Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1893-01-06
EMM0NS COUNTY REC ORD
By D. R. STREETER.
WILLIAMsPoRT, NORTH DAKOTA.
Pioneer Journal of the County.
The RECORD Is entered at the Wiuiamsporl
PostoNcc as second class matter.

The RECORD 10 entered at the WiHiamsport
PoaoGlce as second class matter.
SIMPLY "a FORFEIT.n
During the recent trip of Mr.. H. A.
Armstrong to st. Paul he stopped over at
Fargo long enough to visit the news.
paper Offices and offer some excuses for
his friends Of the returning board, as fol-
lows:
Forum H. A. Armstrong, auditor of
Emmons county, is in the city on his
way to st. Paul on visit. He was asked
in regard to the election contest in EN-.
mons county, and the action of the board
of canvassers, to which he responded in
substance as follows 1.-The good faith
of the canvassing board IN the Emmons
county election case having been called
in question and their motives lmpugned,
tunity before legally constituted judi
cial tribunal to say that they had grounds
which In their opinlon--as laymen, not
lawyers or judges = were sufficient to
warrant them in refusing to canvass the
returns from Selz precinct. They exam.
ined the law governing the action of a
| canvassing board to ascertain If possible
if the board had any discretion in the
matter. After dispassionate discussion
wherein men as candidates for office had
| no part, they decided that the board did
have some discretion in certain cases,
and that the case before them was one of
the cases. They acted. They are not
now mulish and contend that they had
any authority for doing as they did but
that they did it with an evil intent and in
| direct violation of their oaths of Office
they unhes,tatingly deny. They are will.
ing to canvass the returns from Selz pre-
| cinct whenever Judge Rose or any Judge
| says they should do So"
Commonwealth II. A. Armstrong.
auditor of Emmons county, was in the
city Wednesday and gave the Common.
wealth his version of the matter. He
says the canvassing board do not claim
they acted right acco riding to the law, but
they do claim they acted according to the
best authority they had on the subject
and in good faith, This may be true,
and yet they may have acted wrong Mr..
Armstrong says the attempted bribery did
not enter into the consideration of the
board in throwing out the precinct, which
was done on account of Irregularities.
The irregularities will, therefore, be the
question for the court to consider.
Mr. Armstrong said, further, that he
knew nothing OF the deal to brlbe and
that, although he understo cd money was
posted IN forfeit, as described by the
Commonwealth last week, it was not by
his knowledge or authority that the money
was placed IN his behalf. He also stated
that he understood the money had been
paid back by the person who had it IN
forfeit.
The case now stands as an attempt at
brlbery-5y some one. But whof The
| court will. decide, as the matter will prob
ably be pushed by the candidates elected,
but counted out. It Is not so much the
question of bribery in itself but 1t is an
attempt to corrupt the ballot-box, and is
thus blow at the purity of our govern
ment.
There are two newspapers in Emmons
county. One of them is the personal or.
gan of Auditor Armstrong an organ
which, like himself. has uttered no
words in condemnation of those who took
partein the attempted bribery, and which
has had very little to say In regard to the
action of the returning board. The other
newspaper has always made it rule to
allow friend or enemy the use OF its col
umns in discussing a public matter, and
we will say right here that it would be a
very unfair sheet that would do other
wise.
Is it not remarkable, then, that under
such conditions, the auditor of this county
should think 1t necessary to seek the
newspaper Offices of distant city for a
medium through which to make public
his views on subjects of vital Importance
to those at homer Now, let the reader
be patient enough to follow US while we
attempt to analy re the statements of the
gentleman as given above.
Both here and in Bismarck, when asked
regarding the throwing out of the votes
of Selz precinct, Mr.. Armstrong has re-.
peatedly stated that he knew nothing
regarding the matter, and that he had no
interest whatever in the case. Then how
was It possible for HIM to give to the Fo-
rum a direct statement of the motives
which animated the members of the re
turning board? If he had not beer in
consultation with the gentlemen Of
the board, how coulu he be 80 pos
tive as to what the motives were which
prompted them, in the face of an almost
unanimous public opinion, to throw out
the votes?
He further says that the members of
the board acted as laymen, not lawyers
or judges intlmating that it was through
ignorance or misconstructlon of the law
that tho board acted. Those who visited
Bismarck after the vote was cast out
and who sought for information know
that the attorneys of the Capital City
were UNANIMOUSLY of the opinion that
a canvassing board Is without judicial
power. Even Mr.. Boucher, who was re-
tained by the board--always loyal and
devoted To- the interests of his clients
knew it. because common sense and his
law books told him so. The auditor is
lawyer, and he certainly knew that
law aud precedent were against the ac-
ton taken. Both Comm ssioner Van
Beck and Com missioner Campbell are
his near and dear friends. Both had
done hard work for him IN the campaign,
the former even going so far as to put
up Fifty dollars of his (Van Beek's) own
money to help him out In Selz precinct.
Wnn1d not have S,oo,, rsoh< for NJ