New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-11-30
LATEST FROM FLORIDA.


WITNESSES WHO SWEAR BOTH wAYs-THREE CON-
FLICTNG AFFIDAvITs FROM ONE Mantle
COUNTY CONTESTS.
TALLAHASSEE. Fla, Nov. 29.-The board met at
10 o'clock. and Alachua County was called. The
Democrats introduced objections to Archer Precinct
recting that he return from that precinct had been
raised 219 votes over the true poll cast. MI flem-
ing testified by affidavit that he had stood atthe door
and taken the of every voter as 1t was caieu'
and that only $40 were cast, whereas the return
sent ND claimed that 53S votes were cast. Mt
Tucker testified that he was requested by the III
spectors to assist in summing up the vote, and that
only 319 votes were cast Two OF the three IN
spectors swOre that there were only 3l3 votes caSb
and that the return purpOrting to show 53S votes
was fraudulent. One of the three members of the
County Board b swore that Inc was coghi"
zant of this fraud, and would not sign
the return. Another member of the board
testified. also by affidavit that he knew fraud had
been committed, but felt bound to sign the return
that il might 90 TO the State Board for final action
Circuit Judge swore that he the Archer ballot
box opened by the proper officials and counted and
that only 3l9 votes were found therein. There were
a number of other affidavts sustaining the above
and to prove new but MINOR points of fraud Inc
two inspectors who made aiIdayits and the TWO
members of the Canvassng Board are Republicans
and are majority Of each body.
I'm the afternoon the Republicans introduced
counter afiidavits from Moore and Dukes, the two
inspectors and Bolton and Webster, the two mem
bers of the board referred to, swearing that their
former aiiidayits made under duress 1ear' or
misapprehension, and false. The Democrats
Introduced a third affidavit from Bolton, who swore
that if he gave any second AFFIDAVIT he was not re-
snonsible or in his true mind when he did So This
"a. 90 of ,an vii L.
who swore Mr.. Bolton was drunk during the whole
day on which the second affidavit was delivered, and
was in the hands of the Republicans in state of
intoxication. He rcaiiimcd in the third affidavit
the assertions made in the first one. The Democrats
cannot understand the counter aihdayts OF Moore,
Dukes and Webster, and will bring them before the
board in person Tomorrow or next day.
In the return from Clay County the Democrats
called attention TO the omission of % Democratic
votes through a technical objection which they re-
moved by papers filed before the board. There VIII
hardly he any contest over these votes
I'm the case of Baker County the Democrats pro-
dnced an affidavit from the Clerk of the Court ccr-
fving that the return which gives the Democrats %
majority was true aud the only return from the
County of Baker; that it the only one he
had been called upon 10 certify to or that was
filed in his Office; that he had no knowledge Of
any other canvass having been made than
the one by which the true return
was made up; that he had never been notified that
such canvass was going to be held, or asked to
participate in it, the law required he should, and
that no return has been handed to him, with the re-
quest that he forward it to the Secretary of state
as the law requires lac shall do. They presented fur
Their certified copies Of each Of the precinct returns
in Baker County, regularly signed by the precinct
inspectors which footed mp precisely the result tat
was recited in the true returns.
The board then adjourned until o o'clock to-mor-
row morning.