The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1895-11-29
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1895.
ADERHOLD VS.. THE COUNTY COMMISSION
ERS.


commissioners passed off very quietly
last Saturday. After hearing some
county clerk, two of the attorneys for
Mr.. Aderhold took the stand and at
tempted to convince those present
that the tally sheet had been tampered
with, since last seen in court. AS the
populists were standing by this sheet
and it was for their interests, it was
difficult to determine just what the
Republicans expected to prove, but it
soon developed that the ATTORNEYS for
Aderhold were simply manufacturing
campaign material and wished to
throw discredit upon the populist
county officials. In fact, all through
the proceedings, from start to finish,
this same desire has been apparent.
This infant industry of course needs
protection, and the Republican party
believes in carrying that doctrine to
the extreme.
AT the first hearing of the case, the
question OF opening the ballots by the
judge came up, and a large number of
authorities were presented on this
question, which were taken under con-
slderation, on re-assembling Saturday.
Authorities were introduced by the
defendants attorneys 10 show that
when canvassipg board had acted on
the returns sent Ia and given theil de-
cision, that there was 10 power but
the contest court that could change
the result. After listening patiently
until all had finished, the court drew
from his pocket a lengthy type written
opinion, which he proceeded to read
and when the attorneys for the COM
missiOners objected to some of the
courts statements as not being in ac-
| cord with the evidence, they were in
formed that the document being read
would not become part of the record
from which we infer that it was not
intended to be accurate, and was
made for publication, as it was trans
ferred to the foreman of the Mercury
as soon as court adjourned. AS this
document is no part of the record III
the case, it is of course open to friend
ly criticism. What purports to be a
copy of this remarkable document ap-
pears in this weeks Mercury, with a
lot of stuff at the close, evidently ad-
ded by the editor of that great reli-
giOus and moral weekly. We do not
lay claim 10 legal knowledge, and SO
will make no attempt to mislead any
one, but will simply call attention to
| one or Two errors that have crept into
this document, due no doubt to the
courts not accurately remembering
the testimony.
For instance:
''In the case of Rice against the
board OF county commissioners of Cof-
fey county, reported in the same vol
ume, Judge johnson in reft rring to
the facts before him to he passed up
on, comments upon the duplicate tally
sheet and likewise refers to one ballot
that was cast for Barringer and Says
that that ballot should have been
counted for Ballinger as it was evil
IDENTIFY intended to be cast for Balm
ger, thus showing that III that case the
supreme, court not only had recourse
TO the duplicate tally sheet for further
information, but also investigated the
ballot to the extent at least of using
and commenting upon this one ballot. -
Judge Peters, of Newton, who was
here Monday, says i'll this case the
balloes were not before the supreme
court, but this vote for Barringer
was shown on the tally sheets, as of
course we all know it would be-
The court in summing up the evi-
dence in relation to the tallles makes
a very plausible case. and possibly {,
correct one, although Mr.. Peters says
that when the wrong name was called
once for Il county officer both clerks
Tailed and both made an erasure
and yet these microscopic in
vestigatofs failed to find this the case
but they find pale looking mark OF
Harper's sheet and discard it, although
the corresponding tally on Peters
sheet appears all regular, and so coult
not possibly be the one referred to
The court in this case has simply
substituted his opinien for that of th
commissioners. and ordered them t,
act OH it, which Of course they did.
In the Rnsenthal cose referred to b
the Mercury, We all know that in thi
case the errors were glariDg, notwith
standing which, the supreme court re
fused to issue utandamus. Nov
in the case quoted from the 16.h Kan
sas, the language used does not appea
IN that case. but the following does:
'.The simple purpose and duty q
the cai,vassing board is tp ascertai
and declare the apparent result of til