Charles C. Lester, chairman, and Messrs A. C. Crosby and John Gibney. Committee appointed C. F. Farrell, stenographer, to take the following testimony: Appearances Kiendl Bros. for all the contestants; James Taylor for George W. Roderick; Thomas W. Fitzgerald in person, also for William M. Mullen; Eugene Curran for himself and James W. Riggs, with privilege of substituting other counsel at a later time. By Mr. Taylor-I have been retained with another counsel in this case, and we did not even know of the Sixth District being · represented before the Convention, we know not what the protest consists of, we know of no contest nor specifications upon which they base the contest upon and we would like to see what they are that we may put in answering papers. By Mr. Kiendl—In the first place there was a copy of the petition served; it was served from my office upon Mr. Mullen, who I understood represented the delegates. A copy of the petition was served immediately after the Convention adjourned, and of course a copy is in the hands of the committee. To be perfectly safe in the matter, after your chairman had fixed this day for the hearing, I notified each one of the gentlemen by a notice. under our name, that the committee had set a day at ten o'clock, last Friday. So all the gentlemen have had notice that this hearing would take place to-day. Further, this day was agreed upon and arranged before they left the Convention, and your committee then and there fixed this day for the hearing; the extra precaution was taken to notify each and every one that the hearing would take place to-day. Mr. Taylor-Two of those notices were served, together, yesterday morning. My client was in Poughkeepsie at that time, so he knew nothing about it. By Chairman Lester - Do you object to proceed now or do you desire to have the hearing deferred. Mr. Taylor - Yes; that is our object. Mr. Fitzgerald - I object because this proceeding is not regularly here and that we have had no chance to raise a question in the Constitutional Convention as to the constitutionality of this proceeding, because this contest was not announced by the chairman, and the stenographer has no notes of it. By Chairman Lester The petition was filed in the Convention on the eighth of May; it was read by title. Mr. Taylor note of it. It was not announced and we intended to make By Chairman Lester If The committee will consider any question of that kind that may be presented to it, but won't consider that as an objection to prevent our proceeding with the case. the contestants have not been served with a copy of the petition and specifications we think that that service should be made at once. |