The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-07-09
DENIED ORDER TO
OPEN BALLOT BOXES.
Application by Counsel for Parker
in Mayoralty Contest Refused
by Judge Spencer.
EXPLICIT RULING WAS ASKED.
Recent Supreme Court Decision
Held to Be Prohibitive Of Such
Order Mayors Counsel
Interposed No Objection.

Circuit Judge Spencer yesterday denied an
application Of the attorneys for George w.
Parker in the mayoralty contest, for an Or
der to compel the Election Commissioners to
open the ballot boxes, count the ballots cast
at tho election of April 9, last, compare
them with the registration list and certify
to the Court for which Of the parties TO
the contest the ballots were cast.
Judge Spencer said the order prayed for
is substantially the same as that given by
him inthe case Of Lloyd against Funkhouser
for tho Office OF Coroner, which was disap
proved by the Supreme Court Of Missouri.
which tribunal prohibited the carrying out
of the order.
The contest will not be dismissed. VIII
liam NJ. Kinsey, senior counsel for Mr..
Parker. stated that no action will be taken
until he has consulted with Mr.. Parker and
John d. johnson, chairman of the Con-
test Committee OF One Hundred. MIR. John
son is out Of the city. and will not return
for some days. After passing on the mat
ter yesterday, Judge Spencer adjourned his
court until next October.
Notice was served last Saturday by Mr..
Parker's counsel upon Attorneys Seldom IL
Blair, Mayor Wells's lawyers, that applica-
ton would be made before Judge Spencer
at 10 O'Clock yesterday, for an order direct
ing the boxes to be opened, the ballots re-
counted and comparison made with the poll
ing list. with a view to continuing the con-
test. The presentation OF the application
was postponed until p m. at which time
Attorneys Kiusey and Welsh. appearing for
Mr.. Parker. read a petition praying tlat
the following order be entered In the case:
!, Contestants Petition.
Wherefore. contestant prays this honorable
Court to make and issue an appropriate order
herein directed to the Board OF Election Com
Inissoners of the City OF st. Louis. Mo-, and to
James McCaffrey. John NJ Wood and w. A
Hobbs. constituting the members Of said board,
substantially commanding them and each OF
them, as such Board OF Election Commissioners.
to proceed to open. examine. count and compare
with the list of voters In the Office Of said
Board OF Election Commissioners. all OF tho
baiots that were cast at the municipal election
Of April. 1901 for the % ofliss Of Mayor Of said
city; that they certify to this court. as required
and examination OF said ballots; that, they in
nd n Sa0 srs which
BY the judges OF election acting in the srvera!
a show the said
ballots, and the initials and other writing upon
that they particularly show and certify to this
court In their return. for which enc OF the parties
which were voted upon the names contained in
exhibit a. attached to- contestants notice OF
paragraph Of said notice.
Explicit Ruling Desired.
Mr.. Kinsey explained that it hnd been
there should be an explicit ruling by the
Circuit Court upon the particular order
desired, In the light of the recent opinion
of the Supreme Court in the Funkhouser
case.
Judge Spencer stated from the bench that
II seemed to him that the order asked for
order made by him in the Funkhouser case.
which the Supreme Court had declared to
be invalid. MIR. Kinsey answered that an
effort had been made in preparing this or
der to distinguish this case fronl the Funk
houser case, SO that this order might apply
only to votes which were explicitly alleged
in the petition. to have been fraudulently
: cast.
Attorney James L. Blair. appearing on
behalf of Mayor Wells. stated that he was
there in RESPONSE to the notice. not to OPP
Court might feel justified in making look
ing toward the opening of the boxes count
ing the ballots and requiring from the Board
Of Election Commissioners any'return which
under the law they were empowered to
make. Asked by the Court as to his opin-
ion as to the power of the Court to make
he had only been furnished with copy of
the petition within a few moments, and
had not vet had time to thoroughly exam
inc 1t, but SO far as he could see from a
hasty examination, the order prayed for in
tho petition was distingushable from the
order given in the F'unkhouser case and
could be granted.
The Court took the matter under advise
ment until o'clock, at which time an
nouncement was made that the petition was
denied and the order refused.
Judge Spencer's Opinion.
Judge. Spencer, in his opinion. after re-
citing the history Of the motion. and stat
Ing that the order prayed for is substan-
tally the same as that made by him in the
Counsel for defendant interpose in this
case no objection to the Issuing of the or
der, but If it be- as the Supreme Court ,nt
consent OF both sides is no warrant for its
issue There are other parties interested
In such case besides the contestant and nd
Election Commissioners. or any voter ut
said election could. with effect comnlain.
and though all consented an unlawful or
der ought not to be entered.
1T would serve no useful purpose for me,
at this time. to give expression to any
opinion Of mine in regard. either to the lie,
by the Supreme Court in its recent deci-
sion. It is sufficient that the Supreme
and has the sch
order as IL here prayed for. shall with
out reservation obey.
1.-THE contestant alleges, that. in order
to, determine the issues in this case. 1t Is
NECESSARY to compare the ballots, cast at
the said election. with the list of voters
and to ascertain for which party any ball
lots, which may have been cast upon
falsely and fraudulently registered names
were voted. However. true this allegation
action by this court, In violation OF the
law, as the Supreme Court has declared It
to be. The application for the order will be
overruled.
Case VIII Not De Dropped.
Nv tate
'It Is plain We cannot get at the man
ner in which this vote set down on our
challenge list was cast, SO 1t looks as II we
cannot carry on successful contest to de
termine who was the beneficiary of this
challenged vote. Chairman Johnson of cur
committee IL out Of the city at present
and until l have consulted with him and
Mr.. Parker. am unpreparei to say what
line we will follow or what other course
can be adopted. We will not dismiss the
on the docket. and 1t may be we will de-
eide on another course"
Mr.. Blnir's Attitude.
Mr.. Blair said: II was present not to
oppose the motion. but to acquiesce in any
order that Judge Spencer might see lit to
grant looking to the opening of the boxes
and the recount OF the ballots While
never believed IN the exaggerated reports
SO much said On the subject that it was my
sincere wish, as I know It was that of
r. wa'is. that the votes might be
counted and these unfounded rumors and
Campaign hes exposed in their true light
II this cannot be. surely no one can hold
has been the law for many years. For my
mart I hope the law will he changed SO