The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1902-06-28

Judge Pearce heard argument by roun-
sci in the long pending election contest
The Republican contestants were repre-
Sented by Albert Constable. Sr. George
A. Blake. Henry NJ. Mccullough and
Joshua Clayton. ESuS. The Democratic
contesteeS by John l.. Poe. A. l.. Cuth-
crs. and Hester Hess. E,suS.
The chief point raised was upon II prti-
tion filed by the conteStceS for an order to
have the ballot boxes in the Fifth and
Eighth election districts opened and the
ballots examined. 10 the end that. if Il
recount should be ordered. such rrcoun;
should be of all the ballots east in the
county at the last election. At the ont
set Judge Prarcr said il was not his pur-
pose. in the absence of his colleagues. 10
take notice of th" evidence already oh-
tanned
He inquired whether the information
alleged III the COntrStrrS petition. ;lS to
Irregularities and errors in the Fifth aud
Eighth districts. had been obtained dur
ing the progress of the examination Of
thc ballots in the other districts or had
come through information. and was told
from the latter source. Mr.. Poe said
the cont"StrcS asked the Court for leave
to do what ii had already allowed the
toUltSlHHlS. alll FtlU from llt OtIt III
support of his claim.
Mr.. Constable denied that the section
of the Code us read applied 10 the case,
which was not IL matter of equity. but
of law alone.
Mr.. Blake, for TIL" contestants. held
that the proceedings were on the law
side of the Court entirely and maintain
ed that the petition was made too late
"A h, ,f II l,n frn
February last. All the orders of Court
heretofore had been limited to the con
testantS. The election officers in the
Fifth and Eighth districts had testified
that they had neither observed nor com
mitted any irregularities. The Court
had. accordingly. excepted the ballots
east in those districts from examination,
and the matter of examining ballots was
Il closed question 50 far rs the present
case was concerned The contrSters
could not waive their previous action.
With the evidence closed. the case stood
simply us an application for Il recount
based ON tn" evidence obtained from the
ballot boxes as opened 1t was now too
late for the cOntesteeS to begin an ori-
ginal proceeding. and il would be i'm
proper in the face of sworn testimony as
10 the absence of Irregularities in the
Fifth and Eighth districts. The con
tcStantS relied upon this sworn testimony
while the conteSteeS based their applica-
ton upon information or mere rumor.
The Court should not pass the order.
There would never be an end to the case.
if amended or new petitions were asked
for and allowed at the pleasure of either
side. The election officers two in one
precinct of the Fifth and three in the
Eighth had been sworn and denied ir-
regulartieS: but the conteSteeS now
made the sheer guess that because errors
had been shown in seven districts. there
must have been errors in all the nine.
The application should nave been made
when the examination of the ballots was
closed. The equities of the case forbade
the granting of the petition. The exemp-
ton of the Fifth and Eighth districts
had been made with the consent and
upon the motion of counsel for the CON
tpSteeS
Mr. Constable then Sprang another sur
prise by hling Il petition ut bar to with
draw objection as to Fifth and Eighth
districts as set out in the contestants
original petition filed in November last
and said in explanation that the opening
of the ballot boxes was merely an incl
uenl Ill lnc TAKING OF evidence IN support
of the contestants original application
The testimony taken, of all descriptions,
simply served as a basis to support an
application and order for recount. The
Fifth and Eighth districts did not figure
in the contestants case as made out
The contestees wanted to bring them
into the case while the contestants did
not wish them brought into it at ALL
The effect of taking additional evidence
would be merely to delay the case The
contestants would waive any Gf any
irregularities in these two districts. If
the contestees' petition served no useful
or material purpose, it should not be
granted. The contestants did not wish
these two districts considered as under
the ruling of the Court. The ballots cast
in them had already been exempted from
examination.
Mr.. Poe in reply, recalled the Courts
attention to the fact that in their second
amended petition the contestants had al
legged Irregularities in all the districts
The contestees denied this. The contest