Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-02-11

OlTUMWA o.
lof other names counted and as thi
seems to be conceded the challenge
are sustained.
No. 2,736 is challenged because of ,
lack of identity of name with name OF
poll book The initial in one place II
II. M. and in another T. N. Under thu
rule laid down by the supreme cour
where the initials are given and the!
are not the same the name cannot bt
counted and this challenge Is sustain
ed. III
Difference Not Sufficient.
Nos. 342, 495, 54S. III, IT'S, 1922
1853, 1855, 1901, 1878, 1865, 1927
2,126, 2,2s7, 2,503 and 1852 are chal
lenged because names are not identical
with names on poll books. AS just
stated 1t has been ruled that the
names should be identical. This rul
ing has been upon questions having to
do entirely with given names and
initials. In one case the court holds
that the names must be substantially
Identical. Where the initials are diff
ferent or the first or given names are
I'LL u CAL lAC HdluCo CdAuOI US SuDSldA'
TALLY identical. In these challenges
the only difference is in the spelling OF
the last name except in one instance
Cheas Is written for Chas. An illus.
tration is that in one case the name
Is signed Douglass, while 1t is written
by the election officer, Douglas. A
great many proper names have two
or more ways of being spelled and
that Is the discrepancy in some of
these cases, while In others It is caused
by the election officer using flourish
too much or too little. These names
are substantially Identical with the
names on the poll books and should
be counted.
Challenge to No. 20 sustained as
name was forged; No. ST. is sustained
because wrong party by same name
signed; challenge sustained to No. S22
because party OF different initials
signed name; challenge sustained to
No. 2,205 for same reason; challenge
to No. 1895 sustained because party
that signed was not party that voted
by same name; challenge to No. 1,702
sustained because not witnessed by
party making affidavit.
oONCA AoACo al SAdIlC-A6Cu UCSouoC
the parties were solicitors for the
petition and were paid for their SER
vices and as consequence must have
been paid for their own signatures.
All these parties were on the stand
and freely admitted that they were
paid for their work at so much per
name, but they deny receiving any
thing for their own signatures and
say that they would have signed In
any event. There is no law forbidding
the circulation of consent petitions for
hire. If there was it would nullify the
entire law, as volunteers could not be
had to do the amount of work neces-
sary in the short time allowed. The
challenges to these parties are over
ruled.
This disposes of all individual chal-
lenges except as to Withdrawals and
the challenges allowed eliminate the
following from the petition: non
residents 8, dated outside the thirty
day canvass 2, duplicates 6, initials
different 1, names signed by another
or forged 5, name not properly wit
deducted upon individual challenges
aside from Withdrawals
After the petition was filed with
the county auditor and before it was
finally passed upon by the board of
the contestants filed BOT
written Withdrawals, that is written
requests by parties signing the petit
ton that their names not be consid-
cred thereon. Five of these with
lrawals were duplicates leaving 302
hat contestants now claim and of
:hese the proponents challenge %
Upon various grounds to be herein |
after enumerated.
Bought Withdrawals Thrown Out.
Nos. 2,462, 2,526. 1883 and S54 are
challenged because parties were paid
o withdraw. The evidence, unfor- |,
shows this to be a fact and
while the contestants deny knowledge !
If the use of money for the purpose
Ind show that it did not come from |
he fund provided for the contest yet I
t was used and Withdrawals procured !
n that manner cannot be allowed and |
he challenges are sustained.
Withdrawals to be valid must be by
he Independent and voluntary act OF
he person withdrawing. Argument, |
entreaty or nagging will
lot destroy a persons independent !
nd voluntary action. Payment or
PROMISE of employment, or any other
or threat of discharge,
II exposure to prosecution would !
mount to coersion or duress sufficient |
o destroy the voluntary and independ-
mt character Of the act. Withdrawal
made to please ones family or as a
avor to friend would not prevent it
eing independent and voluntary.
Challenges to withdrawals to Nos
SO, 3O1, 1917 and 2,751 are sustained
s not being the Independent and vol
ntary act of the party, In each in :
lance, in withdrawing. Other chal. |
enges made to Withdrawals on same
round are overruled. |
Other Withdrawals Upheld.
Challenge to withdrawals to Nos. |
,..ee4. and 1889 are not allowed. The :
round here is that the withdrawals (
re not accompanied by proper affida-
it of witnesses. The law does not
equire the formality in Withdrawals
hat is required in signing petition and
he names need not be Witnessed
cOtt VS., Naacke IA Iowa 165.