, 1891-02-08
LONDONER IN THE SOUP
The Colorado Supreme Court
Passes on His Case
And Decides that He Was Elected
by Fraudulent Votes.
His Competitor Now Holds the
Office of Sheriff.


court afirms the Judgment OF the lower
tribunal, and Wolfe Londoner is declared
to be no longer the mayor of Denver.
When the decision was made known
in the city at noon yesterday it was
greeted by the united endorsement of all
honest citizens. Many months ago the
trial began which led up to the welcome
news of yesterday. Upon one side was
arrayed the forces of the most corrupt
political organization that ever had exist
ence in the West. On the other side
were the people whose rights as citizens
in a free state had been ruthlessly
traupled upon.
1t is not necessary to review in detail
the history of this remarkable case. Tie
story is known to every reader of the
state. Proceedings were instituted to
contest his claim to the office soon alter
his illegal election as mayor in the spring
Of 1889. The defendants counsel de.
INJURED on the ground that the court had
no jurisdiction. The demurrer was over
ruled and IN appeal taken to the supreme
court. The case was remanded for trial.
The trial took place nearly a year ago.
the court ordering a writ of custer as the
outcome of one Of the most exciting legal
controversies ever known In the city.
Then came the appeal to the supreme
court and yesterdays decision.
The decision was delivered by Chief
Justice Helm and receives the unani-
nous Endorsement of the court. There
was no dissenting voice. The findings OF
the lower court are reviewed in a clear
style. The court finds that the case was
tired with unusual care and afirms the
Judgment Of Judge Allen. According to
the usual rule OF the supreme court if
teen days are allowed for a rehearing. 1t
is not thought possible that the decision
as 1t now stands can be assaulted. The
general opinion Is that President d. G.
Packard of the board OF supervisors will
fill the unexpired term as mayor.
Among other things the court says:
The extraordinary conclusions of fact
before us embodied in the findings of the
trial court. were predicated upon a solemn.
fair and extended judicial investigation,
and are in substantial accord with the an
swers Of the jury to questions propounded.
We are bound to regard them as amply
sustained by the proofs. First, because
only a small portion of the evidence is
brought up, and inquiry on our part into
its suficiency is therefore precluded; and.
second, because this suficiency is ad-
mItted, the record ~reciting that respond
ent maketh no point and does not claim
that the verdict OF the jury is contrary to
the evidence
The findings mentioned refer to frauds
perpetrated in three specified election pre-
cincts within the city of Denver. The
following is a brief epitone OF these find
ings in 30 far as they bear upon one branch
of the subject In hand: That the conduct
Of the election Judges was neither fair nor
faithful; that they knowingly, willfully
and delibeI ately received. counted and re.
turned illegal votes for respondent; that
they ~purposely disregarded challenges
offered against fraudulent votes; that they
refralned from challenging or swearing,
as required by law, persons rendering bal
lots, after reasonable and creditable notice
that such persons were not entitled to vote,
or that they were voting on the names of
other citizens, or that they had voted be
fore, and were, therefore, repeaters; that
they refused to permit persons entitled
thereto to inspect the registry list Tor the
purpose OF preparing a challenge book;
and that, 10 defiance of statute, they de-
llberately denied the request of ~relator,
who was a candidate, to have a friend ad-
Ditted into the polling place to witness
the receiving, depositing and counting of
votes. That the police officers of the city
acting in the interest of respondent, con-
nived at the casting of illegal votes;
wrongfully interiered, and by force or
threats prevented the challenging of lille
gal voters; boarded up one of the polling
places, 50 that persons offering their bal
lots and citizens Immediately in front
could not see the ballot box or know the
disposition made OF the ballots when
handed to the election Judges; tore down
and took Away the registry list in order to
prevent the preparation of challenge
books. and otherwise INSTRUCTED an honest
election.
In addition to the foregoing. it further
appears from the findings in question.
that although about $50 votes were
shown to have been frandulently cast by
individuals upon the registered names oil
other persons, yet it was not possible to
estimate or calculate with reasonable GER
tainty the whole number of illegal ballots
which, through the official misconduct
mentioned, were deposited and counted,
or the number thus received and returned
for respondent.
WHAT MAY BE DONE.
Lafc Pence, who pro ecuted the case
was seen and questioned concerning the
probability of the supreme court delaying
Its decision on the petition for a rehearing
indefinitely after it is filed.
He said: 'As to the probable steps
that will be taken, l cannot say to a GER
tainty. Mr.. Londoner has always known
that his certificate of election was pro-
cured by fraud and no judgement of the
district court or of the supreme court
seems to have any effect upon him and
he will probably hold on as long as he can.
AS stated by the supreme couTt of Pennsyl-
vania in one of the cases cited when the
cause was first before the supreme court
of this state: at is hard to believe that
our partisanship has become 80 reckless
and our elective franchise so carelessly
exercised and our thirst for Office and
power 20 intensely selfish, hat any official
body will sanction 30 base and fnghttul
Ir..l ,non thA r,hl. 80 Nhia ,,ur