HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.usccsset/usconset30381 and id is 1 raw text is:
58TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPORT
2d Bession. No. 385.
JOSEPH A. CONRY v. JOHN A. KELIHER.
JAXuAny 18, 1904.-Ordered to be printed.
Mr. GAnzs, of West Virginia, from the Committee on Elections No.1,
submitted the following
.REPORT.
[To accompany H. Res. No. 155.]
The Committee on Elections No. 1, to whom was referred the con-
tested-election case of Joseph A. Conry v. John A. Keliher, from the
Ninth Congressional district of Massachusetts, beg leave to make the
following report:
It appears that the Ninth Congressional district of Massachusetts,
which is located in Boston, is a district of overwhelming Democratic
strength. The Democratic Congressional convention in that district
in 1902 was unable to agree upon a nominee within the time fixed by
the law of Massachusetts for convention nominations. The contestant,
Conry, and the contestee, Keliher, were each candidates before the
Democratic convention, and after the final adjournment of the conven-
tion each became candidate by petition.
Each of these candidates, a few days before the election, endeavored
to get the support of Hon. James M. Griggs, chairman of the Demo-
cratic Congressional committee. Each of them communicated with
Griggs and each received a telegram frm Griggs. Each of these can-
didates caused to be published, as an advertisement, in certain Boston
papers, a telegram purporting to have -been received by him, or the
chatrman of his committee, from Mr. Griggs.
Contestant insists that contestee was guilty of gross fraudulent repre-
sentations in the publication of the telegram which contestee caused to
be published, and contestee claims that contestant was guilty of gross
fraudulent misrepresentations in the telegram which contestant caused
to be published.
Contestant denies, and it is not shown, that he was responsible for
the published advertisement of the fraudulent telegram which was
published in his interest, and it is not shown that contestee was per-
sonally cognizant of the fraud in the telegram published in his interest.
At the election contestee received 10,352 votes and contestant 10,099
votes. Contestant insists that by reason of the false telegram from
Mr. Griggs, published as a paid advertisement in behalf of contestee,
enough voters who would otherwise have voted for contestant were
led to vote for contestee. It is not shown by the evidence that any
3 R-58-2-Vol 2-1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.usccsset/usconset30381&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)