The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-01-11
NOW WITH THE JUDGE
Lawyers Argue the Election
Contests All Day.
THE RESULT IS SUMMED UP.
Counting OF lnitfailess and Double
Marked Ballots Are the Issu-s-
A Decision Tomorrow.

gueG before Judge Langley yesterday.
To-day the cases VIII be under consider
alton and neither probate nor ctf.er
business vii. be transacted in Judge
Laaglay's department. as the new off,
csrs take their seats on Monday next
and Judge Langley wishes 70 render
his decision tomog-,w.
John 3. Hart opened in behalf of Mr..
Meyer. making. from his point Of view.
an able statement He took the posi-
li0n that election officers must comply
with certain mandatory provisions Of
law and that. if these provisions were
not complied with. the ballots should
be weld and should not De counted,
either by the election officers or in
the count upon the inspection
of ballots. Among these man.
daTory provisions Is Sne that
all votes which have not the election
stamp and the initials of at least one
IF the election JUICES on the back
shall be void. This being the case, al
votes cast IN the precincts of Franklin
and Houghtoa should be thrown out
ard not counted for either OF the con-
tesiants for the office OF sheriff. For
the same reason fifty yotese cast for
Mover and foT4y-six cast for Van de
Nagter Should ne thrown out in various
other precincts within tbs county. IL
the law is given the construction de-
nlanded. Mr.. Meyer Will receive 4.3J4
votes and Mr. Van de VanSer Abs
voices. giving Meyer a plura-sty Of Isl.
Mr.. Hart stated he found the ma nda-
tory provision SO decided in several En-
glish and american cases, particularly
one In Indiana. He also contended
that. counting all votes, his client had
1889 votes aud Van de Vanter 4.2s2.
tsaas giving Meyer a plurality of Il,
there hiying been counted by the e.ec-
ton judges and later by the canvasslng
board some forty odd votes that were
intended only for Republican congress
men and were so marked on the tickets.
From this Mr.. Hart claimed that with
out ischnicality Mr.. Meyer is e.ected
by Il majority. OF course leaving out
the 20 votes counted for Van de Van
ter that were intended fer congressman
only
W. r. Gay. representing Mr.. Van de
Vanter. next argued the case in very
clever way. saying. Rash and reckless
conduct IS often apo,ogized fer by the
offender on the ground thai 'hind-sighi'
IS better than foresight This applies
to Contestan. Meyer In this case. Had
mis- 'hind-sight' been his foresight
this suit would never have been liz
stltuted. II was planted on the theory
that 500 voters had voted for him: that
their woes had been rejeatefi because
OF double marking and also on the
theory that in Franklin precinct gross
frauds. such as destruction OF ballots,
stustirg b3llCt boxes. etc, had been per-
peTrated. Counsel for Meyer contended
at the outset that they were opposed
TO hair-spliti;ng. and that all they de-
sired was that the will of the people
should prevail
by the recount we find that about
81 vea>ss for Meyer had been rejected
because Of their double marking instead
Of the 500 cla.med. Instead Of the con
testant wanting no 'hair-Sp.itting tech
nieaiities their whole case Is now de-
pendent upon them. They want Frank
lin thrown out because no initials were
placed on the ballots by the election
officers; ahey want city precinct
thrown out because an inspector put
his single initial C. instead OF II. w
c. they want two other precincts
thrown out because the officers put
their full name Instead of initials Such
Is THAR -hair-sI.littiag.' Mr. Gay went
on 10 say that the local election boards
counted IS more votes for Van de Van
ter than Meyer, that they had counted
20 more for Van de Vanter than for
Meyer and Is more for Van de vanter
and s8 more for Meyer than were
counted by the local boards. Throw
out all the extra votes counted for Van
de Fan;er. concede all counted for
Meyer and Van de Vanter still has a
plurality Of 10 votes. IL the Will OF the
people is n prevail. Van de Vauter is
ese>ied. The contest has proved that
there was no fraud at Franklin. Simply
fgucrauce of tie laws IT this court
hria that initials are necessary Shen
the door to fraud is thrown wide open.
with no provision fc- punishment, and
those who wished could defeat the will
- The people by br4hing a board or
boards Of election officers To appear ig-
faorant and omit initials. and there
would be no grziress. Clearly such is
no5 the law This is our contention.
said he. t(h,t all unnecessary and IT.
regular markings void the ballot ana
a!sfranchisA the voter. but ignorance OF
the law cr emissions IN good faith On
the pax 81 electto, officers 10 not dis
franchise tho people" In closing Mr.
Gay Sat3 tha: he submitted the case
Il fgN eoatite0ES that in law and i'm
fact his Client. air Kan de vauter. was
cntitls~i - retain his certificate as sher-
~ ~ King county
= {. Huge ami John r. Con3on
followed in behalf - Van de- yarter
AM EaFnes. Mr.. Condoa made an eIah-
crate present ation of tha decisions ag
tbs various courts ON tina Australian
ha}kS law The rufa ~ construction
adopted, he said. is based urNan TIE
fact that the legislature has newer 70
Prescribe regulation. which rha voter
mast follow u preparing his rsallox. ard
also upo9 the far, ina: whether a bal
~ should D. countai ,}nes rsgt aepana
solely up.n The power :, md out the
cho,c7 - th@ 'eee~. ba; also anon the
expression Z teaJ ce15cF in she manner
provided b. statute" NJ. Consf y, said.
NJ notes Shos4hf So counted under
oar laws ansa<s th~ voter expresses his
iFsts0sAon "a ShS n731ne~ provided bv
kAs STAtHF@> TT co;vts have held tae
F9te~ - StTert accountability In mark
Ing tf> ballot Thev are ar,3ta liberal
SoFever. IN constituting election, laws So
'1i4t ~Ao.f> 1'-eri9@ts or large bodies nf
toters Will MS 0e s2fzsra nsh.sss~s t,- rs,sr-
E@~t up l%1araslee - the e'ex~essss, hoard
At se-';fas - t1s ifs.t. IN passing upon the
woe ~ f'TauA&n and o.thsr precincts