New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-12-21
HOUSE ELECTIoNS CONTESTS.
THREE CASES FROM. PENNSYLVANIA.
VAGUE TESTIMONY OF Bu Berry IN ONE OF THEM
AN IMPARTIAL REVIEW OF THE
LAW AND FACTS

Pennsylvania, rs follows
Reynolds against shonk XIIth District; Greevy
against scul XXth District; Craig against Stewart,
XXIvth District All OF the contestants are Demo
Gratis The number OF votes cast and returned and the
plurality for each of the sitting members were as fol-
lows: shonk 14,55s, Reynolds 1904 plurality 1.4s4
scull 17,434, Greevy 16,1Os, plurality 52G; Stewart
81 7os, Craig 21,565, plurality 1913.
In the case OF Reynolds against shonk the con-
testant docs not claim that he elected but con-
tends that the sitting member ought to be unsoated on
account of bribery OF voters. Mr. shonk admits that
is campaign expenses amounted to $3.50. The con-
testant claims that this fact OF itself is strong pre-
sumptve evidence OF bribery, and also claims that the
manner In which the money was spent, according TO
tho contestee's admissions. was such as TO constitute
bribery. There is diIeet testimony to show that
voters were bought, although there Is small amount
OF testimony, extremely vague and mostly hearsay
several times removed. to support the charge. Mr.
shonk submits under oath complete statement OF his
campaign expenditures. part OF the money was used
for travelling expenses; considerable sum was OK
pended for clerk hire, thousands Of letters having been
written by hand aud sent to Individual voters through
out the district; n good deal Of the money went for
hall rent, bands, banners, etc. some was spent 1oT
setting up the drinks" while Mr.. Shonks friends do
claimed and extoled the merits OF their candidate but
the major portion appears to have been spent In
manning the polls on election day. hiring ticletpcdlcrs
Mt each precinct, etc. The district contains largo
foregnborn population Of different nationalties and 1t
considered necessary to have different poll
worker for each nationality represented Some OF the
money was expended by Mr.. shonks partlsans and
agents in the and for the purposes mentioned
and the testimony OF each Of them Is presented to show
that none OF the money expended by them in buy
Ing votes.
The contestant contends that a Of these expendi
lures under the circumstances In TIE nature OF
bribery because Shonk was elected while OTHER Re
publican candidates at the election were de-
fcated; and because many Democrats were employed
as poll workers by Shonl ut big wages, who themselves
voted for him, and persuaded other voters 10 do So
Whether oil this constituted bribery every body can
Judge himself IL II does the sitting member from
the XIIth Pennsylvania District is only one OF many
Representatives whose title to their seats may be In
secure 1t is probable that il the contest OF Mr. Rey-
nods is sustained by the House, It Will be mainly IN
order that the may be made useful as reply TO the
charges OF election frauds In Southern Congress DIS
thcts.
The other two Pennsylvania cases almost exactly
alike. The issues in these cases are Of two kinds: :
first that which affects entire precincts. and second,
that which affects individual voters. Under the Con-
sttuton Of Pennsylvania, the Legislature has the
right to enact registration law but 1t must be such
law that ono voter otherwise qualified shall BIO
deprived of his right to vote by reason of not being
registered VThe Legislature has enacted law pro
vdng for the registration OF voters 10 be made In the
first Instance by the assessors from the assessment
lists and afterward If necessary to be revised IN
prescribed ANY person whose name Is not
OIL the list may be permitted 10 vote on making an
affidavit and producing the affdavits OF two quail
fed electors OF the precinct In support thereof The
election officers are forbidden otherwise To receive the
vote Of any unregistered voter.
In almost every precinct In both these districts a
large number Of voters permitted by the election
officers to vote without being registered and without
submitting the required affidavlts. The explanation
probably that the voters knowing themselves TO be
qualified voters and supposng that the had
registered them, neglected to inquire whether they were
registered or not and the election officers being well
acquainted with the voters and knowing them TO be
qualified, similarly negligent. The law does not
require tho voter to to 1t that he is registered but
1t does require the election judge to demand AMI
davit Of him IL he is not registered. The culpable
neglect therefore under the law committed by the
election officers and not by the voters themselves.
To reject their votes would be to throw ont the votes
of qualified electors on account OF the neglect OF the
officers Of electlOn-semethng which the House has
always besated to do. In the famous cases OF camp
bell against Weaver from Iowa and Curtin asaihss
Yocum, OF Pennsylvania, the House decided I'm the
latter case, although the majority was Democratic
against the report of the committee on that ground
that srch votes should be counted. The other de-
cislons bearing less directly on the case are
somewhat conflicting, but the weight OF authority IN
the House Of Representatives Is in favor OF counting the
votes II this rule is followed both contestees VIII
retain their seats. But the Supreme Court OF Penn
syvana has recently decided that the statute In ques
ton is mandatory and that all such votes Illegal
and cannot under any circumstances be counted Under
the general rule that the decisions Of state courts con-
strung state constitutions or statutes viii be followed
by the Federal authorities, this decision Will probably
be followed by the House and the votes rejected IL
90 aud IL all the other issues In the cases ignored
rartt
be unseated. as will be from the following state
ment:
In Greevy against Scu II the claims of both parties
as 10 individual voters are allowed, SOUL will have
majority Of 644 votes II Only the claims Of contestant
are allowed, the majority will be somewhat less II
only those OF the conestee are allowed the majority
Will be 1,1c3.
allowed claimed by Stewart, Craig has majority
OF 200 votes II the claims OF both parties Of Craig
alone are allowed, the majority is increased
Thus it will be seen that, after the general legal
question is decided Ii is not necessary TO examine the
evidence in regard TO individual votes. In this
tation large number OF votes cast for Andrew ].
Stewart instead OF Andrew Stewart are counted as
legally cast for Andrew stewart undoubtedly they
were cast. In both these there is considerable
conflict between the parties to the proper evidence
BY which IL Is 10 be shown which a voter voted.
Grecvy against seull party has shown by the
numbered ballot In the ballot box, and the other by the
testimony Of the voter himself Each holds that the
testimony offered by the other is not legal evidence.
There can be doubt that the testimony OF the voters
Is competent evidence The manner in which the
ballots were put in evidence In this is Of doubt
full legality. Tho law OF Pennsylvania pnscribes a
definite manner in which the boxes be opened and
the ballots put in evidence and II is doubtful II the
law of Congress for taking testimony in contested
election cases authorizes the notares taing the test
mony to open them In any other manner. But the
law OF Pennsylvania does contemplate that the parties
shall have right TO the ballots evidence. and in
this case 1t would have been impossible to enjoy this
right according 10 the legal method OF procedure. The
statute cannot be applied TO the conditions OF Con
gressiona contest and is therefore, far 1t is
cerned nugatory The ballots In this case having been
taken mt and marked by the notaries In the presence