Evening journal., 1891-02-18
LAST EDITION
F. B. COTTON ON TRIAL.
CHARGED WITH REFUSING TO Ac-
cEPT A LEGAL VOTE.

True The state Rests.
When court convened this morning,
the case of the state VS. Franklin B Col
ton, charged with refusing to accept the
vote of Louis DeStepAnis. a vouer Of
Fifth ward, Twelfth election district,
was called, and the following jury
was drawn to try the case: Harry 3.
Woodkeeper. Elwood Conlyn. John
Mccullough, Edward M. Herbert. George
5. Hill. Robert c. Whitlock, Abram @.
Mote, Robert D Ratledge. John w.
Dickinson, Mansel Tweed, John Rambo,
William A. Lee.
Deputy Attorney General Davis read
the Indictment on what Cotton was
charged, which stated that if the charge
was proved, the defendant would be
guilty of misdemeanor and liable to pay
a fine not less than $50 or more than
5000. he then stated the case which he
expected to prove.
Joseph l. Carpenter. Jr, was the first
witness. He testified that he was a voter
of the Fifth ward. Twelfth election dis
tfict and voted at that precinct about
O'Clock on the last election day Franklin
b. Cotton was the inspector, Frank D.
Carpenter and William p Yoshell were
judges. Witness knew Louis DeStapanis
for four or five years. The latter was an
Italian by birth, but naturalized citizen
Of the United States. He produced the nat
uralization papers, which was presented to
franklin b Cotton by witness in the
pre- sence of Louis DeStepsnis on election
day. The paper was read to the Jury.
When DeStepanis offered to vote he also
produced his tax receipt in the presence
of witness, and offered them to the in.
spector at the polling window. The tax
receipt was signed by John J. Dougherty
in the presence of Mr. Carpenter
Attorney General Biggs attempted to
prove a conversation which the witness
had with Judge Wales on election day,
but the court ruled that the testimony
was prevalent. Mr. Biggs asserted that
this was the most vital portion of the
testimony, as it went to show that the
defendant had rejected the vote knowing
that DeStepanis was a naturslzed citizen
and entitled to exercise the right Of fran.
ehise
The court finally decided that the evil
dence was hearsay, and consequently in
admissible.
Mr.. Carpenter continued his testimony.
When the ballot. torn receipt and reaui.
sition papers were presented to Mr.
Cotton, the latter refused to accept the
vote and DeStepanis was obliged to turn
away without voting The witness told
Mr.. Cotton that he would attend to him
anotlaer day and the latter said: go
ahead and crack your whip He subse-
quentiY had conversation with Cotton
in which he tried to prove to the de-
fendant that the papers were valid, and
told him he would be liable to prosecu.
tion If he did not accept the papers
In cross examination by Mr., Nields.
the witness stated that he was positive
DeStepanis presented the ballot to Col
ton on the day Of election, but the latter
did not take IL out of his hand Up to
the day of the election the witness and
Mr.. Cotton were always on good terms
Several sharp arguments occurred be
tween Mr.. Nields and the attorney
general during the giving Of Mr.. Car
penter's testimony.
Frank D. Carpenter, Esq, testified that
he knew DeStepanis, who was a resident
of the Fifth ward, Twelfth election dis
trict and a legal qualified voter. The
witness was q judge at the polls in that
district on election day. DeStepsnis
come to the window in company with
Joseph L. Carpenter. on the day of the
election and the latter handed in the
naturalization papers OF DeStepanis, and
he offered to vote, but Mr.. Cotton refused
to accept them. Witness told Cotton
that If he refused the vote he would be
liable to Indictment and would be
indicted If he persisted in this line of
conduct.
Witness then related the conversation
which took place between his father,
Joseph L. Carpenter, and Mr.. Cotton, as
related by the previous witness.
The attorney general attempted to get
the witness to state what took place be-
tween Joseph L Carpenter and Mr.. Col
ton in reference to the conversation
which the former had with Judge Wales,
but the court decided against its intro
duction. The witness would not say
positively that Cotton had handled the
ballot which DeStepanis handed up
Mr.. Nields demanded to know of Mr.
Carpenter how he knew that DeStepanis
was entitled to vote A long argument
followed and at the end the witness ad-
mitted that he only had reasons to be
heve that .DeStepanis had a right tC
vote.
The witness was asked if the vote OF
James Mclaughlin had been refused
This was objected to, and after con
siderable argument the qestion was
allowed. The witness answered thai
the vote of Mclaughlin was refused.
Mr.. Nields presente form OF
naturalization papers which he alleged haC
been furnished TO the judges of elections
pnrpOrting to he an exact counterpart o.
what such paper should be. The at.
torney general objected on the ground
that there was no law making any pro
vision for the furnishing Of such papers
and if the judges accepted them
they did so at their peril, and werl
not to be excused on th,
grounds Of being so deceived. Mr. Nield:
eonteDded that he produced the papers
for the purpose of showing that Coltol
did not willfully and knowingly rejec'
the vote. The court decided in his favor
The witness said that the naturaliz AtioI
papers presented by DeStepanis wer
similar TO that one produced
John Nj. O. Fo-kum testified that h
was United States supervisor at the Fiftl
ward, Twelfth Election district, on th,
day of election. He knew Louis De
Stepanis and saw him attempt to vote OF
that day. His naturalization papers, ia.
receipt and ballot were laid before the
inspector, and the latter refused b
accept them. He related the converse
tion which then took place between tn
Carpenters and Cotton, as given substan
italy by the preceding witnesses.
Louis DeStepanis testified that b
lived at Ninth and Woodlawn avenue, il
the Twelfth election district, Fifth ward
for four years He has been in th
United States for eleven years, seven o
which was enaut IN VVfIpafno4or II