Arizona republican., 1917-05-01
CONTEST MAY CLOSE
IN JUDGE STANFORD'S
COURT DURING DAY


governOrship contest which seemed on
Saturday night to have been brought
to the edge of the end of things, had
backed away from it. That is. the day
appeared to have been a period of re-
PROGRESSION. a faint hope, however,
was held out that a destination would
be reached today.
Both the morning and afternoon ses-
siOns were chiefly spent in clashes be-
tween the attorneys over vagrant bal
lots scattered throughout dozan pre-
cincts in different parts of the state;
that is, over ways and means of max
ing proof of ballots in precincts where
the count did not coincide with the
showing of the poll lists and where
Cne side or the other had made gains in
J the recount.
One proposition after another was
/ subuitted by the attorneys for former
/ Governor Hunt. Some of then. y ere
! rejected by the attorneys for Governor
| Campbell and some were froWned upon
! by the court. Now and then 1 !rOpO-
| sition would be accepted by tic attoT-
neys for Governor Campbell when it
would be found to have a hidden string
attached to it.
The brief testimony of four witnesses
in rebuttal was heard, one for Miami
| precinct No Two from tOIlOnANt,'i
and one from keOhane ranch in Mo-
! have county. After that the clashes of
! the morning were resumed and con-
tinued until nearly o'clock when a
new bone of contention was unearthed
the basis on which the arguments in
| the case should rest
1t had heen assumed that tie argu-
! lnent would he heard on the motion Of
the attorneys for the contcstee to strike
the returns from the precincts which
have been under investigation for the
last month, Bisbee l, Miami No. 3, Cot
tonWoOd, Eager, Swansea. Keohans
Ranch and some others. That would
give the attorneys for the contestee the
opening and the closing At this stage.
Judge Sloan announced that the con
testee would waive the opening: the
facts, he said, spoke for themselves
The cOnteStee would offer no argument
unless there should be something in the
reply of the attorneys for the con-
testant meriting reply. Mr.. Ives re-
piled that there was nothing in the
cOntestees evidence against which 10
direct an argument.
Mr.. Ives came back with another mo-
tion to declare the evidence in support
of the motion to strike insufficient
Judge Sloan suggested that there was
already a pending motion. After some
further discussion the motion to strike
was submitted without argument ana
1t appeared that the case would final
come before the court on a motion for
judgment for the contestant That
l-would give the attorneys for the co1-
testant the opening and the closing.
The way now seemed open but one
thing after another interviewed and Z" e
rest of the afternoon was devoted to
I md l,,n IL
described iii the morning. At the erd
of the day, Mr.. Ives announced that a
witness from Douglas would be put On
this morning to prove five ballots in
Douglas precinct No. over which dis
, cussIon had started in the morning.
When the court convened Mr. Ives
said that the contestant would put in
4 short rebuttal and would submit IL
poll lists from several precincts where
: the poll lists and the number of counted
ballots did not agree. Among these
was Douglas No. where in DE re-
count Hunt had gained four votes cd
where there was discrepancy between
= the poll list and the count Mr. Ives
sought to secure an agreement with tho
attorneys of the other side that all the
{ ballots that mad been returned from thi.
) precinct had come through the ballot
box. That agreement could not be Sc.
p cured and the court announced frar
f under previous ruling proof would have
s to-be made. Mr.. Struckmeyer haG II.
n rection of this feature of the proceed
;; ings.
/ Further along, when some precinct.
= were brought up in which the number
I of ballots counted were less than III,
s number of the poll list n question W..
n raised whether they should also com,
Il under the rule of requiring proof. O,
4 statement from The court that th,
c contestant would be allowed to max
= proof and that the same privilege woul,
L have TO be extended to the contestee
q there was hesitation among the after
n neys for the contestant. This amounte
e to re-opening of the case which ha,
already been re-opened for the irt,o
= ductlon of Snowflake. 1t was not unit
e late in the day that an election wa
made to bring a witness from Dougla
who will be heard this morning. A
this juncture there seems to be nothin
between his testimony and the fina
argument.
The first witness in rebuttal in tn
precinct cases waS Charles D. Willar
of Cottonwood. Mr. Willard was tn
election Inspector and he was called t
controvert the testimony last, week G
Charles Burrus one of the judges. Nj
Burrus had testified to the activity c
Mr.. Willard at the polls: that he ha
spent the greater part of his time i
accompanying voters into an adiacer
n room and giving them informatio
d about voting, by means of a sampl
ballot Mr.. Burrus stated that abou
"a half the voters had received sample bal
l. lots and had taken them into that roor
le with Mr.. Willard. He said that he ha
)f demonstrated with Mr.. Willard an
at that the latter had replied, IF the mem
} bers of the election board cannot gi,
d. information to the voters, | would lib
S, to know who can. He said he ha
Je gore TWO or three times into that rool
he to recall the inspector to his duties an
D
Ccntinued on Page Two)