New-York tribune., 1906-07-16
HEARST PLEA DENIED.
DIR. MAYER,S DECISION.
Reasons Why Proceeding to Unseat
Ma4or Cannot Be Begun.

Albany, July 15.-The decision and opinion OF
Attorney General Mayer, denying William
Randolph Hearst's application for permission TO
begin quo warranto proceedings against Mayor
Mcclellan Of New York City, was made public
to-day. II is, in part, as follows:
This application could have been made AT least
as Tar back as January !, 1885, and applicants
counsel conceded upon the hearing. The affdavits
November or December. 1895. and with a single
innaterial exception, were evidently intended TO
oe used in connection with proceedings pending in
& Se &3npdene PR court for leave 10 open ballot boxes
HhlSSn said proceedings We're terminated adversely
70 The applicant by the decision Of the Court of
The reason assigned b. APPLICANT for his delay
Te1t ApTi a ls9 IS that il was expected that the
by the applicant providing for recount OF the
has been due to the failure Of the applicant TO pre-
sent his application TO the Attorney General on
readiness on his behalf every affidavit which is
It was conceded BY applicants counsel that if
bno,j m aG9oh IN N the the nature OF 41o warranto were
votes were counted as cast.
count OF void and protested ballots contained in the
e9 Feopes @ + simple and slmn1&9Ty cry L was 9valled
anG richmond counties, Leonard a: Giegerich and
examined ballot by ballot in the most panstakng
way, ia tie presence of counsel for the contest
there was no appeai Therefrom and the returns ms
q me inspectors of election were corrected in
Soroance herewith The vote as finally announced
~ ne 9oaIls OF county canNassers and by the
e1ae 9sIa o. r. 6efohs aIc was in this particular in
4ore tis feature of the case has been disposed Of
by tAe courts and needs no further attention.
1heEe remains only the question Of the ballots in
The ballot boxes In substance there two
tirst-That ballots were improperly counted
ie e, ~ cIee'lng votes to Mcclellan or not credit
Sqa secondThaf Hs 9f9P theTs takn as ,soor, n aao
ton districts because the records therein Of the
poll clerks and the ballot clerks di5 nor epree % 'e
have been filed. Some bear directly on the sub3
fernandez relate to acts entirely rreievat ao to the the
AN n losL OF }e statements in the moving afi
+ s1ts re denied under oath by election officers
Queens Kings and ibmond he g0GI N ne he counties OF
New York there are i1g Ic;; IA tt.e Sounty or
gespoaalng number Of election boards and 4464 in
to out T1 Of his o ots - and after thorough exaina
misconduct during the count said msconduct con-
slStng Of failure 70 mark protested ballots.
failure 10 tender the oath reo,ired b for
challenge. and failure to question the person chaI-
II VIII thus be noted that the total number Of
chedlbIe complaints IN regard TO misconduct during
aIlowjnr ,e 9 me % ro'fs 6 h Tas lac0asiqe1able but
susceptible Of proof not, whether based on hear
or votes REPEATED or int,Tiarior i g4tIe d
including election disficfs in br ana
errors we're made under circumstances not amount
& aidayts submitted by the applicant call into
Counting al these votes for Hearst and deducting
Al an o Of them from Mcclellan, the figures would be
OFFICIAL CANVASS
Hearst 554Sss 3 go
Plurality for Mcclellan. n..................... 3474
FIGEREs WITH ABOVE ALLOWANCES
Mcclellan, 22s 397 G66 equals 227 731
Hearst Z24e2S plus 65e equals 225598
Plurality for Mcclellan. ................. 2143
No such allowance as e6s votes should be made.
noweEer, , except for purposes of argument and IL
Nm In some Instances claimed that persons
So Hearst could not be credited with these @ v"tes
lh other instances the afldavits were loose and
would cut this claim 666 votes easily in half
After giving review of the work of the
watchers, the decision continues:
From this brief outline it will thus be seen that
2 eonspiFaey 15a was aloot and that combination
rief+ li'Ss S :. - aelIiNe the applicant of his just
%aIchTulness than usual exercised at the
election because of the independent candidates. of
Hearst and Jerome. and that was one of the reo
Ella why @ lne attention OF the authorities was
and watchers often Indifferent at an election
Ihird-Ihe further claim is made that there was
niscognt IN a44 election districts. because there
was a discrepancy IN each of such districts he
tween the number OF ballots shown on the ballot
The tally sheets Of the poll clerks. '''
etitufs scaa1 6aI slch & dlsetePancy in itself
produce any evidence outside of the tally sheet and
Ile ba!iot clerks returns 10 show that were
This proposition was distinctly decided b., the
If il were 10 be held matter Of law thai a
discrepancy between the ballot clerks returns and
the poll clerks tally sheets would of itself an
ihorlze inquiry into the contents of a ballot box
me door would be opened SO that by the mistake
or design Of subordinate election officer an elec-
ZION could be thrown into litigation notwithstand-
ing the fact that the the inspectors were
not questioned
The actual result in votes as disclosed by
summary: assuming that every doubtful discre-
paney IS in favor Of Hearst and against Mcclellan
cannot. in any event. exceed in the whole ~
greater New York 262 votes in all
IT the lowest figures hereinbefore accorded TO
Mcclellan and the highest figures accorded 10
Hearst be further modified by the deduction from
Mc1leIlans total Of 262 and the addition to
Hearsts total Of a similar number the result
would Sun leave a suostantial margin of plurality
70 the credit of Mcclellan: that, upon this
branch q the inquiry whether looked ques-
Hlon or faW or Of fact. there could be anv
change which would affect the result.
To grant the application would amount to setting
q precedent upon the strength Of which any person
upon claiming that he was elected would be en-
utled TO the permission Of the Attorney General 10
test the title Of Office name of the people
Upon all the proceedings. and for the reasons
herelnbefoTe stated. the application is denied