Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1859-02-10
CAMBRIA Co. Contested Election Case.

ary ,, Mr. KINNEY from the select cohhit''' "Pl'"
in the case of the election from Cambria county
wherein Richard j. Proudfoot contestant anu Thomas
H. Porter respondent, submitted the following report,
viz
The committee appointed in the case of the
contested election for the county of Cambria,
wherein Richard j. Proudfoot is contestant
and Thomas III. Porter respondent, respect
fully report
That. in accordance with the law IN such
cases made and provided, they proceeded to
hear the said parties by themselves and Their
counsel, their proofs and allegations, and to
examine the election returI.S and other papers
connected with and appertaining to said con
tested election
By the returns made of the election held in
the said county of Cambria on the 18th day of
October, 1858, it appeared that for the otti'c
of Representative for said county, Thomas III
= ter had 2O9l votes, and Richard J. Proud
foot had l719 votes.
1t is alleged, however, hy the contestant,
that the election held in the township Of Wash
ington in said county, for said office. was un-
due, illegal and void, because of the irregular
tiles and disregard of the requirements OF law
in the formation of the election Board IN SAID
township, and of the gross frauds perpetrated
by said election Board in conducting said
election.
The evidence taken in the said contested
election case, and accompanying documents aud
papers, are herewith presented MS part Of this
report aud from such evidence your commit
tee have the following facts, viz:
Albert 7. CantweI who acted as Judge at
said election, was at the time Post Master in
nd tbarnhv ilX
law to act in that capacity.
Charles GeiSman, who acted as one of the
clerks, was at that time Deputy Post Master
under the said Albert T. CnntweI, and was
thereby under the same disqualification.
Werner Bender, who acted as one of the in
spectorS, was appointed to that position by the
said Albert L Cantwcll, and by virtue of that
appointment alone exercised the functions Of
said office
In making such appointment the % section
of the General Election Law was entirely dis
regarded BY the returns of the township
election in said township. held on the 9th OF
February, 1853 Michael Mover was chosen
one of the inspectors L ,on his failure to at
tend at the general election, the act referred
to makes the person receiving the second high
est number of votes for Judge the Inspector,
which the said return shows was Joseph CriSt
Upon his neglect to attend, then said act re-
quires the legal voters present to elect M in
spector None of these requirements we're com
piled with
John Short, who acted as the other clerk
was appointed to that Office by the said Wcr
ner Bender. and exercised its functions by vir-
tue of that appointment alone.
The board so constituted was sworn, ifsworn
at all, (Which fact is regarded by the comm t.
tee as every questionable indeed, for it appears
by the testimony Of several reliable witnesses
that not even the form of an oath was admin
istered, by one f. NJ George who was not Il
Justice of the Peace, and who had no anthor
" TO administer an oath His commission for
that Office expired more than year previous
to that time, and the fact that he had imposed
himself upon his neighhors, and held out to the
public that he was snch an officer, by assuming
and exercising its important and sacred func
tions, and jeopardizing thereby the peace OF
the community and the rights of property
does not in opinion Of the committee to any
extent whatever legalize the swearing Of said
board And the other fact, that he had a
year and a half before been reelected but did
not take his commission, caunot redeem his
illegal acts.
1t further appears from the evidence, that
the said Werner Bender was so deficient in
knowledge of the English language and of the
election laws, that he was not qualified to dis,
charge the duties of his Office His own trSt-
mony shows that when portion of the election
law was read to him by the Judge, nine words
out of ten he did not under3tand. He could
not comprehend questions asked him by the
committee, and could be examined only bv
means of an Interpreter. He could study ont
short words but could not read Your com
mittee therefore believe that an Office which
seems to require an understanding of the Flee
tion Law, the examination of naturalization
papers aud the reafing and counting of votes,
could not be poperly filed by person so de-
fcient in these requirements, and an election
board so formed, is but little better than a
board with but one Inspector.
The committee do not say that this fact
would invalidate the election at that poll but
it would tend to render the result of such cleo
tion doubtful and uncertain.
1t further appears that of the 437 persons
represented as voting at that poll that day ny
the tally list returned BY said board hut I'll
are found on !he assessment Of said township
iOI NIldi ycdI. lUdl tue l III were
legal voters it leaves 266 names on said tally
list without any persons in said township to re-
present them. 1t also appears that from $50
to 200 persons only were at the election that
day, and some of the evidence fixes their num-
Der at below lG0. These facts lead your com
mittee to The conclusion that such excess of
votes was most fraudulenly stuffed into the
ballot box by said election board, and names
represent them were in the same false and
fraudulent manner entered upon the tally lists
by the clerks
1t is claimed by the respondent Mr.. Porter,
that l56 legally qualified electors voted for
him at that poll on that day, and which, if al