The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-11-23
.ASKER LEADS
FIRST WARD
RECOUNT
Many Ballots Are Referred
TO Court; Two Districts :
to Be Examined.

After i've and one-ndlI nourS "
steady counting of ballots the ESSEX
County Board of Elections yesterday
completed the tally of the First and
second districts of the First Ward in
The contest being made by Alderman
Joseph A. Wright against William U,
Masker, who on the face of the official
returns defeated Alderman Wright by
two votes.
The tally of the board for the two
contestants, irrespective of the tickets,
referred to Chief Justice Gummere for
decision as to whether they are marked
or not, gives Alderman Wright lis
votes as against Makers lat in the
Second district. Two Of the Republican
ballots were rejected in this district
and one of the Wright tickets. Ten Of
Maskers' were referred to the Chief
Justice and five of Alderman Wright's.
The official tally recorded in the city
clerks office for the first district was
Masker 100. Wright 1872. Assuming that
the court allows the ten referred
Masker ballots to stand, according to
the new totals, Mr.. Masker would ave
157 votes as against 100, the official
figures gave him. That means a loss of
three votes for him there. Taking the
same assumption in regard to Alderman
Wright in that the five of his referred
votes be allowed, he would have 1923
votes, a gain of one for him. Taking
the latter's gain of one and Makers
loss of three, places Alderman Wright
in the position of gaining four votes
for that district, wiping out Makers
plurality of two, and placing the pres
aent FIRST Ward alderman in he lead so
far as the totals of the ward r con-
cerned.
In the second district the County
Board made the total five votes less
tfstn the official figures for each man,
so that neither man lost or gained
ANYTHING. The official figures gave
Masl-er Psi and Wright 1876 here, but
the re count gives the former 226 and the
latter 1870, on the undisputed ballots.
Ten of the Masker tickets We're re-
ferred to the chief justice from this
district and five of the Wright tickets,
singulariy enough the same number as
were referred in the first district. OF
the dozen or more ballots rejected by
1he election, officers In the first district,
City Counse ell James r. Nugent, who
was acting as counsel for Mr.. Wright,
wanted one, a Wright tally, counted.
AS a compromise the Republicans
to refer 1t to the courts. The
name j.. Franklin Fort headed the
ticket, but the rest of 1t was a Demo-
cratic vote.
In the second district, of the many
tickets rejected by the election board
of that district, six Masker votes were
and one Wright vote. This
is an advantage for Masker in that
some of these votes which have not
been counted may be allowed by the
Courts.
That is the sum botal Of yesterdays
work when adjournment was taken n
til Monday night at 8 o'clock. The
third and fourth districts will be
counted then, and on Tuesday night
the fifth and sixth, completing the
work.
Yesterdays session was marked here
and there by tits between Samuel r.
Martin and Harry Kalisch, the Repub-
lican members. and Enos Runyon and
Edward HART, the Democratic mem
bers. who all sat like watchdogs over
every ballot. In fact, the work was so
thorough that If a pinhole was noticed
on either a Wright or a Masker ballot,
or an ink mark here and there, it was
referred to the courts for decision as
To whether It was n marked ballot.
There were many sallies between the
members, sometimes bitter, sometimes
pleasant. Mr.. Martin, who was partic-
ularly careful of Republican interest,
-.oh,,Irnd A1lnFVan n
Wright and j. Randolph Woodruff for
interfering with the work of the board.
A good laugh was enjoyed when a
Wright ballot with these words written
on It was reached: Hoping beer will
flow on Sunday 1t was thrown out as
a marked ballot.
improperly marked referendum votes
were responsible for the reference II
even rejection of many votes. Exam
ples of What caused the reference of
these votes may be seen from the fol-
lowing instances:
Ballot No. 1903, a Democratic vote. was
referred to the courts, because 1t was not
properly marked. inasmuch as one OF the
referendum propositions had only been par
TALLY crossed off. The next ballot to be
referred was No. 112, a Wright tally. There
was a question as to whether an ndehole
pencil was used.
No. III. a Masker vote, was cast out be-
cause there was a distinct pencil mark no.
iced at the bottom of tho ticket.
VIXEN ballot No. 1874, a Maaker vote, was
taken out, q hole was noticed in the Ticket.
The Republican members claimed that
the needle used TO place the ballots on a
STRING had made the hole. Chairman Run
von claimed that the needle had not passed
through 1t at all.
T.. f. Broedel, Edward Forbes and John
y7iannery, election officers, said that they
did not recall seeing a hole IN the ticket
when they passed on d.
MI. Martin said that the ballots had beer
tempered with evidently, and that he would
get to the bottem of It. After a tilt il was
finally decided to pass the ballot with
Chairman Runyon alone voting in the neg
sktive.
Things went on quietly for a few min
utes. but ballot No. 1871 was referred to
the courts because there appeared to be
a distinct pencil mark on the ballot. Mr..
HART said the ticket should have been
rejected, but his colleagues did not think
80, and II was referred.
No. las, a Masker tally, was referred. Al
sndelible pencil apparently had been used
in marking It.
No. 14e, another Masker tally, was also
referred because the first two letters In
the word For on a referendum blank had
only been crossed out and the last letter,
"r.'' remained.
n. 1cr Aa,slrar baTot mar raforrad