Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1896-12-24

oloCClOu OO0Iu AA oOu0 OOPUSAVy'
II the people OF the city we're not salts.
fed az to his honesty, experience and
we'll known good character. nothing he
could say in the press now would ever
change their opinion. he, himself. count.
ed over, or about, two.thirds Of the vote
in that precinct, and is satisfied that
there were no such mistakes as those
which have been discovered since.
In the Fourth ward, the article states
that the vote was y for Fuller to 66 tor
Sanford and then it ls admitted, by the
contestant, that Sanford gained one
vote, whereas, the fact is that Sanford
gained two votes, neither of which had
been counted; also. he gained third
vote in this preclnct-if the ballot on
which both Sanford's and FuIler's name
appeared was counted for Fuller, to
make his y, then 1t also should be
counted for Sanford making him q
gain Ot three.
The article further alleges that in the
First ward precinct the ballots were re-
counted and there was no material
change. This misrepresents the faot-as
Mr.. Sanford's name appeared on one
ballot IN both democrat and independent
columns which was thrown out, but by
right should be counted for him. This
makes a gain Of four votes in the First
and Fourth wards. In addition to the
above gain of one vote in the First ward
Auditor Vennum testified that on two
ballots Fuller's name was crossed and
Sanford's name also crossed, and the
crosses before Sanfords name appear to
be partly erased. Both votes we're
counted for Fuller. Neither of these
votes should be counted for either Fuller
or Sanford and not to count them, will
reduce Fuller's vote to 73, and thereby
increase Sanford's gain in the First and
Fourth wards to six. So, even If the
state senate should hold against the
regular certificate of Sanford's election,
and also hold that the election board Of
the Third ward made Is mistakes against
Fuller in counting 1856 ballots, Sanford
would still have majority Ct one,
1t is stated in the Capital that Inspec-
tor Moses testified that immediately
after the close of the count made on the
night OF Nov. 3rd all the ballots we're
rolled togather in roll Il inches long
and four inches thick and placed in the
box. The box was then closed, locked
| and sealed as required by law"
The fact 10 Inspector Moses testified
nothing of the kind, for he swore he did
not seal the box until about O'Clock in
the morning OF Nov. 4.
The article eays that from the testl-
mony 1T was impossible" for any
criminal act in tampering with the bal
lots to occur. The testimony does not
show this. Inspector Moses himself
testified that the ballot box was in bis
cellar 26 days and that he was away
from home all day long part OF that time.
The evidence also shows that the box
was fastened with common iron pad
lock, and locked with round key with
hole in it, and that the lock WAS not
protected by wax or other precaution.
To say that "it was impossible" to tam
per with these ballots between the even.
ing Of Nov and the 3Oth OF that month,
ls mere conjecture, az Inspector Noses
own testimony shows.
The Capital article says that the 60
called mistakes in Third ward arose from
careless methods Of counting. The fact
il that extra precautions, as appears
from the testimony, were taken in the
counting in this precinct, to insure
. correct count. The inspector, r. B.
Moses, testifies that ruler was plsceo
across the ballots under the names Of
OF candidates and then the names an.
nounced before which the cross appear
ed and the same was Tailed before the
ruler was moved, and this was done 10
each and every instance in the count of
the entire ballot.
On cross.examlnation Of witness sutfi-
cent facts were eliclted to dlsprove the
case sought to be made out by the con-
testant. Mr.. Sanford did not deem it
necessary to produce any further testi-
mony, believing as he states that every
Intelligent person who examines the tee
timony and also that the senate, will
see at glance that the ballots in the
Third ward box had been changed as
against himself; and that l8 mistakes
could not have been made, according to
tae evidence, by an intelligent board in
counting 1876 ballots.
Excluding the changes in the Third
ward ballots, of l8 votes now shown for
Fuller, Sanford's majority appears to be
either II or 10, depending on whether
the two ballots IN the First ward. dimly
marked or partly erased, are counted or
rejected instead of q majority Of 13 for
him as shown by the returning board.