The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-05-13

eieCtiou WAS not nelQ IN the "Open air
without screen or enclosure" because the
evidence showed rope had been stretched
that the regulation as to the time had
oeen observed because an inspector swore
that the voting had commenced tabout 8.
am, and closed about sundown"
Here the entrance of the senate for Joint
ballot interrupted the speaker, the vote
was taken without result and the debate
was resumed.
2lr. Hutchinson read in a rambling way
ana see-saW tone from the book OF evi.
dence anc from the election law. but de-
clared that the rope was enough in his
judgment to constitute An enclosure, Or
both In his opinion, il the inspec ors of
precinct No. 2 thought so.
Mr. Dougherty of Volusia said the ques-
ton before the house is the adoption OF the
recommendation called by courtesy the
minority report, and that involved decis-
ION on the point of highest jurisdiction that
could be submitted to a legislative body
In TINS instance party lines can be blotted
out and this house should consider this
question without bias.
1t is argued on all hands that the result
of this election brings on the performance"
at precinct No. 2, and we need allude TO
nothing else.
An election held in violation of law is
no election. The law prescribes very pre-
cisely the method of holding legal cleo
ton, and even the preparation Of the polling
place.
The gentleman from Putnam, says the
polling place was properly enclosed, but
even at the best only by plowline, which
! is notsufficient to hold in prize fight
1t was not only unenclosed in the eye of
the law, but it was no, even held at the
| place designated, while it Is well known
| rule of election law that LESS latitude is
| allowed as to place than 10 time Elec-
| ten al a place other than that designated
by tue proper authority, has been always
| held to void it wituout proof o. traud.
Mr.. Dougherty read from the Cyclopedia
OF American and English Law, as author
| ity for his position.
1t has been charged that the return is
forgery, but the best proof Of forgery it.
| self which is not the evidence while the
best proof Of the right Of the contestees
| to their seat is now in the Office of the
secretary of state under the great seal of
| Florida.
Mr. Dougherty continued. 1T is we'll
known l am partisan in politics, but, as
God is my judge, would not vote to un-
seat republican on the evidence before
| us. In this case don't lean as usual to
the democratic side. I fall ooer The
achole election in this precinct aoas fraud.
| If there was forgery it was committed
| at the precinct itself or in transit. for we
have the best possible proof that the re-
| turn canvassed was the only return re-
ceived by the canvassing board.
We must regard IA fraudulent and illegal
| election AS vnid-throw out the returns
| from precinct No and count without it,
| For this we have the authority OF all the
| courts, fortified by that of The American
| electoral commission. We constitute the
highest court which can take cOgniZance Of
this case. Let us decide it az all other
| courts have done in accordance with pre-
cedent law and justice.
| Mr. Salisbury of Citrus said that he
would not speak on this question save by
way of explanation Of his vote. Since all
had examined the evidence he esired only
TO say that the accusation OF par,isanship
had no terrors for him. He had discarded
the partisan since taking his oath. To him
| it mattered not whether the parties
were democrats, independents or republi-
cans He should leave the legal aspect
of the case to members of the bar. but
he would make plea Tor equity. The
gentleman from VOlusia had said the
rope was not sufficient, but read section
90 Of the election law and claimed that
it was. The gentleman from Volusia
had said the best evidence of forgery
was the thing forged. He read from
pages and of the testimony to show
that every etford had been made to OBJ
tain that paper and they had failed to
get it.
As tc place, the instructions directed that
| the. el.ct,0o be held sat Union school
house" not IN it,. He held that II the pro-
visions Of The election Jaw were carried
out, some of the hes citizens OF Citrus
would be dsfranchisei He should cast
his vote to express an honest opinion, and
he was entirely non-par' san.
Mr.. Young OF Manaiee took the chair.
Mr.. Mann of Hernandez, was anxious TO
take the matter up calmly and dlsptsson-
ately. But the que.ti.'n OF politics had
been thrust upon the house by the contes-
| tants. and if that claim WAS false, ii was
/ a reflection on them which should be ta-
kenin account as proving the unrelia-
bility of their statements. Mr.. Mann quo
ted here from the evidence to prove Messrs.
| Ivey and Harrell were not democrats, and
argued that the false statement impeached
the character of lhe contestants.
Not even the oath supposed to have
been taken by the inspectors of election at
precinct No. ,, appeared in the evidence,
and IL taken fraud was perpetrated by:
the failure to return it. No chairman had
been chosen, as the law dire cts. 1t was
requirement Of the law that the voting
place should be enclosed 80 the voter
could not be watched while casting his
ballot. 5sssa ploao. line Is not screen. The
| iu,e was set At 8 am, not y. $50 or tor
openine the polls. The polls were closed
before sundown. There was no proclama'
tion according to law after or before din
ner.
The secrecy of the ballot was a neces-
sity In the operation of the law. Fo vote
| properly it was necessary that the voter
should be abba to read This law was
made for purpose and it's rigid observ-
ance was obligatory But Mr. Mann
4 read from the testimony to show that
one c,ayton took each ballot from the
4 ota,. c,,anad ii and gave directions for