Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-02-01
Attorney Whitmore Occu-
pied Nearly 2 Hours With
Complete Recital of the
Showing of Contestants.
THE COURT
TO FIND FOR DRYS
M. C. Gilmore Followed
Briefly; Final Evidence
on Rebuttal Yesterday by
Character Witnesses.
(From Thursdays Daily.)

! (From Thursdays Daily)
Nearly two hours were consumed by
Attorney Chester Whitmore in pre-,
senting the opening argument in the
saloon appeal case before Judge D. M
Anderson in the district court this
morning. The attorney for the drys
gave an exhaustive review of the
testimony presented in support OF the
claim that the petition of consent was
insufficient, and he urged the court
to find that the statement was invalid.
He started his argument at 9:05 a. m.
and did not conclude until 10: 55 a. m.
Attorney NJ, C. Golmore opened for
the vets at II o'clock and the hour
before noon adjournment was largely
devoted to the citation of supreme
court rulings and the findings Of lower
courts referring to matters similar to
the case at bar. ATTORNEY ]. !. Smith
will follow Mr.. Gilmore for the vets,
and the closing ar~-ment fer the drys
will be made by Attorney George L..
Gil1es. ATTORNEY u .Tauues has filed
with the court written challenge or
sixty names objected to by the vets
for various causes. He will not make
an oral argument unless the court
desires further statement on facts.
Attorney Whitmore's argument COW
cred at length the contentious made
by the contestants Of the saloon con-
sent petition. He cited the rulings
Of tho Iowa supreme court on the Cedar
ra-ids and Waterloo saloon petitions.
holding that the latter case was one
NV which the Ottumwa action was
largely to be decided. At the outset
he referred to the supreme courts rul-
ing on how the pool books might be
used, He touched upon the evidence
given with reference to the reputation
| OF L. A. Mongerson and the other men
attacked, and left few if any angles Of
the case 70 without some comment.
Whitmore Thanked Court.
Attorney Whitmore prefaced his
opening argument with a word of
thanks to the court and the opposing
counsel.
II wish to thank the court" began
Mr., Whitmore. "for the patience
shown in the submission of this cause
and I desire to congratulate the OPP
posing counsel for the merry battle
they have given us. If in the argyll
ments I should cast criticism on any
one. this is done because believe the
evidence in the trial warrants 1t.
"The liquor law of Iowa is, and will
be, bone of contention, and this
court and counsel have been made the
goat in this contention.
''The petition of consent on it's face
shows a majority Of 353. The poll lists
are not the only evidence to determine
the total vote at the last general cleo
ton and we do not waive the point
that the names of third and fourth
ward signers are to be counted. This
matter has been decided by the
Waterloo case. The supreme court
held that signatures were not to be
counted where the election officials
were not properly sworn and thus
qualified to act.
"And it developed in the trial that
men who were appointed by the super
visors did not serve, but others did
serve. The proponents In this case
will say that the votes In those wards
shall not be counted, but we are not
seeking to invalidate the election The
poll books are only used to ascertain
whether or not the name on the petit
ton of consent is identical with that
on the poll books. That Is as far as
the poll lists 60. In the third and
fourth wards the poll books are not
the official documents because of the
absence of being sworn in properly.
Names Must Be Identical.
"The Cedar Rapids decision referred
to by the opponents says that names
sounding alike are to be counted. The
supreme court upheld that view only
because the drys in that case made A
foolish concession that names sound
ing alike and being similar in other
respects could be counted. The Water
loo decision. which is the last word of
the supreme court. brushes this aside.
and says emphatically that names on
the saloon consent petition must be
identical with the poll lists. The name
w. w. Cory on the saloon petition is
not, therefore, the name w. w. Corey
on the poll list"
In elaboration of this view. Attor-
ney Whitmore cited the supreme
courts ruling on oral testimony. say
ing that the tribunal held that it was
not admissible in connection with
poll book evidence. In referring to the
challenges of the vets on Withdrawals
not conforming to the names on the
petition, the attorney said that the ~s.l-
preme court ruled that the right name
of the man should be signed to the
withdrawal. He said that 1t was. there
fore, not competent evidence that the
proponents introduced when they
brought in oral testimony showing
that the petition was signed on GER
tain dates.
Objection was made to counting the
signatures of F. Harmed and William
Elkins on the ground that the men
were dead when the petition was
placed on file, claiming that the petit
ton was not a legal instrument until