The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1885-01-16
A DECISION AT LAST.
Judge Hudson Decides the Ira
County Seat Case.

0uURS tuOS0n DoClUeS tUC 1T011l
County Seat Case.
In chambers, last Monday, Judge Hudson
rendered his decision in the Traill county seat
case. This was petition for peremptory
mandalnus to issue compelling the county COM
missionsrs of Trail county to remove the
county seat from Caledonia to Traill Center.
Nearly all the prominent lawyers in Fargo
were engaged in the ease on one side or the
other, and 1t is estimated that about $4,000
has been distributed among the legal fraternity
in the way of fees. Tho following we'll known
firms took hand in the fight: Miller & Greene,
Wilson, Ball L Walln, Stone Il Newman,
Thomas l. Benton, Twomey l. Francis, Fargo,
and John F. Selby, of Hillshoro
After rsciting tho allegations Of the plain
tiffs and the answer Of the respondents, Judge
Hudson says:
On the hearing in the case the largest latitude
was allowed in the introduction Of proof, and
it is quite liAely that much Of it was incompe-
tant and i,nmaterial to the issue, but tho case
is ono where fraud Is alleged, and in such cases
every circumstance that tends to prove fraudu-
lent practice Is generally proper to be given In
evidence. 1 have, however, endeavored to ex
cluile from consideration all incompetent aud
immaterial testimony in deciding the case.
The evidence discloses many Irregularities
and practices In tho manner Of conducting this
election that could not be justified, to say the
least, which If fully considered might justify
holding the whole proceeding void, but I, pre-
for to pass those and come to the graver charge
Of fraudulent voting.
1t is claimed by the respondent that in some
precincts large number Of names were en-
tered upon the poll books greatly In excess OF
the legal votes In those precincts, and in excess
OF any previous or subsequent election and in
some in excess Of the population, particularly
in the precincts that cast their votes for Trail
Center.
As proof tending 10 substsntiate these allega-
tions subpenas were placed in the hands Of
the sheriff and his deputy containing the names
of persons which appear on the poll books Of
the county seat election Of April 10, 1885, that
do not appear on the poll books Of the general
election of 1882, with instructions to make
search for these persons, and the return Of the
officers Of those not found was putin evidence.
This kind of proof is not very satisfactory, but
II it was competent, the effort and the search
did not seem to be 50 thorough as to make 1t Of
much value, and many of the persons returned
not found were afterward identified by wit
uesses OH the part of the relators.
Another means of proof was census taken
by a man employed for the purpose who went
through the precincts Of Mayvlls and Portland,
and the count made by him given In evidence.
This would seem to be more reliable.
Also census taken by the assessor in these
precincts in May and June, 1858, and another
sessor.
| This mode Of arriving at the probable num-
ber Of voters ought to bs quite reliable, al
though it is said it Is not because it was taken
in the interest Of the respondents in this pro-
ceeding, but it was authorized by the law and
by the board OF county commissioners, sud
taken by the proper officer.
To make further proof, and such as could
not be treated as partisan, the canvass and poll
books OF the general election Of Nov. I, 1882,
in comparison with tho vote Of April 10, 1884,
were given In evidence; also testimony that
certain persons not voters were permitted to
vote at the county seat election.
Taking this evidence altogether, which very
strongly tends to show the voting population
OF these precincts, and noticing the very large
increase IN the vote Of April, 1858, over that of
November, 1872, particularly in the west end
of the county, We are led to inquire how it was
that in November, 1852, al q general election
for delegate to Congress, members Of tho Tor
ritorial Legislature, district attorney, aud
county officers, less than 1,7OO votes were cast
in Trail county, aud in April, 1858, at the
county seat election, the vote III the county
reached 3,262?
1t 10 difficult to understand from this evi-
dence how precincts in the west end that cast
hardly $40 votes in November, 1852, should, in
the spring of 1883, lass than six months later,
be able to cast vote at 2, 142. Had the east
end precincts increased their vote Of the fall
before as much land see no reason why they
should not, a. welD the total vote of the county
would have been 4,3U0, larger than the vote Of
any county in the Territory is now.
There was some effort on the part OF the re-
lators to explain this remarkable increase in
the west end precincts; the explanation was
that greater interest WAS taken in the county
seat election than in the fall election, and that
the voters were all brought out; that is doubt
less true but the number Of vetes brought out
ought to be limited by the number of legal
voters; this great interest could not have
brought out voters unless there was voting
population to draw upon. 1t was said that the
west end Of the county increased during the
winter Of 1928, but ne facts we're stated Il
show this, aud the witnesses did net all concur
in this statement; the west end vote Of 1852
, was more than doubled in April, 1888; this
would indicate that the population doubled in
that time, or nearly 30; it Ia a matter Of COLL
mon experience that when any such Influx ol
population rolls in upon town or district it IL
clearly perceptible in the great demand fol
dwelling houses, the building Of many, and oi
, business buildings, and the marked apprecia
ton iu the value OF real estate, none Of which
indications appeal.
1t appears from this evidence that Mayvills
precinct cast 257 votes in November, 1882, ant
ISL, or more than twice that number, 81,
, months later; that ROsevilIs precinct cast Isl
I votes in November, 1882, aud 573, more THAI
, three times an many, in April following; thii
would indicate population in Mayville III thu
, ratio OF three to one, Of about 100 III the fal
and considerable over LOO in the spring, ant
Roseville population 546 in tho fall and !, 74t
in the spring.
, There was evidence that number OF per
, sons were naturalizrd before tho county sea
I.,,to Nav