The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-10-27
FORGERY CHARGE INQUIRY.

the court was that the city clerk in that
case having certified. even though the
signatures were many, the secretary OF
state should put them on the Official
ballots
The assistant city solicitor said that
the question OF fraud changed the whole
phase OF the case In this affair.
This certificate does not include the
charges OF fraud. 1t certifes that there
are "a names, 54 struck out and 81 sub
stituted and no more
You say that the certihcation Is final
and then you want the city clerk 10 20
deeper into the matter and investigate
the other names that you say are all
right.
THE question is, Can the city clerk 60
into matters that have already been de-
cided BY the election machinery. That
is the work OF the board OF canvassers.
and it Is now too late for them to do so.
II am glad to say that / have no idea
that any Of the candidates, who are
all lawyers, signed other mems names
to the papers. They would realize the
folly OF such course"
Mr.. Devlin said that a very similar
/ kind Of fraud 10 that indicated by the af-
/ fidavits. Is that where the names OF men
were voted on at the caucuses without
| the4r knowledge, citing this as reason
why number Of names OF sgners were
| stricken from the nomination papers.
/ He sad he did not blame the canvass
ers for hat matter but he did charge the
/ clerk OF The caucuses with fraudulent
\ practice.
WOULD NOT BE RE-oPENED.
Mr. Baker said he would not advise the
! city clerks TO go into this matter and re-
1 open this matter OF the other names
which Mr. Devlin referred TO as wrong
! fully barred from the papers.
| The question Is whether the fraud II
sufficient TO vitlate these papers
do not think that he can change ths
/ certificate which is now "a as he first
/ made IL.
TENTH WARD CASE.
Mr. James M Gllrain appeared for the
regularly appointed candidates from the
| Tenth ward TO protest against the allow
ing OF the Good Government tickets nom
ination papers 20 stand.
Five names which were not signed by
the owners thereof appear there and also
several new ones who should not have
been allowed TO remain there" The lat
ter question was eliminated because the
city solicitor ruled that the city clerk
would not go into question outside the
matter OF fraud.
The absence OF william Hawkins was
explained on account OF sickness and j
A. McManus came but went away at 10 30
they stated.
Albert Miller. s63 Gladstone avenue.
was first called and sald he voted on per-
sonel property. lie denied signing or au-
thorizing the signing OF any nomination
papers within the past two months.
When questioned by Mr Cannon he said
a Mr. Brady had not seen him and talked
about nomination papers.
Mr.. Cannon said he wished TO show or
/ try 70 show that intimidation had been
\ used and threats were made 20 induce
I people 20 disavow their signatures. Mr..
I Miller said that MesErs. Beane and Iafiln
called on him but made him no promises
Whatever The only other Miller" In his
/ vicinity vas Louis Miller, who IL
\ brother
I Patrick J skefflngton, formerly OF 70
/ ROBINS street. but now OF Benefit street
/ SAID ne aid not sign the nomination
l papers which bear his name
when questioned 10y Mr.. Cannon fe ad.
mitted voting in The nrst caucus in the
wnrd. though he fid not reside there AZ
that tine. He had made an appointment