Omaha daily bee., 1901-01-16
FRANCIS MARTII
n. V. HARLAN.
Minority Make. n Report.

Senator Campbell representing the mi
nority, presented the following report
which he moved as substitute for the ma
jority report:
We the minority of your committee on
privileges and elections, beg leave 70 SUD SUP
NIT the following report on the atoresaiu
contest:
We find that the official count and returns
of the votes cast and counted In the last
election in senatorial district No. 28 gave
the said Il. Hodges, contestee two major
ity; that he holds the certificate OF eiectlon
and has occupied his seat as a member or
this body since it's organization; that by
reason OF the aforesaid he Is prima facie
entitled TO the seat; that the burden OF
overcoming this presumption is on the CON
testant which can or should only be done
on good and competent legal evidence.
That there Is no fraud shown or at
tempted to be shown on the part OF either
the contestant or the contestee; that the
election and entire conduct thereof on the
part of the officers and candidates was non
estly and fairly conducted; that one or the
charges made on the part of the contestaht
ls that marked ballots were cast ana
We insist that the best and only legal
evidence as TO what the ballot really con-
tains is the ballot itself.
In this case the ballots were not consid-
cred or at any time examined by your COM
mittee hence there is no iesal ,,ptS PROOF sp OF
so marked or designated and no legal EVIL
dcnce as TO who was In fact voted Tor by
| If the ballots are to be considered then they
should and must all be so far as challenged
opened and examined; that oral evidence OF
| the contents of ballot. which can be pro-
| duccd Is lncompetent and must be rejected
| that before the report of your committee
or thatL submitted by the majority, 10 car hl
adopted tiie aforesaid ballots shoI ID be ex.
amined ana counted; that the majority re-
what witnesses swore was what they knew
or in fact believed the ballot would show Il
| produced, which oral testimony was con
| nicting and unsatisfactory.
Replies of Voters.
| At no time did any voter swear how h,
| voted that he voted for Hodges or johnson
or against either, but each voter when ex
amined on the respective sides OF this con
| test refused to answer as to how they haC
| voted. This applies with equal force t'
those who, II is claimed, cast Illegal votes
being as 6 T as sr to 'nose wn,
| offered as to how anyone voted was thu
opinion OF witness from his assumed o
supposed party affiliations voter, or b,
! those who had made pretended poll Of th
township, not from asking each voter how
he would or intended to vote or by hous'
to house poll. but simply the opinion of thu
person making the poll as to how the vote
| would vote.
No voter challenged by the notice Of con
test swore or admitted at any time that h'
| voted for Hodges at the last election. Then
| again, we Insist that there was no compe
tent proof introduced showing that eacI
challenged voter was not "A legal voter ant
| entitled to cast his ballot and have
counted where the same was cast. Ther'
were about the same number as shown b!
who 1t was claimed voted for the con
| testant and Contestee herein. These wer
| persons who had always voted In the re
| spective precincts in which they voted TIM
| year, but had been away temporarily seek
Ing work. Many, II not all, of these wer
challenged on election day and the question
| fairly presented as to their qualification
to the Judges Of election and each found en-
titled to vote. Neither OF these challengeI
voters testified as to who they voted for
There Is no evidence competent introduces
to show that any one of these voted for tn
contestee Hodges; no one OF these swor
they did and no one knew or claimed 4
know how they or either of them voted
yet. with all due respect TO the majority o
this committee, they admit and state Il
their report that these votes, or part O
them, We're illegal and were votes cast 70
the contestee Hodges, which finding am
action we submit IL not supported by tn
evidence and Is contrary to the letter a
well as to the spirit of our laws governin
elections. .. .
Another vote that was thrown out by tn
ma jority and taken from the votes elaine
Schlauntz who the proof showed was a
old man, a cripple, very fat and clumsy
who came to the polling place I'm buggy
as had been his custom In years past roo
one Of the republican judges Of election a
that polling place, answered the, call, whic
judge took a ticket and he with the popu
list clerk stepped out the door to wher
Schauntz was, handed him the ticket an
without letting anyone know how he voteC
but In the presence of this judge and cler
and after folding It handed 1t hack to sal
Judge OF election, who took IL back and dc
posted 1t In the box as by law provided
| No one saw, knew or claimed to know VIII
| he voted for. lic was not sworn I'm thi
contest nor examined. The only proof OF
fered was that of n witness who swore tina