St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-01-08
SAVED, SAvED,SAvED!
Aid. BarroWs Will Not Be Hid
den in the Coun-
ell.
The Expo Comes Up Smiling,
With a Small De-
felt.
A Reciprocity Movement Is
Started--Annual Meetings
Galore.
The DAM Orchestra May Dis
banda Barber'S
Cruelty.

y
Again yesterday were the election
contest cases under consideration.
When the committee met Aid. Ingen-
butt was absent, but put in an appear
ance later. The Breyer-Brazil case
from the Fifth ward was first taken up.
A. D. Smith, Breyer's attorney, pleaded
for more time IN which to prepare his
case. Jamison, who appeared for BroZie,
replied sharply, that Smith had had two
months TO prepare. The case was
dropped until the Hidden-Barrows con-
test shall have been decided. The COM
mittee held small executive session,
and then proceeded with the Second
Ward case.
Several judges of election had been
summoned, and were examined III the
afternoon. They were Eustis, Peebler
and Gilsen. of the Seventh precinct;
Moore, Of the Fourth. The evidence
elected was of an extremely cOntradic-
tory nature. All of the judges denied
that they had been asleep at any time
during the canvassing of the vote, al
though one of them admitted that his
eyes had been closed at one time. Riddle
admitted that the straight ballots were
counted in blocks of more than five, and
that a good many ballots were so
counted without being examined by
more than one judge, Some ballots had
been thrown out because the cross
marked opposite the name of the alder
manic candidate was too large. The
judges meant to do the right thing.
Elijah Barton was sworn next. Re-
garding the counting of the ballots in
Jumps, he corroborated Riddle. He was
a clerk of election, not judge. He re-
membered instances wherein mistakes
were made. in the hurry of canvassing,
by reading off vote for BarroWS which
should have been counted for Hidden.
He believed, however, that all such
errors were corrected.
enth precinct, followed. That was
where w. Guile assisted the judges
without being constituted either judge
OF clerk, which fact PEBBLES admitted.
He also swore that the judges split up
the work of counting, and that the other
two judges did not examine the work of
any one Judge Mistakes could have
been made. Some of the ballots, he
said, had been marked lightly-so lightly
that it was difficult to distinguish
the mark. There might have been
marks on some of the ballots
which were thrown out. All ballots
which showed the intention Of the voter,
although not marked strictly i'll accord
ance with the law, were counted. For
example, some were marked OH the left
hand side instead of Oh the right, some
were marked ''yes" instead of with
cross; some bore straight mark in
stead of cross opposite the name of the
candidate. All such were counted.
Where the cross was so big as to make
it matter of question as to which can
date it referred, the matter was referred
to the judges and thrown out by a ma
jority vote. Gibson, one of the judges
i'll the Seventh, who followed PEBBLES,
contradicted that gentleman on several
material points.
On the count in the Seventh precinct
a good deal of contradictory testimony
was given. Eustis said that no ballots
were counted by Guile or by one of the
judges without being afterWard exam
ined by the other judges. PEBBLES
testimony was directly to the con-
trary. Gilnon admitted that there might
have been such action taken while he
was eating supper. Another point was
brought out in this testimony. There
were ballots cast in some of the pre-
cincts upon which there was but one
mark, and that opposite the name of an
aldermanic candidate. Those ballots
were thrown ont, the judges evidently
believing that voters should be diSfran-
chised unless they were patriotic or
public spirited enough to vote for
mayor.
w. f. Guile, whose name figures so
prominently in this case, was sworn.
He bore out PEBBLES testimony that in
the Seventh precinct he GUILE had
read Off the mixed, or split, tickets,
while the clerks checked on the tally
sheets, and that those ballots handled
by him were not afterward examined
gone the committee and the attorneys
entered upon a discussion of what
should be done next.
1t was brought out in this discussion
that the committee, while i'll executive
session in the morning, had. upon the
advice of the city attorney, determined
to arbitrarily exclude from cOnSidera-
ton the allegations made with reference
to the First, Second, Third, and Fifth
precincts, and to consider only the
Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh. And they
didn't seem inclined to be very liberal
with regard to even those three. Mr..
Hidden, III his petition, had specified
the witnesses whom he desired sum-
moned. One of these, j. F. Calhoun, Of
the Fourth precinct, refused to come
before the committee unless duly and
legally summoned.
The committee had sent out for sew
eral witnesses, but had summoned and
virtually refused to summon any Of
these. Mr.. Calhoun is material wit
ness because in his affidavit presented
to the committee, he swears that
in by only one judge in
the Fourth precinct, and were not after
ward examined by the other judges.
Mr.. Davenport, Hidden's attorney. COM
planned of the narrow restrictions which
the committee was placing upon his
client by continuing the examination to
three precincts and by failing to sum-
mon the witnesses desired by Mr.. Hid
den.
Aid. Bradish seemed determined to
give Mr.. Hidden no show at all. He
didn't want any more witnesses sum-
moned; he didn't want any more pre-
cincts but the Fourth, Sixth and Sew
enth considered; he didn't want the
ballot boxes reopened at all. His atti-
tude brought out strong protest from
Mr.. Davenport. That gentleman urged
that the committee carry out no such
unjust proceeding as seemed to have
been determined upon. Both the con-
testants, BarroWs and Hidden, wanted
to see that vote recounted. The COM
mlttee alone stood in the way of it.
1t had been conclusively proven
that the canvass in the Seventh
precinct had been made Illegally.
Guile, who was neither judge nor clerk,
had counted votes in that precinct,
which votes had never been counted by
the judges;' therefore, that count was
clearly illegal, since the law provides
that the judges must count the ballots.
The judges did not do it, but Guile did.
Moreover, If the committee would en-
ploy its power to assist the contestant.
Hidden, in getting fair show, by con-
sidering all the precincts and summon
inc witnesses If cOuld be established