Arizona republican., 1918-10-06
Hunt as Costs.

The more notable errors in the | case are now pointed out in Gov | ernor Campbelrs final appeal to the highest court in the state of Arizona, the will of the people, Governor Campbell having publicly challenged Hunt to put the question up to the people of the state in the coming election.
 Gross Fraud in Douglas Precinct
 One of the sensations of the trial of the contest case was the exposure of the gross fraud practiced in the first precinct of Douglas, where forty-two ballots were changed from Campbell to Hunt by the election of court which examined these ballots was convinced, and any school boy could tell upon examination of them that the cross opposite Campbelrs name had been erased and another placed after Hunts name.
 The supreme court adopted the theory that detectives changed the ballots, when as a matter of fact no detectives were employed in the case until the ballots were in the posses sion of the superior court at Phoenix. The inspection in the court at Phoe- nix first disclosed that they had been mutilated, and the inspector of the election precinct had fled the state.
 Record contradicts High Court
 The supreme court says that "all of the officers who officiated were residents of and electors of Douglas precinct" but the record shows they left this precinct to vote in the ad- joining ones where their names were written on the precinct register. as provided by law in Par. 2S91. The court says: "The election board was composed of Republicans and Demo- crats." The record of the trial shows no Republicans served. The court says that no bystander ob- served anything wrong being done. yet the unimpeached testimony of Deputy Sheriff Cross says that after AAOe~i ms SOih Ol he inspected the ballots being count ed and found small bits of rubber and paper still adhering to the bal lots where they had been erased.
 Watcher Was Intimidated
 The court says that no party watcher made any complaint. The record is that c. W. Realms was forced to leave the polling place un- der threats of the election board when he complained of the method of counting. The court itself. in its decision, describes the marked bal lots in Douglas No. 1 as being mu- tilated. The law says that mutilated | ballots shall not be counted, but the supreme court counted over seventy mutilated ballots in Douglas No. 1 for Hunt.
 The sworn inspection notes made by Hunts inspectors and submitted to the supreme court in the manda mus case brought by Tom Campbell to obtain possession of his office | admitted a loss of sixteen votes from | the official returns of Douglas Pre- | cinct No. l. There were more bal lots than names on the poll book The ballots. after being changed, die not agree with the count, but the supreme court held that the officia returns of the election board were correct.
 "Desperate Fraud,r Says Judue | Stanford
 The supreme court would not con. sider the confession of H. H. Hart the election judge, made to Bruce
 Stephenson, assistant county attor. ney of Cochise county, in the hear.
 ing or another reputable attorney
 nor the confession of Hart made tt
 w. w. Holtherin the hearing of five
 witnesses, one an eX-United States marshal, and another the city attor.
 ney of Douglas. This evidence wa,
 never impeached.
 Judge Stanford, in ruling on thi:
 precinct, after listening to all the evidence, said: "Desperate frauf
 was committed in Douglas precinc
 No. l, and found the ballots were
 taken from Campbell and given tc
 Hunt at some time during the coun
 or shortly afterward.
 If Judge Stanford was correct il
 his finding that the election officers
 stole eighty seven votes for Hunt il Douglas No. 1, legally cast for Camp
 bell, the supreme court of the stat
 Of Arizona, in deciding agains
 Campbell, gave him the rawest dea
 ever given a man in the. history O.
 American politics.
 The record shows that the SUI
 preme court is in error when it foun,
 that the board of supervisors of Co
 conlno county re- e-convened withi, . the sixty day period and duly can } vassed the returns of Camp Ter
 which had not been received alon with the other ballots, but whic . the supreme court counted for Hunt , The supreme court, in it's decision construed the mark (X) as the wor
 "cross" as set forth in Section 294,
 Notice to Voters. They then locke up the word "cross' in the Centur : dictionary, and under the definitio } of the word "cross" found four othe , kind of Crosses" which they sub stituted for the mark (X) in order t count twenty eight ballots for Hun while shortly before this in their de ' c1sion they held that voter mus } substantially comply with the law. Blind to Distinguishing Marks The supreme court says, in regar r to distinguishing marks. in order t count majority of eight such vote l for Hunt: There is not particl of evidence that any of the ballo, : had the marks now appearing O
 them when they were found in th l ballot box" They might have sai l the same thing about the votin
 marks for candidates, but this woul : have precluded any recount at al The supreme court made no dec