Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-05-14

and Marshall county since the signing
Of the petition, and d list Of about two
hundred names that cannot be count
ed because of the supreme courts de-
cision in the case OF Porter vs.. Butter
field in the 116, Iowa TBS which Is fol-
lowed by the supreme court in the
case OF Wilson VS.. Bonestedt in the 105
Iowa 451. The same case. IL found
In the ITO Northwestern on page S9S.
in our duplicate list desire to call
your special attention to the fact that
in the First ward appears the name Of
w. C. Glen or w. G. Glen. and in the
Second ward appears the name Of w.
g. Glen. This we claim Is a dupli-
cate. We also call your attention to
the names F. Eige and Jacob Eige in
the First ward, which are evidently
the same person or one Of them did
not vote. We also call your attention
to the name Of s. Durham and F. Dun
ham in the First ward, who signed and
one of them evidently did not vote II
there. are two; and in the same ward
there appears the name Harry V.
Speers and H. v. Speers; one Of them
evidently did not vote; and in the same
ward appears the name Dan Swab and
John d. Swab which is a duplicate or
one Of them did not vote. And in the
Second ward appears the name J. r.
Peters and John F. Peters. II they
are not the same person one OF them
evidently did not vote. And in the Sec
ond ward appears the name William
Merrill twice, who did not vote at all.
And in the Second ward appears the
name of William Coughey and Will
Coughey, neither Of them voted il there
are two. and they are duplicates also.
Also in the Second ward appears the
name o. T.. Cartwright and T. C..
Cartwright. If they are not the same
person one Of them did not vote. And
in said ward also appears the name
Hugh Mcconnell twice, and il they are
not the same person one of them did
not vote.
In the list from the Third ward you
will find that we have the names F.
Tuffree, Francis Tuffree and II. j.
Tuffree. These are duplicates as we
believe and none Of them apparently
voted, though one may have. We al
50 have in the Third ward the name
J. E. Wells twice and J. S. Wells. We
believe these to be the same and we
cannot find that such a person voted.
In the Fourth ward appears the name
L. D. Griffith twice. Griffith did not
vote and it is evidently duplicate. In
the Fourth ward appears the name of
A. or G. Moreland or A. or G. Woer-
land. This is not a duplicate but we
cannot find that a person by either of
these names voted. We also find in the
Fourth ward the name Joseph White
and j. F. White at two different adj
dresses one address being in the Fifth
ward and one in the Third ward. This
is either a duplicate or one Of them
did not vote.
In the Fifth ward appears the name
H. or A. MARQUES and the name A.
Marquiss twice. None Of the Marques
es voted and this is evidently a tripli-
cate. Again in that ward appears the
name J. F. Turnkey twice. He did not
vote and it is a duplicate. Again in
said ward you will find the name Loren
Waldo and L. w. Waldo. None Of the
Waldos voted and this probably is a
duplicate. Again in said ward appears
the name George Wilson and George E.
Wilson: in one case he says he lives
in the Fifth ward and in the other case
he gives his address. This is evidently
a duplicate.
NOW Mr.. Egermdyer, lne IlIHeS-r re-
publican, when the petition was filed.
said the attorneys would claim that the
saloons were being prosecuted by this
petition. We do not make. such q claim
now, but If, you start litigation against
the saloon keepers on account of the
claimed revocation petition without an
investigation to see whether or not our
statements are true, and they are found
true, we shall say and claim that we
are being prosecuted. You are the coun-
ty attorney Of the saloon keeper and
tax payer as well as Of the prohibition
list, and because a prohibitionist comes
in and tells you his petition is good or
some one from Des Moines who is not
a tax payer or resident or his attorney
comes to you who is not a. resident and
states to you that the revocation is
sufficient, will not justify you nor pre-
vent people saying you are prosecuting
the saloon keepers, if you do not in
vestigate. Investigate it before start
ing suits. The saloons closed ten days
to investigate. Can you not and will
you not investigate two days if nee
essary?