The sun., 1891-11-11
SAYS REPUBLICANS CHEATED
ME- NICHOLS CONTESTS THE ELECTION
or mn. PECK TO THE SENATE

UT Nhs run AZ A"D CAs<'hAs
Bsiiots Were votsA at Feiii.s riaees FOR
whseh They Were Not EsAorsed. asa Hse
Thisks 70 wssn't Merely . Mistake
sseusen County Cauvassers Vote Repus-
iiesu Candidate Sherwood Ineligibis-cas
~e.sine the Vote Throughout the State.
syRAcusE. Nov 10.-when tho Board Of su-
pcrvisors. sitting as Board OF County Can
yassers, met to-day they were confronted by n
contest over tho election OF q Senator in tho
Tventy-nfth district which looks decidedly
formidable. and though they have not author
ity to decide II, the prosecution OF the case In
tho courts and In the Legislature may deprive
Rufus T. Peck. the Republican candidate. OF
his seat.
Tho sano questions also afycct the election
OF David Allen Munro. Jr tRepn In the First
Assembly district The contest involves the
ofYiclal integrity OF the County Clerk OF Onon-
dsga county. George @. Cotton and is do
cldedly novel one.
In the formal brief alcd by counsel for John
A. Nichols. the Dom ocrntic candidate for Sena-
tor, the contention is made that COUNT Clerk
Cotton designsdly distributed the Repub!i-
con oficiai ballots in packages to polling
places for which they were not endorsed.
90 that tho endorsement being visible Re
publican must vote straight or havet known
that he did not. The Nichols brief says that
In tho town OF Camillus In the First Assembly
district there arc two election districts. First
and Second. The documentary evidence In re-
lation to these two districts does not enable
the canvassers to certify that David A. Munro.
Jr.. or other Republican candidates received
any number OF votes whatever. The usual
return made by the inspectors for each election
49,. -, A>r Anfk kn ,tava ~
votes received by various candidates. and also
received. Tsks the return for the First dis:
Hict Camillus. in one part. apd 1t appears that
Ssr q Votes; tste ihs oths. part Is Yf the IRE r.
asas have 0fss ess s%s sSss Il Il tsS esmss hsS
20 that without extraneous evidence It is i'm
possible to decide which is correct.Ehether
sppssSs Sy sns IL ths return the
OF ne taat y
sss % otsss part pa I Of the return i The First ais
t.ista at The state OF affairs exists in ne tsec'
'nH Thls hS Is tSs Argument Of counsel:
" The election law provides that where an
{ ssss f :sasa sssaS ts Sc as
h. %ss Sss$ sSsEs sSSsssst s,.; dgss -
essary to discuss this view other than
sad inc S Il nes & ss
ssas1 st bS S 'Ds1H e. ana ths sss, should I
be held to be valid because 1T was
tss xSas hsn ballot eh w ao
Right at the foundation Of tho act, which 10
secrecy Such 2 construction would open the
sys. ssuss s . ss soss eseo1 saa scn
dence In tho result Of elections and would
very soor become intolsrable; .,.s
plain sad hs nerms S Men Us sS
more irreSularity. enabled the persons in
s'ITs q S tss bsos q e
!osited In the ballot boxes, to ascertain who
sns Would @ not s 1ns o
y comes within the pels Of coinseidepces d when
~ various towns IN the county and only with
ths tS1ss % X Thse
lois Tor r the First district @ wero placed IN The
It. and the s0s napssd
Ssld e. be e oeers q ss yet
70 % say wSetSes Or o. not not ballot Is deieetlys by
fsasoI or OF not being properly endorsed. % al; al;
Dl4tp 40 though each one was marked with
i.sAnother BIT Of evidence which appears con-
se '9s ns
' 'fy tSse we're sae ss
and sixty voters reglstered. and in the Second
qnded AND 30 thHt n ta the
something over SIX Hundred; Now. then. ii
ss ssh sr0's sfas
ss S:ssss ss.s ss ": s:ss,sS
because It was known that 2 tribe over twS
ntn & w0%,a gx not % enough ana 30 the 'u
I'VE respectfully ask that you cause these
IN case this request il refused We respectfully
M a ths R
The elections in the various districts OF which
is the boards OF Canyassers In both onou-
daga and Cortland counties are Democtatie Iy
q SSds not to
y Fss S q cRsss sts tas so Sss
fSaaans s5s ca ssss iSi EsSStia sSS
he sps0sa 0nsebls
af!s Hsrasi;sis @ & ss $ sss .i%s sIss sss
and % Certificates f q sherwoods shsSd appoint.
ment as Park Commissioner the opinion
Of the Attorney General that he was iheligi-
BE. and evidence showing that e the people Of
city ofiiceF and thus Ineligible. and that com
seQnently tho votes cast for him were void.
A resolution was then. passed stating that 1t
eligible. and that notice thereof was brought
to tho electors Of the county. and that while
Board made return Of them to the State Board
81 C9nyassers. and the Chairman, the Hon; !.
copies oi the The protest. Certificates. afiidavits,