Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-10-13
MONTCLA|R VOTE
REGA|NS LOSSES
FOR LEHLBACH
Recount Reveals Ballots
Marked With Mosquitoes
and Dollar Signs.
Ballots

After losing % votes in the ten dis |
tricts in Irvington, Frederick r. Lehl- |
bach, contesting congressional candi- |
date in the Tenth district regained +
that number and one additional in
nine districts of Montclair at yester- |
days recount being conducted by the
County Board of Elections at the
Court House. Predictions of further
gains In the six remaining districts of
Montclair to be recounted today were
made by the Lehlbach supporters
after their candidates sensational
squirt. His gain Is now "a votes and
his apparent majority SO.
One of the features of the recount
yesterday was the discovery of bal
lots on which were peculiar mark
fngs. On one ballot the voter had
marked "$'' in the squares where his
X should have been placed. Another
voter killed several mosquitoes and
stuck them in the squares alongside
the names of the candidates. In both
instances the ballots were taken from
Irvington boxes.
Mr.. Lehlbach was defeated for the
Republican nomination for Congress,
according to the official returns. by
w /. Lincoln Adams by four votes.
1t is upon Mr.. Lehlbach's applica-
ton that the recount is being held.
Ninety-five districts have been re-
counted so far. The board plans to
complete the recount of the remain
ing forty-one districts by Thursday.
and will sit from 3 o'clock each aft
ernoon to midnight.
When the county board finished the
Newark districts late Saturday Lehl-
bachs gain over the official returns
had been fifty-three. Rejected and
referred ballots in Irvington reduced
this to thirty, and the Adams CO.
horts began to take renewed interest
in the count.
AS the Montclair districts were
started late yesterday afternoon, the
Lehlbach men predicted that theirsl
candidate would regain what he had
lost in Irvington, and perhaps more
besides. The prophecy was fulfilled
when the Third district of the Third
ward was reached and the board ad-
1ourned until 8 o'clock today.
The gains and losses of the candi-
dates in the Irvington and Montclair
districts were not due to any fraud
or irregularities. but rather to tech
meal faults discovered by either side.
In the original count Irvington had
given Lehlbach a good majority and
Montclair had gone strong for Adams.
Naturally, when ballots were referred
TO the court or rejected they We're
mostly those of Lehlbach, who had
the majority of the votes In Irving
ton, while in Montclair they were
mostly Adamss votes, because he had
nearly all of the votes there.
In the Third district of the Third
ward of Irvington Lehlbach lost fif-
teen votes, three rejected and twelve
referred to the court. The referred bal |
lots had various flaws, a half dozen or
SO containing the name of Worth
written in for constable The claim
was made by Walter E. Hampton, Mr..
Adams's counsel. that these were
marked ballots. The board was doubt
full as to the legality of votes cast for
person who was not properly identi-
fed on the ballot with his full name.
These references of Lehibach votes
brought the number referred for him
up to that for Adams. the total re-
ferred votes at the end Of the days
count being 81 Adams to 66 Lehlbach. |
The recount of yesterday and the |
original returns, with grand totals of |
both. are shown in the following
table:
FIRST WARD QRvINGTON).