People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1893-02-03

mt OOON'An dpPcdIeu III pcrsOu anu W ". u
Stidger, his attorney; and Mr.. Citing appeared il
person and by Thomas Berry, his attorney. TIT
record shows that Mr.. Citing and his attorney
were personally present at the taking Of all Of
the dispositions, and that almost every question
that was asked on the part Of Mr. Goodwin wa:
objected to BY Mr.. Citing or his attorney. But
your committee should first refer to the test
mony taken by them.
Pursuant to the authority conferred by thi:
house upon your committee, your committee
sent telegraphic subpoena to James C. Hop.
per- county clerk of Ness county, requiring his
personal attendance before your committee
with the original canvass made by the commits.
sioners Of Ness county of votes cast for repre-
sentative at the November election, and the
package OF tickets returned TO him by the
judges and clerks of election Of Center town.
ship, in said county. "a
Your committee first examined the original
canvass made and signed by the commissioners
as canvassers, and attested By the clerk. The
clerk testified that the paper produced BY him
was the original canvass, and that il had not
been changed in any respect since it was signed
by the commissioners and fled in his Office.
From the county canvass it appeared that for
representative OF the Ninety-ninth district Mr..
Citing had received in Center township 1888 votes,
and Mr. Goodwin so votes, making total of 2Os;
and it appeared that upon the whole canvass Mr..
Citing had received in Ness county SAT votes,
and Mr.. Goodwin 42 votes, showing by the
canvass majority of five in favor of Mr. Citing.
Mr. Hopper, the county clerk, next produced
to your committee the package of tickets re-
turned to him by the judges and clerks of cleo
ton of Center township. He testified that Cen
ter township included Ness City; that Ness City
was a city Of the third class, and within the mu-
nicipal township Of Center; that he resided in
Center township, and had voted there at the
general election in November, and was present
during the counting of the votes by the judges
OF election, and saw the ballots counted and
strung, and inclosed in an envelope and sealed
up and that package was then delivered to him,
and that he had had it in his possession and un-
der his exclusive control from that time until he
produced it to your committee; and in like man
ner he produced and identified the poll-book OF
Center township. The polI-book shows the
names of 2O6 persons who voted at the election
in Center township.
ha - Il L Al
county clerk, and were taken singly by him and
handed to your committee, who counted them in
the presence Of the clerk. The ballots show,
upon their face, that there were 147 votes cast
for Richard o. Elting, and no more, and that
hfty-four votes we're cast for l. N. Goodwin,
and no more. They show that four ballots were
cast which did not contain the name of any per-
son for representative, and they show that two
ballots were attached together by the judges OF
election, and Endorsed by them as having been
folded together, and for such reason had been
rejected by the judges as fraudulent. Counting
these two ballots as one, and treating it as
fraudulent, as the judges of election did, and as
persons who did not vote for representative.
This number, added to the 1i7 votes cast for
Citing and fifty-four votes cast for Goodwin,
will make 2O6, being the number of voters whose
names appear on the poll-books It will be
seen, also, that, tried by the ballots themselves,
the return made by the judges was false, in this,
thaf 10 hotr
than he received, and that it gave to Goodwin
only fifty, when he had actually received fifty
four. twill be seen, also, that, deducting from
Fittings vote in Center township, as returned,
the six which he did not receive, and allowing
Mr. Goodwin the four additional votes to which
he was entitled, makes a difference Of ten in
favor Of Goodwin, and that this change would
elect Goodwin by five majority. The dispositions
taken by Judge Temple show that twenty wit
nesses or more were examined before him, all of
whom were thoroughly cross-exsmined by Mr..
Elting's attorney. These dispositions show
briefly the following facts:
LIST. A man named Ruffhead, who had been
convicted of misdemeanor and was confined in
the Jail at Ness City under sentence to imprison-
ment, was taken out of Jail by W. V. Horton, q
deputy sheriff, and taken to the polls and per.
mitted to vote. He voted the republican ticket;
but the testimony fails to show whether his
legal residence was in Center township at the
time of his conviction, or not and as your COM
mittee do not know whether conviction of mis-
demeanor would deprive citizen of his vote,
they have concluded to take no note of Mr..
Rufhead's vote in their summary.
I'd. H. N. Cowles votedin Center township for
Mr.. Citing. He testified that he was 81 years of
age on the 10th day of December, 1892, and that
before he voted he told Mr.. Miner, one of the
judges Of election, that he was not then q years
Of age, and would not be until December. He
testified that his vote was not challenged. His
vote was illegal.
Sd. Walter E. Reynolds testified that he voted
in Franklin township, and voted for Mr.. Citing
for representative. He testified that he voted
the Peoples party ticket, except that he erased
two names, one for county office and Mr.. Good
wins name for representative, and that he wrote
on his ballot the name Of Richard o. Citing for
and voted for him. He testified
that would not be p years of age until the 5th
of July 1898, This vote was illegal
4th. G. P. Hoffer testified that he was 81 years
Of age; that he had voted for Mr.. Elting for rep
He testified that his family resided
in the state of Indiana; that he came from Mis-
souri, inso the state Of Kansas in June, 1892, and
had not at the time of the election resided in
Kansas six months. His vote was illegal,
9Th. A man named Busick was shown to have
voted at the general election in Ness county, and
for Mr.. Citing for representative. The testimony
satisfies your committee that he had served
term of imprisonment in the penitentiary in
and had not been pardoned; but your
committee are advised that proof sufficient to
disqualify a man by reason of the conviction for
felony must be made by the production of the
record of conviction, or a COPY thereof; and as
this was not done, your committee will take no
note Of Mr. Busick's vote in their summary.
9th. David Dopp testified that he had voted in
Center township at the November election, and
had voted for Mr.. Citing for representative. He
testified that he had previously resided in Center