Arizona republican., 1904-11-22

sonable explanation of this discrep- ancy; it could not be seen how it could have occurred and passed unnoticed at the time of the count; how the foot ings of the two lists could agree and the tallies be so far apart.
 Sheriff Cook decided not to stand Cn the finding of the board and in tue middle of the afternoon long before the canvass had been concluded he filed an application in the district court for a writ of mandamus direct ed against the supervisors ordering them not to issue a certificate of elec- tion to Walker and to issue one to him. The application set fcrth the condition of affairs in the fourth ward and alleged that the applicant had re- ceived in the county 1.s44 votes while Walker had received only 1,S43.
 Judge Kent directed an alternative writ to issue made returnable at four o'clock in the afternoon. Service was taken at once on the members of the board and at four o'clock Judge Baker for the board and Judge Kibbey for the applicant appeared in court. The board was still engaged in canvassing the re- turns so that on the motion of Judge Baker the return of the writ was post pcned until today. The supervisors, however, could net issue the certificate Of election to Walker and they were further ordered not to enter tue returns as to the office Of sheriff The case will como up this afternoon on demurrer to the complaint. The merits CT the case will net likely be coasid- e ed before tomorrow. The object of this move on the part of the sheriff is, to prevent the office from going out of his hands pending a contest which is certain to take place, involving a 1 re count of the ballots.
 | Inspector Stolxoe was seen last light and he was at the time busily engaged ] ir Congratulating himself on not hay i ing had the disputed tally sheet in ms ! possession. He said he would not have | had it for $500. Being a demo ,~at he said he could not blame his dearest ] friends for believing that he had alter i ed it to make it fit.
 The official count as to the other cf- | fees is as follows:
 Delegate to congress-Smitn CD). 1,131; Fowler CR), 1915; Gibson (PIOD, l 55, Shaw, (Soc0, 1O7; Leach (Soc. I.) 10. Fowler's plurality, 243- l Touncilman-W. T. Smith D0. 1850; Bark (RD. 1899; Thomas Pro). s9; Martin CScc.), 94. Bark's plurality, 249. ] Assemblymen - Kruger (D), 1851: ! POmeroy (D), I.743; Stanford DO. 1894. Webb D), 1927; Scott CR0. 1914; Jamison CR), 1854; SpauIding | (R), 1,656; PickreIl CRO, 1.TS5: Van Doren Pro.h T2; Davidson CPro). 1OS; ScuH CPro), 64; Eddy CPrO). 61: Fike | (Soc.). 99; Elders (SOc.), 1O4: Hegeland 1 (Soc0, 100; Dawson CSoc.). S7. Assem- blymen-eIect, Kruger, Stanford, Pick ren and Pomeroy.
 
 Richardson CR), 1.T49; Biltcliffe (Pro1 A. Bakers plurality, 151.
 Treasurer-Hayden D), 1867; Mar shall (R), 1926; Osborne Prc.), 5s Hayden's plurality, 341.
 Recorder-Leonard CD0, 1859; Eos ter CR). 1723; Mumma CPro). 55; Spencer (Soc), S4. Leonard's plural. ity 236.
 Probate judge-Crenshaw CD.), 1, ,632 Phillips (R), 2.050: Cooper (ProO. 54 Phillips plurality, AS.
 County school superintendent-F'ul ton (D), 2,O59; Lee CR.), 1.461; Muller l (Pro), 80; Healey (Soc.), S4. FultOni plurality, 59s.
 Supervisors - Clanton O0, 1884 Cummings D). 1855; AIkire CRO ? 1,671; Steward CR), 1891 This makes Steward the hOld-over member and a
 
 the democrats to elect two supervisor in 1906 if they want to control the busi ness of the county.
 This is as far as the board got witt the official count yesterday and per haps nothing more will be done abOu it until after the decision of the cour in the mandamus suit.
 At one time there was some talk O , throwing out the returns from Buck
 eye precinct on the ground that tn envelope containing the returns ha
 come broken open.
 The office of the board was filled al
 day by an earnest and listening crowd There was no shuffling of feet or an f of the other noises so common and s , almost inseparable from a large crowd Every man in attendance was strain , ing himself to hear what was goin
 on.