Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-01-04

made the following showing of figures:
Contestee's majority on the face OF the re-
First list of illegal voters ................... l6
Second list of illegal voters, ............... IS
Total .................. Observation-Disclosures. Iii
In behalf of the contestants claim to
the seat these figures were presented:
Mora county votes illegally cast for Veeder., A
illegal votes admitted By contsstee....,. 70
...t...... ~
Total Observation-Disclosures $50
Taking these respective showings the
attorney argued that according to Feeder's
claims but III votes, fair Or fraudulent,
were i'll question as against the contes-
tant, while as against Veeder it had been
shown that 239 votes counted for Veeder
should not have been counted because
they were illegal, hence Maj. Salazar
argued Just consideration Of the figures
would give his client, Prichard, the seat
by a majority of sixty-eight over Veeder.
THE OTHER SIDE.
Last night Frank Springer, esq, ap-
peared before the committee and made a
very able argument in behalf of Mr..
Veeder. He commended that the county
line as shown by Mr.. Prichard's state
ment does not agree with the lawfully
recognized boundary. According to tes-
timony, he said, ofengineers and oil gov
eminent maps, the line claimed by Mr..
Prichard to have been surveyed for him,
if continued westward, would strike "a
point at least nine miles south of any
common point on the boundary Of Santa
Fe and Rio Arrba counties, whereas were
the county line run IN westerly direction
so as to touch the first common point on
the line between Santa Fe and Rio Arriba
counties would have all those AZ votes in
question within San Miguel county The
law fixing this county line was enacted in
1882. No question had been raised as to
its correctness till now. The voters about
whom this contention is had always voted
in San Miguel county, had there paid
their taxes made their land entries and
final proofs in San Miguel county by di-
rection of the land office and some OF
them had held Office in San Miguel coun-
ty. In word, they were recognized
generally as citizens of San Miguel. 1t
may be admitted, he contended, that the
law was doubtful or ambiguous when an
attempt was made toapply it to the facts
on the ground, though evenif this be 80
he claimed that the people of this pre-
cienct who have voted in good faith in
San Miguel county should not be deprived
OF their sulTrages after the election upon a
doubtful construction of the law. If, how
ever, it be assumed these people are i'll
Mora county, only forty-not forty
seven-were proved by contestants wit
nesses to he not entitled to vote in San
Miguel, the other seven having residences
ON both sides Of the line.
Mr.. Springer said Mr.. Prichard claimed
{. 81 votes as having been cast for Veeder
which should be thrown out on account
of various grounds of Illegally, such as
non-residents, citizenship, and also
among these q includes some people
whose votes were claimed to have been
rejected by the judges Of election, and
who, it is alleged, would have voted for
Prichard. He argued that the testimony
about these 27 votes was mostly of hear
say character, rumors and talk from peg
pie not under oath. In only two or three
cases, he said, had the parties themselves
been produced to swear to the facts. In
reference to Mr.. Prichard's claim that
1877 unregistered voters had cast their
ballots for Veeder, Mr.. Springer said the
list of these was in evidence so that the
committee could Judge for itself whether
the voters were actually unregistered or
not He said there were but 81 votes
on this list who were absolutely unregis-
tered, and there were 33 whose names are
sufficiently dissimilar that they might by
a strict construction OF the law and giving
the contestant the benefit OF the doubt,
said to be different from the persons who
voted hereunder. Assuming this to be
proven and allowing 40 voters from dis
puted precincts and n for other causes
mentioned above, and deducting 8 votes
which it is admitted were from precincts
in which the poll books were SO written
that it was impossible to learn how the
people voted, and it gives the contestant
credit, said Mr.. Springer, for 157 votes.
File added here that the contestee claimed
"a large number" of persons unregis-
tered had also voted for Mr.. Prichard and
he argued that, by testing contestee's
proofs on this subject by the same rules
as the proofs Of the contestant are tested,
there appear to be 80 of such unregistered
votes absolutely proved. The attorney
then said, in summing up that he would
add these 90 votes to the 90 majority re-
ceived by Veeder on official count, gave
Veeder majority of $50, or majority OF
20 after allowing, for purposes of argu-
| mant no said nil of the above mentioned