The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1900-12-21
HUGHES GAINS.
He Is Probably Elected Over
Elliot Epson.
Inspection of the Ballots Is Completed
and Epson Gains One and Hughes
.." Possibly Five.

The inspectors of the vote cast for
county commissioner in the third dis
trict completed their work Satur-
day and made their reports to Judge
Cray.
AS stated yesterday, Elliot A. Up
son, the Democratic candidate, gained
one vote in Judson absolutely, an error
in the count of the judges having been
discovered. But this was the only vote
that he did gain.
On the other hand, Robt. S. Hughes
will undoubtedly gain three votes, and
may gain five. 1t seems almost certain
that he will be declared elected by the
courts, in view of the law and previ-
GUS decisions
In Lake Crystal the judges had
counted vote for Mr.. Epson where
the cross was placed in the space be-
low the line and opposite the place
left for writing in a name. The judges
in South Bend and Lincoln had
thrown out vote for Mr.. Hughes in
each of those townships where the
cross was placed just above the line
and opposite the blank space left for
writing in name for county superin-
tendent. The three vases are Identical
before the law, and Mr.. Hughes must
necessarily make net gain of one or
two votes no matter which way the
court decides. If these are illegal
votes, Mr.. Epson will lose one, and if
they are legal Mr.. Hughes will gain
two. The intent of the voter was evil
IDENTIFY in all of these cases. and the
law provides that where this is the
case the votes must be counted.
The judges in South Bend threw out
an entire ballot because the voter did
not use a cross in designating his
choice of candidates. The voter made
a figure one ~ after each Republ lean
candidate and CIPHER (o) after each
Democratic candidate. 1t was the
evident intention of the voter to vote
the straight Republican ticket, and if
the court allows this, and it undoubt-
eddy will, Mr. Hughes will gain vote
here.
In South Bend the judges also threw
out a ballot where the cross mark was
made opposite Mr.. Hughes name,
because the name "John Rhoads'' was
written in the blank space provided
for writing the name of d person to be
voted for when the voter prefers that
person to the candidates whose names
are printed on the ballots. Mr..
Hughes attorneys claim that this vote
should be counted for him. They say
that they have seen Mr.. Rhoads and
he denies that this ballot was the one
that he cast, and they further say that
the party who cast is evidently con-
cluded to vote for Mr.. Rhoads, wrote
his name in, and then changed his
mind and voted for Mr.. Hughes. The
attorneys for Mr.. Epson claim that the
ballot should not be counted, because
the name at the bottom Identifies it,
which is unlawful. The question of
the intent of the voter will have to be
decided by the court. If the court
holds that the name was not placed
there for the purpose of Identification
Mr. Hughes will gain one vote here.
In Cambria, the judges threw out a
ballot where the name of "R. S.
Hughes was written across the back
of it and then lines drawn through the
name. The attorneys for Mr.. Hughes
claim that this ballot should be
counted. The voter included Mr.
Hughes among the candidates voted
for. and if the ballot is counted Mr..
Hughes will gain one. The attorneys
for Mr.. Epson claim that the ballot
should not be counted because the
name on the back of it Identifies it.
In case all of the votes enumerated
above are allowed by the court to be
counted, Mr.. Hughes will gain five
votes. Mr.. Epson has one majority on
the face of the returns and gains vote
in Judson This would give Mr..
Hughes three majority. Mr.. Hughes
can afford to lose two Of the votes and
still be elected by one majority. He
Can lose three of the votes and still be
elected in case the votes where the
cross marks are misplaced are among
those finally disallowed, because Mr.. |
Epson would then lose one. All in
all, the chances are very favorable for
Mr.. Hughes success in his contest, and
the court will be asked to pass upon
the doubtful votes.
OF course, other votes were objected
to by the attorneys, but the object
ions are based on such trifiing tech
nicalities that they are not expected to
have any weight.
A. R. Pau Jr. and G. J. Laurisch
united in report to the court that
gives Mr.. Epson the Office by three
majority. They find loss of one each
in South Bend and Cambria for Mr..
Hughes because of names of voters be-
ing written across the back, and
loss of one in Lake Crystal for Mr..
Epson.
Evan Hughes finds Mr.. Hughes
elected by three majority, giving him
all the doubtful votes specifically men,
toned in this article.
Robt. S. Hughes attorneys claim to
have positive proof that Mr.. Rhoads
did not write his name on ballot.
Hook and Ladder Co. No. prepar-