Los Angeles herald., 1890-12-25

determine whether it had been opened
after having been first sealed. There
would also be no difficulty in taking out
ballots or in substituting others, and it
would be impossible to determine which
were the original ballots, and which
those substituted.
The only substantial obstacle, there
fore, preventing manipulation of the
ballots by any of the numerous persons
having access to the courthouse, or even
by others, for the courthouse is admit
tedly insecure, would practically be the
lock on the cupboard door.
The evidence of the custody of the
ballots might be sufficient to make
prima facie showing OF their identity, in
the absence of rebutting testimony.
But the evidence shows that, in order to
make the change shown by the recount,
it is necessary to believe that in the
thirty-sixth precinct the number of
straight Republican and straight Demo-
cratic votes was reversed by the election
board in entering the same upon the
tally sheet. The returns show 81 straight
Republican votes and 43 straight Demo
cratic votes. The recount shows Al
straight Republican votes and So straight
Democratic votes. 1t is not claimed
that there was any willful misconduct
on the part of the election board and
the board is shown to have been COM
posed of competent and careful men,
each party being represented. as re-
quired by law, by three persons. The
election officers in that district were
Frank Walker, II. t. Newell and a Mr.
McCauley, Republicans; William T.
Jeffreys. r. S. WOodsides and /. B. Dock
weller, Democrats.
They were examined by the court, and
all testified that they thought they had
counted the ballots correctly and made
the proper return-evidence not going
very much further than their sworn re-
turn, except that if mistake had been
made by reversing the number in enter
ing them upon the tally sheet some OF
the board would probably recognize it
when their attention was called to the
matter.
Some members of the board testified
more positively upon the matter. Wood
side, one of the Democratic representa-
tives of the board, testified that he eX-
amined the ballots as they were counted,
saw that they were counted correctly,
and was positive that the Democratic
straight vote was less than the Repub-
llCdu Sli dlSlU FJlC, anu lllo lSCOllCCbiOll
was that the Republican straight vote
was fifty odd and the Democratic forty
odd.
The testimony OF w. w. Robinson, P.
A. Stanton, 1. b. Newton, A. 0. Blake,
G.. Galpin, G. NJ Baker, Arthur Bray, f.
" Bell and J j. Flanagan is referred to
at length in Judge McKinley's decision.
The decision concludes as follows:
The recount suows the following errors
against Rowan: Precinct 27, 10 votes
precinct 28, 10 precinct 20, L; precinct
80, s; precinct 81, 5; precinct so, 8;
precinct "a, 4 precinct 36. 20; precinct
81, 2; precinct 40, 7; precinct Al, 4.
The only precinct in which the error,
if made, was the other way, was in the
forty-second, in which Forester gained
two votes.
1t thus appears that Rowan by the
recount gains in thirteen precincts and
Forester only in one; or. taking out the
precincts in which the result is due to
the Mayo vote, Rowan in eleven and
Forester in one. 1t certainly seems
contrary to the doctrine of chances that
with the opportunity of mistake equal
between the two parties, in the absence
of misconduct on the part OF the boards,
the errors should be in such overwhelm-
ing proportion against one OF the
parties.
Summing up the case, with the GUS
| tody of the ballots and the place where
they were kept as insecure and exposed,
as they undoubtedly were, to danger of
being tampered with, and the uncer
tainty with regard to the identity of
ballots resulting therefrom, in the face
OF the very positive evidence as to the
correct counting and returning of the
ballots in the two precincts particularly
questioned, and the iact that the errors
were almost all in one direction, with
no apparent cause therefor, [ am not
satisfied that the contestant has estab-
lished the identity of the ballots offered
upon the recount with those used at the
election, and for that reason the recount
will be rejected. The court will adopt
the original returns.
Let findings and judgment be pre-
pared in accordance Herewith.