The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-05-22
IN FAVOR OF Mr.. LLOYD
looSTlSrsp From FIRST pAor.l

wbo could not I've found IL establish diligence
uInn his nart 10 procure their attendance. The
affection of respondent To their INTRODUCTION
; ",sn ,@r sIy was sustained 10y The court. The
statute, supra, provided that each party sllu
he entitled to subpocilas. and s,ibroenas mmss
iorim. as IN ordinary eases IN law. We aiirln'u
the ruling ~ the court in ~llcyfrnn vs., Mahon.y,
smpIu, thai these papers should he admitted iof
this parlosr. In Hue ~. Irter, W Mans; 81, .ne
onirt said In addition there We're siplsmnas
sr1,d for about ninety II those claimed ny refer
to In fictitious voters, and the return 81 lhr
officer shows they Were not folnd w nafisf
township. The failure la md the residence of
~ large a number of puflSited voters u more
than suggestive, and Ia our minds n very strong
prof 81 fraudulent voting INC ellen ~ oa, 'h is.
further considered. hut the circumstances aiiord
u satisfactory explanation 81 the failure 81 thc
'oat"s.alt t. bring into court all the '"'ers Oh
the precinct.
Next Is q,iotcd the testimony Of Charles
johnson. who sworc that he did not vote
nj all. although his lame was so marked
on The poll list, aud of John >.
Anderson and Others who sworc that
they voted only a part. of the ticket,
Ono that he saw Pcunycook doing some
thing with a stamp on certain papers
which looked like ballots, after the polls
were closed, Is given, u also that OF
John Wilson. who was with ONO and who
testified likewise.
The foregoing Testimony was not eon-
lrplirt.d by any person, and as effort was
made hy the respondent to lmpricn
one II the Witnesses, rrnnycooh and Morrison,
who must possess the hest evidence upon ! 1.-THE
tss,Ies concerning the ,,ir of prrcinci ~. were
not put upon the stand. Through the remarks of
counsel IN The argument, We learn that irnny-
,uak during the trial, was in Scotland and Nor
isn was IN Colorado. This ease, In some Of is
phases has invaded the senate ~cliiirnff ana
been expanded Ia national proportions, and the
uaicIility 81 their testimony can DC readily
nplpT.fgpI. Rut The slIDtabptIt al lie .ltla.lliut
could not anna Frnnycook aud Morrison Ia
appear before the court and tell the truth.
When. therefore, the evidence which WAS pro
dnced. Is weighed, these facts are established.
Some person voted In the ntnc of Charles John
non during his absence. All the electors 81 The
precinct dill not vote for or against the 'Onsti-
iution. Tcnncll did not vote for either candidate
for congress. Iingrecn marked only three on,
81 81 candidates upon The ballot. Three yotrrs
east "ihc straight republican Ticket" ANel An
'lerson marked all tile republican candidates cN-
cept one, probably a constable, and ienn-li
voted for , ,emocra's. and j republicans. "a
nyccok marked Illegal y some ballots after their
delivery Ia him % he deposited In The box. The
voters did not march la the polls In alphabetical
array, and the poll book does not disclose the
umlber or - der OF those who voted. Penny
rock and Morrison stamped ballots after The
polls We're cl' s-i aud fcDnyco.k had a Ilickage
undcr him when Wilson and ONO were present
and Required Ia leave The polling place. The re-
turns ui precinct ~ are fraudulent and do not
state truly the vote which each candidate for
otbee received al the last election; and voters
~ wa q - iAkht w Wv "h'h Nv wv
we're counted, were elected from the polling
place by the Judges when they were stamping
ballots after the closing of the polls.
Fourth. We will apply 10 the facts the princi-
pies ~ the law, which are laid down 10y The au-
ihorities. The extraordinary length, ~ this
opinion, Restraints us from collecting the eases
which throw light upon this subject, and We shall
rely upon the doctrines which arr stated la the
text hooks. II il admitted by all that the stat
the previous right Of suffrage by securing An i'm
partial count oi the ballots and the choice of the
f-utdc for public trusts The duties ~ the
clerks Of an election are ~ essential ani dis
can he ch, cks upon each ether and yindli afe the
purity Of the hallot hos. Whiic many at The
statutory requirements are directory and the
form is always subordinate to the substance,
they arr nevertheless considered by the lcgtsla-
tive department safeguards of the voter In the
exercise Of this privilege Of ciilrnship, They
have been Violated with impuniiy rs the officers
" Ifrrincl "a, with the purpose of defeating the
Gill ol The people. Waving the point
tlhcl. what legal weight attaches To them?
MIR. Paine says IN his work an elections. Poll
books. duly certified aud returned, ~" I,imd
!aclt evidence al the truth OF their contents; hut
The presumption raised may be- rclrutiel, bN
prnoi that they are fraudulent and flcticious 10
s's,il an extent ~ 20 rriLi'r. them wlinlly unrt-
lnhb,. S.stion St2. MI. Mcchem writes la his
tUa,is' on pihlir Offices at Is presumed thai
t1c ott't'f> ~ rltstiun have done their duty, and
that the returns made 10y Them are "A full AMI fair
Statement ~ the true result and this presumption
islo u. gwen rii''t until they are show Ia In un-
reliable, section ri. Mr.. MrCnry in his
~IrcatlSr un elections, SAYS: THE return must
show tA.i tits not true. When shown Ia Ia
ttaudLlcuI or FALSE, II must fall Ia the ground"
>stInn ~. III an officer Of the election is de
b~tcl IN u willhll ANA deliberate fraud uiphu the
ballot hON, the better opinion l. that This viii
destroy the ~integtit, of his official acts. even
uhoiigh the maud discovered IL not, ~ Itself, sui
iiclent to affect thu rsult. The reason ufihr
ride =, that AN officer who hrial> his trust in
On" in'tanrc Is shown 10 u" raiahlc Ufthr IN
fanny ~ driiandlng IN" electors. AMI his rrTtili-
eat" l., Therefore, E"od f"i nothing. We
HisaI, Therefore. ~, opinion rNlnc>.tl in u
forliter %tllaldcr. thai wiilinl and dclligtalr
troNcn should d'>irIh all runlilrnct
N hs onicia, art>. irrespective of
ia. question whether the frand' discovered
;, ~ h>rf >~iliiiclriii i"'iianEr the result. SEQ.
The nature Of IL, pr.ui tn establish fraud is
arrurat-ll defined ~ N.rai ~, l,agSlalr, ..
kiNl,. 81, and MI Jusiire Ellioit. tur The court.
Slys. III would. in siCh u ease. lr uurr salts
tiet"fS 20 the count az JiIN Try ing tn ease, such
lrvn'i>, howt,et, AR SELDOM committed IN the
pf'sB'1H ~ those Who are not PARTICIPANTS In
uletn, .ud II only .ir,yi AMI positive ~ tlpurp
were admissible, Jew, n amy. at thrm wuull he
hrpighi 10 light, Wear nut awatcnf any rcatSpu
why frauds ulnh the lsilbt iapN. aud thereby M.
on candidates Tot tllr uihUr to lc iili.-i. may MT
as wtl hr established 10y circum>tauitil rNi.
deuc" a. frauds Of any other character In the
Aln-rsan and English in"yclHacdia ni Law
The rule IL stated n follows; While fraud l. not
In es presumed, II l. equally true IN election. ~
~ ether cases. that It Is usually proved d,
cirumsiantial eNld, NJ. ID would br very dini-
cult, and generally Impossible, 10 have an agree.
ment between the parties who committed the
fraud aud II no cif,in>iaatial evidence Mas nee.
'gnizt-l as sutleient, the frauds wanid g~cleraily
20 unIrhuk,sl." Nol. Il. A.. Ta.
In Liitleiicld ". Green, Brightly, T.. 4. Elpr.
tiunS, taI, tile court observes: The names of
tile first tS voters ~ aplEgrs from the Iolll a. H.
appear ~ have i"cu registered AMI voted
~ alphabetical aud numerical order. unr
Of them the oifircrS who cnndur,,d the
election sNcats That he GtniRt
asr0uut for thG names Appearing IN
alphabetical order iTum 4 Ia Z ANA 4 to 4. hut
thinks that men Nuteti III that order. Il thing lIn.
possihl, and Incredible hen, where and hy
whom we're the loll lo"lS aud returns ot pro-
riurt q made" THE transcript may lc s~rnurllri
" vain for ans answer Ia these Important IA.
d%uiTies. No witness ever saw The name 1t one
Iupr rsurdsd In the poll book.
IN KNOX C1lntl ". naiis, ~ Illinois. az ,-thc
rouTt views n a circumstances lending 10 prove
frand on the part of the officers IT AN election,
their conduct. and SAYS; Again, the mOdpi.
atur OF the election has ahSenied himself or alb.