Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1897-02-04
The Minority Report In The
Ward-RiChards
Contest.
E,ghty-eight Affidavits Of Res
idents Introduced In Evi.
denCe.
Some Talk of Refusing to Have
Minority Reports Printed
Thereafter.


tho minority report in the Ward-Rich.
ards contest case, submitted by Mr..
Guiuan, member Of the house election
committee and voted down. Mr.. Crysn
moved that the case be made special
order for another session, and that the
attorneys on each side be allowed to
address the house i'm order that the men,
bers might be familiar WITH the claims
Of each. Ed Cole Of Fargo (dem) for
some reason, opposed this. Mr.. Cryan's
motion was voted down and the contest
was dismissed on motion OF Mr.. Hawk.
ELECTION FRAUDS
First. That one +. D. Andrews was
the chairman of the county central
committee Of the independent party for
Burleigh county, North Dakota, and
that as such chairman be was author
lzed under the law to appoint one of the
judges of the election in each voting
precinct of such county.
Second. That by collusion between
said Andrews and certain parties inter
ested lr and promoting the election Of
the nominees of one faction Of the re-
publican party, including the contestee,
corrupt bargain was entered into
whereby the appointment of the judges
and all the election officers for two vot-
ing precincts in the city OF Bismarck, viz;
the court house precinct and the Fourth
ward precinct, was controlled and
directed by the promoters of the con-
testees election and thereby the con-
testant was deprived OF any representa-
tion in either board.
Third. That all the election officers
in such precincts were unfrlendIy to the
election Of the contestant and promoting
actively the election of the oontestee.
That in the performance Of their duties
as election officers each and all were
act,ve in preventing the election OF con
testant, and to that end committed many
irregularities and frauds in their osps-
city as election officers. That in the court
house precinct such officers returned
only AZ votes as cast for the contestant,
w. o. Ward, and 211 az cast for the con-
testee, Thomas Richards. That IN fact
many more votes than were 80 returned
by such boards were oast for said Ward
in said precinct at said election, but We
are unable to say Just what number were
in fact cast for him. However, 50 elec-
tors who voted in, that precinct have
come forwsrd and testified to such fact
and such testimony was submitted to
this committee. From such evidence We
find that the return Of the votes cast in
the court house precinct is entirely I'M
worthy of credit and should not be con.
sidered. That In the Fourth ward pre-
cinct the election officers returned only
IL votes for the contestant, Ward, and
70 votee as cast for the contested, Rich
ards. That in fact many more votes
than were 60 returned by such board
were cast for said Ward in said precinct
ct said election, but We are unable to
determine the exact number. Eighteen
electors who voted in that precinct tes-
titled that they voted for Mr.. Ward and
from the evidence submitted, we find
that the return Of the votes cast in tho
Fourth ward precinct 10 entirely I'M.
worthy Of credit and should not be con-
sidered.
Fourth. That ss the election returns
in such precincts are impesched aud un-
worthy Of credit 90 evidence, thsre was
no evidence before the committee or this
house as to the number Of votes either
the con testee or contestant received in
said precincts, except az the same may
appear from other evidence submitted in
thu case The votes then returned from
those precincts for the parties to this
contest should be deducted from the
total vote returned and canvassed for
them in said county as follows:
Total vote returned for Richards in the
Vote t returned for Richards from court ~
Vote returned ior Richards from IRON
fourth ward precinct. 70
Total to be deducted. Observation-Disclosures. 200
Total vote returned for Ward in the county 414
Vote returned for Ward from court
vote aS''ss fetarnea praenfie ior Ward from fourth
ward precinct. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. II
Total to be deducted d....... IS
Wards total vote rs shown by amended
Richards total vote as shown by amended
Majority for Ward d..................... II
The above majority 10 favor Of Mr..
Ward should be increased by the votes
proven to have been cast for him in such
precinct. viz: SO in the court house pre-
c,nct and l8 in the Fourth ward precinct
being total OF 1O6, which added to his
majority already shown, gives q total
majority in favor OF Ward from the evl.