Evening star., 1894-02-08
OF WIDER INTEREST.
The Political Bearing of a Decision In
Contested Election.

AhC TOlItAcaA benf1nR OF u DecIS1On
Contested Election.
The Hilborn-English contested election
case of California, which has been pro-
ceeded with in the elections committee
without attracting much attention, is liable
to become the most interesting contest Ct
this Congress. According to the republican
view of the decision. If the democratic po-
sition Is maintained precedent will be
furnished by which the republicans being
In power in the House ut any time, If will
ing to avail themselves of it, might oust
a very large number OF southern demo-
Gratis.
After sitting the case to the bottom the
decision turned upon one precinct of about
~ legal voters. According to the returns
Mr. Hilborn received in this precinct 81
votes and Mr.. English received Is. The
precinct had been before a democratic pre-
cinct, and the suppOsition advanced was
that the votes had been transposed. and
that as matter of fact 81 had been cast
Tor English and Is for Hilborn.
Mr. English got the sworn testimony OF
thirty-seven men In the precinct that they
had voted for him, and this was presented
10 sustain the supposition. Mr.. Hilborn
Claimed that the best evidence would be
the ballots themselves. The ballots had
been preserved. in accordance with law,
and as the republican members of the COM
mittee claim. they were intact and beyond
the possible suspicion of having been tam
pered with.
On examination 1t was found that the re-
turns of the board. which was strongly
democratic. were incorrect and there was
no dispute upon this point. This. how
ever. did not establish Mr.. English's claim.
since the ballots themselves. the highest
evidence. showed that Mr.. Hilborn had re
ceived 20 votes and Mr.. English -, which
In the whole district would give MIR. Hill
hf,r tfy nf hn loo
ton was then presented as to whether the
affidavits Of men as to how they had voted
should be regarded as better evidence than
the ballots themselves.
The Effect in the south.
The republicans contend that this ques-
ton, and no other. was presented. and that
the decision against Mr.. Hilborn is an IN
dorsement of the proposition that affidavits
taken after the election shall be accepted
in preference to the testimony Of the bal
lots themselves and it is contended that
such a principle applied to the black dis
trict in the south would inevitably result in
the overthrow Of very large number OF
returns which place democrats in Congress
The democrats of the committee, however
contend that there was more In the propo-
sition than that, and that their decision
was based upon the assumption that mas
much as the returns of the democra tic
election officials were found to be incorrect
that the ballots themselves might have
been tampered with. and that 1t was upon
a very strong belief that the ballots had
been tampered with that they decided to
accept the affidavits rather than the ballots
as superior testimony.
One of the democrats Of the committe,
stated that the seal on the envelope II
which the ballots were preserved had beer
slightly broken and that the stubs from
which the ballots were torn were not put II
testimony to show whether the exact mum
Der of ballots issued were accounted for
Another democratic member of the commit
tee. however, seems to have voted for Mr.
English with an entirely different appre
hension of the case.
This member stated that while he sus-
pected fraud, that the decision was based
upon the ballots themselves, whc h he said
showed 20 for English and % for Hilborn
This appears to be a misapprehension on
his part since other members of the COM
mittee Of both parties agreed that the bal.
lots showed that 1t was Hilborn who had
the 70 votes. This indicates merely that
one member of the majority may have
voted under a misapprehension.