Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1880-03-03
DONvELLY VERSUS wAsHBURS.

.s : Y
DONNELLY VERSUS WAsHBURN.
Peints Of the Csntess fer the scas In
the House ef 1cPrcscmsaeives Ter SSe
RaScal1y Means by which tho Dcu1e
ocra.s Contemplate increasing Thear
The house committee on elections de-
voted Wednesday g session to the discus
sion of the merits Of the Washburn-D Dom
nelly case. Mr.. Keifer took up most Of
the time in an argument in favor Of
Waahburn. The following statement Of
the case covers the main points in the
controversy: The returned vote for
Washburn was 2O,942. The committee
propose to deduct from this vote 2, 262
votes, on account of numbered ballots
cast in Minneapolis. They also reject
the entire vote for Washburn cast in
Isanti county, or 53S votes. The votes
in other precincts are to be thrown out
because they were certified by the audi
tor Of the county, Justice of the peace,
and man who signed himself
"judge of probate" The law
requires the returns to he signed by the
auditor and two justices Of the peace. It
is probable that the judge of probate was
really justice of the peace, and, wish
ing to mir his higher title, made an unin-
territorial blunder. There is another OBJ
lection to counting the vote OF this county.
The law of Minnesota OH this point L.:
"The laws purporting to give joint au-
thority to three or more public officers
or other persons, shall be construed 90
giving such authority to majority Of
such officers or persons. This certificate
shows clearly that it was signed by two
of the three persons who were eligible to
make such certificate. Assuming that
the certificate is, in fact, illegal, MIR.
Donnelly put into the record an abstract
of the vote from Isanti county, separ-
ately certified by the only officer who
could make certificate Of that vote. the
county auditor. That abstract shows
that Mr.. Washburn received 538
votes and Donnelly 127, and two
scattering. This proves the vote inde-
pendently of the alleged defective return,
and there il no attempt anywhere in the
record to disprove it; but D0nnelly,
aside from the admission clearly con-
tanned in the notice Of his brief, admits
that the vote was cast as stated. The
only thing he does say is that Mr..
Washburn ought to have proved it, and
should not have relied upon his (DOn-
nelly's) proving it. Donneily says:
Had he proved this vote, / was pre-
county" His notice OF contest nowhefe
set forth, however, any irregularities IN
this vote. The committee throw out lO9
votes in Tamarack precinct, TAG In Two
River precinct, 213 in CroOkston pre-.
cinct and 436 in Kitson precinct. Both
the latter are in Polk county. The
majority claim, also, to have found ten
cases Of bribery. Mr.. Keifer inslsta
that there is no case in the entire record
where a man was shown to have been
bribed by the authority or with the
knowledge of Mr.. Washburn, except or
hearsay testimony. Much Of the testi'
mony is of this character, and was made
up after Donnelly went into the county
to get evidence. Eighty-six votes fo'
Washburn are thrown out because they
were not contained in the original, but
in supplementary returns. There IL M
dispute a. to their having been cast
The aggregate of votes to be throwp ou
ia $3.50. which, deducted from 2O.942
leaves Washburn H. ,272 votes. The com
mittee adds to this 212 votes which wer'
omitted from returns from Stearns ant
Morrison counties. This would max
Washburn's aggregate, according to tn
committees count, II, 484. The retuHne'
| vote for Donnelly is 1929. The com
mittee deducts for numbered ballots
500; for Isanti county (that county bein||
thrown out), 1877; one vote for Tamaracl
precinct, one from Two River precinct
Is in Crookston precinct, and 136 fror
| Kitson. This makes 8l1 to be deducte
from Donnelly's returned vote, leavin
him II. .O9S, to which they add 66l vote
for Stearns and Morrison counties, NO
returned, making q total Of II, ,649, an
gives HIM . majority Of 165 over Wash
burn.