The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-11

| Hterate voters as 1t was an innocent
mistake of the judges. The attorney
| alluded at some length to the counter
charge which his client brought against
| the contestant who is alleged to have
used money in the campaign without
having made due mention of it in his
statement Of expense. Coates is said to
have paid money to three or four per-
sons ostensibly for handing about cleo
ton handbills. carrying in carriages,
| infirm and disabled voters to the polls,
for the payment of hotel bills and
other things, but as alleged by the con-
| teStee for the purpose of aiding Mr..
| Coates candidacy. Mr.. Sullivan sub
| mitted the testimony Of witnesses ad-
hitting having received moneys in this
| way, in support of his statement.
Mr.. Reynolds came next and spoke
at some length, beginning with the
| remark that it was strange that this
! country must go to Australia for her
| voting system, but it would also prob
ably go there for her very excellent
| land tax system later. Coming down
| to the case, Mr.. Reynolds took issue
with the speaker who preceded him
| and contended that the law about
| taking oath, before getting somebody
to mark your ballot, was mandatory,
and cited decisions of the supreme
| court as authority. He insisted that
the money which his client is accused
| of using to aid in his own election was
used legitimately, and regretted that
his client had not been allowed to ap-
pear and explain that feature more
fully. Said he: Gentlemen of this
house, there are 104 Illegal votes, If
this law is mandatory. Now, what are
you going to do with them? The bur-
| den of proof is upon Mr. Hall to pNrge
this illegality. The whole contest is
a question of law"
He submitted to a number Of ques-
! tons from members of the house, most
OF them touching on the matter Of
| coates having spent money just be-
fore and at election time. He ex-
! planned that the corrupt practice act,
| about which so much was heard, pro-
| V1des nothing as to the legality of a
member and that the money part had
little to do with the real issue.
At the conclusion of the counsels
arguments it was thought best not
to prolong the session longer, and, after
slight difference Of opinion as to
whether or not the house could take
a recess until today, it was voted to
adjourn and have the special order
continued Immediately after roll call
! this morning, when it is expected that
! there will be a pretty fight made on
the part Of his friends, to keep Mr..
Hall in his seat in spite of the report
OF the committee. The report is sub
stantially as follows:
The chairman reports that the committee
met and heard counsel for both parties. 1t
was stated to the committee without oh
lection, that there was practically no cues
| ton of fact for the committee to determine
but that the questions to be settled were
quesCons OF mixed law-except in one in
stance-this being a mixed question of law
ana bact. AT the election held in the Forty
NTH senatorial and representative district
mere were cast, according to the certificates
Gf TlY1 foN
sentative, Hall. 1877; Coates, IT'S.
linen follows in the report how the vote
was cast IN the five townships, Sank Rapids
Glendorado, CINNAMON, Alberta and St
George. Some Of these electors called to
their aid in voting other voters to assist in
marking their ballots, and that none Of them
uld, before seeking such aid, take oath as to
inability to read English. The contestee sd-
mlts that no oath was administered to some
II electors, who called for such assistance
but he contends that the failure on their
part to make such declaration. was a mere
lrregular1ty, not iIIegality. The law
touching on this, it is claimed, is merely
directory, and not mandatory. This is the
nrSt question at law submitted to the con-
sheraton OF the committee. The committee
is OF the opinion that the law is mandatory
ana as result, that the 121 votes cast by
the electors above referred to are Illegal and
mat the said election returns must be purged
OF such 1llegality. Next follows the opinion
tnat to construe the law as being merely
directory would be equal to breaking down
the provisions Of the entire chapter 4 of the
General Laws.
The next question of law submitted was
admitted facts: Ns
1t is admitted that, in the town Of Sank
Raplds, Of the seventeen votes 50 cast five
were cast for the eontes,tee and +vaIve 1.-oro
cast for the contestant, but the evidence docs
not snow for which of the two candidates
were cast the 104 illegal votes that were
dorado, Gilmanton and Alberta The cen
testee GAINS that the burden of proof is
upon the contestant to show that these jlIe-
gal votes were cast for the contestee, or at
Ieast TO snow that enough of them were cast
fer the contestee so that the purging CT the
returns OF the Illegal votes would overcome
MS majority.
The committee after hearing counseIs' ar
gument is Of the opinion that when the con-
testant has, by the evidence shown that
enough illegal votes have been cast SO that
overcome the majority Of the contestee that
1t then became the duty of the contestee TO
show that such Illegal votes were not cast
for him, otherwise the law will press1me
that a proDortionate share of 4ba y iTIonaI
votes were cast for the contestee, and that
such illegal votes must be deducted from his
three different rules of law, which have been
adopted by three different tribunals, where
illegal votes are said to have been cast hut
have not been shown to be cast for any par-
t1cular candidate, as follows
FirSt-By rejecting the entire vote Of the
precinct or town In which such illegal votes
are SHOWN TO nave been cast.
Secondly deducting the entire Illegal
votes cast in such town or precinct from the
the vote OF the person having the highest
number of votes in such town or precinct.
Thirdly apportioniEg the Illegal votes
between the candidates in the precinct where
such votes were cast.
Your committee are unanimously of tho
opinion that the latter method is the one
that has the greatest weight of authority for
its support and the one that ought to be
adopted in the present case.
Tnen follows table of rates in the differ
ent townships. which 1t is figured would
leave loss to Mr.. Hall in the towns named
OF seYenty-seven votes and a total loss to
Mr.. Coates Of "A votes, leaving a net loss of
% to be deducted from Mr.. Halls majority.
stipulated between the parties that in the
town OF Langola, Mr.. Hall actually received
forty-eight (4S) votes instead of forty-sevan
(4O, as shown by the face of the returns. or
a gain OF one ~, while Mr.. Coates received
III instead of 102, being a net gain for Mr.
Coates Of 9. This net gain of nine f9) tn Mr.
Coates, together with the net loss of So to
Mf Hail, VIII make forty-two (42) votes to
be deducted from Mr.. Halls majority. Now,
as Mr. Hall received only % majority on the
ice Oh me returns. purging the election of
inc hieSal votes IN the manner which your
committee have adopted, the result obtained
is as follows: That at the election for rem
resentative held in the Forty-fifth senatorial
and representative district, in this state, for
the office of representative in the state Iegis
lature at the last election. there were cast
~ votes for E. S. Hall and TAO votes for J.
Coates $3.50 ~ % L.
Another question was submitted to the com,
tnlttee upon the counter charge CT the con-
testee against the contestant The contestee
3 ). Hall. charges the contestant J. H
coates, with having purchased by means of
bribery, at the said election, $50 votes. The