Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser., 1889-11-22
The Muda Compton Contest.

The brief for Hon. Barnes Compton in the
contested election case of sydney e. Mudd VS.
Compton, for the fifth congressional district OF
Maryland, has been prepared by Bernard Garter
and Charles III. Stanley. counsel for Mr.. Comp
ton. 1t makes pamphlet of 81 pages and gives
a synopsis of the evidence taken in Mr.. Comp
TONS behalf The statement OF the case begins
by saying that the otfi cal vote as returned to
the Governor gives Compton plurality OF Isl
votes over Mudd, and that on this basis certit-
cate OF election was issued to Compton. The bur-
den of proof therefore rests upon Mr.. Mudd. The
latter, however seeks to throw it upon MIR.
Compton by claiming that the Governor should
have allowed the one vote cast for s. \. Mudd
instead of for Sydney E. Mudd, and that his not
having done so places the contest in the same
category as the Wallace Mckinley case,i which
the committee elections shifted the onus TO
the contestants adversary. But in the Mudd-
Compton case the change would not have AFFECT
ed the result, for one vote cast for compton
instead of Barnes Compton would have had t"
be included and the plurality would have IT
mained the same.
The brief then recites the facts of the official
count, including districts in Charles county
which had been omitted, and the recount. By
the latter Mudd lost 10 votes. and the final result
WbS d pluiditty AoA SoihPeoA VI ~ 'OsSS' nv
recount, it is stated, cannot be questioned.
Mr.. .Compton's counsel assert that rejected
votes, even If counted, would not elect Mudd
and review the testimony to show that such
losses were offset by similar losses for Compton.
The brief denies that IT'S republican voters were
intimdated in the first precinct OF the third
election district of Ammo Arundel county, and
cites evidence to show that the election was con-
Quoted under republican control. and no COM
olaints or arrests for disturbance or intimidation
were made Moreover It is not even claimed
that any of the lis votes was te ndered Mt the
polls On the other hand, the brief claims, 1t Is
clearly shown that Mr.. Compton. in the fourth
district of Anne Arundel, by the conduct of par
tisans of Mr. Mudd. lost a large number OF votes
lone witaess says 20 to 81 votes. In Char les
county colored voters who dared tn vote the
democratic ticket were ostracised, threatened
and beaten In ST. Mlry's the same sort of in
timidation was practiced by c,lored Republicans
The evidence taken in the various COUNT es
and in Baltimore city, is reviewed in detail
Even If the q votes claimed by Mr.. Muda in Ca
vert county were allowed. Compton. 1t Is assert
ed, would still have plurality of 10 votes
With reference of the recount in Baltimore city
the brief says
"Instead of argument In his (Mr. Mudds) brief
he attempts various insnuatlonS and hintS AT
suspcious-first, that the contestee Knew the
boxes had been tampered with therefore, we
only counted certain precincts This IS not on
ly Indignantly denied, but all the circumstan-
ial evidence Is against it. and there Is no evil
Cience offered to sustain 1t. Secondly. tie casts
insinuations upon the police board and its en-
Moves because they are democrats. They all
swore the ballot boxes hal not been tampered
with; their testimony stands unimpeached and
uncontradicted, their veracity unquestioned oy
testimony, and being unable to attack their
characters by testimony he seeks to do so by IN
situations in his BRIEF trusting and presuming
too much we are sure, upon the theory that tue
committee who shall sit in this case are as sus-
picious as himself and his counsel. and as anxt
Gus and willing. without evidence. either direct
or circums tantial, to disregard the solemn oaths
of men holding honorable and responsible posi-
tions by selection OF their fellow-sitizens. who
live and are the heads OF one OF the finest police
departments in this country"
In the eighth district Of Anne Arunel county.
the brief says. "the testimony shows that persons
voted upon q list in the hands Of one Pether-
bridge. without regard to the list of veters on
the poll-book furnished to the judges. and that
upon his statement that their names were on
his list the u dges allowed persons TO vote. and
refused voters (notably Sweeney because his
name was said by Petherbridge not 10 be ON the
Ii L he held. Petherbridge was not an officer of
the election, and was Increasingly as a partisan
OF Mr.. Mudd. The names OF the persons 81 vot-
ing were not checked preventive against
repeating.
"rhe returns from that district were not sign
ed by the democ, attic judge or sttestsd by either
OF the clerks and there Is no certificate on the
poll book that oath was taken before any one
by either the judges or the clerks. The election
in this district was conducted most loosely; il
gave the contestant plurality. as returned. OF
So votes, and the testimony Of can,e,tant's own
witness, Petherbridge, is that the distii.t Is
de .,ocratic by 50 votes.
"rhe certificate Petherbridge had At the polls
and upon which he voted persons, ne arly every
one of whom were coiored. Is not Ia evidence
and IL not shown to be any evidence OF registra-
tlon. Contestants counsel while referring to it,
refused to offer 1t In evidence or fiIe copy Of
it,