St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-01-29
O,Brien VS.. Searles.


The hour of II O'Clock having arrived
the president of the senate announced
that the contested election case of
O'Brien against SearleS would be taken
up. CongreSsman-elect j. n. Castle and
Fayette Marsh appeared for Mr..
O'Brien, and Mr.. Searles appeared in
resolution was adopted giving each side
two hours in which 10 present its case,
the contestant to have the opening and
closing.
The clerk of the senate then started
in to read the vOluminouS testimony in
the case, first reading at the request of
the attorneys of the contestant, and
then at the request of Mr.. SearleS. AS
the result of the contest depends en-
tirely upon the election in Marine and
the accuracy of the first and second
counts of the ballots, all the evidence
read bore on that point, the desire
of Mr.. Searles being to discredit the
recount and make it appear that the bal
lot box had been tempered with in the
interests of his opponent.
The first testimony read was that of
the town clerk of Marine. Charles West
ergreen. who acted as one of the clerks
of election last November. He mar
rated how carefully the ballots had
been placed in the box, and declared
that when the ballot box was produced
for the recount it contained the same
ballots counted on the night after the
election. The box had been deposited
in desk in the town hall, and to get at
the box three keys would have to be
used, hard to duplicate. The windows
of this hall were nailed down.
John Ii. Sawyer's story was read next
narrating the work he had done in the
way OF securing Republicans to vote
their tickets with OBrien's name upon
them for senator. Mr.. Sawyer also told
how he had taken note of the votes
counted for each candidate at the end
of every hour. At one time he found
the vote of Andrew Richmond, the Alli-
ance nominee for senator, 81; he came
back little later and found it had
Jumped to AZ. These additional 81
Alliance ballots had the names of Mr..
O'Brien upon them, and not that of
Richmond.
The clerk was interrupted in his read
ing shortly after IL O'Clock and recess
taken till 2:30. Upon reassem-
bling the mOnosonous reading
was resumed. Each election Judge was
allowed to tell his story, as we'll as the
clerks and a host of outside parties.
The careleSsness of the election Judges
was shown in a dozen cases at least. it
appearing in one place that while the
poll lists only showed 326 votes cast,
457 men had really voted. One hundred
and fifty-three votes were tailed for
Hon. E. w. Durant for representative,
while the returns to the county auditor
showed 1877 votes for Durant. while the
recount gave the genial ex-senator only
$50 votes.
The senators all followed the reading
of the clerk, and demonstrated that
they were seeking for light, and pro-
posed to decide the case according TO
the evidence, but the most patient
member of the tifty-four senators grew
weary as time rolled on, and 4:30 was
reached and the clerk still kept up his
reading. Senator Leavitt finally could
stand it no longer, and he arose and
said:
Il do not wish to shut out any evil
dence." said Senator Leayitt. but |
understand the only question in this
case is. whether the first count or the
recount is correct. But unless the