Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1908-09-30
PRESTO CHANGE!
Samuel Griffin Wins Contest Over Vim.
GeSner. Griffin has majority Of 2,
which was GeSner's majority
Before the Recount

The Supreme Court Of Kansas granted
aperemptory writ Of mandamus ordering
the Barber county contest board consist
ing of County Clerk Ireland, County.
Attorney Cloud and Clerk of the District
Court Rackley. to proceed to recount
the votes in the Griffin Gesner represent
alive contest, last Thursday. The board
began the work on Saturday morning
and completed the job Monday night.
The result Of the recount shows
Samuel Griffin nominated by a majority
Of two votes, which was VIM. Gesner's
majority on the face Of the returns. In
the recount both sustained many losses
but the Sharon vote. as anticipated. ad-
ded z more votes to Griffin and only
2 more to Gesner, which virtually turn
ed the tide to the former.
When the last township-Vaney-
was reached each candidate had an
equal number Of votes counted and the
interest was great. The recount Of that
township lost Griffin 3 votes and Ges-
ner 4. and Griffin gained one Of the re-
jeded ballots which gave him 2 MAORI
ty, following which there was much joy
among the Samuelites.
The counting of the votes was small
part of the task. The time was con-
sumed in argument Of technicalities by
the attorneys. AS in the former skirmish-
es. MIR. Gesner was repr esented by
Noble & Tincher, and Mr.. Griffin wa.
assisted by Seward |. Field and C. M.
Martin. The FIRST half day was given
over to arguments on two propositions
principally. One was whether an eras-
ure Of cross mark in square should In
validate the ballot, and the other was
whether a cross mark in square oppo-
site blank space constitutes an identi6-
cation mark. After reading and listening
to all the law relevant and irrelevant, it
was decided that an erasure makes the
ballot void but that the mark in the
square opposite blank space does not,
Judge Rackley dissenting from the ma
jority and delivering an oral dissenting
opinion that either act invalidates the
ballot. Both Of these points were raised
by MIR. Gesners attorneys while Mr..
Griffin and his attorneys contended
that both kinds of ballots should be
counted. The next question raised
went to the shape Of the cross mark,
and the board exercised wide discretion.
One Of the board ruled that where two
parallel lines were used in drawing each
line Of the cross, it amounted to a doub-
lie cross, and this seemed to govern in
a majority Of instances but it allowed a
cavity for escape when the judges could
not see the mark from the same angle
Some Of the votes counted appeared tc
resemble some rejected. The board
got into deep water early in the day
when it disregarded the intent of the
voter and tried to be guided by appar.
ent conflicting decisions, for anything
can be proved by some decision Of some
court.
These questions appeared to be setdec
on Saturday, but Noble & Tmcher
on behalf of Mr.. Gesner. renewed the
attack and consumed nearly three
hours in arguing the blank square prop
osiion. presenting the same and addition.
al authorities on Monday. but the board
decided not to reverse itself.
The following tables Of comparison
are interesting. They show the vote.
Of the respective candidates as returned
by the election boards, contrasted with
the findings Of the contest board:
Primary election Contest board
Returns Findings