Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-25

of the Sixth ward. Ia these two precincts
the provisions of the law above 9uoted
was strictly pursued, and it furnis hes a
curious confirmation of the Importance
and correctness of the portion of this law,
that the official count IN these two pre-
cincts is substantially the same as that
which has Just been made before the court
In the second precinct of the Fourth ward
the two counts are Identical In the first
precinct of the Sixth ward, the difference is
trivial. Also in the county precincts
where the provisions of the law were sub
stantlally observed, there is no material
difference in the two counts. The princi--
pal difference between the two counts has,
occurred in the thirteen precincts of the
city, where the provisions of this law were
disregarded, and where the ballots instead
of being read and announced, and Dro--
claimed to the clerks, separately, as the
law requires, were read and announced
and proclaimed in punches some
times of 5, sometimes of 10 and sometimes
OF so. During this count in punches per-
haps of so which were obviously counted
for OGorman, we have found two or more
Richter votes, and in punches of votes OBJ
orsly counted foF Richter we have found
OGorman votes. An analysis of the two
counts shows clearly that the errors in the
original count have occurred in this way,
and as we go through the different pre-
cincts we find in many Instance, with one
or two exceptions, that where Richter
has lost certain number of votes
OGorman has gained the same number,
and where O'Gorman has lost certain votes
Richter has gained like number; and it
is perfectly apparent from an analysis of
the two counts, that the difference between
the two counts is caused entirely by the
mistakes occurring in the manner we have
pointed out. The count made by the
judges was made late at night,
by dim light and by per-
sons that were com paratively exhausted,
and hence the mistakes which
occurred by their omnibus mode of count
ing. Whereas the count that has been
made before the court has been made by
experts, fresh in their faculties,an during
the day, each vote being separately han
died and counted, and all being done in the
presence of the parties interested and
their counsel. Therefore the second count
has been perfectly accurate and has sim
ply corrected the errors which crept
into the first count in the manner we have
indicated, and by reason of the violation
W.
Mr.. Allis made a minute analysis of the
two counts in support of his position. He
showed that so far as the totals were con-
cerned the two counts substantially agreed,
thus demonstrating that there could have
| been no tampering with the ballot boxes
between the two counts. He pointed out
that according to the recount the total
O'Gorman vote was 4,222 and the total
oh FOL
of votes cast for the Office of sheriff of
1899; whereas according to the official
count the total 0'Gorman vote was 4,158,
and the total Richter vote 4,187, making
grand total of votes cast for sheriff of
8,345, thus making difference of the
grand total of the two counts of only six
votes. 1t will be seen that according to
the official count Richter received
a majority of 90, and that according to the
recount O'Gorman receives a majority of
los. Mr.. Allis showed by reference to the
Madden vote that the discrepancy between
the two counts was much greater in pro-
portion than it is between the O'Gorman
or Richter vote. Mr. Allis claimed that
the evidence showed that the greatest care
had been taken in the safe custody
of all the ballot boxes which
had been introduced in court
from the time the polls were closed and
the count finished until they were put in
evidence in this case, and that in this re-
gard he had abundantlY showed that the
contestant was submitting to the court the
identical ballots which had been counted
by the judges of election. That they were
the same ballots, and had not Deen tam
pered with, was also made perfectly plain
by the inspection of the boxes in opens
court and the exact agreement between the
two counts, excepting where certain Rich
ter votes we're discovered in a bunch Of
O'Gorman votes and vice versa. These
errors being corrected it appears that
OGorman received majority of the votes
cast for sheriff.
He should therefore be adjudged, he
claimed, by the court, to be entitled to the
ofice.