The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-01-28


red or TO Harrisburg IN contested case, which in
volved this ward twas then that this fraud was |
iative contest was a ysaf ag0. HoW easy il would |
have been 10 have nled the amendment, gwen ten |
dars notice, and allowed us TO bring evidence upon
It, We were obliged 20 hear evidence under pro- |
test, and 70 stand by that protest |
As regards the reference 10 examiner, In one
aminer, it was recalled within three weeks. 1t has
been said that 1t is not the law that the should
be heard at the next session OF the court But this
is the law and II the case IL left until the clock
strikes at the end OF the term, the consequences
must be borne for leaving It until that time. II the
Court cannot do ali their other WORK and this in the
specified time, they must postpone the rest and at-
tend to this, which must be heard in that time.
The other question about the oath ia so very plain
that cannot see how any man can Doubt It. BY the
wording OF the oath, and by the acknowledgment Of
could have swern It. They must know 70 the best
OF their knowledge and belief, and they knew
nothing about It, They could not even be examined
as witnesses.
1t is taid that grand juryman swears to true
bill. But q true bill does not find man guilty. IL
merely true accusation. could not indict any one
Of these petitioners for perjury should the petition
not be tue; but let them come forward and swear
where are they What they say that IL they swear
that the facts contained in the petition are true,
dicted for perjury.
William B. Mann, Esq, for the sitting oficers,
said that there was no OF court in refusing to
quash on the ground OF insuniciency of specification
The first allegation OF the specification relating TO
persons came to the window, and that the officers
allowed these persons to vote without looking at the
book to see II such persons were enttled to vote;
aso that 1853 unqualified voters voted in the names
OF other persons; also, that the election officers
fraudulenfly refused to mark the letter opposite
the voting, and that they disregarded chsl-
lenges. The motion to strike out was made In each
OF these instances. 1t 10 alleged that the Bpeci6ca-
on snouI os h a.ruGS OUT because use SonSaned an
opinion declared that the popular opinion OF that
division had not been obtained by the election, and
that the returns were false. II the popular opinion
had not been obtained the whole division should be
stricken out Unless the conrt has power to throw
out whole polls In this manner, there may be
in which there may be no election. The opposite
side has said that we do not know the names OF the
fraudulent voters They cannot be known, because
they voted in other persons names. In the case OF
the Seventh division OF the Third ward the legal
votes should have been hunted up and proved not
the illegal ones. 1t has been claimed that this
wholesale striking out deprives the legitimate
voter OF his rights; but these legitimate voters
tion oficers who do these illegal acts. There was
election In November Immediately following
that OF October and In the Eighth the Fourth ward
illegally returned in October Other divisions
were returned In the same manner. Is the court to
be asked 10 slit out the legal votes from these
The Court did not acquiesce in the motion TO strike
out, and Old not quash the petition. The next
question is that OF the oath OF the petitioners The
men that signed the petition were satisfied OF the
truth Of the allegations. The citizens signing it
not to gain anything they receive 70 salary 1t is
only TO have their wrongs righted. 1t is too late
after trial upon merits TO say that there was no
| jurisdiction in the first place. The words know
only that thing is true without saying that
it is TO the best OF his knowledge and belief he is
| guilty Of both legal and moral perjury. The case
was not decided until after the time allowed by law
but how the Court to decide when the answer to
the petition was not died until days after the
they must do as much as they can the rest must go
over not fall to the ground II was alleged that the
| ballot-boxes were taken to Harrisburg aud there
tampered with. This was not 80; they were opened
in Philadelphia in open court in the presence OF the
officers OF the court and the sergeanta Arms OF the
House at HarrisDuIQ. who sent down to
tain the contents. After being examined, they were
resealed and sent to the vault They were not taken
| OF the amendment. They had any amount Of notice
| when it was before the examiner They could have
| that they were taken by surprise, and that they
wanted time to bring evidence to refute IL. Nothing
| allowed by the court had 1t been asked The amend.
ment was acquiesced In by both Sides because there
The argument was continued @ @ by by Hon. - William
| Strong for the arpellees an folows:-The most i'm
mater nat % y e side
gate return from any one precinct. They assert thai
the petition should be quashed, not because it did
| not comply with the law, but because 1t contained
| something which 1t should not have contained. The
specifications set out has large number OF iilega
votes received salso thas repeating allowed
| and challenges dsregarded, and that for these rea
sons the petition asks that the Court should strk,
out the returns. i Is a question OF power whethe
Our opponents do not take the ground that TIL,
Court has no power: Suppose an election had beer
|
not the Court OF Common Pleas power to strike ou
the returns?
stand outside OF the POLL so that overy man, woman
and chilu who passed might deposit as many vote
as they might please, the court would certainly hay
the power to strike out The right must exist. How
the court may have exercised shat power s not th
question. That cannot De discussed before thi
court. II the irregularities OF the officers tool
place, how is the court to determine what Ia tn
true popular opinion? The Irregularities charge'
upon the officers are directly prohibited by the &C
| Assembly TheHe are said to be directory, bu
they directly prohbitory. 1t is said the striking
out oisfranchises the legal voter But the right o
the legal voter Is contingent; ne must vote Ia
certain manner, on certain day, and at certain
| place.
right to vote. This right OF legal voting include
other conditions The other voters OF his precinC
must vote legally, so that the effect of his vote
not annuled, or else his right is infringed, and h
loses 1t. II In said to be hard that a man shoul
lose his vote through the misconduct OF the otceri
Is 1t any harder than that stockhoder OF railroa
should lose money through the mismanagement c
the officers OF the road, even he has no voice
the election OF these ofncers2
cSses e alias cSa1eS
| George Walsh who was on wednesday contacted
stealing $500 from Patrick Devinney, in the Cit
larceny Of thirty yards OF satin from the store
Thomas Morgan, No. T2 North Fourth street, on tn
Sd OF January 1869, and was found guilty. He OF
tered the store with stylish locking woman and
mained some time examining bonnets and ribbon
and when they had gone the bolt OF satin was missed
He was followed and arrested by one OF the sale.
men, but gave his captor the alp and escaped. II
was subsequently taken into custody and put undt
bail to answer, but jumped his bail and went AVA
and remained at large until nearly year afterwar(
when he was caught in the City Bank.
r Selma Hess was tried upon the charge OF th
: larceny OF O gold watch nom Mrs. Knecht. 1t wa
testified that on the afternoon OF Tuesday the 18t
inst. he called at the ady's house, No 1918 CoatC
street. and solicited her subscription FOR an ed0
| OF the Bible, being published In numbers, and sh
| consented 10 subscribe. She invited him into th
parior, and he asked her to write her name in h
a ko1lr aha ant n hf