The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-27
LEGAL INTHLLIcnNcn.
Supreme Court In Banc-Chief Justice Thomp
son and Judges Read, SharswOOd, and
williams.

son. and Judges Head, sharswood, and
THE CONTESTED ELEcTIoN CASE.
This morning the case of the contested cleo
tions of October, 1868, were called for argument,
they being before this Court upon writ of cer-
tiord,t from the decree of the Court of Common
Pleas, Ousting all the Democratic incumbents
save the Mayor The cases of the six appellants,
Sheppard, Weaver, Fletcher, Getz, Barger, and
Melloy, were taken up together.
George w. Biddle, Esq, opened the argument
for the contestants. dc stated that there were
various errors in the cases, which would be taken
up in turn. In 80 of the precincts of this county
more than 10per cent. of them-a combination
took place among the election officers by which
naturaliZed citizens, persons who had received
their papers from this court, were prevented
from voting. In the Ninth district there was no
election at ;ill. There were not enough votes
cast on the side which the speaker represented
Democratic) to constitute one An error COM
mon to all the cases was that of striking out
entire polls from the count Where the electors
are not in fault, and where legal votes have been
received, whole division or poll cannot be
stricken out. This was an error in the original
judgment of the court in not striking out the
specifications taking this ground from the
original petition. The true vote could only be OBJ
tanned by calling upon the individual legal voters.
The illegal acts of the election officers as
charged in the petition of the first contestants
were, allowing unassessed persons and persona
tors to vote, emitting TO mark the letter oppo-
site the name of the voter on voting, and so
keeping legal record, denying challenges, and
receiving illegal votes. The lower Court pro-
ceeded Illegally in four cases. LIST. They oblite-
rated the election In the Seventh division of the
Third ward. Here some of these Illegal acts of
the election officers said to have taken place.
In this division they can only show 248 false
votes, which would still leave 16S majority for
the Democratic candidate. But the striking out
of the whole division, the majority was reduced
by that number. In the last Presidential cleo
tion, in the four divisions where the Court
Illegally struck ont some 1900 votes the figures
were very nearly the same as at this election.
In 1867, instead of disfranchising citizens by
the hundreds, as in this case the lists were sent
back TO find the exact returns. 1t has been said
that the method Of proceeding adopted has been
supported by precedents in other States. These
were by legislative committees, which are not
municipal tribunals. Their precedents should
not be adopted where the thing bears injustice
upon its face In the District Attorneys case
there were two errors by the court. First, it
was sent to an examiner while being examined
by the court, and second, in receiving an
amendment out of time. As regards the first,
what would be thought of legislative COM
mittee hearing case by an examiner, or
criminal case being tried by testimony heard be-
| they allowed an amendment TO be made
which vitality affected Mr.. Sheppard.
| While the Judgment was being made an amend
| ment was allowed in the petition on which the
| judgm ent was being given, without giving the
| one affected chance TO be heard. The amend
| ment affected the Sixteenth division of the
| Twentieth ward, where by an impartial count OF
| the ballot boxes an error of As or 40 votes was
found in favor of Mr.. Sheppard. This vitally
affected the sitting officers claims, but 1t was
| altered at such time that he was not allowed To
! be heard uponit. An amendment like this was
set aside by Judge IN this State on the ground
| that II was out of time.
Another point in the proceedings of the lower
| Court IL that, by the act of Assembly, the Court
| has to DO with the returns, not with the election
This point win be developed at length by an
| other of the counsel.
w. H. Rawle, Esq, continuing the argument
fof the sitting officers said by the present rules
of court this court will not decide on a writ oi
certiordri unless the court below has exceeded
its jurisdiction, has made an error in point oi
law. Under this writ this court has nothing tC
do with the fact OF the lower court having de
cided right or wrong. The arguments used By
the counsel would have been In place In mo
ton for new trial, but do not apply here.