The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1880-02-27
DONNELLY VERSUS wAsHBURy.

Points of the Contest for the Seat I'm
the fOuse of representative for the
second District Sl Minnesota-Ihe
Scrats Contemplate increasing Their
Number.
The house committee on elections de-
voted Wednesdays session to the discus
sion of the merits of the Washburn-D DON
nelly case. Mr.. Keifer took up most of
the time in an argument in favor of
Washburn. The following statement of
the-case covers the main points in the
controversy: The returned vote for
Washburn was 20,942. The committee
propose to deduct from this vote 2,282
votes, on account Of numbered ballots
cast in Minneapolis. They also reject
the entire vote for Washburn cast in
lsanti county, or 538 votes. The votes
in other precincts are to be thrown out
because they were certified 10y 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. 1t
il 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 on this point il:
"The laws purporting to give ioiut au-
thority to three Or more public officers
or other persons, shall be construed az
giving such authority to n majority of
such officers or persons. This certificate
shows clearly that it was signed by two
oft IN 10 -,
make such certificate. Assuming that
the certificate is, in fact, illegal, Mr..
Donnelly put into the record an abstract
of the vote from lsanti county, separ-
ately certified by the only officer who
could make n certificate of that vote, the
county auditor. That abstract shows
that Mr.. Washburn received 53S
votes and Donnelly 127, and two
scattering. This proves the vote indie
pendently of the alleged defective return,
and there is no attempt anywhere in the
record to disprove it; but Donnelly,
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, L was pre-
pared to prove the grossest irregularities
in the conduct Of the election in that
county" His notice of contest nowhere
set forth, however, any irregularities in
this vote. The committee throw ont 100
votes in Tamarack precinct, TAG in Two
River precinct, 213 in Crookston pre-
cinct and 43G in Kitson precinct. Both
the latter are in Polk county. The
majority claim, also, to have found ten
cases of bribery. Mr.. Keifer insists
that there is no case i'll the entire record
where a man was shown to have been
bribed by the authority or with the
knowledge Of Mr.. Washburn, except Oh
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 for
Washhun are thrown out because they
were not contained in the original, but
in supplementary returns. There is no
dispute us to their having been cast.
The aggregate of votes to be thrown out
is 1870, which, deducted from 20, 9i2,
leaves Washburn 1922 votes. The COM
mittee adds to this 2l2 votes which were
omitted from returns from Stearns and
Morrison counties. This would make
Washbmn's aggregate, according to the
committee count, 1884. The returned
vote for Donnelly is 1929. The COM
mittee deducts for numbered ballots,
500: for Isanti county chat county being
thrown OUT, 1877; one vote for Tamarack
precinct, one from Two River precinct,
As in Crookston precinct, and l35 from
Kitson. This makes S41 to he deducted
from Donnelly's returned vote, leaving
him 1908, to which they add SOL votes
for Stearns and Morrison counties, not
returned, making a total of il, $40, and
gives HIM majority of 1G5 over Wash
h,tr,