Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1868-04-08

the absence of the list of taxables from the
ballot-box, it was impossible to ascertain
how or why these persons were permitted
to vote.
The committee are of the opinion that
the Irregularities surrounding this election
are of so gross and fragrant kiud as to rem
der il impossible to ascertain what was the
true expression of the popular will.
One of the material allegations OF the pc
titioners was, that gross fraud had been
perpetrated in the borough of Philipsburg
and in Rush township, in the county OF
Centre. In support of this charge, the tol,
lowing facts and circumstances were relied
on: That about twelve days previous to
number of eighty and upwards, were sent
from the unfinished work in Clearfed coun-
ty, to Philipsburg and Rush township, In
Centre county, ostensibly for the purpose OF
com pleting about forty rods of road on the
Centre county side of the line /; that these
men, instead of being boarded at the shan
ties, erected for that purpose, In proximity
to the work ON the Clearfeld side of the
line. were quartered at the hotels in Phil
ipsburg and Rush township chat they were
illegally assessed before they came into the
district, from lists furnished the assessors
by one Mark Leddy,a boss on the rail road
that it was expressly said by one James
Collins, one of the contractors, and Richard
O'Gormon, his foreman, when the men
were ordered to Philipsburg, that they were
ticket; that they did vote, having been
brought up to the polls by Mark Leddy and
one Sheriff Perks, who furnished the spe-
cial tickets that had been printed and pre-
pared for the purpose that thirty-seven OF
these tickets were found in the Philipsburg
box, and twenty seven In the box OF Rush
township; that they voted on forged natur-
aliZation papers, purportlng to be issued by
the court of common pleas of Luzerne coun-
ty; that these papers were shown to be tor
ged by an examination of the records OF the
court, made by the committee, and clear
| proof that similar papers, bearing the seal
signed by NJ j. Philbin, the prothonotory,
were strewn all over Luzerne county, to be
obtained for the asking; and that immedl-
| atey after thus having voted, these men re-
turned to Clearfeld county, all of them hav-
| ing left the hotels in Philipsburg and Rush
| township, within four days after the cleo
| ton. All these facts. with many corobora-
| ting circumstances, were clearly established,
| to the satisfaction of the committee, by ey-'
| dence too voluminous to be recited IN this
| respect
1t was shown by the Inspector and clerk
of the election that at least thirty three OF
these fraudulent votes were received and IN
| cluded in the return in the borough of Phil
| ipsburg. The committee are fully satisfied
that these thirtythree votes should be de-
| Quoted from the number returned forthe
sitting member.
| In Rush township the number of these
| fraudulent votes actually received and count
| ed could not be ascertained from the evil
dence. For this apd other reasons, the con
/ testant claims that the whole vote OF Rush
township should be thrown out, and exclu-
ded from the return. He bases his claim on
! the following facts:
/ L. That the board which was entirely of
one party, was not legally constituted, the
| the only officer elected by the people being
! the Judge; both the inspectors being de-
serters, and having been appointed lmprop-
erly by the judge, out of the same political
party, and not in accordance with the pro-
visions of the law regulating elections.
2 That the election was Improperly con-
Quoted, the house being open all day, the col
lector sitting at the table with the ballot
box upon it, receiving taxes with crowd
around him, and large number of persons
in the room when the votes were being
counted off.
3. That no list of taxables was found in
| the UdiiOl-UoA- anu uO IcColu WdS hSpb VI
produced to show how many persons voted.
f. That large unmber of votes was re-
1 ceived from persons with forged naturaliza-
tion papers, only one of whom was sworn,
and when they were challenged the challen-
ges were disregarded; that it was impossible,
under the circumstances, to ascertain what
was the true expression of the popular will.
The committee are unable to determine how
many illegal votes were received and count
ed in this township, the respondent having
failed to call before them either the inspec-
tors or clerks of the election, and no record
having been found in the ballot-box, as re-
quired by law. When it had been shown on
the part of the contestant, that fraudulent
votes had been received, that the officers alb
solutely refused to discharge their sworn du
ty, and admitted every vote offered In spite
of remonstrances and challenges, the integ-
rity OF the return was at once destroyed.
The committee is constrained, therefore
to exclude from the count the whole vote o.
Rush township, which gave fifty-one major
ity for the sitting member.
This hasty review of the prominent facts
put In condensed recapitulation, stand.
thus:
The original election returns
gave Samuel T. Shugart, A. ,12-
At Philipsburg, 33
Rush township 81
Miscellaneous illegal votes,ex-
elusive of deserters votes, %
!. Carbon township, 65 II:
1895:
! The general election returns
! gave John K. Robson 40:
From this deduct rejected ma
jority of Taylor township Is
Miscellaneous illegal vote, ex-