Omaha daily bee., 1884-12-20
THE JUDICIAL CONTEST.
What Each Side Has to Say About 1t,

AS already stated in THE Bee the
democratic committee of this judicial
district is urging that Judge Aylesworth
should contest the election of the repub.
llcan candidate, Judge Loofbourow, and
appointed a committee to wait upon
Judge Locfborow and ascertain If he
would not agree to some statement Of
facts, to be presented and passed upon by
a court of contest, without going into
the troublesome work of introducing
witnesses and fighting every bit of testi-
mony, word by word. The committee
has waited upon Judge Loofbourew and
laid the matter before him, but did not
press for On Immediate reply, courteoudy
conceding that he would naturally want
a little time to think the matter over.
The committee got no definite reply to
the proposition, but got intimations
that did not awaken much hope for a fa-
vorable reply, when it should come. Of
course Judge Loofbourow is not axious
for q contest. He is declared elected.
1t ia the other side hat is anxious. As
to the proposition made him to agree on
some statement of facts to present for
court of contest, it ia understood that he
looks upon the proposition as absurd.
The situation to his mind seems to be IN
substance that all a court of contest
would pass upon would be which csndi-
date really had the most votes. To agree
on a statement of facts would therefore
be to agree upon which candidate had the
most votes, Rand if an agreement was
reached on this there would BIO no need
of a court of contest. The contest seems
to be really on the corrected returns of
Green county, by which a majority CT lois
figured out In Judge L~oofbourow's favor.
He and his friends say that to agree that
he did not receive these votes, would be
to agree that Judge Aylesworth was
elected, and thence no court of contest
would be needed. To agree that Judge
L~oofbourow did really receive these votes
would also do away with the necessity of
o contest.
On the other hand Judge Aylesworth
and his friends put il thus: The ques-
ton is not: "Didsthe parties who opened
the ballot boxes, days after the election,
In Grant, Scranton, and Jefferson
townships, in Greene county
actually change or substitute
ballots" The real question is
ibid they unlawfully take the opportu-
nifty to manipulate the ballots2" and II
they did take such an opportunity, though
they may have left them as they were,
the law is clear hat an official result
once made and declared, before such an
opportunity was ~unlawfully taken,
must stand as against one made up, after
the ballot box has unlawfully been tam.
pered with, even if by doing 80 innocent
an act as merely counting the votes over.
What they want'to agree or is the facts
concerning the revision of the vote In
Green county, and present the same doc.
ument and questions to a court of con,
test, which were presented to the state
board of canvassors. In other words
they want the court of contest to simply
review the action of the board.
Both sides agree that they do not wish
to enter a contest where there will be o
hunt after illegal votes. Such a contest,
however, 1t might result, would be un-
satisfactory, or 1t would be simply the
question of which party could do the
best hunting, and get the largest number
of cases.
Judge Aylesworth himself does moi
seem anxious for any contest, but the
anxiety seems more on the part of those
who have an interest In having Judge
Aylesworth vacste the superior bench &c
as to give a chance for some other dem
ocrat to rise.