Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-20

mony to Show He Was Not scoundrel-
A Weak Effort In Bad Cause.
WASHINGTON, March 19.-The minority
report in the contested election case of DON
nelly vs. Washburn, Minnesota, was received
from the printer to-day and placed in the
hands of the committee. A final vote will
probably be taken by the committee Tues
day. The minority report cites the fact
that the returned vote gave majority of g.
O13 for Washburn; that the district was
created by act of the legislature of
Minnesota Feb. 22nd, 1872, and has always
been Republican. The majority for Congress
man in 1872 was 6,449, in 1874 2.319, in
1876 2,O96, and in 1878 3,O13, and the Re-
publican majority for governor in 1877 was
815. The report adverts to the character of
the evidence relied upon by contestant, and
claims there is very little, if any testimony,
in the record, which would be received or
considered in any court of justice in this
or any other civilized country, that the testi-
mony may be generally denominated as
hearsay, though so far as it relates to the
question of bribery, or illegal voting, very
little of it arises even to the dignity Of hear
say evidence when scrutinized.
The committee understand that certain
members of the committee, in order to ar
rive at the conclusion reached by them, have
considered all, or very nearly all of such in
competent testimony found in the record.
It is proper to observe that such of the hear
say evidence relied upon consists only of con-
illusions drawn from conversations with per-
sons held after the election which are always
unreliable, and as q general rule, even though
the testimony would otherwise be competent,
are regarded as very dangerous, if at all ad-
missible in q court of Justice upon an ale
cation of bribery.
The report says: There is evidence tend
ing to show that in the district the friends
of the contestant and contestee both used
money to poll the district and to provide
means for getting to the polls voters who
were remote from polling places, and who
were often without oonveyances of their own
in which to travel to the polls on election
day. Money was undoubtedly spent
to pay canvassers before election and
in some instances men we're employed
at the polls to hold tickets for the respective
parties. Some money was also expended to
pay speakers to 60 over the district. The
committee is not prepared to say that such
use of money is entirely legitimate. 1t is
very common if not universal in all con-
tested elections throughout the United States
for candidates and their friends to use such
means to secure votes.
The members of the committee rely very
much upon the fact that the sitting member
was not willing to dignity the case of con-
testant by calling witnesses to disprove the
alleged testimony offered by him. 1t is suf-
fcient answer to this to say that there is very
little in any of the testimony offered by con-
testant for the purpose of proving bribery
that is in any sense worthy of being met by
any testimony, even though it could be re-
garded as competent testimony. The wit
nesses called in many instances only
make clear the fact that they
we're disappointed parties who desired
to be bribed by being paid large sums of
obtaining.
detail and concludes there is nothing in it to
sustain the charge of bribery.
The report holds that whether the law of
Minnesota permitting the numbering of bal
lots was constitutional or not, it affords no
reason in tho light of law and precedents for
rejecting 1882 votes thus numbered which
were cast for Washburn in seven precincts of
Minneapolis.
The report contends that there is no JUS
tice in rejecting 538 votes cast for WISH
burn in Isanti county and that the election
should stand, unless the party who attacks
it can saow fraud or other illegally; that all
the acts of purely ministerial board of
officers should not be declared void simply
because person does not sign himself by
such designation as to show affirmatively that
he was proper member of such board. The
report in conclusion holds that there is no
authority to justify the throwing out of 1922
votes cast for Washburn in Polk and Kilt
son counties because the two counties were
returned, counted and canvassed together,
as for many years has been the practice, and
in absence of proof to the contrary, it
should be conclusively presumed that the
election officers, the county canvassers and
State canvassing board have done their duty
and honestly and correctly returned the vote.