The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-11-30

20 Any voter may contest the election
Of any person for or against whom he
had the right to vote, who is declared
elected TO any state, county or NUM-
cipaI office, 3s
Thisr$is the law in Minnesota. All.
the contestant has to do is within ten;
days Of the election, to file a notice Of.
appeal in the district specifying the
ana serve a copy on the man declared
elected. The court will then take no.
tlce, OF. the case and either party may;
apply for an inspection Of the ballots
previous to trial.
an official can be called in question.
No showing of probable change in the
result Is required. All that seems to
be necessary is that the vote be close,
and either party. dissatisfied. The
courts may be clogged with such
cases where a number Of close results
are brought about.
In the recent election there was a
hot contest for alderman in the thir-
teenth ward. There were but twenty
votes between the leading candidates,
! ohm 81. Van Nest, republican, and Ben
ia min E. Roberts, public ownership can;
didate.5 Van Nest was declared elected
and Roberts contested. The grounds
upon which Roberts contested were:
F1rst-Fifty-six more votes were cast
Tor him than were counted by the
Judges and clerks of election-seven in
the first district, nineteen in the sec,
ond district, eleven in the third dis,
trict, thirteen in the fourth district and.
SIX in the fifth district. : ::
|? Second-Forty-nine more ballots were
counted by the judges and clerks. of
election for Van Nest than were actu-
ally cast for him-nine in the first,
seventeen In the: second, eight in the
third, eleven in the fourth and four in
the fifth districts.
This seemed to be enough to over
Whelm Van Nest, but the contestant
was not thru. He alleged further that
the judges counted and returned as cast
for Van Nest thirty-two illegal votes
that they wrongfully refused to receive
votes for Roberts from qualified cleo
tors to the number of twenty-seven. =
The total sum Of the. charges
amounted to this, that Roberts received
1854 votes instead of the SOS credited
to him raa by the judges. and that t. Van
1928 credited to him by the Judges, and
that Roberts, instead of being defeated
by 20 votes, was elected by III votes.
Naturally such a contest originated
II one me- Of The residence der wards of the
lively small number Of precincts, were
drawn from the business men of the
community created quite stir. Either
there was large amount of magma
ton I in the contest or else there was
some very rotten and disreputable
work on the part of the election Off
Gals.
The defense applied Immediately to
the judges and clerks to learn whether
they were conscious. Of having per-
formed their, duty so badly that 14O
votes went astray in a count of 1000
votes. The judges were quite indig-
nant over the aspersions on their work
and all who were communicated with
declared their confidence in the count
and their eagerness to see the ballots
recOunted in court The matter came
into the district court, which appointed
three commissioners to recount the
vote. This was done and the wierd
imagination of the contestant was
fully demonstrated. In every PRECINCT
the count came out as; 1t originally
stood. "A few ballots upon which there
might be a question as to the voters
intention were held out for further ex-
animation, but the result was not af-
fected in the least. Van Nest still had
a clear majority of II of the ballots
about which there could be no ones.