The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-10-22
PAPERS FILED
IN 4 CONTEST
Delegateship for Oklahoma Is
Matter in Dispute.
CROSS CLAIMS FRAUDS
Mcclure Makes a Showing
That Proves H S Case.
CROSS CLAIMS FRAUDS

Guthrie. o. T.. Oct. 21.-The papers II
the contested election case Of Cross vs.
Mcclure are now in the hands of the
clerk Of the house of representatives in
washington. ready to be turned over 10
the contest committee upon the conven-
ing Of congress. Delegate AIcGuire's brief
in this case was recently placed on hle.
having been prepared by George Al Outs
celt OF TecuEseh and Dudley Aifteheli of
Washington.
It is conceded by leading Democrats in
Oklahoma thai, ,tAere-is no hope fer Cross
in a .contest. In fact. from the eSfdenee
presented and the showing made by
Delegate MCGUIRE s attorneys the con-
test is settled without going TO the con-
test committee. Delegate McGuire's at
torneys have carefully covered every de-
tail and the arguments of the contest, in
every particular TO the satisfaction of
reasonable persons.
Numerous charges have been made by
Cross attorneys, but these allegations
have not been sustained by evidence. If
all that Cross claims should be conceded
according to the statement in his brief,
McGuires plurality would only be re-
duced to 207 and the Republican, delegate
would still retain his seat.iH congress.
From all appearances the best that Gross
can set out Of his contestis an appropria-
ton from congress to cover alleged ex
penses. and it has been repeatedly sug-
gested that possibly this was the reason
the contest was instituted.
In all events the delegate to congress,
elected last fan, will not be -hsmpeTed
by the Democrats and it is reasonable to
believe that Delegate MCGUIRE will be
successful in doing things for Okla
homa.
Extracts from Delegate AIcGuire's brief
are given rs follows:
Amongst the fraudulent acts and i'm
proper conduct of the election of Novem-
ber ]. 1902, in the various precincts of diff
ferent counties of the Territory of Okla
homa, contestee shows by competent evil
dence that in precinct 101 east of Cleve-
land county, the judges and clerks of the
election were not sworn, that Cross was
counted 81 votes and Mcclure "A votes;
that in precinct 1872 west. the judges and
clerks who conducted the election were
not sworn, nor Gid they make the certifi-
Gates required by law thereupon, that
Cross was counted 64 votes and Mcclure
- votes there; that in East Norman pre-
ciuct the inspector was not sworn, that
Cross was counted .2S5 votes and Mcclure
1l9 votes: that in Lexington Precinct. 40
votes were c,untea for Cross. and 50 for
Mcclure; that in precinct 6-t west. the
Inspector was not sworn and that Cross
was counted ST votes and Mcclure 4s
votes; that in precinct II west. that only
the Inspector. and one sjudge and-one clerk
were sworn and that Cross was counted
1l6 votes and McGuire 50 votes. The clerk
refused TO deliver for examination the poll
books and packages of mutilated ballots
for these precincts, for examination and
exhibits He also proved by competent
evidence that in Pottawatomie county,
there arc 32 precincts; that in Shawnee
precinct No. 1 the mutilated ballot pack
age was not sealed, but the ballots were
lying loose in the clerks office. and that
the package of counted ballots could not
be found, that Cross was counted 100
votes and MCGUIRE 81 votes at that pre-
Cincr."
Evidence was introduced relative to the
other precincts in this county.
This evidence is simply cited to show
that in Cleveland and Pottawatomie
counties there was great laXXity and al
most criminal negligence on the part Of
election officers in some Democratic pre-
cincts. affording ample opportunity for
the frauds in contestants interest charged
by contestee.
Under what rule Of law may a re-
count of ballots be had in a contested
Congressional election case? Iu Kline vs.
Myers. Thirty-eighth congress, it is held
as follows:
" Where contestant has made an un-
successful effort to procure a recount Of
the ballots within the sixty days. and
applied for an order Of the house 10 send
Tor the ballot boxes and recount the votes
the committee were of the opinion that
such an application should be founded
upon pToof sufficient at least. to raise
a presumption OF mistake, irregularity, or
fraud in the original count. and ought not
10 be granted upon the mere suggestion
Of possible error. To adopt rule that
the ballot boxes should be opened upon
the mere request of the defeated can
aidate would occasion more fraud than
It could possibly expose
Contestants should have authorized
and required the officer taking the depo-
sition 10 have invoked the power vested
In him to require the production Of the
ballots and other election papers by sec
tions - and rs, revised statutes Of the