Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-05-06
HOW IT CAME ABOUT
Grand Rapids township inspect
ors on the Stand
EXPLAINING ELECTION ACTS
La Their Refusal tn Allow the Veeer'
an. Ia Vote--Potnss OF Law Were
Argued Yesterday.

The prosecution swore but one Wit
Ness yesterday ia the trial of the in
spectors ~ election u precinct No. u
Grand Rapids township and then rested
In opening for the defense |. NJ. Turner
said there Vas general dissatisfaction
because II the veterans vote, and that
feeling was not confined Ia any one
political party. lie believed the in
spectors had acted honestly and ia =
manner calculated to promote the beet
interests IL the township. The inspect
orr had consulted Mayor Uhl. who sd-
vised them that the veterans were not
legal voters in that precinct Judge
STAGE had also advised them 10 the
same effect. 50 they certainly thought
they were doing right
The first witness was Louis Gouds-
waard. one of the respondents lie az
mitted all that was charged about re-
jectlng the votes. but said he did u IN
good faith, having consulted George w.
Thompson before acting in the matter.
Prosecuting Attorney Wolcott tried 10
show that all the attorneys consulted
were democrats. but an objection WAS
made. and the evidence was ruled out.
Witness swore that {. sumner Bur-
roughs was a challenger and had list
1T names IL inmates who were TO he
challenged. but the court ruled out any
evidence as TO the political faith Of those
persons challenged. Court adjourned
for noon.
Major Long swore that he il adiutant
Of the Soldiers home. He had charge
Of applications. He produced the appli-
cation 0f John Wood. made last October.
The paper Was offered in evidence.
Major Long had known John Woodsince
lie Was admitted last fall. The rules
and regulations OF the home were offered.
SO far as they referred TO admission of
persons 10 the home and their discharge.
Objection was made 10 the introduction
q the rules. but il was overruled. Wit
ness said Wood had employment in the
home when first admitted. but had not
been employed since October that he
knew Of.
Defendants Testify.
Herbert Perkins was the next witness.
He was a resident Of precinct No. OF
Grand Rapids township and was chair
man Of the board OF inspectors He re-
membered that John Wood offered 10
vote about o'clock in the afternoon.
lie testified that Wood did not make a
demand upon any of the inspectors to
accept either OK the five statutory oaths.
Witness did not receive his oath because
he did not deem him an elector. He was
advised previously by George W. Thomp
son and other attorneys that his course
MAS correct. The same questions were
put To all inmates Of the home and none
were allowed to vote. He made no at
tempt whatever to discover the politics
Of the veterans. There were 81 voters
resident in the township and Coz names
were registered from the home.
Cross examined he said that he had
the constitution there before him. stat
ing the requirements as TO gain and loss
Of residence. He proposed To disregard
the provisions Of the law regarding ad-
ministeripg Of oaths in those cases. hav-
ing been advised that the applicants
were not electors He testified that the
man did not ask To swear in his vote
and that he did not believe any Of the
statutory votes applicable 10 the case.
Mr.. Wolcott had said that the man
should be allowed 10 swear in his vote.
but he did not comply with Mr.. VOL
colts construction Of il.
Fred j. Taylor. the other inspector.
swore to the same state Of facts regard
ing the challenging and debarriug OF
Woods vote. Asked whether he at
tempted TO harmonic the constitutional
provisions and the law governing the
elections. he said he did not understand
the question. Chairman Perkins. he
said. had asked Wood il ne would swear
il in. and the constitutional oath was
administered Couldn't remember
which oath Mr.. Wolcott advised adj.
ministered when he arrived there. which
he thought was Just after Woods vote
had been refused.
After q recess the points Of law were
argued 10 the court and requests 10
charge the jury submitted. The prose
cution held mainly that il the veterans
had no right To vote in the precinct in
which the home is located. they Ger
tanly had no right Ia vote in the pre-
cincts where they For merly lived. as they
could not comply with the laws require
ments as to residence in the latter case
The defense cited the New York case 40
precisely similar 10 the one ut bar with
the New York and Michigan constitu.
tons very similar Arguments 10 the
jury will be made this morning.