Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1892-11-18

Augustus Vs. Weeks plurality -.....-....-. 80
Representative Third Kent District.
yonn l. bailey. Dem. lis
norton titeA. Ne -s-Us
Henry c. HackmOuth. Pop.........-........... leo
Norton Fltchs plurality 323
The committee on the canvass of the
state vote reported many errors. cleri-
cal and otherwise. and asked for cor
rectlons. The errors were mostly
technical, but IN some cases the figures
as set down and As written out did not
agree.
The committee on the county ticket
reported errors IN one ward and fye
townships In the city there Is = mis-
take OF loo votes on surveyor. The
committees we're instructed to proceed
with their work As rapidly as possible
and TO correct the clerical errors.
The Richardson Petition.
The petitions Of George F. Richard
son and Luther v. Moulton. asking for
. recount OF the votes, were taken
from the table. and the Richardson
petition was the first to receive consld-
GRAFTON. The petition alleges that the
Soldiers homo vote was illegal. Sup
srvIsor Benjamin doubted whether the
board had power TO decide on the leg
atty of the Soldiers home vote and
moved that that precinct be stricken
out Mr.. Turner being asked for his
opinion Of the Soldiers home precinct,
said that the Soldiers home vote Was
merely Incidental to the charge of
error: ne believed. however, that the
committee should take due cognlzace
Of the Soldiers home vote.
Moses Taggart was asked to say
something. He read portions of the
election law and backed il up with Q
decision Of the supreme court, showing
that when . vote is challenged the
voter can swear IN his ballot aud that
such ballot must be counted, and If he
swears falsely ne can be held for per-
jury. The secrecy OF the ballot must
be kept inviolate. The board cannot
examine those votes and If they had
been marked, IL was illegally done. IL
the supreme court or congress holds
that the Soldiers home vote was IL
legeil. Mr.. Tsggart held that the vote of
the entire precinct could be thrown
out, but the vote of the citizens and
the soldiers can not be separated.
Mr.. Turner maintained that the SOL
diers' home vote was but an incident in
recount - wanted IN that precinct a. in
others. The law upon contests was
then read again and Mr.. Taggsrt SAID
that IN MS opinion Mr.. Richardson mad
nos been specific enough in his charges
to warrant the board ordering . re-
count.
Mayer stusr,'s Opinion.
Mayor Stuart. who was present. vas
asked for bis opinion regarding the
matter. He hesitated. he said. to give
an opinion for fear Il would be sttrlb-
uted 20 personal prejudice. lie had
not recently looked INTO the law, but
he thought when = petition was pre-
sentsd the board should first examine
il TO see II 10 IA worthy of consdera-
ton. Just because a candidate - de-
feated and wants recount on general
principles. it should not DO considered.
IL a candidate considers himself
agxroIvsd ne should submit some
statement Of facts upon which 90 base
his complaint. A general statement
that a certain number of votes was
counted for Belknap should hsvP been
counted for Richardson, was not setting
up the facts with a sufficient degree OF
definition TO warrant a recount. and
this vas especially true in the Grand
Rapids township precinct. He could
net see how the purely soldier vote
could be determined. as there vas no
warrant IN las for Distinguishing them
from the other votee.
Csnsu,ittee en- Contest named
+. T.. Isunisr and I'd n. STEIN de-
rnand ed a vote on the previous gues-
ton. Il was carried by vote Of 81
% 3.
The chairman was authorized 70 sp-
appoint the frst member OF the COM
Mite appointed under act No. 20s,
enacted 1887. % count toe votes tie
named Alderman %. A. Ball "a chsir-
msn OF ths committee. but Mr.. Bal
declined 10 serve and q. Harry De-
.4raaf Vas appointed. In behalf Of
~. Richardson, L. l. Lsnniere Wa
named.
Supervisor y. =. Emnions vas sp-
sosnled there prssentstive Of Mr. Sel<-