The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-10-16
THE ROW CONTESTS DECIDED.
Mayor Fox Retained in
Office,
All The Other Democratic InCuM-
bents are 0uSted.
The Decision of the Court by
Judge Brewster-Judge
Ludlow DiSsentS.
COuYt Of Common PIeas-Allisou, =. j., and
Judges Peirce aud Brewstcr.

Judges Peirce aud Brewster.
To-day, at II O'Clock, all the Judges appeared in
their places to give Judgment in the election con-
tests which were instituted about one year ago.
large audience was in attendance to
hear the conclusion Of one of the longest
and most interesting contests that has
ever engaged the attention Of the Court, and in
which the public anxiety has been increased by the
long interval that has occurred between the final
argument and the decision, and the result OF the
election that has been held in that interval.
Two lengthy opinions were read, one by Judge
Brewster, expressing The views of the majority of the
Court, and another by Judge Ludlow, dissenting
from those views.
The decision of the majority Of the Court retains
Mayor Fox in office by majority of 68 votes, while
Charles Gibbons is installed in the District
Attorneyshp, in place Of Mr.. Furman
Sheppard by the same majority. All the other DEM
Ocratic incumbents claiming TO have been elected
last october are ousted, their nominal majorisies
having been less than that Of Fox and Sheppard.
Judge Brewster's Opinion.
In the matter of the contested election of 1885,
Contested elections have never been received with
favor by the courts, for they impose upon us intri
cate questions of law and difficult conflicts OF facts,
besides the grave responsibilities of passing upon the
eject to be given TO the result of the ballot OF the
people at the polls.
The English Courts have always regarded them as
unwecome, and here we have dismissed several
cases that were not found upon the strongest
grounds If we did not hold them within strict
limits, we should be constantly overburdened with
present cases have broken into season of large
business, and had it not been for the able assistance
of learned counsel, we should never have been en-
abled to unravel its tangled threads.
TIE petitions here involve several offices. The
contestants ask us entirely to reject the returns
from several wards and the entire vote of the last
three hours other wards and still in others to give
them the benefit OF a recount The respondents also
ask us to dismiss the petitions on the ground that
they not filed or the cases decided within the
divisions because Of Violence and to count the votes
OF naturalzed citizens and others not returned by
the election olcers IN tie Gase 4 @ o4G @ i y
term in which it began. But Judge Allison, in
prior case, decided against THIS assumption, and the
The petitioners as already stated ask us to throw
out several returns; the petitioners deny Jnat we
have the power to do this but again admit II by ask
ing us TO throw out other returns against the peti
tioneers We regard the power to throw out returns
when there is good cause, as existing In this court,
alike in regard to county and municipal offices.
This brings us to the heart OF this case:-Is there
cause for throwing out returns? This Court has
several times confirmed the power of throwing ont
whole precincts. and have held that this remedy
should only be applied i'll the EXTREMIST cases. where
otherwise it is impossible to find the true result
The question is, can we separate the pure gold from
the dross?
by the officers with an entire disregard of the
guirements OF law, so that no one can tell VINO, by
the true vote, has been elected. The answer OF the
! respondents denies this IN toto
lii many instances here the officers have pre-
sented their election records in state so self
accusing and cOnvictIng that they can blame no man
for thus invoking the light upon this mass OF dark
Again, they nave received NOLeS Ill SUCH HdSIe
without seeing or inquring who the voter was and
allowing hOrdes of strangers to vote as residents
This is the case in the Seventh division OF the
Third ward where the suggeStt9 Jai3t and Suppe8So
reri marked, and impossbilty OF ascerCanlng
the true result insurmounahle that we must cast
it out entirely. The next division attacked by the
contestants is the Sixth of the Fourth ward.
| Here the election books were kept back
by the officers, false personaons permitted violence
used against those who attempted to stay the tide OF
fraud, and the votes of whole gangs OF strangers
and no respectable defense is maze all this. We
ind
Of the election, the employment OF
Violence Of d bdrdos IN Of Illegal s voer and we
must also cast this division out.
The Seventh aud Eighth divisions OF the Fourth
/ ward NAV be considered together.
Here we have Almshouse men, bummers, false
personatons, mob law, voters deferred IRON voting
by threats against their lives, ana this is unan-
swered. It is useless here TO attempt to separate
the truth from the lie, and the case is beyond the
mower of judicial investigation. Ine return is
In the Eighth division OF the Ninth ward very
daring fraud has been eilecteq men were seen as
names and residences and characters, III which to
vote. But upon the count it is found ihat iorty-ve
votes are TO be charged to the respondents.
Now in the Sixth division OF the seventeenth
ward the oaths required by law were admitted, the
naners or tax receipts were required false votes
were received, and the most dsgracelui violence
nsed by the Officers inside The election book is not
forthcoming, and IL is charged that II was sup
pressed. Also votes challenged were received with
pnt nrOof and other frauds committed in number,
In the Seventh OF the Seventeenth we have the
onicers receiving votes in the names OF persons de-
ceased and other frauds that of themselves call for
the action of the CommOnweaths ofhcers, with re-
Il Recommendation in that behalf from the Court In
Inc sixth and Seventh divisions OF the Seventeenth
ward and the Fourth Of the TWenty-fourth, frauds
of a most glaring kind are exhibited
But Judge Peirce, in opposition TO the views OF
mvself and Judge Allison, holds that they are OF
such character as hOpeessly to befog the result,
and therefore the precincts should not be wholly
cast out but ought to be purged in the manner here
after TO be pointed out ,,. a,., ,.,,s
frand was made in the count, the remedy for which
The contestants say, is a recount. We agree will
hem and order the recount. We do not, by deciding
Inns regard that we dsfranchlse legal voters, FOL
they' disfranchise themselves by permitting sucl
frauds. ,,,,. ,o 5D son,a martial yood n,
toachinC the public that fraud Shall not nave Tn
SSgav az our Government, and teach also that IL !
he 1eremptory duty OF every good ctzen 10 use NJ
styopSest eforts TO prevent them II we succeed y
his we may soon have the satlslactlo
W o,iS seeing our city redeemed from IN
n,a oT awiess rutians, and the rights OF every GU
1en again made secure, After repeated warning
rom thia court and in the face OF repeated InIests
tbese base wrongs are year after year PernilIteu
he Committed at the polls, and one canhot Wohue
f mat Courts at length become lntoerahG-"H"os
tass naS egS ebutere CatainG, PatientlG Ao'fG'"