The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-01-02

Albany. Jan. 1.-The first paper filed
with the new attorney general when he
went 10 his Office to-day was the appli-
cation Of William r. Hearst for a re-
hearing in the proposed quo WarrantO
action TO test George b. McClellans title
TO the office of mayor OF New York City.
The application contains practically the
same allegations OF violence at the polls
and fraud In the casting and the count
ing Of the ballots that appeared in the
papers served about a year ago on At
torney General Mayer, who refused to
grant the application.
The proceedings which It was made
necessary 20 take, the manner in which
these proceedings were contested upon
technical grounds by counsel for George
b. Mcclellan. and the disclosures made
in the proceedings Of fraud in the court. d"
says the application. mot only justihcd
the conviction that there had been fraud
uIent declaration OF the result. but es-
tablished the fact by legal proof in sew
erai specific instances. showing q mis-
count. which. if general. indicated the
election of the applicant by a large ma
j5rity."
Claims Attorney Copied Errors.
After following in detail the steps which
he had taken in the courts and in the
legislature 20 get a recount up 10 the
time OF Attorney General Mayors refusal
TO grant his application for quo war
ranto action, Mr.. Hearst says,
The situation thus created was sub
stanUally this: The Court OF Appeals and
ballots 20 be recounted on the ground
that this should be done in q quo war
rantO action. The attorney general re-
fused 20 permit q quo wJTantO action
TO be- begun, holding. in effect, that the
ballots must first Toe recounted.
Moreover, an examination OF the opin-
ion of the attorney general discloses the
fact that the attorney general in his hasty
decision. rendered four days after the
matter was finally submitted. incOrpo-
rated in his opinion and made largely
the basis thereof a verbatim excerpt from
the corporation cOunseIs analysis Of fig
ures I'm which were embodied numerous
gl8ring errors and mistakes in addition
and subtraction, the substitution Of fig
ures for the wrong election districts and
the like.
Points Ont Mistakes in Opinion.
THE applicant does not complain that
the attorney general adopted verbatim the
arguments and deductions of Mr.. McClel-
lan's counsel, but that the attorney gen
eral adopted all Of the mistakes and errors
in addition, subtraction, and the rest
along with it, showing either that the at
torney general did not read the answering
analysis which pointed out these errors or
that he misstated the facts"
Mr. Hearst mentions in his application
about thirty instances Of mistakes in the
figures presented by the corporation coun-
sci. many Of which were embodied by the
attorney general in his opinion.
Under the circumstances, says the ap-
pHcant, lit is plain that the decision Of
Attorney General Mayer was not only Vi
cious in part, but Unfounded in its basic
facts"
Mr.. Hearst calls the new attorney gen
erals attention TO what he regards as "a
significant fact"
Wanted TO Destroy Ballots.
Seven days after the attorney generals
decision" says the applicant. Mr.. Nc
CIeIIan made a motion in the Supreme
Court 10 legalize the destruction of the
ballots The motion was not made by the
board of elections. but by George McClel-
Ian personally. although, as shown, he
made use of the corporation counsel as
his lawyer"
Mr.. Hearst. after relating how he OBJ
tanned an order from the Supreme Court
TO keep the ballot boxes inviolate until
the further order Of the court, goes on:
Another significant fact is that the
offer 10 furnish new ballot
boxes was refused, and instead thereof,
Mr.. Mcclellan prosecuted an appeal
from the order preserving the boxes"
Mr. Hearst says Sbat the only ground
assigned for the desTability of destroying
the ballots was that the boxes were
needed at the approaching primary cleo
tons. Then ne adds.
Although the occasion for the use Of
said ballot boxes had passed and the
excuse given for the destruction of the
ballots no longer existing, said Mcclellan,
in his effort to destroy the only evidence
by which it may ever be determined
whether his title to Office is honest or
not. put the city to the expense of print
ing a record on appeal Of more than 200
pages, and after the result of November
1895, became definitely known, said appeal
was noticed for argument in the ap-
pellate division of the Supreme Court
first department, on December q. 1906
No decision has yet been rendered
Clarence J. Shearn, Mr.. Hcarst's lawyer
in "a communication accompanying the
application, requests that a copy of the
paper be served on Mr.. Mcclellan, and
that a hearing be fixed, If possible. for
some date within a week