Daily inter mountain., 1900-12-08
Banner Independent Democratic County Shak-
inc In Its Shoes Over the
Election Contest.
FIGHTING FRAUD IN COURT
REPUBLICANS LIKELY TO GET GREAT VICTORY OUT OF THE
CASE-WON THE ELECTION AND WILL HAVE
1T Now

without solicitation of the voters mark.
| ing their ballots, went into the booths
| where the voters We're then engaged
in marking their ballots to see
how the same We're marked, there's
by destroying the secrecy of the ballot,
ID. That said judges of election peri
mitted voters who had marked their bali
lots to exhibit the same to other persons,
thereby destroying the secrecy Of the
ballot.
''e. That the said judges of election
permitted one of their number to open
ballots marked and folded by voters ana
handed to the judges for voting, thereby
destroying the secrecy Of the ballot
If. That the said judges of election,
in the count of the ballots cast in said
precincts counted for the contestee ball
lots marked and voted for the contest-
ants, and made return of votes so
marked and voted for the contestant, as
votes voted and marked for the con-
testee, and which return of votes was
canvassed by the board of county com-
mssioners, in their canvass of the re-
turns of the county as aforesaid, and
upon which the certificate of election
was issued to contestee, and which votes
so marked and voted for contestant, and
counted for contestee together with
for contestant, would have given a clear
majority or plurality Of all the votes
cast, to the contestant, and would have
changed the result, and would have
elected contestant instead of contestee.
THREW OUT GOOD VOTES.
"g. That the board of election judges
of said precinct refused to count for the
contestant ballots that We're clearly and
MAINLY hy ba Of
precinct for the contestant, which votes,
together with votes hereinafter de-
scribed, If counted for the contestant,
would have given him a clear majority
or plurality of all the votes cast at said
election, and would have changed the re-
suit and have elected contestant instead
of contestee
III. That the board of election judges
of said election precinct counted for SAID
contestee, ballots that We're not cast for
him, OF marked for him. for said office,
which votes, together with other votes
hereinafter described SO changed the re-
suit that, if they had been so counted
the contestant would have had ma
jority plurality of ali ef the votes
cast, and would have been elected
Il. That the board Of election judges
Of said election precinct counting the
votes of said precinct did not count each
ballot by itself, but separa ted them into
straight ballots and split ballots, and
counted them in the aggregate of SUCH
lots without due examination of the in.
dividual ballots. That on such ballots as
We're counted as straight ballots, were
votes marked for the contestant that
We're counted for the contestee which
votes should, If not counted for the con-
testant, he not counted for the contestee,
together with such other ballots as are
herein described, would have reduced
the vote of the contestee so that the
contestant would have a majority or
plurality of all of the votes cast, over
the contestee, and would have been
elected.
u. That the board of election judges
of said precinct, had and permitted the
election booths where the voters marked
their ballots to be in a separate room
from that in which the ballot box and
the said judges were seated handing out
to the voters ballots to be marked by
them and returned to the judges to be
placed in the ballot box, and all Of such
booths We're not in sight of all the judges
there presiding, and such booths We're
not screened from observation so that
be seen, and it could be seen how they
did mark their ballots, thus destroying
the secrecy of the ballot and leaving
open opportunities for fraud and intim-
idation of voters.
Continued on Page Seven)