The Ordway new era., 1912-11-22
Sugar City Shows
Supremacy Of Gall
Soured by Disappointment. Il
Attempts to Gain by Bluff
What 1t Lost by Votes

A snake is sometimes scotched In.
stead Of being killed. The people Of
Crowley county had congratulated
themselves that the county.seat con.
troversy had been settled for all time
by the action Of the voters on Novem.
ber5. That Ordwsy received a ma.
jority Of q over all competitors for
this honor all persons Of unprejudIced
aud unjaundiced mind know. But 1t
seems that the little c0terie OF intri.
Ruers at Sugar City who engineered
the late skullduRRery practiced up
there and who attempted to ring in
illegal votes upon the proposition
seem to be still dissatisfied and to en-.
tertain hopes that by some hook or
crook principally the latter. as they
are more expert at the latter than the
fOrmer) they can secure reversal VI
the verdict of the people. A more
brazen attempt to subvert the will OF
the people has seldom been made, and
never 10 this state.
The vote on the county-seat proposi.
tion was canvassed on November 8.
Under the law the parties 10 action
had ten days to flle a complaint asking
the setting aside OF the declared re-
suit and asking recount. The Sugar
City people took the limit Of time to
act, fling their complaint 10 the Of
ice Uf the clerk Of the district court
on the 18th inst. The summons was
served on Alex. Gray as clerk Of the
board of county commissioners, the
complaining parties being the town
Of Sugar City and Edward w. Rich.
ards. The petition. stripped Of its
swathiug Of legal verbiaee, recites:
First-That Sugar City is a legal
municipality aud that Richards IL .
duly qualified elector -
s Second-That an election to per-
manently locate the county seat was
held on Novembe 8, 1912.
Third-That the board Of supervis-
ors Illegally appointed for this elec-
tion separate watches, judges and
clerks and directed that the special
ballots be deposited In u separate bal.
lot box.
Fourth-That the supervisors d.
rected that the only persons eligible
to vote upon this question we're those
who had resided in the county six
months.
Fifth-That the number of voters
thus refused permission to vote and
who would have voted against the
town OF Ordway and for Sugar City
we're more than enough to reverse the
result.
Sixth-That sufficient illegal votes
we're counted for Ordway to change
the result, and that large number OF
legal votes we're rejected, sufficient to
defeat Sugar City.
Seventh-That large number Of
votes we're counted for Ordway that
we're cast for Sugar City and that the
judges counted large number OF
"blank" ballots for Ordway that
should have been counted against it.
Eighth-That the board of canvas
sers counted these "blank" ballots
for Ordway, thus giving 1t a majority.
Ninth-That large number OF
persons favoring Sugar City were
illegally prevented from voting for
that town by persons favoring Ord
way.
Tenth-The petitioners pray that
the declared result of said election be
set aside and that recount of the
ballots be had.
They also ask for the customary
costs OF suit and such further relief as
the court may see At to grant.
The county commissioners have ten
days in which TO answer. The case
will come up before one of the two
district judges, j. Ed RiZer or Charles
S. Essex. Sugar City will probably
be represented by Thomas & Thomas.
The commissioners have retained At
torneys H. A. Hicks and I. Fl. Stanley
m rpDresent thpm AttOrnev Parry