Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

“Forty-eight votes cast in said Taylor Township for James Wilson for Representative from the fifth Congressional district of Iowa, and that eight votes were cast at said clection for B. T. Frederick, and two votes were cast for David Stubbs, candidate for said office.

“We further certify that because the said return showed they were not signed by all the judges of the election in Taylor Township, we rejected the vote of said township. And if the same should be counted under the facts shown, the vote above named should be added to the number of votes of each candidate named. The auditor is hereby directed to certify to the State canvassing board the return fromTaylor Township as they appear on file in his office.

“Done at Marshalltown, this 14th day of November, 1882."

Moved by Supervisor Archard that the foregoing certificate be adopted and spread upon the minutes. Motion seconded by Supervisor Gilchrist.

On call of the roll Supervisors Turner and Archerd voted “ay," and Supervisor
Gilchrist voted “nay.”

So the motion prevailed.

STATE OF Iowa,

Marshall County, 88 : I, A. N. French, county auditor in and for Marshall County, Iowa, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the board of supervisors of said county, made November 13th and 14th, 1882, relating to the canvass of election returns.

Marsballtown, Iowa, January 4th, 1883. [L. s. ]

A. N. FRENCH,

County Auditor.

STATE OF Iowa,

Marshall Co., 88 : I, George W. McMillan, on oath, say that on the 5th day of January, A. D. 1883, I served the within notice on James Wilson, in Perry Township, Tama County, Iowa, by giving to Esther Wilson, wife of James Wilson, to her a true copy of the said notice, reading thereof being waived, she, the said Esther Wilson, being a member of the family of said James Wilson, and his wife, and over the age of fourteen years. I further say the said James Wilson not found by me after diligent search made in the State of Iowa by me.

G. W. MCMILLAN.

Sworn to and subscribed before me and in my presence by George W. McMillan this
29th day of January, A. D. 1883.
[L. 8. ]

J. L. CARNEY,

Notary Publio.

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa. Received my fee, being the sum of twenty dollars, from B. T. Frederick.

G. W. MCMILLAN.

STATE OF IOWA,

Tama County, 88: I hereby certify and return that I received the within notice of contest for service on the 6th day of January, A. D. 1883, and on the same day I served the same personally on the within-named James Wilson, in Perry Township, Tama County, Iowa, by delivering to him personally a copy thereof, he having waived the reading of the same.

J. C. FITZGERALD,

Sheriff of said Tama County.

By J. H. ROSS, Deputy. Fees, $7. Received my fees of B. T. Frederick.

The above and foregoing return was by the said J. H. Ross subscribed to in my presence and sworn to by him before me this 8th day of January, A. D. 1883. [L. s.]

š. c. LELAND, Clerk District Court in and for Tama County, Iowa.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Fifth Congressional district, Iowa.
To Benjamin T. Frederick, contestant, or Brown & Carney, your solicitors :

You will please take notice tbat you are served with a copy of my answer to your notice of contest, as follows:

Answer of contestee.

Before the honorable House of Representatives, United States of America.

BexJ. T. FREDERICK, CONTESTANT,

ter8u8. JAMES WILSON, CONTESTEE.

In the matter of the contest in the fifth Congressional district of the State of Iowa. To BENJAMIN T. FREDERICK, Esq.:

The contestee resists the claim of contestant to the seat claimed for reasons herein set forth:

He admits the counties of Marshall, Tama, Benton, Linn, Johnson, and Iowa compose the fifth Congressional district of Iowa.

Admits the election held therein for Representative in Congress. Admits that contestant and contestee were candidates therefor. Admits that the board of State canvassers awarded to this contestee the certificate of election.

The 18t specification.

MARSHALL CO., TAYLOR TOWNSHIP.

He denies that the board of State canvassers wrongfully counted the votes from Marshall County, and denies that they counted for this contestee forty-eight votes more than the abstract of votes showed he was entitled to or bad received.

He avers that at such election, in the preciuct of Taylor Township, in Marshall County, the returns showed

This contestee received 48 votes:
The contestant received 8 votes;
David Platner received 2 votes.

That the election returns of that precinct were in due form certified by two of the three judges of election, and the name of the third judge had the words “per clerk” following it; but the names of all the judges were signed to the return, and nothing appeared from the returns showing that they were not signed by authority of the judges.

When the board of supervisors for said county canvassed the returns of that county they counted the votes of Taylor Township as above set forth, and found that,

This contestee received 48 votes;
The contestant received 8 votes;
David Platner received 2 votes ;

Yet, because the name of one of the judges of the election was followed by the words "per clerk" they did not add the votes of that township to the abstract sent to the secretary of state on tbat day, but on the following day, Nov. 14th, 1882, while the board was still in session, they, at this contestee's reqnest (he not being present nor represented by counsel on the previous day), certified to the State canvassmg board the additional votes from Taylor Township which they had counted as aforesaid.

This contestee avers that the certificate made by the board of supervisors November 14th, 1882, certifying the votes which had been counted from Taylor Township was voted for by two of the three members of the board, and was voted against by one of the three. the "one" being a personal friend of contestant, and knowing then that if the votes of Taylor Township were not certified it would change the result of the election, and give the certificate to the contestant, endeavored to disfranchise the 56 voters from that township for that purpose ; and there was no pretense that the votes from that township had not been cast, as the returns then fully showed.

As to the manner of the returns being signed by the judges of election, and as to the certificate by the board of supervisors to the board of State canvassers, this contesteo alleges that section 45, paragraph 4, of the Code of Iowa, under which such officers were acting, provides as follows:

“Words giving a joint authority to three or more public officers, or other persons, shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of them unless it be other. wise expressed in the act giving the authority."

And the returns from that township and the certificate of the counting of the same by the board of supervisors were valid.

By the Code of Iowa, section 635, “the board of supervisors” are required "to open and canvass the returns, and make abstracts, stating in words written at length the number of ballots cast in the county for each officer,” &c. And this contestee avers that the said board did make the abstracts at the proper term as to Taylor Township as well as to the whole county ; and he further avers that the certificate of the num. ber of votes cast in Taylor Township was true, and was voluntarily made by the board, and, being such as could have been compelled by a writ of mandamus, the doing the act voluntarily was lawful and proper.

This contestee denies that by the proper abstract of the votes from Marshall County before the board of State canvassers this contestee had 1,800 votes, but he avers that he had 1,848 votes; and he denies that by the proper abstract of the votes from Marshall County before the board of State canvassers the contestant had 1,776 votes, but he avers that he had 1,784 votes; and he denies that by the proper abstracts of the votes from all the counties in the district this contestee had 11,743 votes, but he had 11,791 votes ; and he denies that by the proper abstracts from all the counties in the district the contestant had 11,760 votes, but he had 11,768 votes.

And this contestee avers that by the returns of the several boards of supervisors to the State canvassing board, duly and properly made, he had a majority of 23 votes for Representative in Congress from said district, and there was no claim nor pretense made by the contestant, either before the board of supervisors of Marshall County or before the board of State canvassers, that such was not the fact; and he avers that at such election in Taylor Township there were cast for him as a candidate for Representative in Congress 48 votes which were and should still be counted for him.

The 2nd specification.

TAYLOR TOWNSHIP.

(Answer.) This contestee denies that at said election there were cast in Taylor Township, Marshall County, nine votes for the contestant, as claimed in specification 2.

This contestee denies that the judges of election, or either of them, at such election in Taylor Township, Marshall County, took the ballots from the ballot-box improperly, and denies that any changes were made in the ballots after they were cast by the judges of election or by any one, and denies that any illegal votes were cast at such election for this contestee, as stated in said specification.

The 3rd specification.

LIBERTY.

(Answer.) This contestee denies that in Liberty Township, Marshall County, Iowa, the judges of election changed the place of election, without proper notice, to another place;

Denies that any electors were prevented from voting for the contestant because of a want of notice, or for any other reason ;

Denies that any persons disqualified from voting in such precinct cast their votes for this contestee;.

Denies that the judges received the votes from any electors without entering their names on the poll-books;

Denies that the judges of election were not sworn when the votes were received ;

Denies that the judges of election opened the ballot-boxes before the time for closing the polls had arrived;

Denies that any names were entered upon the poll-books of persons not voting; Denies that the poll-books and ballots do not show the names of all persons voting;

Denies that the contestant received five or any rumber of votes more than the returns of election showed;

Denies that he, this contestee, received twenty-three or any other number of votes fewer than were counted and returned for him; and

Denies that he received any votes from any disqualified person, as alleged in said specification. (No copy was received of any 4th specification.)

The 5th specification.

GREENCASTLE.

(Auswer.) The contestee denies that at said election in the towuship of Greencastle, in Marshall County, Iowa, any persons were induced to vote for him by representation that certain tickets contained the name of contestant, when, in fact, the name of contestee was upon said tickets as a candidate for Representative in Congress;

Denies that he received any votes at said election in said precinct from persons intending to vote for contestant by the false representations of any one;

Denies that any votes were cast for contestant which were not counted for him and returned ;

Denies that he received ten or any illegal vote or votes from persons not qualified electors; and

Denies that any votes were counted for him which were not, in fact, cast as alleged in said specitication.

The 6th specification.

MARSHALLTOWN.

(Answer.) The contestee denies that in the precinct known as the 1st ward of the city of Marshalltown any qualified clector was refused permission to vote for contestant at said election;

Denies that at said election any persons in said precinct who were not qualified electors voted for this contestee; and

Denies that any persons who were not qualified electors voted for contestee in the precincts known as the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wards of said city at said election (or in either of them), as alleged in said specification.

The 7th specification.

EDEN, STATE CENTER, ETC.

(Answer.) The contestee denies that at said election in the county of Marshall, and in the precincts known as the townships of Eden, State Center, Marietta, Minerva, Le Grand, Liscomb, Iowa, and Linn, or in either of them, any persons not qualified electors roted for him;

Denies that in said townships and precincts, or in either of them, there were counted for him more or other votes than he received at said election ;

Denies that in said townships or precincts, or in either of them, there were counted for the contestant fewer votes than were polled at said election for him, as alleged in said specification.

The 8th specification.
JOHNSON COUNTY, CEDAR TOWNSHIP.

(Answer.) Contestee denies that the contestant at said election in Cedar Township, Johnson County, Iowa, in said district, received ten, or any, more votes than were counted for him; and

Denies that at said election in that precinct any persons voted for this contestee who were not qualified electors, as alleged in said specitication,

The 9th specification.
JOHNSON COUNTY, BIG GROVE TOWNSHIP.

(Answer.) Contestee denies that at said election in Big Grove Township, in said county of Johnson, there were any votes polled for contestant which were not counted and eertified;

Denies that any more votes were counted for contestee than were cast for him or he was entitled to receive; and

Denies that any persons voted for him who were not qualified electors, as alleged in said specification.

The 10th specification.

JOHNSON COUNTY, WEST LUCAS TOWNSHIP,

(Answer.) Contestee denies that at said election in West Lucas Township, in Johnson County, he was credited with or had counted for him any votes that were not cast for him ;

Denies that contestant had counted for him fewer votes than were cast for him; and

Denies that any persons not qualified electors voted for him, this contestee, as alleged in said specitication.

The 11th specification.
JOHNSON COUNTY, JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP, ETC.

(Answer.) Contestee denies that at said election in said county of Johnson, in the townships of Jefferson, Monroe, Hardin, Madison, Penn, Clear Creek, Newport, Graham, Scott, Union, Washington, Sharon, Liberty, Pleasant Valley, Freemont, Lincolu, East Lucas, North Iowa City, South Iowa City, and Big Grove, or in either of them, or in any other precinct in said county, there were counted by the canvassers for contestee more votes than he actually received ;

Denies that, in either of said townships, there were counted fewer votes for the contestant than he actually received; and

Denies that in either of said townships any persons not qualified electors voted for him, the contestee, as alleged in said specification.

The 12th specification.
BENTON COUNTY, VINTON TOWNSHIP.

(Answer.) For answer to specification twelve your contestee says that he denies that at the November election, in the year 1882, in the precinct of Vinton, in the town of Vinton, in the county of Benton, in the district aforesaid, at said election aforesaid, ten or any disqualified persons, not voters or electors in said precinet where they voted, were permitted to vote illegally for James Wilson, your contestee, for the ottice of Representative in Congress from the 5th Congressional district of Iowa, and that said votes were counted ;

Further denies that in conting the ballots cast the judges of the election permitted persons not officers, clerks, or judges of said election to count the votes;

Denies that spurious ballots were put in the box for said Wilson at said precinct;

Denies that more votes were counted for Wilson than he actually received for said office;

Denies that persons not clerks of said election were permitted to count or handle the ballots while the votes were being counted out, or to keep the tally-lists or pollbooks;

Denies that ten, or any, votes were counted for James Wilson, your contestee, more than he actually received ;

Denies that ten, or any fewer, votes were counted for B. T. Frederick, contestant, than he actually received for the office of Representative in Congress from the 5th Congressional district of lowa in said precinct;

Denies that in the county of Benton aforesaid, and in the said township of Homer, in said county, in the district aforesaid, at the election aforesaid, six, or any persons who were unauthorized to vote, and not electors in said presinct, voted illegally at said election, and their votes were received and counted for James Wilson, your contestee, for the office of Representative in Congress ;

Denies that in the township of Jackson, county of Benton, at the election aforesaid, for the office aforesaid, seven or any persons voted (not authorized to vote, nor elect ors) for James Wilson, contestee, for the office of Representative in Congress, and that said votes were counted and returned for him ;

Denies that fewer votes were counted for contestant, B. T. Frederick, in said precinct at said election for said office than were in fact cast and voted for him;

Denies that at said election aforesaid in the State, Congressional district, and county aforesaid, at the township of Canton, an election precinct in said county, eight, or any, persons not legal electors and voters voted for James Wilson, contestee, for the office of Representative in Congress, or that said votes were counted and returned for him illegally.

Denies that contestant, B. T. Frederick, had fewer votes counted and returned for him than were actually cast for him for the office of Representative iu Congress from the 5th Congressional district of lowa.

« PreviousContinue »