The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-25
The CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
synopsis Of the Majority and the Minor.
ity Reports.

Special Dispatch 10 The Appeal
NASHVILLE, Tenn, Jan. 2i-The cleo
ton committees Of the Senate and House
presented their reports in the Burns-Wood-
cock and Johnson-B ierlcin cases today
There was a majority report signed by all
the Democratic members OF the respective
| committees, and a minority report signed
10y the Republican members. The ma
iority report OF the Senate committee
states that after hearing ali the evidence,
il is the opinion Of the committee that
Burns and not Woodcock is entitled 10 the
seat ia the Senate. The report SAYS that
on the face Of the returns Woodcock has a
majority over Burns OF l4g votes, but that
the majority Of the committee believe
Woodcock is not entitled TO the seat, and
that Woodcocks majority was secured by
fraud. The report recites the substance
OF Consadine's testimony concerning the
counting Of the votes cast in the Sixth
ward, and said the count was not made in
accordance with law, aud recommended
that the sixth ward vote, which gave $50
votes majority for WOOdcock. be thrown out
Of the count The report recommends
that 50 iar rs the Eighth Ward count il
concerned, whNcin similar violation Of
law occurred, only 100 ballots be thrown
Out, fifty Republican aud iiiy Democratic.
The report says there were frauds in the
Thirteenth District; rccitcs the testimony
OF some of the witnesses for the contestant
declares the belief Of the majority of the
committee that tins testimony shifts the
burden Of proof upon the contcstcc. and
that l2b votes be excluded from the Tlir.
tccnth District count. and thirteen bo
taken from WoodCock's remaining vote.
The report recommends that Woodcock be-
declared not member Of the Senate, and
that Burns be- declared constitulionally
elected. Tho report was signed by all the
Democrats ON the Committee. Tho ma.
iority report in the House was practically
the same rs that Of the Senate Committee.
TIM MINORITY RrPuKr,
which was signed by all OF the Republic
ans on the committee, set forth that the
facts, according 10 the testimony adduced.
does not sustain Burns claim 10 seat:
that the evidence on which the majority
report h based consists OF the surmiscs
and opinions Of interested persons, who
acted ~ willing witnesses for the contest.
hllt llliN MINI NNhhiulnt, supervisor OF
election, upon whose testimony the major.
ity propose 10 throw out the vote OF the
sixth Ward, Is q special friend and en-.
thusinstic supporter Of Burns; that IL was
over Mikes saloon and In his presence
rs supervisor that the votes were
counted, aud that II there were any irrcg.
ularItics or frauds that they wcro pcrpc.
tralcd by the friends Of said Burns. The
IMPORT declared that there Is no lust
grounds presented Tor DISTINGUISHING the
voters Of tho Sixth Ward: that
there is no proof 10 sustain the
charges Of uulaimoss. The report saws
there Is no ground Tor throwing ont the
vote oi the Sixth Ward. but Il the theory
upon which the majority report il based
n right, then the vote OF the Ninth and
Eighth Wards should also br thrown out.
as the evidence shows that the same
method of counting the vote was adopted
n these wards as were adopted in the
sixth. Tho report holds that the vote Ia
none ol these wards should hc thrown out.
The report comhats the position taken In
the majority report and insists that Wood. |
cock was fairly elected nnd Is entitled 10
hIs scat Tho minority members also ay
that the majority report was not adopted |
at @ meeting Of the committee, that there
was uo discussion or consideration of ~
ports and that NO report WIS voted upon.