New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-10-26
HOH HARTRANFT WAS ELECTED.

DASINING EVIDENCE OF FRAUD IN SCRANTON
HOW A GRANT CONGRESSMAN SECURED HIS
ELECTION-HIGHLY INTERESTING TESTIMONY.
lFRoM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRBUSEl
WILKEsBARRE, Penn, Oct. 2S.-The adj
,onrped hearing before Alderman Phbn Of this city Of
the case OF the Hon. Lazarus D. Shoemaker and other
prominent Grant politicians, charged with bribery
and corruption at the recent election, came on
at 10 o'clock this morning. Mr. Shoemaker Is
the present Representative In Congress from this dis
trict Quzerne and susquehanna), and was reelected
this Fall, beating his competitor, Stanley Wood
ward by majority Of TAO An inspection OF the official
returns Of Luzerne County shows either that Mr. Shoe
maker an exceedingly popular man. and Mr. Woodward
remarkably unpopular one, that the successful can
ddate avaed himself Of element Of strength not
possessed by his opponent For instance, Mr. Bueka-
lewis majority in the county is 2,O92, and the average
majority on State officers not less than 1900 Mr. Wood
wards majority county is barely 44 This is the
prima Jaeie evidence in the How far 1t is sus-
tanned by actual evidence will be seen by the following
testimony:
Patrick oorcoran svOn Twelfth Ward Scranton Re,
MAKER q hs Snos in wEssbans sSse Judge inspector
Of board sOng told Shoemaker Who and Th1t We
ser. would no, Be more e district he ad be bad
Congress and surprised bis gent, bad not e6 Us OsGT. We hal
n, we mg 20 10 Shoemaker himself ,ske how
to him $50 O he asked We could not give HIN
ss.Tss !. .. so snd aid We would gel some more
S' s.S s S oS IF Sosssool .r ~ Dss thai
were election said the changed m
town a. thew bills bank that All that
house three four days before seon
be agreed us cash M Shoemaker msonv In
the d district, could not give him majority but
would IN balance the vote.
election day ala not give
gkosmaker majority make can't ertcty bat think 10
eeop came on u
L. and w train in The forenoon "a. Shoemaker n the sSSOq
tb offered Ell apiece be had bis hand
h. retained il 10 his pockets ! did not take It,
o. Did Judg money! WitDess refused TO ansNeL1 have
conversation bad with Shoemaker saw Jonn stewart
% Dd stewart give you any money! tpess refused 10
dd NOT see Miller make the vote
init nor 10 give bbei election day for Shoe
.i,r, for Shoemaker that days the
y bis Honor a ShomakeT) when started
o hint tNitBets refused 70
bu M be what hind Of looking gentleman hesaA) DID
not see him before election again. . , =, 49,,
sson never Shoemaker beoej sswAi and Msrs
Mbsel JOdge worn inspectors acted election dsyi
soemaker Al Of month before election day be made
~ x ne ksew We we're election him he sd
NJ Nler-O MueT-wOnh all rights e2o In shoe
hsds told that providing took We had better not
spepd / IN town. II was out OF his own banki saw
oas 10. 40 thets; John stegarLaskAwsnns JohAwss
v ~ The bDes money In bis hand he Offering 70
90 m leep down the lid District Twelfth Yard OF san,on
on nght before election Miller and John stewart both
tod ps stewart would give each Of 10 more M eeeon oo no
so nov G er, 10 feep unts was to return
, M shosmaLe than Shoemaker did not say how We vere
10 do IL but was UNDERMINING thai We uer. 70 lsP me vote
down b, giving not on NE hteuoA boAfo
Two vel ~ ago 20. acquainted With shoemsteI . -.
COssssaaiRsd not prepared ss'"" 'hA oA~' "'A'