The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-05-03


clusion of this protracted and vexatous litiga-
tion has been reached.
Out of nearly two Thousand pages of testi-
mony, assessment lists, tally lists, and lists of
voters for each election division, the manifest
ignorance, bias, and evident falsehood of many
OF those who were required to testify before the
Examiners, il is often eifiicult in the extreme,
and often impossible to get at the truth of the
controversy. As an illustration of this remark,
il may be stated that every calculation or table
of results which has been prepared by counsel
have differed the one from the other. Upon
the rehearsing, we have had in effect four
statements prepared by counsel for the
petitioner, two answers afterwards withdrawn,
and two statements submitted by Mr.. Gibbons,
every one differing in statement and conclusion.
We can claim to have given the case most
careful examination, with all these lights to aid
us. In this examination we have adhered firmly
to the principles contained in the opinion of the
Court which was delivered by Judge Brewster.
In nothing have they been varied or departed
from. We have confined ourselves to the correc-
ton of the account, where figures have been
required to be placed into it, in consequence of
accidental oversight; with an abandonment of an
admitted error in the mode of stating the ac-
count in purging poll, and with the revision
of our judgment upon the evidence, as to whether
votes to be received or rejected are legal or
illegal votes.
The strictest line of proof has been applied
to every voter, and the result of the investga-
tion will be stated in summing up the corrected
tables of the divisions to which our attention
been directed.
We have refused credits which have been
claimed in every instance, in which the testi-
mony as to the voters, who were primd .fdcie
illegal, did not show that at the time at which
they offered to deposit their ballots the offer
was supported by the proof which the law de-
mands. The vouching by election officers with
out making the requisite proof in each case,
we rejected.
We hold that to enter upon the list of voters
that voter was vouched for by person whose
= A. H.
full compliance with the law. In no case has a
vote been counted as legal where the proof
showed that person who was assessed as re-
siding at place designated upon the assess
ment list had removed therefrom before the
elec tion, unless it was established by evidence
that he had not removed from the election div-
sion.
We place to the credit of Mr.. Sheppard thirty
of the thirty-fve votes of natHralized citizens
which were refused because the voters held GER
tificates of naturalization issued by the Supreme
Court. This credit of thirty. six is reduced by
six, because it is admitted and allowed by the
petitioner. The full credit was given to Mr..
Fox in the decision of the Court, which was
made in October last. The thirty-six votes were
allowed because we regarded the polls as to
those voters closed against them.
They offered to vote, and were in place to he
challenged upon every ground of qualification,
but were turned away from the polls upon the
single objection that they had been naturalized
in the Supreme Court. The proofs were that
these voters, Judge Brewster remarks:-It is
established by thirty-sx persons that their votes
were rejected, although they were duly natural
lied, and that they would have voted for the re-
epondents.
Beyond all question, these votes should now
be credited to the incumbents The papers they
produced were genuine certificates issued by
the Prothonotary under the seal of the highest
court of our State. No other tribunal should or
can impeach its judgments, aud they established
the right of each of these witnesses to his vote
if otherwise qualified. And if they were not
otherwise qualified, under the peculiar circum-
stances which surrounded them, we hold that
this ought to have been shown by the con-
testants.
1t was not pretended but that the admission of
these votes was exceptional, and rested upon a
different ground from that upon which other
votes had been credited to the incumbents.
We decided to place them in the count unless
they were shown to be illegal, giving to them
all the presumption which belongs to those
whose legal prirnd fdcteS are established. Of
the hundreds who we're claimed by the in
cumbents as wrongfully rejected, for the same
reason, 20 are all who were called, and the
fair presumption is they were all who
could, with safety to the incumbents, be called
to testify that they intended to vote the Demo-
cratic ticket. These 36 were allowed. The
rest of this claim, which, as Judge Brewster
remarked, twas founded on multiplication of
guesses," we rejected In our judgment no good
reason has been presented which would require
oversight as to this credit to the number of 80
| votes is now allowed to Mr.. Sheppard.
In the Eighth division of the Ninth ward
| there was error in charging ID illegal votes too
many to Mr.. Sheppard. The testimony shows
| that 10 fraudulent and IA unassessed votes were
polled during the last three hours. The vote of
| these hours was purged to the number of AZ.
| 1t should have been 49, There was charged IA
fraudulent votes, in addition to the 19, but the
evidence fails to satisfy us of the correctness of
| this conclusion. On the contrary, we are con-
| vinced that they are included in the 10 false
which has been purged. There is an admitted
error in Mr.. Sheppards favor of votes in the
Sixteenth division of the Twentieth ward.
The labOrious portion of the duty which we
have been required to perform was the labor of
| re-examining and carefully weighing the testi-
mony as to the individual votes which were
claimed by the petitioner, in a readjustment OF
| the account of debit and credit, in the Eighth
| division of the Ninth ward, the Seventh division
of the Seventeenth ward the Fourth division OF
| the Twenty-ffth ward, and in the Sixth division
| of the Seventeenth ward.
The credits which we give to Mr.. Gibbons
| consist of error in striking out the hourly
return from Second division of First ward Oi
seven votes.
A similar error in the Tenth division of the
| First ward of eleven votes.
We reduce the charge against him of SO illega
| votes to Al, a credit of IL votes.
To this!is to be added the credit of 6, deducted
from the 36votes of naturalized citizens credited
to Mr.. Fox.
We do not allow the credit of votes claimed
by Mr.. Gibbons in his statement submitted tC
| the Court, of an error which Mr.. Gerhart, OF
page SO of c. L. states is to be found the tally
list for the ninth hour of the Sixth division o
the Seventeenth ward. An examination of th'
tally list shows there is no such error
The result OF our investigation is stated a