Daily Republican., 1880-10-20
anythipg but afidavits, which are mol
evidence in this case, bat sworn plead
ing only, or traversss Of the facts al.
legged In the petition for ths rule. III.

hoSo" IN Ino pstitiOn Tor the rule. s1F
L What weight Is this court TO give {,
the testimony Of Gallagher and Pierce
They stand before US as respectab bl
T. witnesses, present when the facts theJ
swear to must have transpired, ant
! sustaining with apparent calmnsss AM
clearness OF mind, their original state
rlent, upon the oross-examination o
the relator's counsel. No hint was givsr
that they wer8 not credible witnesses, ,ol
have We any suspicion that they ar.
not. II their statements about the fa0t.
OF the result Of the election, the an
nouncemsnt of 1t, aud tho certificates,
are not to 5s relied upon, why were We
not furnished By the respondents with
eouutervatliDg proof 7 1t is but reason
able to suppose II could have hssn had
II it existed, for the other ersons
present at the tims all live In the same
ward Of the city, and, OK course, with.
in reach OF ths courts process. 1t ia
unreasonable for Us to conclude, not.
withsIanding the delicate nature o.
this case, that snch opposing proof
could not be nader Wa think all can
did persons will say ne. .
| Sensitive as the public il now to
everything which concerns the COLI
tssts Of parties for supremacy, We yet
can find no other way of treating this
case, than the straight one followed in
those bstwesn man and man, where
the rule is that uncontradicted testi-
mony by credible witnesses is to bs be-
isved, if they had means OF knowing
the facts. and their statements are not
evident mistakes by being irconsistent
with circumstances abopt which there
ID no dispute. Apply that rule to the
case before US, and 1t ia but our OBJ
yious duty to say that we believe the
testimony of the witnesses, Gallagher
and Pierce, is true. Bat the learned
counsel Tor the respondents pointed
our attention to the fac. that both the
same witnesses swors that the names
Of all who voted, and no others, we're
written down by the clerks, as they
were announced by the presiding Judge,
knight who received them at the time
they voted, and also that ons OF the
votes opened was q double vote, and
for Ferris, and was rejected, ana also
that the name of James Rogers was
erased from the lists at one place; and
that as this state OF things would chow
that only two hundred and Ave votes
we're cast and not two hundred and
seven as alleged (the erased name
having its appropriate number and one
necessary to make their alleged totaD |
by iho5a witnesses, we therefore |
should disregard their testimony, and |
then the case for the relator would be
without proof I'D required in court of
law. il We had any proof by witness.
es of credibility at this bar, that the
statements of Gallagher and Pierce are
not true, with respect to the other facts
stated by them-that is, ifa contrary
stats of facts vera sworn to, or those
facts denied, by competent and credi
table witnesses we might then be
to the conclusion, that they
mad sworn falsely about the number of
voters but, as such ia not the case,
We must rather treat their testimony as
q mistake -- though we may not be
able to understand how it Gould have
1sen made. The fact remains however
hat there is no denial by witnesses Of t
he main facts, aor any attempt to COM c
,el the attendance of any one who e
oul1 dispute them, if they were not |
rue, If such person existed, ne clerk, t
ike, might have been brought, and E
be Judge, Keanedy. What inference, a
ut one can be drawi' from the neglect P
have subpoena process Issued for a
nem The only thing tfsred in an.
wer to the relator's proof, 10 the fol r
,wins afidavits Of Knight and Kcnn,'' Y
y, which as l have before said, with. -
espeot to such papers fled by the re- c:
pondents in these cases, are mere b
worn plsadings, or travsrses, and not K
vidence in the cause. I'll
knights affidavit set forth that i'm. Il
upon closing the election and D
scertaining the vote, thsir certificates, q,
4 due form as prescribed by law and n
gned by the presiding officer and II
ldges, and certifying that Jesse U. tc
3hnson was elected inspector, were h
My tran3mitted, &c. il
Now 1t will be observed that these Il
apers do not attempt TO follow the afi- O.
aVits Of the other side, upon the same K
lbject, in their details but make a 81
sneral statement, though sufficient as %
a indirect depial, of the fact alleged. m
7hy not have denied them in detail, If b
icy were false, or such as were false. pl
hat is the usual mode pursued in cou- th
rvailing afidavits. But, taking them h,
they are, do they deny that Ziba Ia
srris, the relator, received the high de-
t number of votes read out at cleo. n,
On 7 Not at all nor by necessary in. G.
renee. But they aver that the high. W
t number of legal votes was given to trl
II. Now such is not the fact, even tn
the vote OF Cole is to be held to have I'll
sn lawfully taken from the box and tx
jeoted. because there is no pretense as
at the additional casting vote of Ke
hight was given until the officers of eol
Q election had dispersed in fact, ia,
ION the testimony of Gallagher, as to
j conversation with knight, it must in
we been given at the City Hall, at in
e meeting Of the board of revision, so ole
lied. cd
This and another expression used in rat
ese afIidavits 1t may not be proper to off
oribs to any design by the afidavits Ger
misstats facts, but rather to misinfor- TIL
alton in the mind of the person who Tn
NV the affdavits, and q want ofready to
probation by the atlantis Of the force
terms and expressions.
There il also something else to be we
1sidered. No one Of these afidavits the
ID on the respondents behalf denies id
tarna a a might so easilv hava haan tho