The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1882-12-09
WALLACE-McKINLEY.
The Returning Board at Column
bus Say "One" Majority,
And Declare Mckinley Elected by this
Lonesome Flgure-POints From
Other Close Districts.


COLUMBUS, o., December 6.-The Board
! of State Canvassers met again this
morning to canvass the vote for Con-
gressmen in Ohio last October. They
| first held an executive session to pass
on the Eighteenth District, which had
| been argued the previous evening by
eminent counsel, and held that they
/ would issue the certificate to William
| Mckinley, Jr. Governor Foster and Sec
retary of State Townsend alone voted on
the case. AttOTney-General Nash and
AuditnT of State 0gIeVee acted only as
advisory members. The Governor, in
announcing the decision, said they saw
no reason why the five votes for JOna-
lace should not be counted for Jonathan
ii. Wallace. This would leave McKin-
ley one majority, and not change the re-
suit. They would not count for JOna-
than II. Wallace the four votes for John
H. Wallace, one for Major Wallace, FIVE
for Wallace, two for W. II. Wallace, Que
for W. W. Wallace and three for Mai.
Wallace. The counting Of the five votes
for Jonathan Wallace and two for j. H.
Wallace Is breaking over the bounds of
what was laid down by Shellabarger
and Day, who held that the Board had
no power to take from one column and
put it in another. Going thus far was
quite concession, and looked strongly
to the intent of the voters in the case
of the other sixteen votes cast for Wal
lace under different names. The Gov
ernor said 1t was very hard to distingu-
lsh in these cases, and they had sought
TO go by their best authority on the
long list of evidences that had been cited
to them.
The Board then proceeded to canvass
the vote for the other twenty districts,
and found that their decision in the
Eighteenth District was liable to play
the mischief in other directions. They
had passed faVOrably for Wallace when
lis first name was in full with the mid
die initial omitted, and also when the
initials only were given, but correctly
so. They had decision by the Attorney
General to this effect that had operated
in MahOning county, and they stood by
1T. Everything was found uniform and
correct in the First and Second Dis
tricts, but in the Third it was found that
PTeble county returned for r. N. Murray.
Had the strict rule been followed here
1T would have given the certificate of
election to Emanuel Schultz by about
1000 majority, but the rule adopted in
the Eighteenth District, and in accord
ance with Nash's previous opinion, gave
it all to r. NJ. Murray. Again, in the
Fourth District, one county returned
properly for Jacob s. COnklin, but Ben
LeFeVre had about 1000 majority any
way, and did not need the benefit of the
error. The votes were all counted for
Jacob s. COnkliDg. In the Sixth slight
error was found in the Greenback vote
as returned.
Hon. James E. Campbell, of Hamilton,
the Democratic candidate for Congress
In the Seventh District, was present to
FQfnFna
counted. He discovered several techni-
cal errors. One clerical error made out
total vote Of $4,000 for Butler county, a
mistake of only 10000. But the most
serious one was found in this. The re-
turns from ClermOnt county were for II.
L. MOrey, and for all the other counties
for Henry L. MOrey. Taking Shellabar-
gar's strict rule, which he laid down
the previous day, like a Judge charging
the jury, that votes could be counted for
only one precise name for the same per-
son, this would have elected Campbell
by $500 majority, as it would give the
vote of ClermOnt county to H. L. MOTey,
and not to Henry L. MOTy. On the alb
Stract of the district vote the name was
Henry G. MOrey, but this was found to
be clerical error. Mr.. Campbell was
modest in his'hearlng to-day, as we'll as
yesterday, and made no demands; but he
said that If a certain rule was to work
in other districts, he wanted it applied
also in his case.
In the course of the argument and
subsequent proceedings the board based
their action on Judge Gray's decision In
Massachusetts, Reports, In the case of
Leonard Clark vs.. Board of Examiners
of Hampden County: 1.-The duties of a
Board Of Examiners of Election Returns
is purely ministerial, and the board can
not receive or consider evidence OF ex-
trinsic circumstances, but it is confined
to the record of votes returned and laid
before 1t, and mandamus will not lie to
compel the board to count certain votes
containing the initial letter only of the
christian name OF a candidate with other
votes containing his name in full"
Another snag was struck In the Fif-
teenth District, where General A. J. War
ner and r. B. Dawes were the leading
contestants. 1t turned out that one
county returned for Andrew ]. Warner
and the rest for A. j. Warner. 1t was
said that the name was AdOniram j.
Warner. At any rate, had the General
not received the votes cast for Andrew
j. Warner he would have been left, and
Dawes received the certificate, but War
ner got all Of them. 1t will be seen
then that the ground held by McKinley's
counsel would have worked in his favor
and that of Schultz, Campbell and Dawes,
/ while III would nave been against Muir
ray, Morey and Warner. This would
have demOralized things, and there was
not even considered ground for contest
| in the Third and Fifteenth Districts.
There was, however, no shaking up, and
| the returns were Ataken as they came,
with the exceptions noted.
| Major Wallace asked that the seven
votes conceded him be counted for him,
and then asked for certified copy of
the abstract Of the vote after this was
done, from the Secretary of State.
Major Townsend did not promise it.
1t is thought that with such documents,
with certified abstract of the vote
showing only one majority for McKin-
ley, that Wallace might get his seatright
at the start, and either make Mckinley
contest or end the matter.
The board did not complete its work
till late the same day, and then found
the following persons elected, with the
majOrities over leading contestants, as
named: