The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1872-11-08
PARTICULAR INSTANCES.

| The figures show alterations to the ex
tent of 3, 210 votes. Particular instances
OF irregularity are thus given:
In the First division, Seventeenth
ward, the return is not present at all.
In the Twentieth ward the return from
the Fifth division Is not signed by the
Judge; in the Eight division the vote
| for s. ID. Strock for representative is
palpably altered from 179 to 1879, and in
the Sixteenth division from 1853 to 1888.
In the Twenty.secOnd ward the Fifth
division return is not signed by the
Judge; in the return of the Eleventh
division the vote of Walton is altered
from 142 to 162. In the Twenty. third
ward the Eleventh and Twelfth division
returns are not signed by the respective
judges. In the Twenty. fourth ward the
Eleventh division return is not signed
by the judge. In the Twenty-fifth ward
the Ninth division return is not signed
by the judge, and the return of the
Fourth division cannot be found. In the
Twenty.sixth ward the Fifth, Seventh
Eleventh and Fifteenth divisions are
not signed by the respective judges.
The alteration of 100 in the Third and
Ninth divisions Of the eTwenty.seventh
ward is extended to all candidates whose
votes exceed 100.
The affidavit goes on to state that the
above alterations are sometimes made
by merely changing the figures, and
sometimes by eraSures, and are gener-
ally apparent at a moments glance.
Only those which are beyond ali doubt
have been herein above mentioned,
2 The changes seem to be in great
measure confined to the gubernatOrial
candidates, the others receiving the
regular party vote.
That some of the envelopes contain
ing the hourly lists of the divisions are
missing, and some of the division re.
turns appear to be altered upon every
candidate, but the correct return cannot
be accurately ascertained and is, there.
fore, omitted.
Duly sworn to and signed by the
affiant.
THE ORDER.
Mr.. Miller, in commenting on the
afhdavit, and in explanation of and as
precedent for his present position be.
fore the court, referred to the case of
Prothonotary Donegau. when he was
called before the court by Judge Peirce,
who, of his own motion bound the late
protb onotary over to answer for selling
or permitting to be sold official papers
on file in his office, Mr.. Miller Thought
that his honor, Judge Finletter, might,
on the same principle, order the present
prothonotary, Mr.. Loughridge, to come
in and explain the alterations and at
least the loss or absence of envelopes
containing many of the returns. The
Judge, after considering moment, said
he had no objection to granting any
order which would bring the subject
before the court. There seemed to be
no allegation in the affidavit against
the prothonOtary. Mr.. Miller here sug-
gested the statement of the absence of
the hourly returns. The Judge then
said he would fix next Saturday for the
prothOn0tary to come in and explain.
On this the following order was made
and signed by the Judge:
And now, November 3, 1872, the court
grant an order upon the prothonOtary
OF the court to appear on Saturday, the
9th instant, and produce all the returns
OF the election of the Sth of October and
account for or explain the absence of
those not produced, and the apparent
alterations of those produced.
Some of the counsel representing the
reformers and the democrats, Messrs.
Dallas, Ridgway and Francis Rawle,
state that beside the utter absence OF
many OF the envelopes whole pages of
the returns are altered paipably In every
candidates. vote, and in several in
stances the figures have been 80 bung-
lingly altered that the knife has scratch
ed holes in the paper, so that daylight
shines through. ."-Hress.