The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-06-23
SUCCESSFUL CONTESTANT
 GIVES KENNEDY CREDIT
M. J. Gill Wins In Contested EIec- tion Case In Missouri
 District.
SITTING MEMBER
 IS VOTED OUT
Naugatuck Congressman Conducts His Case In Committee And
 On Floor of House.

Washington, June 2S.-''I owe my seat in the House of Representatives to the indefatigaple efforts, both in the Committee and on the floor of the House. to Congressman Kennedy, of Michael J. Gill, who was seated by vote of the House late Friday aftetr- noon. ''Mr Kennedy" continued MT. Gill, "attended all of the meetings of the Committed and personally ques- toned all of the witnesses who were brought before it, and when he be- came convinced that a gross fraud had been Derpetrated upon the elect ors of the Twelfth Congressional dis trict of Missouri ne went into the case with all his strength, and it is to him more than to any one man that owe the successful outcome of my contest In this opinion all who followed the progress of the contested election case of Gill vs. Dyer, full concur.
 This case hinged on the vote of seven precincts of the fifth ward of the city of St. Louis, and the major ity of the Committee were of the opinion that the vote of all of these precincts should be thrown out. Un- der the election laws of Missouri each
 
 Der corresponding to the number op- posite the name of the, voter on the poll book so that it is possible to Identify the vote case by each indi- Vidual voter. After the election in 1910, there was a contest for a local office and the ballot boxes in this ward were opened and it is claimed that the ballot cast by MT. Gill, the present contestant, showed that he had voted against his party candidate for con gress in that election. The democrat ic candidate for congress in 1910 was this ward and sword was at once sent down the line to scratch Gill" The ballots exhibited to the Committee showed that Gill had been scratched, on most of the democratic tickets and the name of Dyer written in, and most of the scratching and writing was done by one hand, as was evil denced by a close examination and the majority of the committee were of the opinion that a conspiracy had been entered into by the election off, cials to defeat Gill. Many of the vot- CTS that had cast these marked tick cts were brought before the commit tee and Some testified that they had not scratched Gill and had not voted for Dyer, although some admitted that they had scratched Gill but had not voted for Dyer.
 
 ing of MT. Gill, MT. Kennedy express ed regret that he, a new member should be called upon to pass judg- ment upon the right of another and older member to a, seat in the House. He said he had always tried to be fair in politics. and he liked to deal with others that dealt fairly
 '.In the election held in St. Louis on November S, 1912." he said, there is no question in my mind from the evidence presented to the Committee that MT. Dyer was not legally elected, House that another should occupy Undoubtedly MT. Dyer desires to be fair in his argument, but when he states that MT. Gill never denied that he had voted for him 6Dyer) I think he must have overlooked the proceed ings of the last day of the hearings before the committed" MT. Kennedy then read from the testimony of MT. Gill to the effect that he had denied the charge before election and thac the newspapers had printed his de- nial. cit seems to me- continued MT. Kennedy, that that is as emphatic a denial as any man can make; that he never voted for Dyer.
 'sThere is another very strange feat ure in relation to this whole case. 1914, Mir. Dyer never made a request, either before the committee or before this House to have further evidence taken in St. Louis. He never at any time before the Committee on contest ed elections, until after all the evil dence was in, made any request for the committee to: visit St. Louis and examine the voters-as to who they voted for. I defy him or any mem Der of the committee on the minority side to deny that statement. But now, after the evidence was all ins after the arguments were all made, after he had been heard himself and after the committee had voted on this case and decided it, the following day he sent a letter to the chairman of the com rnittee, and I believe on the first of April sent another one, requesting that the committee reopen this case and open the ballot boxes, summon the voters, and ascertain how they voted. Now it seems to me that that was rather late to come in with such a request, particularly after the statement had been made before the committee that the voters in that dis trict, hundreds of them, were rovers; that they were transfents; that they were travelling from city to city and impossible to locate IS months after the election What argument is ad- vanced for the purpose of sending this case back to the committee? It has been decided by a, former con- gress that it was a very dangerous precedent to establish and very