Arizona republican., 1917-12-23

Cochise county, which gave Campbell a majority of eight votes, should have been counted.
 It was the opinion of the court With respect to the vote in Douglas precinct No. l, that gives the office to Hunt. All other rulings are immaterial except insofar as they may guide voters ana election boards in future elections. In this precinct there had been counted | for Hunt 229 votes and for Campbell 106 votes. It was the first precinct attacked on the ground of fraud. It was shown that the election in that precinct had been conducted generally in disregard of the prescriptions ot the statutes. The election board consisted mainly of outsiders. non-residents Of the precincts; that there had been bet ting by members of the election board on Hunt; that whisky flowed freely at | the polls. Forty-two ballots which had | been counted for Hunt were found to have clumsy ensures of what had ap | parently been crosses in the square at | the head of the republican column, and crosses had been marked in the square | at the head of the democratic column. | Judge Stanford of the superior court at | first threw out this precinct on the showing of irregularities, but later he set that ruling aside and counted for |. Campbell the 42 ballots which had been | counted for Hunt
 Prefacing it's consideration of this l precinct the supreme court says: ITO l be impartial and correct is therefore our duty. If, under the facts of the case and by the rules of law, the con- testant is entitled to the votes of this precinct, he ought to have them, and this court must not be deterred in the performance of a duty so plain, by req son of the political utilization of it's members, or because to some it's judg- ment for considerations of such a char acter may appear not to be impartial unless it be against the contestant or unfair to him. It must be kept in mind that no court in Christendom is per mitted to found its judgment on mere suspicion and conjecture of wrong doing, but unless there be satisfactory evidence to the contrary, to look upon the acts of public officials with pre- sumption of their rectitude and good faith"
 Before proceeding to an examination of the precinct, the court took up the matter of the evidence of detectives that had been attacked by the con- testant which 1t did not believe should De rejected as a class, but should be gwen the weight and credibility that attached to it in the trial court.
 The supreme court found that Judge Stanford in his first ruling throwing out Douglas precinct No. 1 based that ruling upon two facts brought out in the evidence concerning the constitu- ton of the election board and that a candidate for the office of presidential eiector had for short time assisted in canvassing the votes. In that ruling the court had not given weight to the evidence regarding the mutilation of the AZ ballots. The trial court, it IS held, had right to rescind the ruling excluding the precinct. It was not cOntended that the candidate who mad assisted in canvassing the vote had had any sinister influence upon the result of the election and as to any lrregularity in the making up of the election board the statute prescribing the constitution of election boards is directory. The mandate of the statute IS not imperative. That provision of the statute, 1t is stated, could have been enforced by mandate prior to the cleo tlon- The court, moreover, held that Douglas precinct No. is not a precinct within the meaning of the law, but merely a polling place of Douglas pre- cinct.
 Coming to the mutilated ballots, the court finds that it was not specifically charged that they had been fraudulent ly changed, and that such change ha( been sustained by clear and satisfac. tory proof. The returns were primf facie correct and, says the court When arty seeks to overcome tn, When party made by the return! of an election with the allegation tha certain of the ballots had been fraudu lently changed and counted by tn, | election officers he must produce tn, | quantum of proof necessary to sustain the charge"
 Reference on this p4nt and gener ally throughout the opinion is made b, the court to the opinion in the case O Oakes vs. Ffnlay, 3 Arizona 39O. Hold ing that there was no substantial evi dence in the record that the ballot
 had been changed by members of tn
 election board and counted for Hun
 and that the trial court itself had rule | against the theory that the change ha ' been made in the election booths tl | court declared that there was ncS
 sclntilla of evidence that any of the,
 ballots had been changed during u | progress of the count After reviewir
 that evidence at considerable lengt
 the court finds that there is nothir K but the theories of counsel. as "wiC
 apart as the poles," and thereupon
 orders that 42 votes taken from u
 contestee be added to the votes of Il
 contestant
 This ruling alone is decisive so tn
 only curious interest attaches to il
 others in the opinion.
 As to Wilgus precinct, where it w
 known 14 votes had been cast f
 Campbell and for Hunt, it was he
 that these ballots had never been ca
 vassed by the board of supervisors
 Cochise county. They could not
 found after the election, though { H board held itself in readiness to ca
 vass them when they might be four
 They were not discovered until aft
 the beginning of the contest when t
 treasurer of the county found ths
 under a counter while he was gathe
 ing up the ballots that had been turn
 over to him by the board of supt
 visors, to be sent to Phoenix. H.
 they were received in the office of t
 treasurer is a matter only of conjt s ture. In throwing them out the $
 preme court says: Without sol
 proof of their identity and integrity
 would be a dangerous precedent inde
 to allow the return of an election to
 augmented by such character of b
 lots.'
 The court finds a difference I