Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1890-03-07

IN the same principle, will allow the Goa
tcstant the votes he proved in rebutial Of
the eontcstee's allegation in paragraph
nine OF his answer that be, the ceutes-
tee lost more votes than the CONTESTANT.
because ofinaccuracies on the poIl-books.
Under these rulings. therefore, the con-
'esiant gains the votes Of 81 persons
/ There is another class Of cases in
which the judges rejected votes because
OF real or assumed doubts as &c the iden-
lty Of the voters presenting themselves
Where their identity is CLEARLY establish
ed. these votes mus. be counted for the
candidates for whom they would have
been cast
AS TO THE SEVENTEENTH WARD.
Under this ruling the con e want gains
votes. The contestee rccounfed the
ballots Of The Sixth and Seventh pre-
cincts Of Fifteenth ward. Of the First pre-
cinet Of the Sixteenth ward. ard of the
FIRST. Second, Third. Fourth, Fifth.
Sixth, Seventh and Eighth preeiencis of
the Seventeenth ward Of Baltimore city.
and Of the First precinct of the First dis.
trict Of Baltimore county He asked for
the recount 10 his answer, but with the
exception Of the First precinct of tue
FIRST district Of Baltimore county and
the First precinct Of the Sixteenth ward
ct Baltimore city, he laid no foundation
for a recount by showing any ground to
suppose that mistake had been made.
All the presiding judges examined by
the contestcc himself we're Democrats. as
were the majority Of the judges 10 each
OF the precincts rccounted. All the
Judges examined swore that they be,iev-
ed their count was CORE t. Its a strange
circumstance that these Demo cratic
Judges should have uniformly made mis-
takes, to the prejudice of heir own can
dldatc. The officers in whose custody
tbs boxes were. between the election and
the recount. were all Democrats.
The contestee recounted some pre-
clucts Of a ward and not others. and there
is not a shred Of evidence to show why
some were recuunted aud others not. It
is clear thai if any one had acce even
for few moments to the ballot boxes
they could have been opened and their
Uttered, and then closed again
without leaving any trace of disturbance.
The contestee gained 10 votes on the re-
counl These votes we allow him, al
though we feel that there is something
very curious about the whole matter
We allow contestee's claim, based on
recount, that vote should be deducted
from the contestant IN the Ninth district
OF Charles county, making loss to the
contestant of 20 votes on this recount. -
The committee also allows contestee
vote he claims he should gain in the Sew
onth district of St. Marys county, upon
which his name was writ en- and that of
the contestant is claimed to have been
scratched, although there is no allegation ,
in the answer of contestant under which
the proof of either of these votes is
strictly admissible.
We deduct from the contestee | vote
IN the Second district of Calvert county.
being satisfied that there was counted for
The contestee ticket from off which his
name was scratched.
MUDD's COMPLETE VOTE.
The committee, after a thorough investi-
COTTON, came to the conclusion that in
was practiced in the First pre-.
,inct of the Third district of Anne Arun- 1
lei county, and that they should be !
brown out. The committee, therefore, T
concludes that the contestant having on
be face Of the precinct returns, l6, 2S3; &
,ains, votes of voters whose votes we're
- ~--sssa Il ,ras. u l-,.-,.l
repapered, and is now picture in poIa