Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1898-11-17
DELAWARE GAZETTE AND STATE JOURNAL-W 1IMlNGl


10 had not been counted. The, Judges
lost track of the number twice while
they were counting and started the
count three times. On the first count,
when SO was reached, the Chief Justice
thought the number should be 81,
having made mistake. Judge Spruance
and some of the attorneys thought the
number was 80. and on the recount
another error necessitated going back
again. }
The voting books used in the district
were also examined by the Judges in
order to ascertain how many names
had been marked as having voted. The
books showed 2S7 names marked
VOTED" making II ballots short,
according to the count.
Chief Justice. Lore disagreed with
Mr.. Hayes, saying the presumption of |
law is that the missing ballots are not
in possession of the election officers.
He said it was only within the province
of the court to take the face OF the
records and correct the certificates in
accordance with the records, but could
go no further. 1t had not been alleged
that the ballots were in the possession
of the election officers, and it was not
part Of the record that they were in
the possession of the officers. He said,
however, that if the ballots had not
been returned properly or. were de-
stroyed, there was a remedy through
another tribunal.
William S. Hilles held that the court
had right to inquire where the
missing ballots were.- He called atten-
| tion to the fact that the box was in
the same condition as when it left the
inspectors, and the presumption was
| that the rejected ballots had not been
placed in the box, as the law requires.
Judge Spruance reviewed the action
| of tho court in ascertaining the facts
from the box and the hooks, saying
that 2s7 had been regularly marked
| voted, while two had been marked
not show whether the two had voted
Or not If they did vote 10 were
missing.
| Judge Spruance said If the court
should issue the summonses asked for,
such proceeding would not amount
to anything. II the missing ballots
should be produced, the court would
not feel like counting them and if they
were burned they could not be counted.
He held that the absence Of the II or
10 ballots was evidently due to an error
or fraud on the part of the election
officers, and il was for the persons
j Interested to detect the error or fraud,
and the court, sitting as a board OF
canvass, had no authority to do any
thing in the matter. The election,
therefore, stands, as shown on the face
of the certificate.
The vote Of the district was can
vassed as it appeared on the certifi-
Gates, no cognizance- being taken of the
missing ballots.
q Mr.. Hayes, on behalf of Mr.. Taylor.
, read a complaint against the returns
from the Second district Of the Tenth
Representative district, alleging that
of 294 votes cast. ~ ballots were re.
jected, and the Republicans lost "a
votes. He asked that the ballot box be
: opened and the vote recounted.
John II. Rodney filed a protest. HI
held that the court was acting beyono
q It's constitutional power This is MOI
q contested election. He commended
that the court had q right to recoun
4 all Of the ballots, which had beer
4 counted by the election officers and i
/ any errors are discovered correct tn,
! certificates, but that it;was not within
= the province of the court, sitting as
9 board of canvass, to review. the re
. jected ballots. His contention wa
n saved for specific purpose, to be re
n ferred TO in cases of contests
!. The court held that it was within ii
4 power to examine the rejected ballot
n and correct any errors found therein
a Judge Spruance remarking that tn
saw nothing to change the decision c
II yesterday.
70 Alexander B. Cooper commended tha
the election officers were judges Of th
IL ballots, and IL they had been guilty {
fraud they were amenable to the Law
ia but it was not for the court, sittin
as as board Of canvass, to say what II
"a jected ballots should be counted.
"a Judge Spruance said the court wa
II bound to see that all Of the ballo
a. cast properly were counted.
or james w. Ponder said seven of Il
y ballots in the box had been rejectt
because they were illegally folded. /
asked that they be not counted by Il
n court and offered to produce testimor
In substantiation oil his contentio
TO- the election officers being present.
ed The court refused to hear testimon
Ily Chief Justice Lore remarking that {
tn ballots properly marked would
on counted and those improperly mark
nd or defaced would not be counted.
NJ After the box had been opene
of Judge -Spruance stated that the &C
ad tificate therein contained an emit
tes showing that AZ ballots had been l
He iected because they were "mutilat
ties and defaced,' nothing being sa
about improper folding. The reject
he ballots were examined by the court.
ad As a result, it was decided to cou
'Ve is, while "a were rejected.
10 The count was completed Frids
Three changes were made in favor
Republicans. In the Tenth Represen
ion tive district, New Castle hundrt
M. Harry w. Hushebeck, Republican, v
tba declared elected Representative by
~ plurality OF six votes, whereas
ere returns, as certified to by the elect
az. officers, indicated that Lewis E. Ell
,cb son, Democrat, had been elected b.
Ted plurality of three votes. This char
an was the result of the court deciding
nd count 10 of the AZ ballots which /
are been rejected by the election officers
nat the Second election district.
are counting of the 18 ballots also result
re- in the election Of James +. McIvor,
publican, to the office Of inspector
was the Second district, by plurality
i, IN two votes, whereas the certificate
rict the election officers for that district
dis- Dictated that Denny Smith, Democr
lice had been elected by plurality of SO
Ders votes. The certificates indicated I
for the office of Representative
he'd Eliason had received received 469 {
! Z. Mr.. hushepeck ao0 votes, whereas
for counting OF the 18 ballots gave Ella
- nt.ok o.. for