Weekly Minnesotian and times., 1859-12-31

town of BurnSville.
The sitting members, holding the certificates
of election from the proper canvassing board,
are, of course, prima .tacie entitled to their
seats. The burden of proof in commencing
the investigation, of course, rests upon the
contestants-to defeat the right to seats on
the part of the sitting members, and to es-
tablsh their own.
They show by the Auditor of Dakota
County, one of the Canvassing Board, that no
evidence of any election at Burnsvie was be-
fore that Board, except the papers, copies of
which marked respectively schedules Cd"
and E." are appended to the report of the
majority of this committee.
These are claimed to be a return and poll
list from said town of Burnsville. Each pur-
ports to be signed by NJ Mcdonald, Charles
O'Ncal, and Timothy Mcnamara as Judges,
and by Patrick Lynch and Jas. Connolly, as
Clerks. ! lay no stress on the utter disregard
in both papers Of every technicalty required
by law; that they came into the Auditor
hand unsealed that neither Judges or Clerks,
nor either of them appear, nor are claimed to
have been sworn; that the return has in it
no such word as votes, ,'-saying only that
that "at an election held at the house OF
james Carney, in the town of Burnsvie, and
county of Dakota, on the 18th day of Oct
1859, the following named candidates received
the number of set opposite their names )" that
the numbers are expressed by figures, in
stead of being written out in words as re-
quired by law that the alledged return is not
certified by those signing as Judges, nor at
tested by those signing as clerks. Except as
by these matters may unite with others in
evidence to evince deliberate fraud in the
matter, the statute clearly compels us to dis
regard any lack of merely technical correct
ness in the papers.
But the papers themselves, especially when
taken in connection with other evidence in the
case, bear such unmistakable evidence OF
fraud, that cannot see how they can be re-
garded as any proof whatever, of the votes
cast at the Burnsville election.
The names of NJ. Mcdonald and Charles
O'Neal, signed as judges, and that of James
COnnoly, signed as one of the clerks, are evi
IDENTIFY to the most casual observer, written
by the same person; and the contestants ad-
NIT on the hearing before the committee that
they were all written by James Con
molly. All three of these persons testi-
fed on behalf Of the contestants upon
other matters arising in the case, but neither
of them explained this matter, as they might
easily have done, were it an honest, bona fde
transaction. On the contrary, it appears by
their testimony, that O'Neal went home from
the polling place before the return was made
up; that during the making of the return, a
drunken brawl took place outside the house
that the rioters broke into the room where the
judges and clerks were canvassing the votes
and making the returns (eXcluding all other
persons, contrary to the statute) that the
judges were attacked by the rioters; that one
Judge and one clerk seized the ballots (the
ballot box being smashed in the row. and
also the partly finished returns, and decamp-
ed to the house of said judge, where the clerk
James Connolly, finished the returns on the
following day instead of OH the day of elec-
ton, as required by law.
Phe return then comes to as ostensi6ly signed
Jy three Judges, but soith teco Of those sigma
tures admitted substantially to be toryeries.
Waving for the present, the question,
whether certifying officer could authorize
any other person to sign his name as such
certifying officer, we come to the question
whether any such paper, so tainted with fraud,
can properly be taken as evidence by the COM
mittee or the House.
In a court of law, it will not be questioned,
an instrument so tainted with fraud on its
face would be deemed nullity. Does not
the equitable rule which prevails in such in
vestigations as this, require similar view to
be taken of it?
Especially when we add to this the evidence
in this case of grossly fraudulent proceedings
throughout the pretended election at Burns
vile. The judges and clerks not sworn the
only Republican on the ground driven off by
threats, lest he should be witness of their
doings; the distribution gratis of whiskey
the one vote sworn by Ii. G.. Hauk to
have been cast by him for John G. Couper
mysteriously disappearing in the count, and
turning up in the returns as cast for Stephen
Newell the migration of voters from Scott to
Dakota, and from Dakota to Scott during the
day the invitation to buy Fish from the
strong minded widow, to cast vote, and her
going to the window, ballot in hand; the ex-
clusion from the room during the canvass of
all but the judges and clerks, Gin utter viola
ton of law the final row and riot in the course
of which the ballot box is smashed, one of the
judges seized by the hair of his head until re-
leaved by one of the clerks; the seizing of the
ballots and papers by clerk and judge and
their haSty retreat to another house the de-
ferring of making the return to the next day;
when, say, We add all this to the inherent
evidence of fraud presented by the pretended
poll list and returns, the conclusion is irres-
stible in my mind that said papers constitute
no returns, no evidence of any election at
Burnsville, of any votes there cast and must
be entirely rejected.
But waving for the purpose of the argu-
ment, the question Of fraud in the returns,
how then stands it. We have in that case
document signed by only one of board of
three. The statute specially requires the act
of at least a majority of any number of per-
sons to whom joint authority is given, in
order to exercise that authority. Here We
have the certificate of only Timothy McNa-
mara, out Of the three professed judges ofelec-
ton at Burnsvile, the names of the other
two, being admitted not to have been signed
by them.
l have therefore been driven to the conclu-
sion by the evidence in the case, that said
pretended returns should be disreg egarded, and
set aside.
The evidence in the case having thus left
the sitting members without proof of the
votes that may have been cast for them at
Burnsville, the burden of proof of course de-
volved upon them to supply that lack by
other evidence Of that election and the votes
cast thereat. This they have not done. We
are left without any proof of such election,
and of the votes cast for the sitting members
thereat. Deducting the alleged vote of said
town, from the official canvass, we find the
contestants elected over the sitting members,
Waldier, Newell and Barton.
Taking this view of the case, do not deem
it necessary to discuss the fraudulent voting
at Burnsvile on the day of the election in
question, in the matter of which do not dis
agree from the views of the majority of the
committee.
l therefore beg leave to report the follow
ng resolution, with the recommendation that
t be adopted by your honorable body: