The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-16

the vote, the letter "Vn shall be marked oppo-
e MS name On the IS %a
voter was sworn or affirmed, or
produced certificate OF naturalization, or
other evidence OF naturaltzatloni and also to
mark 'taX" or "agen on the list. But what COM
parison do these requirements of the law bear to
the refusal to take proof of evidence or proof of
the fact as to whether a voter removed within
the district for the mere purpose OF voting
therein, or to a charge of an entire disregard OF
challenge on the part of an elector, or the recep
ton OF votes of individuals who falsely perso
mated persons who were dead, and whose names
were on the lists of voters, or refusal 10 require
proof oil naturalization, or permitting the same
person to vote several tunes at the same election,
and other charges like in character TO these?
10 contrast these several acts Is OF itself to point
out the real difference which exists between
them.
In Mann's case, specifications containing
charge Of this nature were stricken from the
petlt on, but in the final opinion OF the Court
Judge Thompson says:-"A portion OF the or
einai petition which was designed TO embrace
the fraudulent coufduct OF election oil
GERS, was, as we now thinK, improvidenty
striCke out. That such conduct Is and ought to
be a subject of consideration, as connected with
tue investigation OF election frauds; and the
allegation OF such frauds, insuliciently eX-
pressed in the petition, should ia,her have been
Hmeuded than erased Aud again it Is said
Had we not erased from the petition tue sDeC-
fcGtons alleging gross fraud and Irregularities
on the part OF the election officers in the oivi-
sions referred to, a different course would Ger.
tainly have been adopted
The entire proceedings are so tarnished by the
fraudulent conduct OF the officers charged with
the performance OF the most solemn and respon-
slble duties, that we would not only have felt
abundantly Justified, out it would have been our
plain duty TO throw out the return OF every divi-
son to which we have referred" Having sat
with Judge Thompson all through the protracted
hearing OF that case, and joined him in making
up the judgment OF the Court rs pronounced by
him, then entirely agreed with the views as
expressed IN the foregoing quotations. and have
never seen any reason to call in question their
general correctness. In Ewing's case they were
subsequently recognized and acted on as the law
o. the Court, receiving the fullest examination
and consideration, by Judges Thompson and
Ludlow, by whom that case was heard and
decided.
1heI correctness 'of the principle as thus set
tled has not been in any degree shaken by that
which LAS been urged in support of the motion
10 Quash the ans Ver OF the incumbent, and we
therefore, refuse to strike out from the petition
that portion OF it which embraces charges OF
irregularities and neglect, connected with asser-
ton, OF misconduct and fraud on the part OF the
election officers.
But these allegations, contained in ninth
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth specifications are
connected with the precise charge, that in each
OF two OF the precincts referred to, 200 and up
wards and that in each Of the other two precincts
800 and upwards, OF illegal votes, were taken
and counted for David p. Weaver, and
| that in the first three OF the four divisions now
unQer COnSlQeratOn J00n GlVen is returned as
| having received thirty-seven votes and upwards
| less than were actually polled for him. and these
distinct allegations OF fraud in the reception by
| the election officers OF said divisions OF one
| thousand illegal votes, aud a false return of
| thirtv-seven votes, which were actually pelled
| Tor John Given, and with which he was not
| credited, constitute in the order of proof the
matters which ought first TO claim our attention
| in the investigation upon which the incumbent
has invited us to enter by the facts set up in his
| answer.
We have already said that, in proper case,
and in due time, the Court will allow the parties
| charging misconduct, fraud, and neglect of
| formal duties by election officers to be inquired
into, where as in the answer put in in this case,
such allegations are with precision and in their
| proper connection pleaded. This order OF proof
must, however, be regulated by the Court which
| is to hear and determine the controversy; and
they must also decide whether the case, either
at Its inception or during subsequent stage
| OF its progress, is such case as would re
quire them to go into proof of irregularities
and misconduct merely, of election officers. And
this question must be met in each election con
test, as 1t is brought up for investigation and de
| cision. This brings us to q consideration OF
this cause as it now stands before the Court.
The Return judges, upon an enumeration OF
| votes contained in all the returns presented to
them, upon an aggregate poll of 81, l56 voCes
reported that John Given had majority of 1922
| In this enumeration were included that which
purported TO be the army vote OF the 18th Penn'
| sylvania Cavalry, 58th Pennsylvania Volunteers
amounting together to 929 votes.
| In the complaint of the contestants 1t is
charged that this vote is wholly fraudulent and
that it ought TO be deducted from the 43, 73E
which the incumbent is found by the Return
| JUDGES to have had polled for hin; which would
reduce his vote to 42SlO, and thus would elec
David p. Weaver by majority of COZ votes.
The evidence taken In support of the allega
| tions of fraud as to the army vote, establish
beyond question or doubt, that this vote il
wholly and most grossly fraudulent. That nc
portion of it is entitled to the least considera
Jion, except to require at our hands the m os
fraud which, for its brazen efrontery, has seldom
had its equal, and which, for the sake of public
morals, it IS hoped will never again be repeated
| Whoever perpetrated this foul wrong has 81
far as the testimony before us shows, succeeded
as yet, in shielding himself from exposure and de
lection; and the condign punishment which he
so well deserves at the hands of the law
although it is questionable whether, ii known
the law would be sufficient to meet his case
fragrant as it Is; for whoever committed thi
wholesale forgery, and succeeded In imposing II
on the Return Judges, in all probability, did II
beyond the jurisdiction OF this Commonwealth
| the returns having all been mailed at either New
York or Washington.
1t is worthy OF the early and serious considera
ton of the Legislature now in session 10 devise
II in any way IL can be DONE some mode o.
guarding against the commission OF crime sc
easily perpetrated by means of the army vote,
| and by which at any election the honest choice
/ OF majority OF the legal voters may be sci
aside, and our elections be made the sport anC
the play thing of corruption OF OF bold anc
defiant Vlllany.
1t is due to the incumbent John Given to say,
that in his sworn answer he emphatcally denies
all knowledge of the fraud, or participation II
its commission; nor does the testimony in any
way connect him with 1t. Were 1t other wise
we would here be disposed to rest the case; ap
plying the principle, that he who would have
equity meted out TO HIM, must himself dC