Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1889-10-16


ment that it was by . Judge Of election
where there was a vigorous II objectn iron
the Democratic side Of the house.
Judge Kirkpatrick. the maker OF the oh
ction, protested against the introduction
Of any afidavits and denied the power o
the board to accept them. II such were ts
be admitted time should be granted Tor thu
preparation OF counter-afiidavits. II The
attorney for the Republicans proposed to
show that the signatures 10 the returns
we're forgeries-why, that Was quite another
thing. The hearing OF testimony by board
Of canvaseers was an unknown pro
| eeeding.
Mr.. Campbell proposed to show, he said,
that the judges had signed under duress
He Offered the affidavits.
At this point OF the proceedings Jud.s
Mcconnell took an active part in the dis,
eussion and Offered authorities to show
that the board not constituted ia
| WELD judicial powers. 1t had no power oil
investigation when the returns when mani.
testify correct and received through the
proper channel. ~ w,sh to read to our
Learned friend, Judge Knowles, sons Of the
excellent Law he laid down when he was on
the supreme bench and delivered an opin.
ion in Q case like this. I want TO Iced him
with his " spoon. Judge Knowles said
Il Nutc- u . NaSSekSA W0ttn ~
c-aayassers had nothing TO do with.
IL 10 no part OF their duty TO
| determine what was the true and
legal vets cast And here il some more
excellent law by the same learned judge:
What they were required to do wAs TO de.
ktermine what the abstract Of the returns
showed on this question, Judge Knowles
was talking as q judge then; he win epeak
as a lawyer tonight" In continuing Judge
| Mcconnell said that the board could not
20 into the question Of fraud even II there
were fraud which smelled to heaven.
Mr.. GAmpbsl-Have you any returns to
COUNT
Judge M oonnel-Yes. sir, I claim that
these are the returns.
Mr.. Campbell-Those returns were forged
in that the clerks were not present when
| the c Iunt was made and they knew moth.
ng Of what they attssted.
Judge Knowles took up the argument Ia
reply TO Judge Mcconnell. and read section
| 1880 of the statutes defining the duties oil
I clerks. He exhibited the returns. and said
that the handwriting was not that Of
either OF the clerks, hut OF ON Of the
jueges; that only the signatures were in the
chirography OF the clerks; that under the
old law the judges certified and the clerks
attested, and under the new law the clerks
c0ruiueQ anu bne IuuSoc aeo0oeou. AhiS
did not appear in the returns OF the pre-
cinct. The board OF were in
duty bound to determine what were and
what were not returns" There were no
returns from the Tunnel precinct. The
vote had been canvassed by persons
other than those designated by the law.
He wanted to introduce afidavits to show
that what purported to be returns were
not returns.
Judge Mcconnell replied that there was
not q particle Of evidence to show that
the clerks signatures were not genuine, and
he maintained stoutly that no vitiation
had resulted even il the judges had made
out the returns to be signed by the clerks.
Judge Fitzpatrick supported his pre-
decessor, and pointed u the difference
between q mandatory and a directory law.
Section 1880 OF the statutes was directory,
and the omission to do what it directed
did not invalidate what had been done.
Tie fact that the judges had acted as the
amanuenses Of the clerks did not in the
least destroy the validity Of the returns.
Judge Knowles replied by reading from
"McCrary on Elections" that the can.
vassers must determine what are returns.
The Republicans wanted to show that the
clerks signatures were not put there by
their uninfluenced acts.
Chairman Jack-The b BARD has decided
that the affidavits may be read.
Mr.. Campbell thereupon read the sworn
statement OF William O'Reagan, q Demo-
cratic Judge at the Tunnel precinct, to the
effect that the judges had locked the doors,
nailed paper over the doors, excluded the
clerks and denied anmittance to any and
all persons from the polling place. Another
affidavit by O'Reagan q in effect o
part of the ballots were counted in one
place and part in another and that no one
except the judges was admitted to either.
Another affidavit was by Messrs. Ber-
nard, Cobban, Holland and Winters. who
bad heard O'Reagan make his statement
and saw him sign it voluntarily. Still
other sworn statements were by N. K.
Albern, Andrew Green, Axel Anderson and
John A. Anderson, each of whom claimed
IT, have voted the Republican ticket at the
Tunnel precinct whence only three votes
for Republican candidates were returned.
Two OF the atlantis went 30 far as to say
that they understood the Australian sys-
tenn.
Mr.. Campbell followed the dispositions
with the statement that the returns from
Tunnel had been shown to be false, The
clerks had not done their duty and more
Republican votes had been cast than the
returns showed. He declared that the re-
turns from the Eighth precinct were 40 re-
turns at all, and he asked that those re-
turns and those from precinct "a be left
out Of the calculations OF the board.
Judge Knowles said that there was moth
ing in the returns from the eighth precinct
to show hat a y election had been held at
any time or in any place; that there was
nothing carried out or certified. The tally
list was no part of the returns. What put
ported to be tie returns was only a POLLOCK
containing q list OF the rand dates. There
was nothing to connectit with any election.
The question at the Thirty-fourth precinct
was whether the board had the votes of
the men who really voted there. The whole
thing was SO stamped with suspicion that
it could not be regarded as the returns
from the precince. The vote, he said, had
been controlled by "a railroad boss, q bird
OF passage" and closed his argument with
reference to "the penitentiary Offense" com.
mitted by the clerks of the Tunnel pre-
cinct and to the men who were walking
over the mountains" to get away from the
Tunnel.
Judge Mcconnell said that ] Judge Knowles
argument was enough to show the mad
visibility OF going into the evidence OF
The afidaviGs had been precipi-
tated at the last hour, after having been
dug up in the dark. 1t was Wiley absurd
to think of throwing out the precinct for
such d course would opel up the investiga- !
ton OF fact, supplemented by oral testi-
mony and arguments OF counsel. The
cited instances in Jefferson and
Lewis and Clarke in which votes had been
despite the same irregularities |
in Silver Bow, and half a dozen
like those from the Eighth pre-
cinct had been accepted. The Eighth pre-
cinct had made returns-a written state
ment duly certified. showing for whom the
people voted. Elections were by the plain
people OF the country not skilled in the
No man in the exercise of common
sense could declare the returns from the
any thing except what they pur.
to be. II there had been fraud any |
where the Investigation OF it was matter
for court and judge and jury.
Judge Kirkpatrick here threw a bomb
shell into the enemy's camp by arguing
if the SO called returns from the |
eighth precinct were not returns at all, the
were not Yet all in, and the board
was acting in the canvass without the au.
Of law.
Chairman Jack asked Judge Kirkpat-
opinion of the law defining the du.
Of clerks, and the Judge repeated
what he had said about mandatory and
directory laws; that failure to observe all
The provisions of a. directory law Hid not |