The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-01-22
Answer Of John Given TO the Peti.
ton Of Major Weaver.
Alleged Extensive Frauds in the Fourth
and Twenty-ffth Wards.
Mr.. Given Claims his Election by About
One Thousand Majority, Exclusive
OF the Soldiers, Vote.


Judge Ludlow, J. Alexander Simpson, Esq,
counsel for John Given, whose right to the Office
of City Commissioner is being contested by
Major David P. Weaver, filed an answer to the
petition of the latter. After the petition was
received Judge Ludlow postponed further
consideration of the case until Saturday next.
The answer o. Mr.. Given sets forth the following
facts:-
After alluding to the allegations made in reference
10 the soldiers vote OF which he has knOwiedSe
knowing only that the returns were received and
filed at the Office of the PrOthonotary, the respond
ent answers fourth specification, tnat true
is thai the said general return does not include he
return of votes cast in the Fourth Election DIVISION
of the Ninth Ward, because no re urn whatever
made of any election held in sa division, as 1t
appeared upon the computation OF votes, after the
closing OF the pos on the evening of the day of the
SAID election, that there were more votes counted
and computed than there were pc sons voting at said
election that consequence Of this discrepancy
the election otncers of said DIVISION could not agree
as the true vote; They therefore made no return
of the result of the election IN said DIVISION.
And your respondent further answers and saith
that he general return of the votes cast at SAID
election for the said Office OF City Commissioner is
First That in the Seventh Election Division of the
Third Ward DAVID f. Weaver is falsely and erro-
neously returned having received 3l6 vo o.es (;
whereas in truth and IN TACT he only received 800
votes.
Fourth Ward the election officers received tue votes
of persons to the number OF ten and upwards for the
counted IN the general return tor DAVID 4, weaver
none of whom were qualified electors of said Division
Third That in the second ection Division of
sad Fourth W ara the election officers received the
votes of persons to the number OF twelve and up
wards none OF whom were qua lied electors OF said
Fourth. That in the Third Election Division of
said Fourth Ward the election officers received the
votes OF per. to the number OF fifteen and upwards
none OF whom were qualified eectors.
Fifth, That in The fourth Election Division OF
eald EOurth Ward the election officers received the
votes to the number OF eight and upwards
none OF whom we're qualified electors.
Sixth. That in The Fifth Election Division Of said
Fourth Ward the election officers received the votes
of persons 10 the number OF ten and upwards none
OF whom were qualified electors.
Seventh Tnat In thelTenth Election Division ofthe
the wenty-irst Ward the election officers received
the votes OF persons to the number of six and up
wards, one OF whom we're qualiHed e,ectors
Eighth hat in the Third Election Division OF the
Twenty.Iourh Ward the yolcs o. persons 10 the mum
| were qualified electors.
Ninth. That majority Of the voters at the eec.
ton held for Judge and Inspectors of Elections 10
conduct the election to be held the tenth day OF
| October Last. the Sixth Election DIVISION of the
| Fourth Ward, 1audulently divided their vote tor
Inspectors OF EecuOns, SO to elect two of their
own number representing their own political views,
with the intent to deplve the minority of the right
have Inspector at said election, against the IN
tentOn and spirit Of t1e Acl OF Assembly, and with
the view and purpose 10 prevent and due elec.
| the sald Inspectors did frauduently receive the
votes OF large number of persons. TO the number OF
| two hundred and seventY-five and upwards. which
were received and counted in the general return OF
votes Tor David Z. Weaver, none of whom were
| qualified to vote at said election.
Ihe said election officers in every instance, fraudu
lenty neglected and refused to mark the letter "V
list at the time he voted to note in the marlin OF
| the Assessment or alphabetical list whether any
voter had been sworn or affirmed, or produced GER
tifcate other evidence OF having been naturaZed
to add the name of the voter to said list when the
name did not appear thereon; to require proof o.
| the residence OF voters whose names were not con
tanned In the list of taxable inhabitants to swear
affirm such voters that they had not removed within
the election division for the mere purpose of voting
he, falsely and traudulentlv received the votes o
| non-residents who falsely and 1raudulenty per
sonated and voted under The names OF persons who's
| names were contained in the Alphabetical List o
| saId DIVISION some OF whom were dead, and other
of whom had removed not of the SAID Election Div
D hat said Inspectors were furnished with al
Alphabetical list of taxable Inhabitants Of their Elec
tion Division, which, during the whole Of said elec
tiOn referred to or examined but returned
thelaw required they should make; that they fraudu
lently opened poll and permitted every person 4
that applied without proof OF residence or thu
| payment OF taxes; IN many instances knowingly per
hitting persons TO vote more than once, and that tn
conduct OF the Election Officers was of this fraduen
and illegal character from the beginning OF the sait
election 70 its close; that the Return Inspectors
| said Division at said election mlselV and traudu
lenty returned twentYone votes as having been cas-
in said Division for Respondent the office of Citl
| Commissioner, whereas IN truth he received tn
| votes of thirty voters and upwards.
The 10th specification is the same charge against
those conducting the election held IN the Seventh
| Division of the Fourth Ward. The same charges are
also made IN regard to the Eighth Division of tue
Fourth Ward and the ourth Division of the Twenty
| fifth Ward. In the latter Division, 1t Is alleged
| that over two hundred fraudulent votes were re-
ceIved for Mr. Weaver; that five illegal vo es wert
| poed ON board the United States Receiving ShtI
| Princeton; that seven votes poed at Fort W Orth
Va for respondent were NOT rece we'd by trothOnO
tarY. The answer concludes as tOllows:-
| Whereby your respondent AYERS thathe was not
only elected TO the said flee of City COmmiss Oner
but that the true vote for HIM for tn said office
| greater than the vote of the SAID DavI1 p Weaver
for aid office, or for any other person and that hi
majority is fully equal to- If not greater, than thu
majority stated for HIM in the return of the Return
1 T..l.