The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-14

this character Of evidence to be too unreliable
of IT elf to form the basis of decision.
The numt eT o votes claimed by the respon-
den. to stand impeached, mainly by the testi-
mony oi the canvasscrs, is as follows;-
In the Sixth Division of the Fourth Ward. ..... 125
In the Sever tn ID vision OF the Fourth Ward. $50
In the Eighth DIvl,ion of the Fourth Wsrd.... 300
In the Fourth Division OF the Twenty Waru 1874
Making total Of. f......................,..,. 799
from steg mship Princeton. ......,.......,..
Also votes IN the Sixth and Eighth Division of
the Fourth Ward over return, claimed to have
Teen pItVed'',''.'','.' .'''''''',''..,'....., IL
Together numbering. inp.......................8 8l5
From hich is to be taken four votes credited In
EenerBl return to Given. but not proved IN the
Seventh of Fourth and Fourth OF Twenty-ffth
tackled by Given. 81
Deduct rom this Weaver's majority, with the
army vote cast out. COZ
W hich Will give to Given, on TINS oasis OF caicu.
ation, majority OF. 2Oi
10 overcome TINS apparent majority OF the per:
sons v hom the canvassers reported not found
Weaver proauced before the EXamlner........ 226
Add to lhis the number whose residence was
proved by witnesses called for that purpose. DO
Making together. 28i
Deuuet nom TINS number OF 28l votes Glve g
apl aren't majority, as exhibited by the report
OF the canVasseIs' 2O4
Leaves Weaver in majority ot........... n
This stating the question at issue between the
contestant and the respondent, in the strongest
aspect possible IN 1aNOr OF the reSpOnde mt,
upon the case as il now stands before the Court.
1t takes for granted that all the persons not
found in The inquiry made for them, whose
names are returned as having voted at the last
election in the disputed election divisions, other
than those who were produced by or accounted
tor by the contestant, were Illegal voters, or that
the return as to them is false and fraudulent.
But we are very far from having arrived at
any such conclusions; 1t is one thing to question,
or impeach, or attack vote or a return OF
votes, but it is a very different matter TO prove
that which successfully overthroTs such vote
or return.
In the above statement we set down as
proved against the contestant, every vote to
which the evidence of the respondent is at
tempted to be applied in support OF the alega.
ton that it is fraudulent, and having done
this he is still in clear minority of seventy
seven votes
In the calculation of the respondent, he does
not take into the count OF votes to be deducted
from the searchers' report, the number of per-
sons proved before the Examiner as residing in
the several election divisions by witnesses called
to testify to The fact OF residence, from their
personal knowledge. This he calls hearsay
evidence, and on this ground rejects it as not
sufficient TO establish the conclusion OF fact.
But It is mlsapplication OF the term hearsay,
to apply it 20 evidence OF this desCriotIon Hear
say evidence, accurately defined, is the evidence
OF one, who relates not what he knows OF his
own knowledge, but what he has heard from
others. The fact OF residence in II particular
place may be as well known to a witness called
to prove such fact as il can be known to the
person whose residence is in dispute. And the
knowledge Of the tact sought to be established
may be, and generally is, wholly independent
oil what any one may have communicated to
the witness. The votes proved by this kind of
evidence must, therefore, be taken into the
calculation as having been established by legal
and competent testimony.
This calculation gives to the respondent every
thing TO which he has set up clam, as having
been proved IN his favor by the evidence taken
in support and IN contradiction of the allega-
tions OF fraud contained in his answer, when in
| fact that evidence, except as 1t applies to the
| comparatively few cases of actual fraud, esrab
| fishes nothing upon which a judgment OF the
| Court could be safely rested
Take from the 799 votes attacked in the Sixth,
| Seventh and Eighth Divisions OF the Fourth
| Ward, and the Fourth of the Twenty-dith Ward,
| all that are in any way affected by other evil
| dence, stated at more than their full number OF
| 20 votes, and it leaves over 700 votes, having
| nothing to support their standing in the cause,
| proof Tor the respondent, except the unsatIs-
| factory and unreliable testimony of the can.
vassers. This kind OF evidence, in its best aspect
insufficient OF itself, in majority of instances
| TO prove the actual non-resdeuce OF a voter, Is
| shown by the testimony of the contestant to be,
in this cause entitled but little credit; 226 OF
the persons who could not be found by the can
| vassers were brought before the Examiner to
! prove their residence In their respective elec-
| others we're sworn to by witnesses, who claimed
| to have personal knowledge of the facts of
| which they testified. The evidence sho VS. the
canvass was conducted not in the most careful
manner, as the folio wing table will prove. of
| the voters who could not be found by the
searchers it was shown that
| Years. Years.