Isaac Horton Maynard

Biography

Jason Rubinstein Article

A complete description of Maynard's life, and the political intrigue of the missing return, in 1891, and his subsequent elevation to the New York State high court can be read here.

Isaac Horton Maynard as seen in the Tammany Times vol. 1, 19, 17 September, 1893, p. 3.

Family

The Scoundrel as a very young man.

Isaac Horton Maynard,4 [Isaac,3 Elisha,2 Isaiah,1]:

Isaac Horton Maynard was born at Bovina, New York 9 April, 1838 to Isaac Maynard and Jane Falconer [___;b.r., Marv. Fam;__, Dela. Cent;__, Alba. Times;4 Feb., 1892, Clip;13, NYT;].

He died at Albany 12 June, 1898, æ. 58 and is buried in Woodland Cemetery, Delhi, N.Y. [___, Dela. Coun;194, findagrave;148495732].

He married at ___ 28 June, 1871 Margaret Maxwell Marvin, daughter of Charles Augustus Marvine and Frances Foote [___;m.r., Marv Bible;2, Marv Fam;__, Foote Fam;1;1942]. She was born at and died at Delhi, [findagrave;193170144].

Daughter, born at Stamford, Delaware county, New York [___, Foote Fam;1;1942]:

• i. Frances Maynard, b., 3 Dec., 1876 [___;b.r., Delhi;g.s.?, Foote Fam;1;1942]; d. at ___ [__;d.r., Delhi;g.s.,]; m. at ___ (Isaac) David Ford son of Oscar Ford and Martha Jackson [___;b.r., Foote Fam;1;1942].

Political Life

“For Secretary of State, Isaac H. Maynard...” undated clipping, 1893, Clip;13:

pl. “[From Harper’s Weekly.]” Judge Isaac Horton Maynard, the nominee for Secretary of State was born in Bovina, Delaware county, April 9, 1838. His grandfather was a revolutionary soldier. His maternal ancestry was Scotch. After tuition in the common schools until 1854, Mr. Maynard spent four years at Stamford Academy, and four more form 1858 to 1862, in Amherst College, where he as valedictorian of his class. His preceptor in law was Justice William Murray, of the State Supreme Court, and he came to the bar in 1863. He was president of the village of Stamford from 1870 to 1877 being also a member of the County Board of Supervisors in 1869 and 1870, and its chairman during the latter year. In 1875 he was elected to the Assembly from Delaware county, by a majority of 549 over George G. Decker, Republican, who had been chosen in 1874 by 699 majority. In 1876 he was re-elected by 166 votes over James Oliver, Republican, although Hayes electors that year had 146 majority in the district. In 1877 he was elected Judge of hte county of Delaware by about 1,500 majority, the Republican State ticket receiving some 500 majority at the same election. These numerous indorsements of Judge Maynard by the people among whom he was reared, are emphatic testimonials to his worth and popularity. His record as a consistent Democrat is impeachable. In the prime of life, of fine culture, high character and varied experience, he makes an excellent head of the ticket. For six years he has been on the bench removed from the strifes of faction and clash of parties. His record proves him a man of resolution, principle, wisdom and learning, who will strengthen and adorn the public service.

Maynard Maxims. (From Isaac H. Maynard’s Speech, Albany, Oct., 21)

“A Rigid economy in civil expenditures is the only open door to an honest administration of public affairs, and the only sure safeguard of public virtue.” “Every use of an official trust for private gain is a public crime.” “Every dollar taken from the citizens by unjust unequal, or unnecessary taxation is public robbery.” “Every unnecessary infringement of a natural right is a wrong.”

Clip;17:

Prohibitionist Maynard Judge Isaac H. Maynard of Delaware County appears to divide the favor of the Democratic leader with William Purcell of Monroe, for the nomination for Secretary of State. The Judge is a gentleman of clean record, acknowledged ability, and unapproached integrity, but it is difficult to see how he can be satisfactorily placed upon the Democratic State ticket if there is any desire to make that ticket the winning one this fall. He is a Democrat, beyond doubt, but there is one point in which he is at issue with his party, and that on the question of prohibition. He is a pronounced prohibitionist and his views upon this subject have led him more than once to vote against his party on measures affecting the license and excise laws. The Democratic party has inscribed upon its records its hostility to sumptuary laws of every kind, but Mr. Maynard has inscribed upon his record an unwavering approval of the principle of the total prohibition of the manufacture and sale of liquor. In May, 1877, when the Assembly was equally divided on the Natchman excise bill, it was Mr. Maynard’s vote that prevented the House from disagreeing with the adverse report, and on various other questions relating to the traffic in liquor he has deserted his party to vote with the Republicans. It is no crime, of course, for a man to be a prohibitionist; some of the sincerest and best people in the Union are almost fanatical in their advocacy of a principle that has proved a failure wherever tried, but where the Democracy is likely to try a fall with Republicanism upon the question in this state the wisdom of such a nomination as that of Mr. Maynard may well be queried.

ibid;17:

A Falsehood Squelched.
Carr is just as sober in his habits and just a warm a friend of temperance principles as Judge Maynard, though it is possible that he never voted for prohibition.—[Kingston Freeman. Judge Maynard never voted for prohibition.
He was never called upon to vote for or against such a proposition. In 1869 a law was passed authorizing the granting of ale and beer licenses to other than Hotel Keepers. In 1877 a New York Assemblyman introduced a bill so as to include alcoholic liquors and covering all the towns, villages and cities of the State. It was in no sense a party question. Democrats and Republicans voted on both sides, and Mr. Maynard was one of the Democrats who voted against it. The bill was defeated and Mr. Maynard’s position has been sustained by every Legislature since, including those in which his party has had absolute control. While the Secretary of State has no more to do with the excise law than has the Shah of Persia, the falsehood concerning Judge Maynard’s vote of six years ago will not be permitted to go unchallenged.

Albany, Aug. 27

—For several weeks the friends of Isaac H. Maynard, who holds the positions of Deputy Attorney General on the Democratic State ticket this Fall. When questioned as to the matter Mr. Maynard told The Times’s reporter that he expected to be tendered the nomination, and intimated that he expected to be on the ticket. His friends say that Mr. Maynard makes no claim of being entitled to this recognition, but would like to have the nomination and would then leave to the voters the question as to whether he is fitted for the position.
Judge Maynard was the candidate for Secretary of State on the Democratic ticket in 1883, and was defeated because of his strong prohibition views. He thinks that by this time most of that prejudice has disappeared, and that he would be as strong as any person placed in the race for the office. His friends are of opinion that the State Engineer and Surveyor will be taken either from Albany, by selecting Elnathan Sweet, or from Rensselaer, by the choice of Martin Schenck, and this would, according to the policy of taking no two candidates from one locality, debar the selection of an Albany man for the position. These friends also argue that Mr. Franklin Bartlett could not be thought of, because he comes from New-York City, which is virtually the home of Mr. Roswell P. Flower, ...
Although Judge Maynard is honest in his convictions and candidacy, it would seem that he could not with consistency be again placed on the State ticket, the one disastrous event when he was at the head being enough.
People do not forget as quickly as Judge Maynard hopes. This is shown in an editorial article in the Albany Times of Wednesday, which reads:
“Deputy Attorney General Maynard announces that he is a candidate for the Attorney Generalship. Mr. Maynard fell outside the breastwork eight years ago, but he has been well cared for ever since. There is a disposition, however, to let bygones be bygones, and in a place lower than the head of the ticket he might not endanger its success.”
The Times opposed Mr. Maynard in 1883, before the convention, and gave him a lukewarm support during the campaign.

Controversy and Scandal

Judge ^Isaac H^ Maynard, The Facts Relative to the Contested Election Cases, Report Adopted by the Legislature, A Manly Letter, Albany?, 1892?, nypl seh pv 9; some pamphlets in this bound coll. marked J Hill, Sterne Collection, etc.

These cases were among the very last in which I acted as attorney Looking back through the years in which I have practiced at the bar, there is no work of my professional life which I regard with more satisfaction and pride than my conduct of them. There was no act done, no advice given by me, which I would not in all things repeat under like circumstances.
I entered upon the conduct of the cases without compensation or the hope of compensation, and from a sense of duty only and my sole reward has been that which arises from a consciousness of duty performed. Very respectfully, Isaac H Maynard, Albany, March 16, 1892.

• Joint committees on the Judiciary of the senate and assembly finds Maynard innocent of any wrong-doing.

The Argus, “Judicial Nominations.” 20 Jan., 1892, n.p., [Clip;loose]:

Under the constitution, the electors of the State, next November, will be called upon to choose a chief judge of the Court of Appeals. Should Judge Earl be elected his position as associate judge will be vacant again, and must be filled by appointment until filled by election in November, 1893. If Judge Earl should not be elected chief judge in November, he resumes his position as associate judge.

“Atticus,” Albany Times Union, “Noted Living Albanians and State Officials, A Series of Pen Portraits by One Who Knows Them.” 4 February, 1892, n.p.

Isaac Horton Maynard. Among those who have filled with distinguished ability and faithfulness various important positions in civil life in our state and nation is the Hon. Isaac H. Maynard, he newly appointed associate judge of the court of appeals.

He was born on the 9th April, 1838, at Bovina, Delaware county, N.Y. He is a son of Isaac Maynard and Jane Falconer Maynard. His paternal ancestry was of English origin. His great grandfather, Isaiah Maynard, emigrated to this country from the north of England in 1750, and settled in the town of Rye, afterward Harrison, Westchester county N.Y. His grandfather, Elisha B. Maynard, removed from Westchester county in 1790, and settled in Bovina, then a part of Stamford, Delaware county New York. During the revolutionary war he had been a loyal soldier and bravely fought in defense of the stars and stripes. He was a man of great intelligence and integrity, very prominent in his day, and for many years held the office of a magistrate in his county. When this old pioneer came to Bovina he found the place an almost unbroken wilderness, but there, amidst the bold, romantic hills and valleys, he went to work with a will, erected a log cabin, leveled the tall old trees around his humble home and cultivated the land. He was the first settler within the present limits of the town of Bovina, where his memory is still cherished.

He had a family of five sons and seven daughters and Isaac, born in 1795, the father of the present Judge Maynard, was the third son. In 1824 he moved back to Westchester county upon the old family homestead there where he died in 1841.

Subsequently Judge Maynard’s father purchased the family home in Bovina and lived there until his death in 1876, at the age of eighty-two. He was a prominent man in the public affairs of his town and county, a magistrate for more than twenty years, a candidate for member of the assembly in 1855, the trusted counselor of the community, and greatly respected and beloved by all.

Judge Maynard’s mother was born in the city of New York, and was the daughter of Archibald Falconer, a Scotchman, who came to this country in 1795 from Nairn, near Inverness, Scotland. He was mechanic, and in 1804 removed to Stamford, Delaware county, where the judge’s parent’s were married in 1822.

The earliest years of Judge Maynard were pleasantly passed on his father’s farm at Bovina, where he engaged in all kinds of farm work, attending the summer and winter terms of the district school until he reached the age of twelve, and after that only during the winter terms. In 1854 he went to Stamford seminary at Stamford, in the same county, where he was prepared for college. In the meantime he spent his vacations at work upon the farm, laying the foundation for a vigorous constitution.

In September, 1858, he entered Amherst college, Massachusetts, from which he graduated with honor in July, 1862. He took one of the Mather prizes for excellence in Greek, and one the Hardy prizes for greatest improvement in extemporaneous debate during the college course. He delivered the German oration at the junior exhibition; was one of the monitors of his class; pronounced one of the English orations at commencement, and was valedictorian.

In September 1862, two months after his graduation from Amherst, he entered the law office of the late Hon. William Murray, afterward judge of the supreme court at Delhi, N.Y., and made rapid progress in the study of law. He was admitted to the bar at the Binghampton general term in Nov. 1863.

He practiced law at Delhi until june 1865, when he removed to Stamford, Delaware Co., N.Y., his present residence. there he formed a law partnership with his cousin, the Hon. F.R. Gilbert, on of the most prominent and able lawyers in that part of the state and afterwards a judge of the supreme court. The firm of Gilbert & Maynard continued until January 1878.

In 1869 Mr. Maynard was elected supervisor of the town of Stamford, and in 1870, was re-elected and made chairman of the board.

Mr. Maynard was always a public spirited man, and, besides carrying on a large law practice, took an absorbing interest in promoting and developing the material resources of the town and community in which he lived and where he became deservedly popular. He was largely instrumental in securing the incorporation of the village of Stamford by special act of the legislature in 1870, and was the author of its charter. He was elected the first president of the village, and re-elected unanimously for ten years in succession. He was one of the founders and first trustees of the Stamford seminary in 1874, upon its incorporation by the regents of the university, and was a member of the board of trustees until it became a part of the Union free school of the village in 1881. He took an active part in organizing the Union free school and was first president of ist board of education, and has always been a member of the board. He was one of the founders of the National Bank of Stamford in 1882, and has always been a director and is now its vice-president.

He married, June 28, 1871, Miss Margaret M. Marvine, daughter of Charles Marvine, esq., of Delhi, N.Y. They have one child, a daughter, Frances (Fanny) Maynard Ford Miss Frances, sixteen years of age.

The legislative career of Mr. Maynard began in 1875, when he was elected a member of the assembly from Delaware county, and served in the session of 1876 on the committees on privileges and elections, two-thirds and three-fifths bills, and apportionment. He was a most able and influential member of the legislature, always ready and forcible in debate, and among the foremost leaders of the democratic party, in the service of which no man has ever been more loyal, while at the same time showing the most gentlemanly deportment to those who differ from him politically. In November, 1877, Mr. Maynard was elected county judge and surrogate of Delaware county, and served a full term of six years until January 1, 1884, adorning the bench by rare judicial ability and integrity.

In 1883, he was a candidate on the democratic ticket for secretary of state, having been nominated at the Buffalo convention on the first ballot, after an exciting contest, receiving 209 votes to 173 cast for his competitor, Hon. William Purcell of Rochester. He was defeated at the election by something over 18,000 majority, while the rest on the democratic ticket was elected by about the same majority.

On January 1, 1884, Judge Maynard was appointed by Attorney-General O’Brien first deputy attorney-general, and held the office until June 1, 1884, when he resigned to accept the office of second comptroller of the United States treasury, to which he had been appointed by President Cleveland, under Hon. Daniel Manning, secretary of the treasury. April 1, 1887, he was appointed assistant secretary of the treasury, to succeed Hon. Charles S. Fairchild, who had been made secretary upon the retirements of Mr. Manning, on account of ill health.

When Judge Maynard went into the second comptroller’s office, the work of the bureau was over two years behind. When he left it, the work was up to current date. As assistant secretary he had charge of the customs service, the internal revenue service, the revenue marine, the supervising surgeon-general’s bureau, the navigation bureau, the life saving service, the lighthouse board, the steam inspection service, the miscellaneous division and the supervising detective bureau—all requiring his personal supervision. The appeals in the custom’s cases alone aggregated over 20,000 in a year.

All his numerous, official services at Washington, involving so many different and intricate cases, Judge...

New York Times, 13 June, 1896, 534, p. 1-3

Ex Judge Maynard Dead Killed by Heart Disease in the Hotel Kenmore, Albany. Career of the Judge Whose Nomination Swamped the Democratic Party—His Actions Regarding the Dutchess County Returns in 1891—The General Protest from All Parties Caused by His Proceedings in that Historical Case.

Albany, June 12.—Ex-Judge Isaac H. Maynard, senior member of the law firm of Maynard, Gilbert & Cone, and former Judge of the Court of Appeals, died suddenly in his room at the Kenmore Hotel in this city, about 2:30 o’clock this afternoon, from heart trouble. He was alone in his room and was sitting in a chair at the time of his death. He had just finished his luncheon, and was apparently in the best of health, except that he had been undergoing treatment lately for indigestion. During the morning he had been at his office as usual. As soon as the ex-Judge’s death was discovered, which was after 3 o’clock, a physician was called. The Coroner also was summoned and took charge of the body.

Judge Maynard leaves a wife and daughter, who have been living at the family home, at Delhi, Delaware County. They were telegraphed to immediately.

The fact that Judge Maynard was troubled somewhat with his heart was known among a few intimate friends, he having had an attack while in their company at Winnosook Lodge, in the Catskills, a couple of years ago. Expressions of sorrow were universal on Capitol Hill at the announcement of his death.

Judge F.R. Gilbert of Judge Maynard’s firm arrived here tonight and took charge of the remains, which will be taken tomorrow on the Delaware and Hudson Road to Delhi. The funeral will be held at the latter place Sunday afternoon at 2 o’clock.

—————

Isaac Horton Maynard was born at Bovina, Delaware County, April 9, 1838. He was of Scotch and English descent, and all his life his home was at Bovina or the neighboring town of Stamford. He was graduated from Amherst College, and in 1862 began the study of law, at Delhi, and in 1865 was admitted to the bar, and began the practice of law. His entrance into public life was as the Supervisor of his township, and subsequently he was elected President of the Board of Supervisors of Delaware County.

He was a member of the Assembly in 1876 and 1877, and in the latter year was elected County and Probate Judge for the term of eight years. Before his term had expired he was nominated, in 1883, for Secretary of State on the Democratic ticket, but was defeated by Gen. Carr. At the expiration of his term as County Judge, in 1885, he was appointed First Deputy Attorney General, and later in the same year he was called to Washington, and was appointed Second Controller of the United States Treasury by President Cleveland, under Daniel Manning, then Secretary of the Treasury. When Charles S. Fairchild was promoted to be Secretary of the Treasury, Judge Maynard was made Assistant Secretary, and held that position untill the end of Mr. Cleveland’s first Administration. Then he was again appointed a Deputy Attorney General of this State.

It was while Judge Maynard was in the service as Deputy Attorney General that the incident occurred which brought him into unenviable prominence, and resulted in the defeat of the Democratic Party in this State, and placed the State Government into the hands of the Republicans.

The election for Senators had been so close in the Fall of 1891 that it was discovered that the control of the upper branch of the Legislature would probably hinge on the election in Dutchess County. The question of the reapportionment of the State was to come up before the Legislature of 1892, and the complexion of future Legislatures might depend on the reapportionment. When the voters of Dutchess County were canvassed, thirty-one Republican ballots were found in what came to be known as the “Mylod” district, which had ink marks on their edges which could have been made printers quads. The Democratic canvasser asserted that the marks rendered the ballots defective, and they rejected them. As upon the district the political complexion of the State Senate was believed to depend, the Republicans made a contest for the thirty-one rejected ballots which was carried into the courts.

Judge Maynard acted in the litigation as counsel for the Dutchess County Board of Canvassers, Justice Barnard granted a peremptory mandamus ordering the county canvassers to count the rejected ballots and transmit the corrected returns to Albany. Meanwhile Gov. Hill had removed from office the Republican County Clerk because he had refused to transmit the returns as the Democrats wanted them, and appointed a Democratic County Clerk, and the “Mylod” returns were made up. Emans, the Republican County Clerk, who had been removed during the litigation, which was very complicated, mailed the corrected returns to Albany. He, however, had been enjoined by an order of the court from doing so, and he hurried to Albany and called on Maynard and requested that the returns be given back to him, but they had disappeared, and when the State Board of Canvassers met the “Mylod” returns were canvassed, and Osborne was declared elected, thus giving the State Senate to the Democrats.

The connection of Judge Maynard with the disappearance of the corrected returns mailed by County Clerk Emans did not become known until after Gov. Flower had appointed him to fill a vacancy on the Court of Appeals bench, caused by the advancement of Judge Earl to the Chief Justice’s chair on the death of Chief Justice Ruger. It created a storm of indignation throughout the State, and there was a general feeling that Judge Maynard ought to resign. He addressed a letter to Chief Justice Early explaining his conduct. The Bar Association took the matter up, and finally the Legislature was compelled to order an investigation. The result was a majority and a minority report. The former was adopted, and Judge Maynard was practically exonerated. When, however, Gov. Flower announced his intention of re-appointing Judge Maynard as Associate Justice to succeed Judge Charles Andrews, the Bar Association made strong protest, but he was appointed.

Despite the vigorous protests of many prominent Democrats in the State Judge Maynard was nominated for the Court of Appeals on the Democratic ticket. The nomination raised a storm of indignation throughout the State. The Bar Association took a prominent part in the canvass against him, and without regard to party advocated the election of Edward T. Bartlett, the Republican candidate. Mass meetings were held in this city to protest against the election of Maynard, and the chief interest in the election centered in the contest between Maynard and Bartlett. Maynard proved too heavy a load for the Democratic ticket and swamped it. The entire Republican State ticket was elected. The Republicans also obtained a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Maynard was beaten by 101,664 votes. Since that time he had been in comparative obscurity.

Judge Maynard’s widow is a daughter of Charles Marvine, President of the Delaware National Bank at Delhi, N.Y.

"Maynard was a contemptible conspirator, a conscienceless liar, a miserable sneak thief, a brazen faced scoundrel and a dangerous felon"

New York Times, 15 June, 1896, 6

Ex-Judge Maynard’s Funeral. Many Members of the Delaware County Bar present—Memorial Service.
Delhi, N.Y., June 13.—Funeral services over the body of Isaac H. Maynard senior member of the law firm of Maynard, Gilbert & Cone and ex-Judge of the Court of Appeals...were held in the first Presbyterian Church at 2 o’clock this afternoon, the Rev. L.E. Richards officiating. Nearly all the members of the bar of Delaware County were present. The attendance was unusually large, especially from Stamford, where Mr. Maynard lived for many years.
His former associates on the bench of the Court of Appeals and many other who was unable to be present sent telegrams of condolence. ...the body was buried here.

David Murray, LL.D., Delaware County, New York, Centennial History, Delhi, 1898, p. 194

Judge Isaac Horton Maynard was born in Bovina in 1838, being a grandson of the first settler of that town. Graduated from Amherst in 1862. Studied law in the office of Judge Murray and established himself in the Stamford, N.Y. area. Here he was Supervisor in 1869 and ‘70. He was Elected County Judge as a Democrat, carrying the County by 1,355 majority...usually its majority was 800 Republican. In 1875 he was elected a member of the assembly: in 1884 he was appointed first deputy Attorney General of the State, which position he resigned to become second Comptroller under President Cleveland. In ‘87 he was appointed assistant Secretary of the United States Treasury. In 1892 Governor Flower appointed him one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals.
Judge Maynard was a man of scholarly attainment, a brilliant and successful lawyer and was highly esteemed by many friends. He died at Albany, 12 June, 1898 at the age of 58 years and remains rest in Woodland Cemetery in Delhi. [also: Elisha Maynard, Elisha Horton Maynard]

"All independent newspapers termed this an outrage of the first order," Allan Nevins, Grover Cleveland, A Study In Courage, New York, 1932, pp. 569-570:

Two years earlier one of Hill’s friends, Isaac H Maynard, as deputy attorney-general and acting counsel for the board of State canvassers, had committed a scandalous robbery of public records in order to destroy an election return from Dutchess County, and thus make certain of Democratic control of the State Senate. The State Bar Association appointed a committee to investigate this outrageous occurrence, among its members being Hornblower, James C Carter, Frederic R Courdert, and Elihu Root. Its report was scathing. It held both Hill and Maynard guilty of an utterly unjustifiable crime, and declared the latter’s offense “one of the gravest known to the law” [Dated March 22, 1892; published NY Tribune, Oct. 7, 1893]. Largely because of the vigor with which it appealed to public sentiment, when Maynard was subsequently nominated for the Court of Appeals he was defeated by more than 100,000 plurality, a crushing rebuke to him and Hill.
...In effect, Hill and Murphy had declared before the nation that no man who had ever opposed Maynard on account of an act which was branded as a felony by the laws should have a chance to sit on the Supreme Court; and further, that the Senate was bound by the rule of Senatorial courtesy to make good this proclamation. All independent newspapers termed this an outrage of the first order. [Hornblower’s Memorandum, Cleveland Papers, Harper's Weekly, Feb 10, 1894.]

Amherst Biographical Record, Centennial Edition (1821-1921)

• Published in 1927, the Amherst College Biographical Record, Centennial Edition, contains biographical sketches of all 9,110 graduates and non-graduates of Amherst College in the classes of 1822 to 1921, plus brief information about the classes of 1922 to 1925.

1499. *HYPERLINK "http://www.amherst.edu/~rjyanco/genealogy/acbiorecord/index/byname/m/maynard.html"Maynard, Isaac Horton.  S. of Isaac and Jane (Falconer), b. Bovina, N. Y., Ap. 9, 1838.  M. A., A. C., 1867.  Phi Beta Kappa; Delta Kappa Epsilon.

Prepared Stamford (N. Y.) Sem.  Studied law with William Murray, Delhi, N. Y.; admitted to bar, N., 1863; practised Delhi, N. Y., 1863-65; Stamford, N. Y., 1865-67; county judge and surrogate, 1877-84; 1st deputy Attorney-General, 1884-85; comptroller U. S. Treasury, 1885-87; asst. sec. of the treasury, 1887-89; appointed by Governor of N. Y. a commissioner to revise general laws of N. Y., 1889-90; 1st deputy Attorney-General, 1890-92; associate judge. Court of Appeals, 1892-93; in law firm of Maynard, Gilbert & Cone, Albany, N. Y., 1893-96.  Member N. Y. State Legislature, 1876-77.  D. Albany, N. Y., Je. 12, 1896.

Married Je. 28, 1871, Margaret M., da. of Charles Marvine, Delhi, N. Y.  Ch. 1 da.

From Woodland Cemetery, Delhi, New York:

• Foote, Katherine, Charles Augustus, Adelia, Capt. Rensselaer W.
• Ford, Frances Maynard, Louisa
• Harris, Lucy Ford
• Maynard, Isaac Horton, Margaret Marvine
• Marvin, Charles Augustus, Francis, Charles, George E., Charles Augustus, (Babies)
• Marvine, Francis, Charles, Charles E., George E.
• Maynard, Isaac Horton, Margaret Marvin

Issac Horton Maynard, 1838-1896, Roles, Associate Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals, 1892-1893

• Biography by Jason C. Rubinstein, ed. Hon. Albert M. Rosenblatt

Whatever his gifts as a judge, history remembers Isaac Horton Maynard more for the questionable conduct that allegedly won him appointment to the Court of Appeals than for his decisions or comportment on the bench. The degree of ignominy associated with Maynard’s name is as tragic as his downfall, especially given his ability and the abundant promise he exhibited early in his career. Although largely forgotten today, the scandal that dogged Maynard was well known and widely reported to his contemporaries, and it represents one of the more colorful incidents in the Court’s past.

Isaac Maynard was born in Bovina, in Delaware County, New York on April 9, 1838 to Isaac and Jane (Falconer) Maynard. His great-grandfather, Isaiah Maynard, emigrated to Westchester County from the north of England about 1750. His grandfather, Elisha B. Maynard, distinguished himself as a soldier during the Revolutionary War and afterwards settled in Bovina. His father, Isaac, was prominent in the town, serving as Magistrate for over two decades.

In September 1854, at the age of 16, Maynard entered the Stamford Seminary, where he prepared for college. In 1858, he matriculated at Amherst College, where he was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and Phi Beta Kappa. Maynard was graduated from Amherst with high honors and as valedictorian in 1862, taking prizes for Greek and extemporaneous speech.

In his valedictory address, entitled “The English Constitution,” Maynard traced the development of England’s legal tradition from the Thirteenth Century. He singled out for praise both Magna Carta’s role as the “corner-stone of English liberty” and, notwithstanding the at-times despotic character of his reign, Henry VIII’s apparent teaching that “might is as essential as right, and that power is one of the conditions of justice” (Amherst College, Alumni Biographical Files). Maynard then identified that “strong arm of royal authority” as “the sentinel of English liberty” (id.). Turning from this curious embrace of monarchical absolutism, Maynard praised the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as ushering in a new epoch of British political development, one characterized by freedom, stability, and the rule of law.

After leaving Amherst, Maynard studied law with William Murray and, in November 1863, he was admitted to the bar at Binghamton. From 1863-1865, he practiced law in Delhi. In 1865, Maynard settled in Stamford, in Delaware County, and formed a law partnership with his cousin, F.R. Gilbert. Shortly thereafter, Maynard was elected Supervisor of the Town. In this capacity, he was instrumental in securing the incorporation of the Village of Stamford by special act of the Legislature in 1870. Maynard then served as first president of the Village, winning unanimous reelection for ten years in succession. Continuing his career in local government, Maynard served as President of the Board of Supervisors of Delaware County in 1869 and 1870. He married Margaret Marvine on June 28, 1871.

In 1875, Maynard won election to the State Assembly, where he served from 1876 to 1877. In 1877, he was elected Judge and Surrogate of Delaware County, for an eight-year term. Maynard grew in prominence and in 1883 he was nominated to run on the Democratic ticket for Secretary of State of New York. Here, Maynard suffered his first political setback, losing to the Republican incumbent Joseph Carr by 18,583 votes. Contemporary observers attributed Maynard’s loss to his support for temperance measures while in the Assembly, a position that alienated much of the statewide Democratic base. Maynard’s was the deciding vote against one bill that would have abolished the requirement that bar owners maintain in their homes at least three beds to let.

In January 1884, Maynard was appointed First Deputy Attorney General of the State under Attorney General Denis O’Brien, who would serve on the Court of Appeals from 1890 to 1907. Maynard resigned after less than a year in that post to become Second Comptroller of the United States Treasury under President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, when Charles S. Fairchild replaced Daniel Manning as Secretary of the Treasury, Maynard was made Assistant Secretary. In this capacity, he oversaw the Customs Service, the Internal Revenue Service and numerous other agencies. He held that position until the end of Cleveland’s first term in 1889.

On May 22, 1889, Governor David B. Hill appointed Maynard to a committee charged with revising the general laws of the State. Maynard also returned to his former position as Deputy Attorney General of New York. His tenure in this second post indelibly colored the remainder of his public life.

In the Fall of 1891, control of the State Senate hinged on four seats, including the Fifteenth Senate District, in Dutchess County. The stakes were high. In 1892, the Legislature was scheduled to take up the issue of reapportionment. Both parties scrambled for any tactical advantage, and the Democrats identified what they claimed was a fatal irregularity: a number of Republican ballots from Dutchess County had ink marks on their edges. Democratic canvassers insisted that the marks rendered the ballots defective and rejected them accordingly. The Republicans challenged this determination. Nevertheless, the County Board of Canvassers generated a set of returns favoring Edward B. Osborne, the Democrat. Storm Emans who, as the Republican County Clerk, served as ex officio Secretary of the Board of Canvassers, refused to authenticate this set of returns. The Democrats appointed John J. Mylod as Secretary pro tem of the board, and he certified the returns favoring Osborne. Emans, meanwhile, certified his own set of returns, favoring Osborne’s Republican opponent, and forwarded them to Albany.

In the ensuing litigation, Maynard represented the Democrats. Reduced to its essentials, the election controversy concerned whether the “Mylod” (i.e., Democratic) or “Emans” (i.e., Republican) returns should be canvassed. The Court of Appeals proffered its resolution on December 29, 1891 in People ex rel Daley v. Rice (129 NY 449 [1891]). In Daley, the Court ruled in favor of the Republicans, holding that, while the Mylod returns were technically proper on their face, the Democrats neither denied nor contradicted Republican allegations that the Dutchess County Board of Elections had “illegally canvassed the result of the returns” (id. at 460). The Court concluded that, as the Mylod returns “contained the result of an illegal and erroneous canvass . . . which thereby would alter the results of an election, the court should not permit it to be canvassed” (id.).

The decision became immediate dead letter. On December 29, 1891, the same day the Court handed down Daley, the State Board of Canvassers met and, with Maynard in attendance, canvassed the Mylod return, giving the Democrats a pivotal Senate seat. The Emans return was, it seems, nowhere to be found. Maynard said nothing. Given that he was responsible for the physical removal of the Emans return from the State Comptroller’s office, perhaps it would have been awkward for him to speak up.

The New York Times explained how Maynard — as counsel for the Democrats — intercepted the Emans return:

Justice Barnard granted a peremptory mandamus ordering the county canvassers to count the rejected ballots and transmit the corrected returns to Albany. Meanwhile, Gov. Hill had removed from office the Republican County Clerk because he had refused to transmit the returns as the Democrats wanted them, and appointed a Democratic County Clerk, and the ‘Mylod’ returns were made up. Emans, the Republican County Clerk, who had been removed during the litigation, which was very complicated, mailed the corrected returns to Albany. He, however, had been enjoined by an order of the court from doing so, and he hurried to Albany and called on Maynard and requested that the returns be given back to him, but they had disappeared, and when the State Board of Canvassers met the ‘Mylod’ returns were canvassed, and [the Democratic candidate Edward B.] Osborne was declared elected, giving the State Senate to the Democrats. (Ex-Judge Maynard Dead, NY Times, June 13, 1896, at 1).

In a speech to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, James C. Carter gave a similar account of the allegations against Maynard:

There were certain election returns forwarded by the County Clerk . . . to three offices, one of them to the office of the Controller. These returns . . . were lawful returns. . . . While they were in the office of the Controller, it appears that Deputy Attorney General Isaac H. Maynard took those returns from that office without official authority. . . . It is also part of the fact, and it tends to give it a great importance, to furnish in the mind of every one a motive, that this removal of the returns enabled another return, which has been adjudged to be illegal, to be canvassed by the Board of State Canvassers, and led to the declaration that a candidate was elected in the place of another, who, it would appear, would otherwise have been elected (To Investigate Maynard, NY Times, March 9, 1892, at 1).

In January 1892, following the canvassing of the “Mylod” returns and the Democratic electoral victory, Maynard was appointed by Governor Roswell P. Flower, a Democrat, to fill a vacancy as Associate Judge on the New York Court of Appeals left by the elevation of Robert Earl to Chief Judge. His appointment aroused immediate indignation. The New York Times characterized it as a quid pro quo for Maynard’s purloining of the Emans returns: “Maynard was simply [Governor] Hill’s tool in these scandalous operations, and his promotion to the bench of the court of last resort as a reward for services to the Democratic Party must give a shock to every lawyer and citizen who believes in maintaining the purity of elections and integrity of the bench” (Maynard Gets His Pay, NY Times, January 20, 1892, at 1). In March 1892, the Legislature commenced an investigation and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York formed a nine-member committee, which included Elihu Root, William B. Hornblower, and Frederic B. Coudert, to conduct its own inquiry.

On March 16, 1892, Maynard responded to the controversy with a 19-page open letter addressed to Robert Earl, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.1 Maynard first stated that he had been retained by the State Board of Canvassers in a private, not official capacity. He then argued that the parties in the Dutchess County litigation had stipulated to submit their controversy — i.e., whether Mylod, as Secretary pro tem of the Dutchess County Board of Canvassers, had properly authenticated the pro-Democratic election returns — to the courts and, ultimately, the Court of Appeals for resolution. Maynard further argued that, by forwarding an amended set of returns to the Governor, Secretary of State, and Comptroller, Emans had violated this stipulation, along with two judicially imposed stays. Maynard also reported that, on the morning of December 22, 1891, Emans had called on him in Albany, explained that Republican officials had intimidated him into forwarding the new set of returns, and told Maynard that he wished to rectify his mistake. Acting, he claimed, at Emans’s behest, Maynard recovered the returns from the Comptroller’s office and restored them to Emans, who, meanwhile, had recovered the returns he had forwarded to the Governor and Secretary of State.

Maynard also defended himself against the charge that he should have alerted the State Board of Canvassers to the missing Emans returns, especially after the Court of Appeals handed down its decision in Daley:

I was present as a spectator . . . at the public meeting of the Board. . . . The inquiry was addressed to members of the Board, and not to me, and I had no right to say anything upon the subject. But counsel knew, if they knew anything about the history of the case, that the [Emans] return had been sent back eight days before, and was not then in the possession of any member of the Board.

Paying short shrift to the Board’s brazen dereliction of the Court’s holding in Daley, Maynard then suggested that the Republicans, if they felt aggrieved, should have sought a mandamus to “compel the State officers to receive the [Emans] returns; and the whole question determined, as to whether, under the facts as they then existed, it was their duty to receive and retain them.”

As anemic as this defense may appear, Maynard’s allies in the Legislature rode to his rescue on April 19, 1892. The Legislature issued two reports, one authored by the Democratic majority, the other by the Republican minority. The Democratic report, which the Legislature’s Democratic majority subsequently adopted, cleared Maynard and labeled the controversy a Republican conspiracy. Emans’s initial decision to forward the amended returns to the Secretary of State and Comptroller were, the Democrats found, illegal and in violation of two injunctive orders from Supreme Court. In intercepting the returns at the Comptroller’s office and returning them to Emans, Maynard, the majority report determined, was acting with the full authority of the Comptroller and in accordance with Supreme Court’s decrees.

By contrast, the Republican members of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary committees condemned both Maynard’s conduct during the canvassing as well as the investigation undertaken by their colleagues in the majority.2 They argued that, when Maynard took the returns from the Comptroller’s office, he deprived the State Board of Canvassers of the true election results and committed a crime in unlawfully removing public documents without authority.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York also returned its report, declaring Maynard unfit for the judiciary. Because Maynard was not on the Court when he committed his offense, the committee concluded, impeachment did not lie. Nevertheless, the report urged the Legislature to remove Maynard by joint resolution. The Albany Law Journal praised the report and its recommendations: “In our judgment, this document deserves, indeed, demands, prompt, serious and unpartisan attention of the Legislature. . . . The charges are so weighty and so closely concern the propriety of his conduct as a lawyer and his fitness to occupy a place on the bench as entirely to remove the discussion from the region of politics” (45 Alb LJ 287 [1892])3.

The Legislature disregarded the Association’s report. Notwithstanding the controversy dogging Maynard, in December 1892, Governor Flower reappointed him to another one-year term as Associate Judge. He did so over the protests of many in the press and at the bar. For this second term, Maynard filled the vacancy left by Charles Andrews, who was promoted to Chief Judge. Maynard remained on the bench through December 31, 1893.

The scandal surrounding his appointment aside, Maynard was an active and productive member of the Court of Appeals during his short time on the tribunal. The Albany Law Journal noted that Maynard’s “relations with the other members of the court have apparently been most cordial and friendly, and there has been nothing to indicate that the judges occupying the bench regard his conduct . . . as in any way derogatory to his character or affecting his standing as a member of the bench” (48 Alb LJ 341 [1893]). Maynard’s opinions were heavily civil in their complexion, with criminal appeals representing only a modest portion of his judicial work. Although none of his writings are of surpassing prominence, they nevertheless evidence a thoughtful character. By his opinion in Manhattan Life Insurance Co v. Forty second Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Co. (139 NY 146 [1893]), the Court held that a railroad company was not liable for a loan secured by its president by pledging as collateral corporate stock certificates when the president lacked the authority — actual or apparent — to issue certificates of stock (but cf Fifth Avenue Bank of New York v. Forty second Street and Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company, 137 NY 231 [1893] [holding, in an opinion by Judge Maynard, that a corporation was liable for a corporate officer’s forgery of a stock certificate to secure a loan when the issuance of stock certificates was within the scope of his authority and course of his employment]). In Parker v. Marco (136 NY 585, 589 [1893]), he affirmed the principle that an out-of-state witness called to New York to attend court “in an action to which he is a party or in which he is to be sworn as a witness” is exempt from service of process while in the State. In Condict v. Cowdrey (139 NY 273 [1893]), he determined that a real estate broker was not entitled to a commission when, through no fault of the broker, the buyer was unable to secure marketable title.

In 1893, Maynard ran for a full term on the Court of Appeals, on the Democratic ticket. Citing his conduct during the 1891 election, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York denounced his nomination, with only three members dissenting from the resolution. Likewise, the New York Tribune commented “[i]t is not easy to reconcile such a nomination as that of Maynard with the belief that the people are intelligent, honest, anxious to get justice done and fit for the responsibilities of self-government” (The Case of Judge Maynard, NY Tribune, October 8, 1893). When it flocked to the polls, the electorate manifested a similar sentiment: Maynard’s Republican opponent, Edward T. Bartlett beat him by over 100,000 votes statewide, a staggering margin at the time. The degree of popular indignation aroused by Maynard was so great that he dragged down the rest of the Democratic ticket, leaving the Republicans with control of both houses of the Legislature and the 1894 constitutional convention. Although it gave Democrats a temporary majority in the Legislature, the 1891 election scandal ultimately precipitated a backlash against bossism and Tammany. It also dealt a severe blow to the presidential aspirations of Maynard’s longtime patron David Hill, who purportedly contrived the Democrats’ theft of the contested Senate seats, and resulted in 16 years of Republican control over State government.

Having lost election to a full term, Maynard left the Court at the end of December 1893. Hill, now a member of the United States Senate, recommended him for appointment to the Supreme Court. President Cleveland ignored the suggestion. Maynard’s defeat in 1893 thus marked the end of his public life, and he returned to the private practice of law, as a senior member of the firm of Maynard, Gilbert & Cone. He died of a heart attack on June 13, 1896, in his room at the Kenmare Hotel in Albany, and is buried in Delhi.

Notwithstanding the brooding legal and ethical cloud that glowered over him, Maynard had defenders to the last. In their obituary, the editors of the Albany Law Journal described him as:

a man of rare legal ability in his chosen profession. As judge of the Court of Appeals, he was regarded as one of the strongest members of the court, and his opinions were marked by great legal learning, and by a clear and precise application of the facts involved. For the past few years, most his practice was before the Court of Appeals, where his masterly arguments were generally marked by success. Judge Maynard was particularly thorough in practice, and his briefs, as well as opinions, were marked by logical argument and precise learning. The bar of this city and State have lost a most learned member and faithful student (53 Alb LJ 385 [1896]).

It is regrettable that a man of such undeniable talent and acumen as Isaac Maynard would find his life and reputation so enmeshed in controversy.

• This biography appears in The Judges of the New York Court of Appeals: A Biographical History, ed. Hon. Albert M. Rosenblatt (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007). It has not been updated since publication.

• Published Writings. To date, we are not aware of any published writings by Judge Maynard.

Endnotes

Judge Maynard’s open letter is available at http://galenet.galegroup.com. This sentiment enjoyed a great degree of resonance. The Albany Law Journal declared that the Democrats’ “so-called” investigation a “one-sided inquiry” (45 Alb LJ 367 [1892]). The “partisan character of the proceedings was so evident and undisguised that the award will exercise no influence whatever with men who have any independence of party... The legislative committee not only refused to allow Judge Maynard’s accusers to produce any evidence, but undertook to conduct the investigation secretly at the last. Fair minded men will regret that an opportunity was not given to produce witnesses offered to contradict some assertions in Judge Maynard’s letter, and that the Judge himself did not improve the opportunity afforded him of putting himself under oath. . . and that an opportunity was not afforded his accusers of cross-examining him” (id.). The Albany Law Journal further condemned Maynard’s fitness for the bench: “Nor shall we shrink from expressing the opinion that the man who entertains such notions of professional honor and is held in such subservience by party ties, is not a fit person to sit in the highest court of this State, to be empowered possibly to dictate the result of future elections, and certainly to pass upon the conflicting private claims of suitors who may be members of the opposing political parties” (id.). See also 45 Alb LJ 248 (1892).

Progeny

Isaac and Margaret Marvine Maynard had one daughter, Frances Maynard. She married David Ford, with whom she had three children, including the grandmother of John Charles Harris of Dallas, Texas, President and Chief Executive Officer of Viseon, a communications company in Dallas. Judge Maynard’s other living descendants are David Ford, of Lincoln, Massachusetts, married to Mary Gillingham. They are the parents of David Fairbanks Ford and Warren Hopkins Ford.

This biography appears in The Judges of the New York Court of Appeals: A Biographical History, New York: Fordham University Press, 2007.

Report of the Bar Association of the City of New York... on the action of Judge Maynard, 1892

REPORT. To the Association of the Bar of the City of New York: The Committee appointed by your Resolution of the eighth day of March instant, which was as follows:

"Whereas, it appears from a late opinion pronounced by a judge of the Supreme Court, that grave offenses may have recently been committed, in the taking of an election return from the office of the Comptroller of this State; and that Mr. Isaac H. Maynard, then Deputy Attorney-General, and since elevated to the Bench of our highest Court, was so connected with the transaction as to impair his usefulness as a judge, and tend to discredit the administration of justice; now, therefore, it is

Resolved: that it be referred to a committee of nine members, to be appointed by the President of the Association, to enquire into the matters aforesaid, and Judge Maynard's connection therewith, and to report at an adjourned meeting of the Association, to be held on the evening of March 22d, at eight o'clock, the facts, with the opinion of said committee, as to what action, if any, should be taken by the Association in the premises,

Respectfully report: We have diligently inquired into all the facts and circumstances connected with the subject matter of said resolution, and have arrived at conclusions concerning action suitable to be taken by this Association. In the course of our inquiry we have examined, as we believe, every paper and document having any [6] material connection with the transactions, and have procured statements, either oral or written, from most of the counsel connected with the legal proceedings. Your committee deems it most suitable to begin their report with a brief statement of what seem to them to be the material and substantial facts.

It appears that statements in triplicate of the results of the election in Dutchess County had been deposited in the mails, addressed severally to the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Comptroller, and had been received by those officers as early as the thirtieth of November, 1891. A canvass by the Board of State Canvassers, embracing this statement, would have resulted in a declaration of the election to the office of Senator from the loth Senatorial District of Edward B. Osborne, the Democratic candidate. It was alleged in the Republican interest that in the preparation of this statement and on the counting of the votes for Senator cast in Dutchess County, certain votes had been erroneously thrown out by the Board of County Canvassers; and that by this means an apparent majority had been secured for Osborne; whereas, if such votes had been counted, the Republican candidate would have had a plurality in the senatorial district. It was further asserted on the Republican side that the statement above mentioned was irregular, and illegal, by reason of the fact that it had been certified by one Mylod, who had been appointed Secretary pro tempore by the Board of County Canvassers, instead of, as the law required, by the County Clerk. It was determined by voters belonging to the Republican side in the County of Dutchess to contest, by legal proceedings, what they regarded as an unlawful [7] attempt to count in Osborne as Senator in place of Deane.

Counsel were employed for this purpose; and the plan apparently adopted by them was two-fold: first, to institute proceedings against the Board of County Canvassers to compel that body to reconvene and prepare a corrected statement, which should include the votes thrown out as above-mentioned; second, to institute other proceedings, against the Board of State Canvassers, to compel them to disregard the Mylod statement, and to canvass in place thereof such corrected statement as might be procured through the instrumentality of the proceedings first above-mentioned. Both proceedings were, therefore, at once instituted. In the one directed against the Board of State Canvassers, Mr. Isaac H. Maynard, who was then Deputy-Attorney General, appeared and acted as the attorney and counsel for the Board; and it also appears that he acted as their general adviser until the final discharge by them of their functions, on the 29th of December, unless that relation ceased, as asserted by him, a few hours earlier, upon the rendition of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the several cases involving this and other disputed elections. The proceeding instituted against the Board of County Canvassers of Dutchess County to procure a correction of their statement of the votes was successful; and on the 5th of December an order was made by Mr. Justice Barnard, after hearing both parties, directing that the statement should be corrected by counting the votes thrown out as above-mentioned. This order was duly obeyed. The Board of County Canvassers reconvened, and on the 9th of December made and filed a corrected statement, showing, if counted with the returns from the two other counties of the district, the election of the Republican candidate. The statute under which this corrected statement of votes was made provided that [8]

"so far as the same shall vary from the original certificates and statements, the statements and certificates made under the order of the Court shall stand in lieu thereof, and shall in all places be treated with the same effect as if such corrected statement had been a part of the original required by law." (Laws of 1880, Chap. 460.)

Certified copies in triplicate of this corrected statement were deposited by the County Clerk in the mail, on the 21st of December, addressed to the proper State officers; and they would, presumably, have been before the Board of State Canvassers on the final canvass of the votes on the 29th of December, but for the following extraordinary action. Storm Emans, the then County Clerk of Dutchess County, who had been appointed to that office by the Governor, after the summary removal of his predecessor, hastened to Albany during the night of the 21st of December; and after consultation with Mr. Maynard, succeeded in procuring the triplicate statements from the offices at which they had been regularly delivered, and took them away with him to Poughkeepsie. The one addressed to the Comptroller was actually taken from the office of that officer, in his absence, by Mr. Maynard; and was by him delivered to the clerk, Storm Emans. It afterwards became known that this had been done; and, thereupon, the counsel who were acting in the Republican interest caused duly certified copies of the same statement to be served upon each member of the Board of State Canvassers.

On the 29th of December the decisions of the Court of Appeals in the several election cases argued before it were announced. So far as respects the Dutchess County case, the Court affirmed, with a certain modification, the order which was appealed from. That order was as follows: [9]

"At a Special Term of the Supreme Court, held at the City Hall in the City of Albany on the 7th day of December, 1891. Present—Hon. Samuel Edwards, Justice. In the Matter of the Application of William C. Daley and John I. Platt for a mandamus against the Board of State Canvassers of the State of New York, and Frank Rice as Secretary of State, Edward Wemple as Comptroller of the State, Elliot F. Danforth as State Treasurer, Charles F. Tabor as Attorney-General, and John Bogart as State Engineer and Surveyor, as members thereof, and each of them. This case coming on upon the order to show cause herein, granted at Special Term, dated the 30th day of November, 1891, and returnable at a Special Term held in the City of Hudson on the 5th day of December, 1891, and having been duly adjourned by the consent of all parties to this term, now, on reading the affidavits of Charles F. Cossum, William C. Daley, John I. Platt and Edgar L. Murlin, referred to in the said order to show cause, and the affidavits of Frank Rice and John J. Mylod, on the part of the State, the relators having offered an affidavit of J.F. Parkhurst, verified this day, which being objected to by counsel for said State Board, the Court decides it has no power to receive when so objected to. On motion of Cady and Hoysradt, attorneys for relators, after hearing Matthew Hale, W.A. Sutherland, J.F. Parkhurst and Eugene Burlingame, of counsel for relators, and I.H. Maynard and Delos McCurdy, of counsel for the said State Board of Canvassers in opposition thereto. It is ordered that a writ of peremptory mandamus issue out of and under the seal of this court, commanding and requiring the said State Board of Canvassers that they issue a certificate of election to the office of Senator in the XVth Senatorial District of this State, disregarding the so-called return of the Board of County Canvassers of the County of Dutchess, which is signed by John Mylod, as secretary of said Board pro tempore, and is not signed by the County Clerk of Dutchess County, or certified under the seal of said County Clerk, but that, instead thereof, they consider only such return from the County of Dutchess as [10] may hereafter be filed containing the signatures of the County Clerk of the County of Dutchess, and the chairman of said Board of County Canvassers and issued under the seal of said County Clerk, and that in their certificate of election the said State Board of Canvassers certify and declare that the person who appears upon the certified returns and statements made by the Boards of Canvassers of the Counties of Columbia, Putnam and Dutchess, in pursuance of the statute and the order of thu court, to have received the greatest number of votes, was duly elected Senator from the said XVth Senatorial District.

SAMUEL EDWARDS, Jus. Sup. Ct. "The modification was as follows: "It is ordered that the said order and the writ of mandamus to be issued in pursuance thereof, be and the same are hereby modified by striking out provisions therein requiring a return to be certified by and to come from the County Clerk of Dutchess County and issued under his seal, and as so modified, that the same be affirmed without costs." The opinion of the Court of Appeals in its concluding paragraph contains this language, which it is pertinent to have in view in considering the corrected statement: "The other ground for directing the state canvassers to omit to canvass this return remains to be considered." The papers in substance allege that the Board of County Canvassers illegally canvassed the result of the returns from the Inspectors of Election in the whole county and made up its own canvass in opposition to such returns, and as a result gave ninety-two more plurality to Osborne than by the returns of the Inspectors he was entitled to, and resulting in an apparent plurality of fourteen votes in the senatorial district in favor of Mr. Osborne. These allegations are nowhere denied in the papers used in opposition to the application for a mandamus. Mr. Mylod simply gives a history of the events as to the refusal of the secretary to sign and what then took place. The statement of the canvass as actually made is attached to the papers in opposition, but there is no explanation or contradiction as to the manner of arriving at the actual result as alleged in the moving papers. The whole case stands on [11] that return as a legal and valid one. Treating the pa- per on file in the office of the Secretary of State in the same way as if it were certified by the County Clerk and sent from his office and duly received and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, the question presents itself as to the proper course in such a case. "We would then have a return which was on its face proper and valid, but in regard to which allegations were made that it was the result of an illegal action on the part of the county canvassing board by which that board departed from its appropriate sphere as a ministerial body and in excess of its jurisdiction proceeded to make an invalid canvass, and the return on file embodied the result of such illegal canvass. Upon these facts standing uncontradicted, we think the court below in its proper branch would have the power to command the State Canvassers to canvass without regard to such a return. "As it contained the result of an illegal and erroneous canvass by the board of county canvassers in excess of its jurisdiction, and which thereby would alter the result of an election, the court should not permit it to be canvassed. As to the allegations of the manner of the making of the return by the County Board, the State Board could not itself inquire into them. "If another return should be duly sent to the Board properly authenticated and containing the result of the legal action of the board of County Canvassers, the State Board could canvass it. "We think as a result that the order for the writ and the writ itself should be modified by striking out the provisions requiring a return to be certified by, and to come from the County Clerk of Dutchess County and issued under his seal, and as so modified the order is affirmed. "All concur." The Board of State Canvassers thereupon proceeded with the final performance of their functions, which they had, for the purpose of receiving light and guidance from the opinion of the Court of Appeals, up to that time suspended. Their plain duty seems to have been to canvass the corrected statement from Dutchess County. It is true that, by reason of Mr. Maynard's action, and in consequence of his advice, they had not before them the actual triplicates which had been mailed and afterwards taken away by the County Clerk; but they had authenticated copies; and the decision of the Court of Appeals just made apprised them that these could be properly used instead of the others. Nevertheless they proceeded to canvass the Mylod statement, which had been judicially pronounced by the Supreme Court to be erroneous, and awarded the certificate of election to Osborne. This action determined the political character of the Senate, except in so far as that body, by its own action, might otherwise affect it. These extraordinary proceedings have a momentous political interest to the people of the whole State, and may well arrest their attention, and call for their action. The members of this Association, as citizens, will take such views of these proceedings as their convictions may approve. But with the political results we have no concern, except such as we have in common with our fellow citizens. This Association has, however, by the resolution under which this committee derives its authority, taken the view that there is one feature of these transactions in which it has an especial interest. It has taken notice of the fact that Mr. Maynard, who took an important part in them, has since been elevated to the bench of our highest judicial tribunal; and that by reason of this participation his fitness for that office, so important to the whole community, and especially important to us, has been seriously drawn in question. This resolution requires us to consider and report upon the character of his action ; and this duty we now proceed to discharge. "We have set forth the main and substantial facts which appear to determine the character of the trans 23

connection was terminated. This omission is not without significance. Under the existing circumstances, in our opinion, he cannot thus divest himself of responsibility. He saw the Board of State Canvassers violating the law, issuing a false certificate upon a false return, and making his act in removing the true return the pretext for their action. He cannot evade just responsibilities by asserting that his relations to the case had ceased. It seems to us quite clear that the removal, and the suppression, of the corrected returns could have had no other purpose than the one actually accomplished. The original order of Judge Edwards in express terms directed the counting of "such return as may hereafter be filed." The parties and counsel on both sides were well aware that a corrected return had been already ordered, and would soon be in the hands of the State Canvassers, unless its transmission could be prevented, by means lawful, or unlawful. The only way in which Osborne could be counter] in was by suppressing the corrected return and counting the illegal one. As matter of fact, the illegal return was counted. As matter of fact, the corrected return was suppressed. The action of Judge Maynard, and of Emans, who acted under his advice, it seems very clear to us, could have possibly had no other end in view, except the one that was actually accomplished. Judge Maynard's letter furnishes evidence against himself stronger than any that we previously had in our possession. On his own statement, on December 29th, when the Mylod return was counted in the face of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, upon the pretext that the corrected return was not before the State I>oard, he was present and remained silent, although he was well aware of the fact that the decision of the Court of Appeals required the counting of the corrected return in the removal of which he was the chief party concerned. [24] If we have correctly stated the facts, the offence committed by Judge Maynard is one of the gravest known to the law. Our Penal Code seems explicit. Section 94 is as follows: "A person who willfully and unlawfully removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals or obliterates a record, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited in a public office or with any public officer by authority of law, is punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both."

The Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, in the case of Commonwealth v. McHale, which was on an indictment for procuring a false count and return at an election, used this language: "We are of opinion that all such crimes as especially affect public society are indictable at common law. The test is not whether precedents can be found in the books, but whether they injuriously affect the public police and economy. It needs no argument to show that the acts charged in these indictments are of this character. They are not only offences which affect public society, but they affect it in the gravest minner. An offence against the freedom and purity of elections is a crime against the nation. It strikes at the foundations of republican institutions. Its tendency is to prevent the expression of the will of the people in the choice of rul< rs, and to weaken the public confidence in elections. When this confidence is once destroyed the end of popular government is not distant." (97 Penn. State R., 410.) In considering what action, if any, it is appropriate that this association should take in respect to these grave occurrences, it is necessary to consider whether, even if Judge Maynard had, as counsel, performed an act in violation of the law, it may yet not have been done under the influence of honest mistake, or of unreflecting partisan zeal, in a heated controversy, where important political consequences depended upon the final result which should be declared in relation to the election of a single candidate. The members of this association would hardly feel justified in recommending action in relation to any judicial officer for any of those [25] errors of opinion or action which all of us are liable to commit. If the laws have been violated, an innocent mistake may not excuse the violation; but the prosecution and the punishment may, in such cases, better be left to the officers regularly appointed to enforce the laws. This association has no authority greater than that possessed by any organization of citizens, having for its object public purposes. But there are, notwithstanding, occasions when it is proper for the citizens of the State, either in their individual or in some collective capacity, to take notice of what they conceive to be great public wrongs, and invoke, so far as they may, official action in relation thereto. It is material here to observe that the provisions of our election laws contemplate that the popular will, as manifested by ballots, should be collected, ascertained, and declared in the manner precisely pointed out by law. The Board of State Canvassers has in this respect the most important duties to discharge. They are administrative officers, representing the people of the whole State without distinction of party, and in the discharge of their official duties are bound absolutely to ignore all personal or partisan motives. Unless the duties imposed upon officers charged with the ascertainment and determination of the results of popular elections are faithfully discharged, it is impossible for democratic government to be long main- tained; and they can be discharged in no other way than by paying a perfect obedience to the precise requirements of statutory law. The certified statements of the Boards of County Canvassers transmitted by County Clerks to the State officers at Albany are documents of vital importance. They are under the protection of the law, and cannot be dealt with in any manner except in strict accordance with law. When the corrected statements, made in pursuance of the peremptory mandamus of the Supreme Court and certified by the County Clerk of Dutchess County had reached, through the regular course of 2d the mails, the offices of the Governor, Secretary of State, and Comptroller, they should have been dealt with pursuant to the provisions of law. It was not for the officers by whom those triplicate statements were received to inquire whether the County Clerk was under some stay forbidding him to transmit them, nor was it within their province to inquire whether any individuals in the State, public or private, had agreed that they should not be transmitted, or if transmitted, should be sent back. In view of the explicit provisions of the criminal law having direct reference to public documents, and in view of the great importance of such documents in our political scheme, we can not reasonably suppose that any lawyer could hastily or unreflectingly accede to any proposal to lay a violent hand upon such a paper and dispose of it in some manner other than that required by law. If it were possible to consider Judge Maynard's action as having been taken in ignorance of the facts, or in the heat of a violent political contest, or without opportu- nity for due deliberation, or in ignorance of the law, this case would present different features. But there is no such possibility. Judge Maynard has himself cut us off from that. He has made public proclamation of the fact that his decision to remove those returns was made with full knowledge of the entire situation; that he took time for full deliberation; and that, after ma- ture final consideration, he now accepts the full respon- sibility for his action. Opportunity for deliberation is evidenced by the en- tire history of these legal proceedings; for it is clearly established, that from the 7th day of December, the date of the corrected returns, down to December 29th, the date of the State canvass, the counsel for the Deane par- ty were most persistently endeavoring to have those re- turns forwarded in order that they might be counted by the State canvassers; while, on the other hand, Judge Maynard, and the gentlemen with whom he was acting

27 I in concert, were persistently endeavoring to prevent the returns from reaching the State Board. The machinery of the law was continuously used to prevent the counting of that corrected return. That machinery proving insufficient to accomplish the purpose in view, Judge Maynard, while holding the office of Deputy Attorney-General of this State, himself deliberately took part in the removal of those returns. If Judge Maynard were now a private citizen, your committee would scarcely deem it expedient that this association should take any action in respect to his conduct. He is not a member of this body, nor was his action taken in the judicial district to which the objects and interests of this association are mainly con- fined. But it so happens that his conduct was almost immediately followed by his elevation to a high judicial office, and in the opinion* of your committee his action in the particulars under notice has disclosed -a clear unfitness for high judicial station. They are also of opinion that it has already impaired, and must continue to impair, the confidence of the public in him as a judge. Your committee does not suppose that the conduct of Judge Maynard furnishes any sufficient ground for his impeachment, as it is not misconduct in his office as a judge; but impeachment is not the only remedy which it is within the power of the Legislature to apply. It is clothed under the Constitution with the power of removal by concurrent resolution. This power is not subject to the limitations which attend the exercise of the power of impeachment. Your committee therefore reports and recommends, the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, that a copy of this report be transmitted to the Senate and Assembly, and that those bodies be respectfully requested to consider whether the conduct [28] of Judge Isaac H. Maynard therein mentioned does not demand an exercise of the power to remove judges vested by the Constitution in the Legislature. March 22, 1892.
Respectfully submitted:

• Frederick R. Coudert.
• JAMES C. Carter.
• JOHN E. PARSONS.
• CLIFFORD A, HAND.
• EDMUND RANDOLPH ROBINSON.
• JOHN L. Cadwalader.
• William B. Hornblower.
• Elihu Root.
• Albert Stickney.

*Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Report of the committee appointed under the resolution of March 8th, 1892, on the action of Isaac H. Maynard, New York, 1892?

Sources:

• Alba. Times;__: Albany Times Union, Scrapbook of Clippings;loose, 4 Feb., 1892 features article on Isaac Horton Maynard’s ancestry. Clipping has n.p.
• Abstracts of the Bar Association of New York, 1892, nypl, xmg pv 7
• Bovi. Cem;__: Thomas Gordon, Bovina Cemeteries, nygbs, 1915; page number, Bovina Cemetery is South East of Bovina Center, N. Y., one half mile from the village.
• ___, Cleveland’s Moral, Buffalo, 1894; page number

• Amherst College, Alumni Biographical Files, Maynard, Isaac, H.
• Bergan, The History of the New York Court of Appeals, 1847-1932, at 140-144 (1985).

• Current Topics, 45 Alb LJ at 248, 287, 308, 367-368 (1892).
• —-, 48 Alb LJ 341 (1893).
• —-, 53 Alb LJ 385 (1896).

• Dela. Coun;__: David Murray, LL. D., Delaware County, New York, Centennial History, Delhi, 1898, page number: Gilbert Benjamin, 56, 63
• Democrats Will Cut Cook, NY Times, October 30, 1885, at 5.

• Dragged Down by Maynard, NY Times, November 8, 1893, at 1.
• Ex-Judge Maynard Dead, NY Times, July 13, 1896, at 1.

• Frank, Supreme Court Appointments: II, 1941 Wis L Rev 343, 371.

• "Governor Flower’s Curious Action," NY Times, December 23, 1892, at 1.

• Hist Dela;__: W..H. Munsell & Co. [publishers], History of Delaware County, N.Y., With Illustrations, Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Some Pioneers and Prominent Residents /1797–1880/, N.Y.C., 1880.

• Judge ^Isaac H^ Maynard, The Facts Relative to the Contested Election Cases Report Adopted by the Legislature, A Manly Letter, Albany?, 1892?, nypl seh pv 9; some pamphlets in this bound coll. marked “J Hill,” apparently ___ Sterne coll.

• Isaac Horton Maynard, The Leading Citizens of Delaware County, www.dcynhistory.org/books/brevie12.html, last accessed July 7, 2005.

• Judge Maynard’s letter in regard to the contested senatorial election cases: to Hon. Robert Earl . . . and Hon. David L. Follett of March 16, 1892, www.galenet.galegroup.com, last accessed August 1, 2005.

• Judge Maynard’s Record, NY Times, August 28, 1891.
• Kurland, The Appointment and Disappointment of Supreme Court Justices, 1972 Law & Soc. Order 183, 210 (1972).
• Lauren’s Maynard, Genealogical Records Of The Maynard Family, NY, 1912 [nypl, Genealogy And Local History, does not refer to descendants of Isaiah].
• Marvin pp: Family records of Charles Marvine family. Francis and Charles Marvine, Margaret Marvine Maynard, Frances Maynard Ford, Maynard and Jane Ford, David Ford II.
• Marvin Bible: Bible belonging to Charles Marvine and family, dated in pen on end-papers, “Delhi, Jany 24 1853.”
• MacAdam, History of the bench and bar of New York, at 202 (1897).

• Maynard Gets His Pay, NY Times, January 20, 1892, at 1.

• Maynard Scrapbook, "Clip;__:" Scrapbook of Clippings, kept, prob., by Isaac Horton Maynard (dates added in his hand) dealing with his elections, appointments, New York Politics and some social events, abt. 1875 to 1892. Several clippings, dated, prob., 1892 have been removed from this volume. Family collection —dff

• Maynard Family Record, ___, page number of scrapbook.

• J.R. Courdert, "On the Maynard Issue, NY, 1893; page number

• "Now Let Maynard Squirm," NY Times, March 25, 1892, at 1.

• Not Through with Maynard Yet, NY Times, December 14, 1892, at 5.

• O’Brien, The Nine Rejected Men, 19 Baylor L. Rev. 14, 15 (1967).

• Rogers, A Desperate Chance, Harper’s Weekly, October 1813, 1894. at 1.

• "Storm Emans’s Backers," NY Times, February 2, 1892, at 1.

• The Case of Judge Maynard, NY Tribune, October 8, 1893.

• The Expected Whitewash, NY Times, April 19, 1892, at 1.

• To Investigate Maynard, NY Times, March 9, 1892, at 1.
• To Move Against Maynard, NY Times, February 22, 1892, at 3.

• "Verdict on Maynard Stands," NY Times, October 11, 1892, at 1.

• Rye Insc;14: Francis Spies, Rye, Westchester County, New York, Inscriptions from Graveyards, Mount Vernon, N.Y., 1932, nygbs; page number.

• South Kort. Cem;__: South Kortright Cemeteries, South Kortright, N.Y., ms. nygbs.