Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-01-30

eleCtlOnS, submitted the majority report Va
the committee on elections in the con-
tested election case of Juan p. Romero
VS.. Alexander Gusdorf, from the county
OF Taos, which report favored the seating
of Romero in place of Gusdorf. The re-
port was read in full as follows;
The report was read in full. 1t rectes,
among other things That the evidence
adduced by the committees investiga-
tons shows that the Taos county board OF
commissioners is Democratic; that this
board almost entirely disregarded the law
requiring that the boards of registration
shall be composed of representatives OF
both political parties and likewise were
the Republican voters in the county L.
nored when the county board selected
Judges of election, the exception being
that when Republican was appointed
infrmity or other cause. The case
of Felipe Sisneros, who served as
Judge in the 10th precinct, is cited; though
a good man he is now in his dotage, being
nearly 80 years of age, very intirm and
nearly deaf The other two members of
the board were young and active Dem
ocrats. This appears to be the policy
pursued by the Democratic county COM
missioners. The committee reports that
in precinct No. one Squire Turner Hart,
notorious bad character, confessed
refugee from California justice and who
abandoned wife and children there to
take up with a woman here, served as
one of the judges OF election and voted
whom he pleased, rejecting others whose
vote was legal The committee is not
surprised that Gusdorf should have re-
ceived 1877 votes and Romero but II, in
Harris precinct. In the Los Cordovas
precinct the polling place was transferred
by the county board to Cieneguilla plaza,
nineteen miles distant from the usual
voting place and away from the populous
section of the precinct, and there
by many, particularly the older
Republican residents, were pre-
vented from voting. The report also
sets forth that at the time of canvassing
the vote the county board and the Demo
cratic sheriff refused to allow Romero or
his friends any voice in the matter, not
even to enter protest, while Gusdorf was
present in person and took an active hand
| in the canvass. Other matters of SINH
lar character are recited in detail and then
the report says:
Zone Antonio Joseph, the present dele
gate in congress and who was a candidate
for such position at said election, and who
| resides in precinct No. 10, on the day of
election acted as clerk of election in pre-
cinct No. s, q distance of about fifty miles
from his own precinct, and also voted in
said precinct No. s, as appears from the
poll book, vote 1877. There is no evidence
on said poll book of precinct No. s that
the said Antonio Joseph voted in said pre-
cinct upon any certificate issued by the
board of registration OF precinct
No. 10; but from the oral testimony
taken before your committee it does
appear and is shown that the said Anto-
MO Joseph, on the morning of said cleo
ton, on the 9TH of November last, APP
peared at said precinct No. s, with Il lot
OF blank appointments for deputy U. S.
marshas; that he filled out said blanks,
appointing such persons as he saw tit, to
act as U. S. deputy marshals, and that
thereafter he took possession of the poll
books and acted as clerk OF said election
without any legal right or authority so
to do and subsequently claimed
| the right to vote at such polls in
said precinct, without having said
certificate, as required by law, claiming
that, being delegate in congress, he was
so entitled to vote in said precinct other
than in the one in which he resides, from
that fact alone, without reference to law
That said poll book, so kept by Antonio
Joseph us clerk of election OF precinct No.
s is now on file with the secretary Of the
territory, and is the one examined by
your committee in this contest proceeding.
That from the counting of the tallics on
said poll book, as kept by the said
Antonio Joseph, the same does
not correspond with the GER
titicate OF the judges and clerks of said
precinct, the tallies thereof showing 50
votes cast for contestant (Romero) and
SS for contestee (GusdorD, whereas the
certificate shows 90 votes for contestant
and 81 for contestee therefore, according
to the count of the tallies contestant has
II majority"
The committee is unable to say if this
| is an honest mistake or not, but the al
terations and changes in the poll books
and certificates it regards as anything but
creditable to the election judges and
clerks.
In summing up the facts the report
says:
The certificate of the board of can
vassers shows contestee elected by ~
majority. The tallies from the poll books
! l. n1a tnI h.,
majority. Contestant is entitled to have
counted for him 10 votes that would have
been cast for him, but which were dis
franchised by reason of the arbitrary ac-
ton of the board of county commissioners
in removing the polling place from the
most central part of precinct No. z to the
extreme western limits of said precinct,
as hereinbefore stated (Las COrdoyasl.
That contestant is entitled to have
counted for him votes that were
offered to be voted for him upon the GER
tficates issued by the judges OF the boards
of registration of other precincts and
which the judges of election refused to
acknowledge or receive. Contestant is
entitled to have counted for him eleven
votes that had been properly registered
by the board Of registration, or which the
board had been applied to to be registered,
and which were stricken from the regis
tration list or refused registration, they
being legal and qualified voters OF such
precincts. That there should be deducted
from the votes cast for contestee Is
votes that appear to have been
cast for him whose names do not
appear upon the registration
list of the precinct corresponding
with the precinct in which said vote was
cast, and which it is not shown were cast
by reason of any certificate issued by the
board Of registration of the proper pre-
cinct, as required by law.
Your committee further finds that in