Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1880-03-25
The DonnelIy-Washbure Contest.
THE MINORITY REPORT.

Washington, March q.
The minoritY report In the contest.
ed election case of Donnelly vs.
Washburn (Minnesota) has been
placed In the hands of the committee.
A final vote will be tax en- by the
committee on Tuesday. The minor.
ity report cites the fact that the re.
turned vote who gave a majority OF
S,013 for Washburn that the dis
trict was created by act of the Leg.
islature of Minnesota on February 22,
1879, and has always been Republi.
can by a large majority /; that the
Republican majority for Congress.
man in 1872 was. 6, 449,in 1874. 2,3I9,
IN 1876, 2,o96, land in 1878, 3,Ol3, and
the Republican majority for Cover
nor in 1877, was 1852. The report
adverts to the character Of the eyi.
denca relied on by the contestant, and
claims that there is very little, if any,
testimony on record which would be
received or considered in any court
of justice in this or any other civil
lied country; that the testimony
may be generally denominated as
heresay though so far as it relates to
the question of bribery or illegal vot-
ing, very little of it arises even to the
dignity of hearsay evidence when
scyutinized. The committee under
stand that certain members of the
committee, In order to arrive at the
conclusion reached by them, have
considered all. or very nearly all, OF
such incompetent testimony found in
the report "It is proper to observe
that much If the hearsay evidence
relied on consists only of conclusions
drawn from conversations with per.
sons, held after election, which are
always unreliable, and, as general
rule, even though the testimony
would be otherwise competent, are
regarded as very dangerous, if at all
admissible, in q court of Justice"
Upon allegations of bribery, the re.
port says:
There is eyid enee tending 10 show that in
this district the friends Of contestant aud con.
testee both used money to poll the district
and to provide means for getting 10 the polls
voters who were remote from polling places,
and who were often without conveys nces of
their own 10 which TO travel 10 the polls on
election day. Money was undoubtedly spent
to pay canvassers before election, and in
some instances men were employed at the
polls TO hold tickets for the respective par
ties. Some money was also expended TO pay
speakers 10 go over the district. The COM
mittee is not prepared TO say that such use of
money Is entirely illegiiimate. II is very
common, If not universal, in all contested
elections throughout the United States, for
candidates and their friends to use such
means 10 secure votes. The members of the
committee rely very much upon the TACT that
the sitting member was not willing TO digni.
fy the ease Of contestant by calling witnesses
TO disproye alleged testimony offered By him.
Il Is sufficient answer to this TO say that
there is very little in any Of the testimony
offered by contestant for the purpose of prov
ing bribery that is in sny sense worthy Of
being met by any testimony, even though il
could be regarded as competent testimony
The witnesses called, in many instances, only
make clear the fact that they were dissp.