Mohave County miner and our mineral wealth., 1918-10-05

of Maricopa county, and a Democrat.
 Following the decision of the trial court against them, attorneys fo, Hunt appealed to the supreme court.
 August 6, 1917, F. c. Struckmeyer one of the attorneys for Hunt, contes. tant, filed an abstract of record and brief in the supreme court. The ab. stract was incomplete, and Tom Camp. bells attorneys were compelled by the supreme court to file nearly four hun. dred pages of an abstract to even sup. plement and correct the record, caus. ing an extra expense for Governor Campbell. The answer and abstract were filed in the supreme court.
 Supreme Court Seats Hunt
 The case was argued in the supreme court on the 18th day of October, and lasted three days. The court rendered its decision two months later, on Dec. ember 22, 1917. Governor Campbell was absent from the capitol, but Hunts secretary, who had already re. turned to Phoenix and had made ar to lease a house, demand. ed possession of the office at once, anG Attorney General Wiley E. Jones or. dered Governor Campbell to vacate the office immediately, despite the us. ual fifteen days in which the loser ir the supreme court is granted, as ar opportunity to ask for a new hearing
 Governor Campbell surrendered pos session of the office to Hunt or Christmas morning, at 10 o'clock.
 On January 7th request for a re. was made by Governor Camp. bells attorney, Judge Sloan, who pointed out many errors in the su. preme courts decision. This request was denied without any explanation by the supreme court on Monday, Jan. uary IA, 1918.
 Hunt Declines Challenge
 The more notable errors in the case are now pointed out in Governo, Campbell's final appeal to the highest court in the state of Arizona, the will of the people, Governor Campbell hay. ing publicly challenged Hunt to put this question up to the people of the state in the coming election.
 Gross Fraud in Douglas Precinct
 One of the sensations of the'tr of the contest case was the exposure o1 the gross fraud practiced in the first precinct of Douglas, where forty-twc ballots were changed from Campbell to Hunt by the election officers of that precinct. The lower court which examined these ballots were convinced and any school boy could tell upon ex. animation of them that the cross op. posite Campbell's nams had been er- ased and another placed after Hunts name.
 The supreme court adopted the theory that detectives changed the ballots, when the matter of fact nc 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 o1 the officers who officiated were resi- dents of and electors of Douglas pre-. cinct," but the records 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. 2891. 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 observed any thing wrong being done, yet the un. impeached testimony of Deputy Sher- if Cross says that after hearing com. plaints of irregularities he inspected the ballots being counted and found small bits of rubber and paper still adhering to the ballots where they had been erased.
 Watcher Was Intimidated
 The court says that no party watch. CT made any complaint. The record is that Mir. c. w. Redlins was forced to leave the polling place under threats of the election board when he complained of the method of counting The court itself, in it's decision, des' cribes the marked ballots in Douglas No. 1 as being mutiliated. The law says that mutiliated ballots shall not be counted, but the supreme court counted over seventy mutiliated bal. lots in Douglas No. 1 for Hunt.
 The sworn inspection notes made by Hunts inspectors and submitted to the supreme court in the mandamus case