The San Francisco call., 1896-05-06

the Forty-irst District. Mr.. Cluff ex-
planned that the County Committee called
regular primary, while Mr.. Dennery
called his own primary and appointed his
own election officers.
The case for the anti-Kelly-Mahoneyit
was here taken up by S. NJ. Shortridge,
who began by saying:
II make these remarks regretfully be-
cause 1 know that what is here taking
place will be known to the people of the
whole State, and unless one acts wisely
and fairly it will be known to the detri-
ment of the party which l love and will
lngly serve. / shall submit the matter as
lmpersonally as the bare, ugly facts Will
permit"
He also reviewed the history OF the two
delegations and the bodies from which
they claim to have received their being,
and laid particular stress on the I'M
portance of the forged proxies and
the fair, legal and open manner
In which the primaries OF his clients
were held as compared with the methods
OF the other side, where the other side
had but one polling place in the AS
sembly district and resorted to
blanket" ballot. His clients had
two polling places and a separate
ballot for each Assembly district, and he
declared that every act of tie Baldwin
Hotel star-chamber proxy-manipulators
was void by reason of the forged proxies
used alone
In the course of his statement of the
case he also called attention to the fact
that the Mahoney- Kelly contingent did
not issue their call for primary until
after the regulars had issued theirs and
that they then called their primaries for
the day preceding that fixed by the regu-
lars. In concluding he said:
"To my mind, the whole thing may be
stated to rest npon and does rest upon this
question, Was the action taken at the
Baldwin Hotel meeting taken legally?
That action, we claim, was wholly illegal,
null and void.'
Mr.. Ruef then resumed his presenta-
tion of the matter, and repeated his chal-
Ienge made earlier by rema-king: IF you
find these proxies to be forged, then throw
out the entire delegation"
He was asked if he would present the
originals for comparison with the sigma
lures of those of the affidavits. and then
was forced TO admit that they could not be
found.
When finally forced into corner he de-
clared that there never had been any
written proxies, but that they had been
gwen orally. He became denunciatory
and abusive and had to be called to order.
Mr.. Alexander of the committee here
arose and brought down the house by
dryly remarking: "This is a matter be-
tween two gentlemen, and one can do it
nicely and the other can't"
This struck home so deeply and effec-
lively that for a moment Ruef was at a
loss, but Colonel Kowalsky was ready, in
fact too ready, to enter the fray. He got
up evidently to defend Ruef, but was sat
upon, and then threw a balance at the
committee by saying he would be heard
before the State Convention.
He ended by making slurring remark
aimed at Mr.. Alexander, who promptly
told the doughty and wordy colonel that
he could see him at any time he desired
outside.
The contest in the Fortieth Assembly
District was submitted on papers.
The Thirty-seventh District matter was
then taken up.
Judge Waldheimer made his statement
on behalf of the contestants of the Thirty
seventh Assembly District. The Judge
presented several affidavits which he did
not read, out of mercy for the feelings of
the committee.
He said that for two hours hardly vote
was cast at the polling place at the corner
of Fell and Laguna, whereas several hun
dred ballots were found in the box. In
another precinct he said that the doors
against the entrance OF contestants.
Judge Waldheimer astonished his hear
ers by the declaration that the name of
the late George r. B. Hayes was voted
seven times by one and the same person.
James Alva Watt replied by calling the
attention of the committee to the report
made by the Congressional Committee.
He said that the protest was signed only