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

Richter. OGorman. Madden.
| City precincts 3,677 1888 40
| Country 5lO 32O
Totals ....... 4, l07 4,l5o 5O
| Richter's plurality, 20.
The court has permitted subject to de-
| PENDANTS objection, hereafter to be decided
upon, recount in court of the votes, re-
sulting in loss to Richter of sixty-fve
and like gain to O'Gorman; thus electing
| O'Gorman if the recount is permitted to
override the official canvass.
Before reading the merits, the defendant
makes the following points:
The plaintiff has not proven that he was
an elector of the said county or qualified
candidate, or candidate at all; the statute
providing that it is only an elector or can
didate of the proper county that can wage
such a contest.
It appears from the evidence that he has
never taken the oath or given any bond as
such sheriff, the failure of which for ten
days after the first day of January, the
statute declares, vacates the election.
A general canvass by the court of all the
ballot boxes is unprecedented and not con-
templated by the statute. It's effect is to
turn this court into an appellate canvass
ing board, long after the election, thus
superceding the determination in this case
of sixty-six judges and forty-four CT erks
sworn to do their duty, and as competent
as the two referees appointed by the court,
to calculate the vote, and perhaps more,
for they knew better for whom indistinct
or doubtful ballots were to be counted, and
all this on the mere say so of a single
elestor, or a candidate who, where the
vote is close, and while he is smarting
under defeat, and having nothing to lose
is willing to put the opposite party and
the court to the trouble and expense Of the
experiment.
do not deny his privilege to investi-
gate all the ballot boxes at his own cost,
before he commences his contest, for the
law says he may have them opened in the
presence of the city clerk. When he thus
discovers mistake in the official count, he
can give the opposite party notice of the
particular mistake claimed, thus enabling
him for time, simply to allege a mis-
count, which is all that is IN reality al
legged in this case, certainly nothing is
proven VI lEduC, VI L11Sbo1hOs OuOo-oO bhO
mistake to be inferred from the number of
ballots in certain ballot boxes, opened for
the first time in court, Is to give the OPP
posite side no chance for preparation, and
to base the contest on mere guess, unless
the contestant knows that the ballot boxes
have been tempered with, in his interest,
since the election and before the opening
of the boxes in court.
How, unless he previously knew the con-
tents of the ballot boxes, where he relies
on the contents only to show miscounJ
could he know that there was miscount.
In this case it is true that in one instance
defendant alleges that ballots, not voted
were put in one ballot box, but he has ut
terly failed to produce any evidence what
ever on the point. He has not
shown in any instance or attempted
to show that any one fraudulently or other
wise added to or subtracted from the con-
tents of the boxes before the Judges signed
their returns, or, Except as may be
inferred from the contents of the boxes
themselves,) that the judges and clerks,
104 in all, made any mistakes In their
Judgment as to what votes were to be can
vassed and for whom, or in their calcula-
ton and adjudication of the result. The
presumption was that the returns and bal
lot boxes would correspond, and would
have done so probably if they had been
sealed up. Suppose they had correspondent
the plaintiff would certainly have had no
case, and would have embarked the de-
PENDANT in a contest which defendant
could have escaped had the plaintiff been
compelled to make his count before he
came into court.
There is no public good to be derived
from opening up close contests and de-
termining whether vote spelled 'SFred
| Richer is intended for "Richter," or a
| vote spelled 'SGorman" is intended for
"O'Gorman." The presumption from
nearly even vote is that the candidates are
about equal in fitness or unftness, and
that the people don't care which is elected.
1t has been decided in Philadelphia,
where parties have not, as matter of
right, access to the boxes, that the court
will not order the opening of the boxes
without designation of the particular
ones to be examined, and affidavit as to
the fraud or mistake concealed therein.
No court that am aware of has ever de-
cided that it would go into general can
vass of the votes, and we
objected in the first place that
the plaintiff should show as preliminary
not only that the box of which he COM
planned had been kept intact, but that
some mistake or fraud had been committed
which, if it had existed, could easily have
been shown by the judges, clerks or in
terested parties, bYstanders, friends of the
contestant, or by previous examination
out of court of the ballot boxes, and thus
enabling the defendant to know what to
meetif he litigated case of defense or to
decline the contest if he is elected.
The statute provides that after the
election is completed the ballots shall be
sealed in an envelope and directed to tie
proper custodian endorsed with the name