The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-31

they observed it until the Third precinct
Seventh ward double ballots were reached. Here
a claim was made to reserve the right to con,
slider these ballots after the other wards had
been completed. The Republican commission
or had it reduced to writing that in their re-
examination the Democrats would 60 no further
than these four ballots and the two of the same
character in the Third precinct of the Sixteenth
ward. Holt and Ayres signed it, and the count
ING, replacing, resealing and relocking went on
until it was found that by counting the SIX bal
lots reserved, Denny still had nine majority.
Then Gov came in with his effort to go back to
the precincts named in his list. In answer to
his telephone mmon Judge Holman, John f..
Sullivan and, after a time, Congressman Bynum
came to consult with Holt and Coy. They were
three-quarters of an hour in consultation, which
brought the time up to 4:30 o'clock. 1t was de-
cided to abide by the agreement, and max
ing no further effort at a recount, to
allow Denny's majority of nine to stand
But, said Mr.. Cottrell to a reporter, 1--WE will
go on with the contest in the courts. We are
gathering evidence of illegal voting. That will
be the plea in the after proceedings"
care you disappointed in the RESULT"
Certainly. The ballots not turning up in the
FIRST precinct of the Eighteenth ward weakened
me. l expected a gain of twenty there. 1t broke
me up. l was told the morning after the cleo
ton that twenty votes l ought to have had were
not counted for me.n
Outside of the Second aldermanic district the
defective pastors did not appear. Cottrelrs large
6oAhc va EnO Il WdIun oI0N " IL
the Sixteenth and Twenty fifth wards. The fol-
lowing are the gains and losses for each candi-
date: In the First precinct of the Fourth, Denny
lost two and Cottrell gained one. The latter
lost one each in the First precincts of the
Thirteenth and Second precinct of the Fourteenth,
and gained one in the First precinct of that ward.
This was in the Second aldermanic district. In
the First ward Cottrell lost one, and in the Sec
ond Denny gained Two. The Fifth ward, First
precinct, gave Cottrell a gain of ten, and the
Second one when Denny lost one in that pra-
cinct. Cottrell gained one in the First precinct
OF the Seventh. and four in the Third precinct
He gained five in the First precinct of the Eighth,
while Denny lost two in the Second precinct.
Cottrell lost three in the First precinct of the
Ninth, while Denny lost five. Denny gained
one in the First of the Tenth, and lost one in the
Second, and one in the Third of the Eleventh.
Cottrell gained two and Denny one in the Sec
ond precinct of the Twelfth. Cottrell gained
ten in the First precinct of the Sixteenth, and
lost one each in the Second of the Twentieth and
Twenty-irst. In the latter Denny gained one. In
the Twenty-second ward precincts Cottrell gained
one in each and Denny lost two in each. Cot
trell gained one in the Second Of the Twenty-third
and Denny lost two. Cottrell lost one in the
First of the Twenty-fourth and Denny one. In
the First of the Twenty-ffth Cottrell gained ten
and Denny two. Denny's net loss was twelve,
and Cottrells net gain forty-one, making Den
went to footing and the commissioners to restor-
ing the ballot-boxes, resealed into the big
box that had held them. This ended the pro-
c~eedines, DeDny's vote being 9,0S2 and Cottrells
9,073.
ON THE RESTRAINING ORDER.
Judge Ayres heard further last evening the
matter of the restraining order against the com
missioners filing a report of the second recount
result pertaining to the Pritchard- Ripley con-
test. Judge Holman, appearing for the Demo
cratic defendants, first raised the question as to
the legality of the sheriff's service of the
order, maintaining that the commissioners
Were acting partly IN judicial
while they were in the discharge of that duty.
He claimed that the sheriff might as we'll serve
process upon juries while they were acting in
court. 1t was claimed by him. though, that the
commissioners wanted the fullest investigation
of their proceedings.
Mr.. Peelle replied that counsel had changed
tactics. and assume that the report
of the commission is to be made
to the judge Of the court instead of the clerk.
But the commission is not equivalent to a jury,
or to the powers of a receiver, or a commissioner,
to sell real estate. When the count is completed
they are required to file their report with the
clerk, and this does not meet Judge Ho,man's
suggestion.
Senator Harrison stated that Judge Holman's
position was untenable. He maintains that it is
sought to restrain an act that is completed, and
that. as this cannot be done, there is no remedy
for the wrong.
Following this there was some clubbing about
the service of notice of the suit. Judge Holman
saying that he had no knowledge personally of
the acceptance of service by the defendants or
the waver of service. They have no right TO
waive service.
commissioners having been served. Senator
Harrisons statement met fully that of Judge
Holman, and it was no use to delay matters any
Longer: He wanted them to proceed at once
with the merits of the question.
1t was suggested by Mr.. Peelle that as yet tho
sheriff had made no return of the restraining
writ, and until that was done he declined to pro-
coed any further, unless they could come to some
agreement that no decision could be had until
the return was perfected. He asked the court
to make an order against the sheriff to return
the writ at once. A half hour went by and
messengers sent for the sheriff, reported that he
eo3d tba not be found. The clerk
but with no Endorsement of a return having been
made. However. the parties came to an agree
ment, and the agreement on q motion of de-
PENDANTS to dissolve the order was begun by Mr..
Bynum. He urged that as the commissioners
were partly judicial and partly ministerial in
their functions, the court could not inquire
into their acts. The court cannot
say what kind Of a return shall be made. The
petition sets forth that an irreparable injury is
sought to be done to James A. Pritchard. He
has the certificate of election as alderman and is
qualified. This gives him a title to the office.
A certificate OF the second recount would not
give Mr.. Ripley any title to the Office. 1t would
possibly prepare the way for quo warranto
proceedings when all the facts would be
adjudicatcd in a court of law. Equity possesses
no power to step in, because there is an adequate
remedy in proceedings that may be brought, and
yet they may not be instituted. An injunction
cannot compel the performance of judicial acts.
If the court can go behind the certificate and
say how the tickets should be counted the
work of the commissioners is a farce.
MIR. Hawkins replied that the commissioners
superior court, and. therefore, can be enioined
from committing a wrong where fraud and con-
spiracy are charged. Their judicial character
does not relieve them. Their act of a second
recount was not merely to find a mistake,
but to purposely count out a candidate
and count in another. Mr.. Peelle maintained
that the commissioners cannot annul a count