, 1896-12-23

Just to show how fiimsy the excuse
as for the democratic contest against
Oscar Sodergreen. The Republican pro-
dnces herewith the larger portion OF
the petition filed in court. Every per-
son who knows anything about the
election at all knows that it was the
most fair contest ever held in this or
any other community, so far as the re-
publican party was concerned. And
this was also the case at Tie Siding. In
their petition the democrats make the
following allegations:
The judges of election in polling pre-
cinct No. l, in election district No. 4 of
said county. in canvassing the vote cast
in said precinct unlawfully deprived the
plaintiff of a large number. to-wit, 20
legal votes cast for him in said precinct
and failed to count or return them for
said plaintiff.
Said judges of election in said pre-
cinct No |, in canvassing the vote cas-,
IN said precinct uniawfully counted inc
returned a large number. to-wit. 30
legal votes for said defendant. which
were not cast for him.
The judges of election in polling pre-
cinct No. 2, in election district No. 4 OF
said county, in canvassing the vote cast
IN said precinct, u%nlawfully deprived
the plaintiff of a large number, towit,
20 legal votes. cast for him in said pre-
cinct and failed to count or return them
for said plaintiff.
Said judges of election in said pre-
cinct No. 2, in canvassing the votes cast
in said precinct unlawfully counted and
returned a large number. to-wit, 20
legal votes for said defendant which
were o cast for him.
The judges of election in polling pre-
cinct No 3 in election district No. 4 OF
said county. in canvassing the vote cast
in said precinct. ~unlawfully deprived
the plaintiff of a large number. to-wit,
20 legal votes. cast for him in said pre-
cinct and failed to count or return them
for said plaintiff.
Said judges of election in said pre-
clint No. 3 in canvassing the votes cast
in said precinct ~unlawfully counted and
returned a large number. to-wit, 20
legal votes, for said defendant, which
were not cast for him.
The judges of election in polling pre-,
cinct No. 4. in election district No. 4
OF said county in canvassing the vote
cast in said precinct. unlawfully de.
prived the plaintiff of a large number.
to-wit. 20 legal votes. cast for him in
said precinct and failed to count or re-
turn them for said plaintiff.
Said judges Of election in precinct
No. 4. in canvassing the vote cast in
said precinct, unlawfully counted and
returned a large number, to-wit, 20
legal votes, for said defendant, which
were not cast for him.
The judges of election i'm polling pre-
cinct No S, in election district No. 4 OF
said county. in canvassing the vote cast
In said precinct, ~unlawfully deprived
the plaintiff of a large number. to-wit,
20 legal votes, cast for him in said pre-
cinct, and failed to count or return
them for said plaintiff.
Said judges of election in said pre-
cinct No 5, in canvassing the vote cast
In said precinct, unlawfully counted and
returned a large number, to-wit, 20
legal votes for said defendant, which
were not cast for him.
In polling precinct No. |, in election
district No. 2. known as Tie Siding pre-
cinct. by the count and the returns
transmitted by the judges of election
to the county clerk. the defendant was
declared to have received 81 votes and
the plaintiff to have received - votes.
The proceedings in said Tie Siding pre-
cinct were ~unlawfully and fr%audulently
conducted in that divers unauthorized
and unofficial persons did unlawfully
mingle with the voters in the p
ton Of their ballots and did unlawfully
assist them in marking their ballots and
did unlawfully influence and intimidate
them in marking their ballots, with the
knowledge and consent and connivance
of the judges of election in said pre-
cinct, whereby many of said voters, to-
wit, 10 or more, were prevented from
exercising their suffrage and choice in
said election or from voting as they
wished or intended to vote and were
unlawfully. undIly and frequently per-
suaded and induced to vote for said de,
PENDANT instead of said plaintiff as they
intended and wished to do, and whereby
the election in the said Tie Siding pre-.
cinct became and was fraudulent and
void.
In each of the polling precincts of
said county illegal votes were cast by
disqualified persons and counted and
returned for said defendant.
By reason OF the acts and ncglects
of aforesaid the plaintiff has heen de-
prlved in the canvass of said votes of a
large number Of legal votes cast and
intended to be cast for him, to-wit,
about ITO votes; and said defendant has
been given a large number, to VIII. about
ITO votes to which he was and is not en-.
titled; whereas, a true anvass of said
nUD M DITMIA7