The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1891-02-04
NORRIS-OGDTN CONTEST.
The Case Argued by cOunse
for Both Contestants.
THE CASE PRECISELY LIKE
The Gubernatorlal Contest--.weak
Evidence for the Democratic
claimant.-Mr. sommerville
Compelled to Admit 1t.

Compelled 10 AumtC IL
Special DnpqteA to he 1uteuigaecr.
CHARLESTON, W. Va, Feb. 3.-Thl
ogdin. Morris contest case is growing
quite interesting, owing to questions in
volved similar to those in the Guberna
torial contest, and that Messrs. Price ant
Flournoy (Dems.), who were so promi
nent two years ago in behalf Of Flem
ing, are now engaged in the interest o
Senator 0gdin. The further the cast
progresses the more apparenti 1t is tha
Morris bases his hopes on the aimsies
teChnicalities, and that the case is sur
prisinely weak in point OF evidence
Mr.. Sommerville seems to know little
about IT, admitting that the claims cant
be substantiated in regard to the mum
Der of contested votes, and seeming
quite doubtful about others. When the
committee met to-day short executive
session was held, at which Ogdin's mo.
tion to quash was overruled. When the
doora were opened Gen. Watts moved
to give Ogdin time to take deposttions,
but Chairman Rankin Wiley ruled it
out OF order, the time for taking deposi.
tions being past. MIR. Watts withdrew
the motion, and 0gdin's counsel, after q
short consultation, stated that they de-
sired no delay. Mr.. Sommerville was
given an hour to open and hall an hour
to close the case.
He took up the time chiefly in review
ing the case from papers before him,
naming each vote contested, the charges
against its legality and the evidence to
substantiate it. The notice stated two
votes in Tyler were rejected improperly
that would have been cast for Morris,
and that fifteen were improperly cast in
that county for 0gdin. 1t was claimed
that nine voters were paupers, two were
OF unsound mind, three were colvicts,
one nonresident OF the State. In
Peasants county four are contested. the
claim being non.residence in each case.
1t was also claimed that two Morris
votes were improperly rejected. In
Wood, three votes, two being charged
with non-residence and one with being
unnRturallzed. In Peasants two votes
were rejected which, it was claimed,
were legal and would have been cast for
Morris.
Mr.. Sommerville said little about the
case further than to state 1t in detail,
and frankly admitted that his client had
failed to substantiate the charges in
number OF the cases. He said it might
bs that all the votes named were not
successfully attacked, but enough were
TO give Morris Ogdin's seat. He knew
nothing of how the evidence was taken,
but appeared in behalf OF case as 1t pre-
sented itself then. The contestee had
made no defense and the evidence was
undisputed. The case presented ques.
ton OF fact, not of law. II was not the
duty OF the committee to consider tech.
nical legal defects in the papers, but to
decide who was legally elected.
Ex-senator Price followed, saying the
case was an important one and involved
many nice legal questions. To begin
with the primG tdcid case was with the
contestee and the presumptions must be
strongly in his favor. AS to the votes
contested for felony, no effort had bsen
made to show that voters were under
con nviction at the time they voted, and
in one case nothing to prove that the
voter ever had been 80 convicted, while
in the others there was nothing to
prove that the parties had not been par.
doned. What the law means In saying
"persons convicted Of felony" was a
question that had never been decided in
this State-whether a person who had
served full sentence was disqualified
as voter.
As to the allegations OF unsound mind,
the proof was very defective, consisting
almost wholly OF mere opinions Of per.
sons who were not experts. The decis.
ion Of the Court of Appeals says on this
question: "These opinions Of witnesses
not experts are entitled to little or no re.
gard unless accompanied by reasons, :"
&c. No reasons accompanied the opin.
ions in this case and the testimony utter
" failed to show the voter OF unsound
mind in single case.
As to the charge OF voters being pau
pers, the rule laid down by the Guber.
Material Contest Committee was, II any
man was not receiving aid from the
county at the time OF the election, he ID
not pauper. The evidence in this case
indicated nothing of the kind. In one
csss George Chisler's vote was contested,
and the county records showed that the
county had furnished burial clothes fol
George Chisler. No attempt was made
to identify George Chisler, who was
buried with George Ohisler whose vote
was contested. In most cases the poll
tics OF the voters was not proven. In
one case an affidavit was made that
somebody told the witness he thought
the voter was Republican. The evi.
dence in regard to non-residents was
also defective in every case. "In fact,
said Mr.. Price, "the case is inadequately
proven from beginning 10 end. The
evidence does not begin to come up Il
any rules OF law. What seems most re
msrkable Is the very feeble attempt o
Mr.. Sommerville to substantiate hi:
charges. He either realizes the weak
ness OF the case or Is not sufficiently
familiar with 1t to be able to success
fully answer the charges made by thu
defense" The committee Adjourned
until 8 o'clock tomorrow, when tn
ar0nnank will hA concluded.