The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-12-07

Ii is further charged that in <he third voting district of Water hury. Congressman Goss' agent en- tered voting booths contrary to election laws and without requests from voters and that in such ln- anfances entrance of the agent oi Congressman Goss was not request ed fo do so. The complaint re- ferred to the moderator in the fhfrd district, who was Thomas Sunnma.
 It is further alleged that Tn the third district the said mooeraIor entered the voting booth, asked tme electors if they wished to sph, their votes, touched levers anu manipulated levers in sucn way as to have votes cast for congress- man Goss contrary to the wisnes third district there were many votes cast by persons not legai'y entitled to vote.
 Jndce Gormley also charged that ir other districts of the cily aeents of Congressman Goss mo, Sastnd intimidated and inter1ereo ,.y,th voters about to enter votlns ,,iaces urging them to spit II, saycr of the 2. o. p. congressiohu,, ,, nand;date It is further ailegeo - Imdge Gormley that he mas Sss,rite information that in a cer, tai,, town in the fifth congressionai Sistrfct a certain cash consiueia, ttn., was proffered a leader or a certain group of democratic Vo.r ara as an inducement to vote iol Congressman Goss.
 The papers served in washing ion to-day read as follows:
 NOTICE OF CONTEST
 Naugatuck. Conn,
 December 6, A. D. 193z To the Hon, Edw. W. Goss
 House of Representatives
 Washington. D. c.
 My dear Sir:
 you are hereby notified that l will contest your rignt to q sec as. in the Seventy-third congress, as Representative in the CohsrHsa te of the United States rom 'n fifth congressional o1striJ. % ta Connecticut, and that c,ai ono ~ have been legally eleceea to nIo +;nn held on the 8th day of No- vember, A. D. 1852. nerepy ds specify particularly tne srou,,id anid upon which 1 rely in the saiu contest: .,+-
 i. Your undersigned contest ant ayers that he received a ma ioritv of all the lawful votes cast For inc office of congressman Tn +ba fifth congressional district of the state of Connecticut, at the general election held on No- yember Sth, A. D. 1882.
 2 That in several of tue election districts in the afore- said congressional district. your contestant, Martin E. Gormiey wac deprived of and lost the ,irhtful count of many votes by reason of the election officers faiIing to count certain ballots 10 which he, your said contestant was rightfulIy and lawfully en- titled. and l refer specifically to inc vote as cast in the Town or winchester. (Winsted.)
 2. That in several of tho cleo lion districts in the aforesaid congressional district, to wit; Washington, Salisbury and Bea- con Falls, there were many bal Iota credited to the total num- her of ballots cast for you in the aforesaid towns which aforesaid ballots were illegal and should have been rejected in their en- tirety.
 4. That in the Town of North Canaan there were several votes east. to the best of the know ledge and belief of your contest ant. for the straight republican ticket, which votes were illegal in their entirety because of the failure of the voters In question to have compiled with the elec- ton laws of the State of Connec- ticut in regard to the period of time for which residence in said town Is necessary before the voters in question are legally en- titled to vote.
 5. That in the Town of New Milford. one elector admits haV- ing voted twice, claiming, to the best of the knowledge and belief of your contestant, that he did SO in error, and further admits that the second vote cast by him was on behalf of the straight re- publican ticket.
 6. That in certain election districts located in the City of Waterbury, your contestant. Martin Gorm1ey was, through frauds, irregularities, corruption and deceit, deprived of and lost a considerable number of votes far in excess of the number of votes necessary to bring about his election were the said votes of which he was deprived added to the whole number of votes received by your contestant