Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-01-08
WASHBURN'S VAIL
HE SAYS He WANTS no GET 4 sEdT
CONGRESS-.


Great, Good and Pure Man All Through
the Canvass, if You Take Els Word for It
--But He Wants Five Hundred More
Votes, Owing to the Handbills Circulated
in st. Paul on Election Day--The Answer
of the Great Corruptionist Who bought
and Bribed His Way Into an Election Ger
tificate.
In the Matte, of the Contest By Ignatius Don
'aelty Of ne Election eff William d. Washbuyn
to the 01tcs Of Member Of the House Of Reprs-
sentats1es IN ne Congress Of the United States
from the THIRD Congressional District of the
State Of Minnesota.
The answer of William D. Washburn to the
notice OF contest served upon him by Ignatius
Donnelly in the above entitled matter.
Now comes William D. Washburn, and an
swering the said notice of contest, saws and
AYERS that the said notice is wholly Insufficient
to ent1tle the said contestant to contest the
election OF this respondent, because said no.
tice does not specify particularly the grounds
upon which said contestant relies in said con-
test. mat the same is SO general, vague, UNI
certain and Indefinite in it's charges and alle-
cations as to lay no foundation for such con-
test; and the respondent, reserving all his said
objections to the suffciency of said notice. and
waving none of his rights to object to the same
at all times hereafter for the reason of INSULT
cheney as aforesaid, answering says:
That as to the first specification of said, no.
tice, he denies the same, and each and every
charge, allegation, matter and thing therein
contained. He denies thkS he paid, or gave, or
bestowed to or upon, or promised to pay, give
or bestoW to or upon any elector or other per-
son IN said Congressional district or elsewhere,
any gift, reward or anything whatever to in
duce such elector or person to vote for him at
SAID election, or for any other purpose what
ever, or caused any such payment, gift re-
ward OF promise Of the same to be made to any
person or elector for the purposes charged in
said specification, or for any other purpose
whatever, or has any knowledge or information
that any such thing was done by any other
person.
And he denies that hundreds of votes or any
vote or votes were cast or counted for him in
said election which were procured by any of
the means alleged in said specification. and
AYERS that all the votes which were cast or
counted for him in said election were cast by
lawful electors of said district, each and every
Of whom cast his said vote freely, and of his
own choice for this respondent, and not other
wise.
To the second specification of said notice
respondent answers as follows: He denies the
same, and each and every allegation, matter
and thing therein contained. He denies that
IN the counties in said specification named, or
IN any or either of them, or in any other part
OF said Congressional district, or elsewhere, he
or any other person acting for him,
or with his knowledge Or consent, or under his
direction, or otherwise, expended many thou
sands of dollars, or any sum or sums of money
whatever IN inducing voters to vote for him
who would have otherwise voted for said con-
testant, Or in inducing voters to vote at said
elestlon In any manner whatever, or for any
candidate or person whatever. And respondent
denies that any sum OF sums of money were
expended in said election for the purpose of
influencing the vote of any elector in said Con-
gresslonal district in any manner whatever that
| respondent has any knowledge. information or
belief Of, except that he has been informed and
believes that in many parts of said district
money and other rewards were paid by persons
acting fo- and in the interest of said contest
ant, to voters for the purpose of indscing them
to vote for said contestant. which will be now
specifically stated hereinafter.
| To the third specification of said notice re-
spondent answers as follows: He denies the
same and each and every charge, allegation,
matter and thing therein contained. He de-
MES that single vote in said Congressional
| district was cast for this respondent by any
person who had not legal right to vote in said
district and in the election district wherein he
cast said vote. He denies that any non resident
| of said Congressional district or any workman
employed in the construction of railroads aud
| temporarily inhabiting said district, or any
! Indian, half-breed or other citizen Of Dakota
Territory, or any citizen Of the State of Wis
| consin, Or of the State of Pennsylvania, or Of
any other State in the Union, except the State
OF minnesota, or any citizen of Manitoba, B.
A., or any citizen or resident CT any county of
| the State of Minnesota outside of aaid Third
Congressional district, or any alien having no
right to vote in the United States or the State
OF Minnesota voted at said election for this re-
spondent in any of the counties named in said
third specification. or elsewhere in said Con
gresslonal district. And he denies that any
votes of the character charged in said third
specification IS having been cast for this re-
spondent as is untruly alleged in said speciica-
| tlon And he AYERS that all the votes which
We're cast at said election for this respondent
We're cast by legal voters Of said district and
We're cast by them at the proper and legally es-
ta5l1shed polling places where they were enti-
tied to vote within said district, and that all
the votes which were counted for this respond
ent by the board of csnvassers were such legal
votes SO cast for respondent as aforesaid and
not otherwise.
10 the fourth specification Of said notice
respondent answers as follows:
lie denies each and every charge, allegation,
matter and thing therein contained, except
as IS III this paragraph specially admitted,
qualified Or explained. He admits that there
were very few votes in some Of the counties
IN said district (but in which counties respond
ent is unable to state, not being informed)
which were cast for said contestant and were
not counted or returned for him, which
respondent AYERS was occasioned in the fol-
lowing manner, and not otherwise: That the
blank form prepared by the proper State Of
ncer upon which the several precinct officers
were to make their returns of said election to
their several county officers and which form
was distributed among all the precincts of the
SAID Congressional district, was by mistake or
lnadvertance Of the officer preparing the same
Detective in not having printed therein a
heading under which the returns of votes cast
tor the office of member of Congress We're to be
made and several OF the officers of such pre-
clncts, In consequence of such mistake, were
mlsled, and omitted to make returns of the
votes cast for member of Congress-, but
respondent AYERS that such omission occurred
IN many instances in precincts where re-
spondent had received large maiorities over
SAID contestant, and that in consequence of
such omissions respondent lost more votes
IMAM did SAID contestant, to-wit: Several hun
dred more votes, the exact number Of which
respondent is unable to state; nor is respond
ent able to state all the precincts OF counties
Where such omissions occurred by which he
lost votes as aforesaid, but he alleges that such
omissions did occur in tho counties of Hen
nepln, Otter Tail, Pope Douglas, Grant and
Polk.
To the fifth specification of said notice
respondent answers as follows:
he denies each and every charge, allegation
matter and thing contained therein. He de
MES that many hundred votes, or any number
OF votes Whatever, either in the city of Min
neapolis, named in said specification, or else
where in said district, were cast by persons who
were compelled to cast their votes for respond.
emit by reason of any of the threats or means of
intimidation whatever. And denies that any
ballots cast at said election, at the places
named in said specification or elsewhere in said
district, were marked or numbered for the
purpose alleged in said specification or for any
ether purpose whatever, and denies that
| any OF such ballots were marked or numbered
at all. And he denies that any workman in
said district was discharged from employment
because he refused to vote for said respondent.
But respordent alleres The truth and cact 70 ha