The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1905-10-03

is 90 TIMES PERJURED.
"The other list we have here Is 90
times perjured list by the evidence sub
mitted."
The testimony OF Warden Young was
picked 10 pieces by Mr. Fitzgerald. who
was referred TO as having teNlned 10 so
many different things that he oouldn I
tell what he did say unless he was well
coached.
Tho question which Young answered
three times the other day I'm the affirma-
tive. relating 10 allowing persons 10 vote
on other names. when he knew their
names were different, was referred TO-.
Counsel for the defense objected 10 the
answering Of the question and the wit
ness went all around the block 20 get
around answering IL but when he did an
swer spoke clearly enough.
Today he came back and says he didn't
understand the question and reversed his
answer because people had been talking
about the damaging admission he made
The evidence OF James Fina nwas pick
ed n pieces by Mr.. Fitzgerald who called
attention to wide variances I'm his state
ments and called attention that while 426
was the total checked on the counter also
testified he checked no one until the
clerks called CHECK" and the count Of
ballot
Mr. Fitzgerald also demonstrated by
figures TO show how II was impossible
AZ the rate which the caucus officers say
the voting proceeded that as men could
not possibly have vo&a IN the elapsed
time.
AT that rate 1t was hardly possible for
more than 225 or 10 have voted. FOR even
az the fastest hour but two a minute was
the limit OF speed
is there any doubt that Young nut
hls racks up in front and drove his crowd
and all spectators back and got every
thing fixed 10 do the trick, and that he
did? ] should hate, II was ever arrested
for crime, 20 be confronted by the array
or testimony that has been presented I'm
this case 10 show fraud.
This Is n case where the CITY bar de-
partment should intervene and prosecute
the perpetrators OF these frauds. for II
they are allowed TO get away with II this
time there Will he no end TO the cases
that are liable 10 come up.
Mr.. Fltzgerald's familiarity with the
testimony Of nearly every one Of the 95
witnesses who testified for the protestants
stood him in good stead I'm making his
mastery argument, which was clear di-
rect and forceful. and placed things in n
difficult light 10 many OF those present
than they had been considering things.
When he concluded at 1912 the hearing
Was al an end
The Mint ward hearing will be started
NJ p. m. in the same room at the city
hail
The board OF canvassers announced the
following decision at 3 O'Clock this after
noon'
PROTEsTANTs WIN CASE.
In repetition OF James II. Thurston ct
al. relative 10 the Democratic caucus held
Sept 21 1905. In the First Ward
This board has counted the ballots and
check lists returned 10 the board and has
heard tho evidence adduced IN full. and
considered the same an also all the legal
questions raised as to the regularity OF the
OF and the returns from said
caucus 10 this board
This board finds that 4ls votes were re-
urned 10 the board as cast at said caucus.
92 votes for the "Halpn Ticket" so
called, and 126 votes for the "Doran Tic
ket." so called. and that an equal number
of names were checked as voting on the
check lists
Az this board considers that its de-
'ision on the charge that there were such
fauds at said caucus as to vitiat4 the
ame and make IL void, Is controlling. it
Ices not deem 4 LccessaIy to decide the
questions raised as TO the regularity OF
he returns 10 t'ls board. or as tc the
question whether tho action OF the warden
II coi.fning the cane idates on each op-
losing ticket 20 one representative Tor
Zach ticket to su?er, ise the count w.ts a
ih.c.ent compliance with the law.
THE CHARGE OF FRAUD.
he substantial charge OF fraud is that
The number Of PERSONS who voted We
,r out 200 less than the number Of ballots
,nd ChecK marks found
The evidence bearing on this charge is
that n tally was kept from about 715
D clock till y o'clock by two OF the wit
nesses. each relieving the other I'm writ
Ing down the names Of voters as called
By the warden. and that the number of
names so written was ISIS. with two other
voters whose names were not written,
and some evidence OF an uncertain nature
by the representative of the "Doran
ticket as 10 seeing one or moro piles OF
ballots, after the box was turned and
he ballots were distributed along the
able. which looked as IL rumpled and
voted. but I'm suspicious looking piles.
whereas the existence OF any such piles
was denied by all the caucus officers
The polls opened promptly at o'clock
nd the ballotng began. Certain esti-
mates diqering TO some extent were made
" different witnesses rs 10 the npmber
Who voted before said list was begun to
q made. There Is inevitable uncertainty !
Without challenging the credit OF any
witness as TO the time when the making
4 the list was begun. as there was no
Aact testimony based on time relative to
his. and altc "a 90 the number who voted |
efore TIC list was begun.
Such testimony alone therefore Is en-
tiled to little weight. In view OF tha /
ules Of law. the testimony Of the caucus /
Ulcers and the testimony Of another wit /
ess not candidate for ary office or po-
ition that he kept ticker count Of the /
umbcr who voted and that such number |
'as i2e; and this board could not prop /
ily hold that said caucus was fraudulent /
nd void on that testimony alone.
THEY DID NOT VOTE.
But 10 also appears in this case that the
ames OF ~ voters were checked upon
he lists as having voted who were pro-
uced as witnesses and testified that they
id not vote, and further with two or
hree exceptions. that they were not pres
NJ at said caucus. Many OF these men
we're elderly men. and quite number were
ty employees, including eight police offi-
ers and five fremen: and I'm view Of the
pparent character OF these witnesses and
Z there being no motive apparent why
lCh largo number OF men should de- |