Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-05-04
WHOLESALE NOLLE Presses.
The United States Rellnquishes is
of the Election Cases.

~
| with obstrncting q United States super
visor at the last election, was called
This is the first If the second branch Of
! cases, those affecting supervisor charges,
| Introduced by the government for action
| at the present term Of court. There are IL
| Of these cases and ali the indictments are
based on section 5522 governing cases in
| question,
The following jury was empanelcd for
the Gtnder case: ]. jackson Peirce, W. NJ.
Holt, W. {. Wiley. Thomas Mccoy,
| Elisha Barton Isaac T.. Hearn, A. II.
| iotIeckcr, j. ". Day. W. +. Nichols,
| Eugene sayers, John L. Wilson, John q.
| Baker.
District Attorney Watson's position was
that Gindcr along with the Others under
this class Of Indictment refused to allow
the supervisor 10 see his tax receipt The
| government prosecutor asserted that
! Chief Supervisor MaCallister gave nstruc-
/ lons to the supervisors to ask for these
receipts. The refusal of Ginder and others
Was MI. watson claimed violation of
section No. 5522 Revised Statutes.
| Chief Supervisor :. a. Macallister gave
evidence that he had given certain nstruc,
| tons 70 the lld supervisors. He issued the
| instructions to prevent the presentation of
| fraudulent tax receipts
Richard Heritage, supervisor, testified
that he was intertrrcd with on October
- lie could have got the items from
! Register w. \. Hukill. Mr.. Ginder read
out tie name Of the receipt, but not the
! number nor date.
| the Democraticsu supervisor Thomas Con-
| don, testified that on october I'D, the tax
receipts were refused.
Mr. Rgg, asked what weret directions
| OF explanations given by Senator GRAY
and Willard salisbury in regard to this
| matter.
More discussion On the subject followed
/ when iht court suggested again that the
explanation Of the lAw whether such he
4 Flglt or wrong is to be made BY the court,
Mr. B!sss promised to show that the
! oilalals acted under the advice Of the two,
| senator Gray and Willard SALISBURY
| which was given As lawyers. Pursuant 10
! that opinion they refused to allow the
/ supervisors 70 handle the tax receipts III
thc ground .ha, they were the private
| property Of the owners ana also that what.
I ever information the Supervisors needed,
| ,ss for example. in the case of Supervisor
| Heritage could be obtained from Registrar
/ W. A inkill, the official appointed "
the governor Of tEc state.
Defendant John b. Gindcr. in giving his
\ testimony, adIed in short willard Sluls-
bury sand NOT to let the supervisors have
/ the tax receipts rs according to his opinion
/ they had no right to handle them VIII
ness thereuPun declined to lei them be
touched
! Between the second ana third registra.
\ ton day the Democratic uiiiciul, were ad
vised otherwise, that Is tu allow the tax
4 receipts 10 be handled BY the superyisnrS.
| Messrs. salisbury and GRAY said Il tax
/ receipt Is a man private property and
/ that It should he handed back a. him
Mr.. Bigg> said that Mr.. salisbury Will
speak for himself.
| The Court 10 the witnnss.-,.S,itn,,ai,,,,
| you had zone 10 thu Rcpublic,n bs,d
! uuortprs ma ,v,., e ~. i..,..1s...-' :, ''.''