The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-12-01
Are in the Election Board
on Trial Today.
THE TUG BOAT PRECINCT.
Prosecutor Winfield's Speech Show
ing Up One Of the Rottenest
Polling Places in the
County.


morning in Judge Lippincott's court.
The Jury was selected much easier than
the juries In the other three cases, and by
noon the trial OF the fourth batch Of ball
lot-box suffers was begun. The four
accused men were represented by Messrs.
Garretson Hudspeth, Black and DAILY.
When the jury was being selected 1t
was found that three did not respond to
the call OF their names. They
were Messrs. Tobias, Sayre ana Msnser. M1n.a.
was in Europe. The Court directed the
sheriff to produce Mr.. Sayre. who is
superintendent OF the J. G. and Bergen
II. r. Co. and Mr.. Manser. The sheriff
said Mr.. sayre had been served person.
served ssay by by0 serving win SUNNI summons on N
his wife. Sheriff McPhillips produced
both men after delay of half an hour,
and both were selected as jurors.
NOT THE RIGHT JUROR.
When the jury was called Counsellor
DAILY objected to the panel and challenged
it on the ground that the men who ans
wered the roll call were not the ones sub
rBuaed. The Prosecutor faid he thought
the challenge good one and
Mr. Daily was directed by the Court to
prove that the jurors who answered their
namef were not the ones summoned, and
he called John Frazer. of No. 156 Newark
avenue. John ID. Frazier, of No 1856 Mer-
Ger street, answered and testified that
John ID. Frazer was his name.
Louis ID. Carswell was the next juror
called and Louis d. Cassell answered.
He said he had been served as Carswell,
which was not his name.
Frederick A. Hempler was answered by
Francis George Himpler. who sasd he
had told the officer who served him with
the summons, but mt said the address,
No. 452 Bloomfield street, WAS correct
The Court overruled the challenge. and
the work of selecting the jury began.
The counsel for the accused ballot box
suffers then adopted the same course of
procedure that has been followed
4hroughout the selection of all the juries
An these election cases.
Abram A. Underhill, Of No. 1872 Sip
Javenue. was first called. He was preju-
diced against the crime, but not against
these defendants. He was accepted by
the court and became the foreman OF the
jury
son street, Hoboken, answered the same
stereotyped questions. and he was ac-
cepted.
George Hawes, of No. 0s Wayne street,
the next to be challenged, said he had no
doubt out that frauds existed at the cleo
tion the defendants served as an Election
Board. but ne could decide the case ac-
cording to the evidence. He was ac-
cepted..
BOTH SIDES ACCEPTED HIM.
Albert Stevens, one of the Hoboken
millionaires, the next juror, was accepted
Louis d. Cassell. of No. 2S2 Third
street, was accepted
Gustave "Opens. of Hoboken. was also
accepted.
Richard Galbraith, of West HoboKen,
came next and the challenge was over
ruled.
John d. Frazer was challenged because
he was not the John Frazer summoned.
He was accepted.
Richard Tobias failed to answer. and
ex-Judge Garretson objected TO the case
going on without him. Tobias went to
Europe two weeks ago. The objection
was overruled aud an exception taken
Edwin +. Manser, Of No. 10 Van Reipen
avenue, said he had been served
with summons directed Ed ward L.
Manser, which was not his name. He
was accepted.
A PEREMPToRY CHALLENGE
Henry II. Butts, of No. 3l7 Varick
street, was challenged peremptorily by
Mr.. HudsDeth on behalf of Whelan. The
Court allowed the challenge. but directed
that 1t apply to all the defendants.
Walter Stiastny was accepted with but
slight questioning.
Thomas w. Rosevere, eighth street,
was also accepted.
Jacob w. Eye was peremptorily chal-
lenged in the same manner as Butts was,
and the same ruling was made.
John T. Tise. of No. 231z Cottage street,
was also peremptorily challenged.
Andrew j. Post was accepted and then
Mr.. DAILY challenged peremptorily. The
Court refused to allow it for three chal-
lenges had been made.
When the Jury selected was sworn
Prosecutor Winfield opened the case for
the State and set forth an astounding
amount of fraud.
THREE CITY OFFICIALS
"Francis Whelan." he said, twas the
judge OF election in November. 1889, in
He was ut that time in the em-
pioy of the Board of Works.
aud so were Miller and Kennedy. The
frauds perpetrated at this precinct were
80 manifest that they oyertop all other
frauds we have investigated
The more | have studied. the poll ana
registry hooks In this precinct the more
ustonished / have been at the enofmity
OF their crime. The certificate OF registry
shows that go names were poIled.
when that certificate was written II was
in my Judgment after the polls were
closed. The certificate in the poll
books shows that ASS votes were
polled and it is written in red ink as
j. were with the life- blood Of the Re-
public. There were originally on the
registry book 60S names. but over the % :
has been written the word, seventy and
the IS erased, thus showing go votes ou
the registry. The dial at this precinct
appears 10 have worked we'll,
for it smoothly records 459 names.
A curious fact in this precinct
Is that at the recent election, but 223
votes were polled which is. believe the
biggest vote possible for that precinct to
give honestly Tnis in itself shows that
There must have been 227 fraudulent
votes pclled at the election the year be-
fore.
GREAT EXCESS OF FRAUDS
ssJn 1859 there wrre polled 45S votes
In 1890 there were polled 223 votes. which
shows an excess of 235 votes in 1889 over
1890. thing utterly impossible. On the
poll book are found % names that are not
Dn the registry =,
This shows that twenty-three illegal
yotes were cast. | admit II but one or
Hvo Illegal votes were cast 1t would not
prove conspiracy, but when you hnd it
5own twenty-three times, II put too
plainly establishes conspiracy. Now II
what have said proves
q be true, the State could
stop right here. but we will 90 further
xentIemen. These election ofncers even
vent outside Of th<ir precinct 70 md
James and We ind recorded on both the