The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-01-06

not conclusive, evidence of right. Mr.. Sc,
coMBE travelled out of the way to show that
the poll list ought to be considered forg.
cry, because the Clerk of the Election had
been enabled to keep fair and legible poll
list. He contended that the poll list pro-
duced was not the original, but was written
the day after election. He the, made q
bitter attack upon the voters of huntsville
precinct, stigmatizing them as drunken
Irishmen, and in his opinion capable only Of
committing frauds at elections. He seemed
to think that duty to the Republican party
required that the voters of this precinct
should be disfranchised, and appealed to the
party to GUST all three of the members whose
seats were contested, on party grounds.
His effort was, mainly, to convince the
House that because Burnsville precinct was
supposed to contain Irish votes there must
necessarily be illegal voting, and that the
contestants should obtain their seats, even
though there was not particle of evidence
to sustain their claim. His view was enun.
ciated in the opinion that in this case the
presumption of fraud must be rebutted by the
sitting members; that is, that the contest
ants should charge fraud, but the sitting
members must disprove it.
Mr.. ROBERTSON said that when he
saw the majority report had been signed by
two Democrats, he supposed Mr.. Barton
was not entitled to his seat, but since he had
heard the special pleading of Mr.. Secombe
he was convinced that Mr.. Barton was
entitled to his seat. He denied that the
onus of proving there were no illegal votes
was upon the sitting members as contended
for by Mr.. Secombe. The proof must be
Brought forward by the contestants, and as
the proof of illegal voting was not made out
Mr.. Barton was entitled to his seat.
There was no proof that the thirteen
voters presumed to reside in Scott county,
did not reside in Dakota county previous to
the election. AS to the question raised that
the names of some of the officers of the cleo.
ton was signed by one man, he contended
that they had right to authorize any man
to sign their names, and doing so would not
invaldate the returns. He must vote for
the setting members and against the two
reports.
Mr.. GREEN, of Steele, thought the
proposition could not be controverted, that
men must be supposed to be innocent until
proved guilty. He referred to the row at
the place of voting. He denied that the
evidence before the House was such as to
show that there had been informality in
making the returns. He reviewed Mr..
Secombe's argument about the supposed
forgery of the poll list, and thought Mr.. SIS
exposition of the elective franchise did not
apply to the present case. He proceeded to
examine the evidence adduced of illegal
votes cast. The Committee relied upon Mr..
Fish to sustain their report of thirteen elle-
gal votes. He had compared the names
recognized by Mr.. Fish as residing in
Scott county, and voting in huntsville pre-
cinct. The names of Barney Carr, Peter
Kearney, Pat. Mccain, Mat. Roman, James
Kearney, John Kearney, Dennis Mccain,
Pat. Mclaughlin, Edward Kearny, John
Reagan, and Andrew Rasbery, were said to
belong to Scott County, yet their names do
not appear upon the poll list at huntsville
at all. The name of James Kearney would
be recognized as the place of holding the
election and yet Mr.. Fish said he lived in
Scott county. Again, Martin Quinn, it
was proved, was road Supervisor in Dakota
county, and had collected taxes from these
same men, as residents of the huntsville
precinct; and yet Mr.. Fisk says he is res
ident of Scott county. The alleged illegal
voters had also voted at previous elections
in that precinct, and their residence was
never questioned. Bryan Devlin, another
of the list, is proved to have lived in Dakota
County a month previous to the election.
About Mr.. Fish's testimony, he says he was
not in the State from the Goth of September
to the 18th of October. The men whom it
was charged were illegal voters, were mostly
young men, and MIR. O'Neill, in his testi.
mony, proved that these men had been in
Dakota county making hay previous to the
election, and there was one other witness to
the same facts. Mr.. Fish might have said
truly that these men resided in Scott county,
before he left the State, and yet they might
have gone to Dakota county after Mr.. Fish
left the State and have obtained their resi-
dence in that county. In his view there
was no testimony to show that there were
any illegal votes cast in Burnsvlle precinct,
and he must vote against both reports. The
statement that the same names appeared
upon the poll lists of huntsville and Glen
dale, it must be proved, to throw their votes
out of the huntsville return, that they did
not reside in that district. This has not
been done, and if the rule of presumption
that man is innocent until proved guilty
shall hold, there is not particle of evidence
here to GUST the sitting members. He gave
Mr.. Secombe scathing rebuke for his
partisan speech.
At this point the House took a recess
until halfDast two o'clock, at which time
the House again assembled.
Mr.. CLEVELAND spoke in defence of
the Minority Report; and urged its adop-
ton for similar reasons as adduced by Mr..
Secombe, and was as violently partisan in
his deductions from the evidence, and con-
tendedotha the onus of proving no fraud
was thrown upon the sitting members.
Mr.. MORRISON spoke on the question
of substituting the minority report for the
majority report. He thought the members
did not fully understand the facts of this
case. He had an understanding of the
question, which in his own mind, was such
as led him to view the adoption of the mi
nority report as great wrong upon the
sitting members. The returns were said to
be such as indicate fraud. He did not con.
cidpr thor, on a.