New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-02-25

| them she prefers TO have it attended TO by Re
publicans rather than by Democrats. The Onondago
case is disposed of because of the fourtohrcc
decision of the Court of Appeals. II still awaits
in the State the Judgment of the greatest court
Of all-thc Court of Public Opinion.
| There are two counties in the XXVth Senate
District Onondaga ard Cortland According 10
| the returns as filed by the election inspectors,
Rufus r. Peck the Republican candidate for
Senator, received majority in Cortland of 40,
and his opponent John a. Nichols received n
majority in Onondaga of 3SS. Mr.. Pcck's ma
orty in the district, therefore, precisely $50.
Mr. Pecls candidacy was not wholly satisfactory
to certain elements of his party and the Democrats
had entertained strong hopes of beating him.
| Their failure 10 do SO was gricvous disappont-
mcnt, and although his success was freely con-
coded the day after election. Nichols and his per
sonal following in just the frame OF mind
to carry them under Hills promises and stimu-
lations into desperate devices TO steal what they
| could not win. His messages came pouring III
| upon the local Democratic leaders promptly after
| the contest, warning them against making any
admissions, and insisting that they should cast
about for anything that would serve 10 challenge
| the returns Al this time, il appeared that the
Assembly was tie politically and that Hill was
| moving 10 save il well as the Senate The
first suggestion of fraud in Onondaga was made in
connection with the returns from the list As
| scmby district. David a. Munro, jr.. the Re
publican candidate there, had been elected by a
plurality OF sixtyniuc votes, but in their state
ment OF the votes, Of the inspectors had
written his name inaccuratcy In one return il
was written ID. a. Munroe in another, d. \. Mon.
roe in another, ID. 4. Munro: in another, David
a. MunrOc. The variations possible in this case
are obviously numerous and they were wcll-nigh
exhausted. In every case, Of course. the sample
ballot appended TO the return showed that the
candidate actually voted for David A. Munro
jr., but the Democrats saw in the carcetSsncss OF
the inspectors opportunity to steal AN Assem-
byman, and the first proceedings OF the Board
of Canvasscrs were directed to that end.
THE CHIEF CoNsPIRAToRs
Nichols, the Democratic candidate for the SEN
ate, member OF this board Standing as
1t did, Is to Is, he held the casting vote and
from first TO last he cast it for himself His
participation in the frauds and devitrics that be-
gan at the boards first session and continued To
the end was active, eager constant and shame
less lie was more than their mere beneficiary
lie their agent and instigator
Three persons We're especially active in execut-
ing HIPS plot. These were W. b. Kirk, a former
boss in Onondaga Thomas q. Wclch. a super
visor, and John j. IIallock, who calls himself
lawyer and is. believe, entitled 10 practice as
such. liallocll is principally known us a Hill
heller" person who can always he relied upon
to do Whatever Hills kind Of politics requires
When the Board of CanvaSSers met in it, first
session Oil November 10, the outlines Of The Demo
cratic plot had not appeared. There he'd been
| talk among the Kirk crowd that something would
| be done to give Pcck's scat in the SENATE to
| Nichols, and Munros in the Assembly 10 Ryan.
| The democratic majority was narrow in the
board that il was not thought likely that "A
serious attempt to carry out these threats would
he made. But here, in each Of the other coun-
ties where frauds were finally pcrpctrated the
| Democrats entered upon the policy OF delay. The
canvts~ers would meet and adjourn without hav-
ing issued any certificates come any results
The would talk awhile, lay things on the table.
and then 20 Off After week spent IN this
way Mr. Peck concluded take his rights before
| the court There had been az this time no sug-
gcstjOn concerning the transposcd ballots and no
definite claim That Mr.. Peck was not elected
| Ills counsel Mr.. william Nottingham, appeared
before Judge Kennedy requesting mandamus
ordering the Board of Canvassers to proceed i'm
mediately to canvass the vote for Senator accord
ing 10 the fad OF the returns. Mr. Nottingham
alleged that the bOdTu could Ire delaying for no
good purpose, since all the returns were in, and
they had nothing TO do but to add up the figures
and declare the true results The board met on
that day. Judge Kennedy granted the mandamus.
II was served and promptly obeycd. A Republican
supervisor offered a resolution declaring that Mr..
| Peck had received SO many votes and Mr. Nichols
50 many, according to the face Of the returns :;
and q certificate was issued and forwarded to
h, in Nufb
the resolution. The board was then asked 10 take
I'D the case Of Mr.. Munro and to return TO those
inspectors of election who had incorrectly spelled
his name, their various statements Of the votes
cast for corrections The Democrats. however.
nromptly refused TO do this, assigning their
reason that the returns, having been used for the
purpose Of giving Mr. Peck his statement, could
not thereafter be sent back, and on the next day
the board adopted a resolution declaring Patrick
l. RYAN entitled to the seat They arrived at
this result by counting all the votes east for
David A. Munro jr., but returned by the in
snectors AS for d. A. Munro, ID. A. Munroe, or
some other such name. i'll favor OF the name as
spelled in the inspectors returns The enormty
Of this fraud is apparent at a glance. The sample
ballots attached TO each return testified that all
fine votes cast at those polls properly spelled
and cast for David A. Munro. jr.. and that the
inaccuracies of the inspectors returns were mere
clerical mistakes All the canvassers, OF course.
know the facts, and knew that they were COM
mittinq an atrocous crime and q deliberate as
obedience of the statute which directs them posi-
lively to return al statements for corrections IN
u,l;cb clericoI crrOrS apDear