« AnteriorContinuar »
was used by the Republicans at that election ?-A. To the best of my ręcollection it is; yes, sir,
Q. I call your attention to the ticket marked Exhibit C to Mr. De Vay's testimony, and I will ask you if that was the ticket used by the Democrats at that election?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention also to the ticket marked Exhibit D to Mr. De Vay's testimony.-A. I did not see the National ticket at that election. I do not think I saw one of them. I did not get down town until late. I stay up all night and it was three o'clock or later when I got down there, and I did not stay around there very long then.
Q. Look at the heading on the front of the Republican ticket and state what is the character of that printing at the head of it. Is it an engraving, is it a lithograph, or is it a print with type, or what is it?-A. I suppose that might be a print. It might be set up in print, type, or lithograph. I am not familiar enough with type to tell you anything about it. Type I do not know anything about.
Q. State what the character of the material is upon which the Republican ticket is printed. —A. Well, if that had been handed to me when I was in the book business I would call that a kind of card-board. (Objected to as immaterial.) I have not been in it for ten years now.
Q. Did you ever know of such material to be used for tickets before at any election? (Objected to as immaterial and incompetent.)
A. I do not recollect. They have had so many tickets about here at these elections, and sometimes they are very thin and sometimes very thick.
Q. Could you distinguish that Republican ticket folded with the names inside from any other ticket printed on paper the same size and width, if the other paper was plain white book paper, plain white writing paper, or plain white print paper ?
(Objected to as incompetent, as a conclusion of law.) Q. Take it folded up between the fingers and look at it.-A. Why, certainly I could.
Q. Could you by looking at it ?-A. It would depend upon what sort of a look I had. My eyesight is not very strong. I believe I could, for it is so much bulkier and heavier, and this sindicating] is so thin.
Cross-examination by Mr. PEELLE: Q. Could you tell from the external appearance of the tickets when folded ?-A. Just lying in that way? (Indicating. ]
Q. Yes, sir.-A. Yes, sir; I believe I could.
Q. They are both plain white?-A. Yes, sir; but a man that has been in the business regards that as a very superior grade of material—I mean that Republican ticket. It looks like a finer job all the way along. It has got a heavier, finer look to it in every way. This paper here on which the Democratic ticket is printed is just simply common white paper.
Q. Now take the National ticket in your hand and see the difference between that and the Democratic ticket. See if there is not as much difference between the quality of the National and Democratic ticket in its finish and appearance, as much as in the weight.A. The finish is simply, perhaps, run through what they call a calender-I believe that is the term for it—but I would have some trouble in telling the difference between those.
Q. See if there is not a material difference in the finish of the two tickets.-A. It is a little bit whiter.
Q. Has not the Democratic ticket a much finer finish and more compact paper ?-A. No, sir; I do not believe it has. The National ticket looks like a good sort of paper. There is not much difference between those two tickets.
Q. There is some difference, is there not?-A. I can tell the difference almost between any two pieces of paper unless they are identically the same, because I handled them so long.
Q. Between any kind of paper?-A. Almost; I think I could. I do not want to stretch the assertion, but I think I could. You see that is a different sort of thing.
Q. What is your politics?-A. Democratic, sir.
Q. Had you any wager on the result of the last election ?-A. No, sir; I did not bet a cent. I never do.
Q. You did not go to the polls until 3 o'clock?-A. No, sir; I stay up all night, and it is generally late when I get down.
Q. What is your business?--A. I am managing editor of the Indianapolis Sentinel. Q. The leading Democratic paper in this city?-A. Yes, sir; we try to make it so.
Q. You say you have been out of the paper business so long you cannot tell the difference between qualities of paper?-A. I did not say that at all, because I was in twenty years, the best years of my life.
Q. Can you tell the kind of paper that Republican ticket is printed on ?-A. Trade
names fluctuate. I know what they are calling it now, for I have heard; but I would not know of my own knowledge. When I was in the business that was known as a kind of card-board.
Q. How long ago?-A. I left in 1873.
Q. Do you know what it is called now?-A. I heard it simply stated it was plate paper, or lithograph paper; I heard that. I do not know anything about that. I heard that is what they are calling it in the trade, but that is what we would call a bristolboard or card-board. We cut them up into visiting cards and business cards. I used to have a machine to do it, and they would come in great sheets 22 by 28 inches.
Q. You would not say of your own knowledge what kind of paper it was ?-A. I say that is what we would call it.
Q. I am speaking about it now?-A. No, sir; not of my own knowledge; that is, the technical name for it. I would not call that paper.
Q. What is it made out of?—A. Fine linen rags, I guess.
Q. And it is paper, is it not?-A. I do not think you would call it paper. I would call it a species of card-board.
Q. Is not that paper?-A. It is made out of the same material as paper, but you would not call it paper. • Q. What kind of paper is that the Democratic ticket is printed on ?-A. I would call that paper, but there are different kinds of paper.
Q. What kind of paper is that Democratic ticket printed on ?-A. Either news or book paper. Either light book paper or good quality of news paper.
Q. Why would you call that book paper and the other card-board ?-A. There are different styles of paper, but that gets beyond paper and gets into a species of board.
Q. That is all paper, I understand you to say?-A. It is made out of the same material, but they put more rags into it and more pulp, and put a finer finish on it and call it something else. They even make car-wheels out of that now.
Q. Car-wheels out of what?-A. Out of pulp, out or paper. You could not call that paper when it gets into a car-wheel.
Q. Your best judgment would be, then, that the Democratic ticket is printed on book paper ?-A. Book or newspaper, and the other is on card-board.
Q. I understand your position to be that the Democratic ticket is printed on book paper, and that the Republican ticket is printed on card-board paper, and it is not paper?-A. Yes, sir. If it was a car-wheel I would say it was upon a car-wheel, but not on paper. They make buckets out of it and all that sort of thing now.
The notice referred to was made a part of this deposition, and will be found attached hereto, marked Exhibit E.
CHARLES G. STEWART.
Exhibit E to deposition of Charles G. Stewart.-P. C. H., N. P. Contested election of Representative in Congress, seventh Congressional district of Indiana
NOTICE OF CONTEST. To Hon. Stanton J. Peelle :
You are hereby notified that I shall, and do hereby, contest your election to the office of Representative in the Congress of the United States for the seventh Congressional district, in the State of Indiana, as declared by the official canvass of the election therefor held on 7th day of November, 1882.
I contest your said election on the following grounds:
That the official returns legally made by the election boards of the several election precincts of said seventh Congressional district of Indiana show that the contestor, William E. English, received a greater number of legal votes at said election held November 7, 1882, for Representative in Congress for said Congressional district than did the said contestee, Stanton J. Peelle.
That the claim that said Stanton J. Peelle received a plurality of eighty-seven votes at the said election is not correct, for said William E. English in fact received a greater number of the legal votes cast at said election for Representative in Congress for said district than did the said Stanton J. Peelle.
That 12,551 ballots were received and counted for said Peelle at said election in the city of Indianapolis and county of Marion, in said seventh Congressional district, that were illegal and void because in violation of the following law of the State of Indiana, viz:
"All ballots which may be cast at any election hereafter holden in this State shall be written or printed on plain white paper of a uniform width of three (3) inches, without any distinguishing marks or other embellishments thereon except the names of the candidates and the offices for which they were voted for.” —(Section 4701 Revised Statutes of 1881.)
That said 12,551 ballots so counted for Peelle were not on "plain white paper," "without any distinguishing marks or embellishments,” but were, in fact, on the material known as lithographic, plate or cardboard, so thick, sized and supercalendered as to be easily distinguished both by sight and touch, and so constructed as to come unfolded in the ballot-box, thus facilitating the voting of double ballots and commonly called on these accounts, spring-back tickets, or cardboard tickets.
The said tickets had other “distinguishing marks or embellishments," and were designed for the purpose, and, in fact, did destroy the secrecy of the ballot, intended to be secured by the above recited law, and by the constitution of Indiana, and were, therefore, clearly illegal and void.
That the effect of destroying the secrecy of the ballot by the use of these cardboard spring-back tickets was greatly to the injury of this contestor, aside from the counting of such illegal ballots for said Peelle, as all of the Federal office-holders, all the county and city officials, the police force, and most of the officers of wealthy corporations in said city and county were and are Republicans and supporters of said Peelle, and hundreds of colored men, laborers, employés and others were prevented from voting for this contestor by reason that the secrecy of the ballot was destroyed by the use of these cardboard spring-back tickets that could be easily and certainly distinguished to be Republican tickets by either sight or touch.
That said cardboard spring-back tickets were intended to and did promote frauds in double voting, there being over 100 more ballots voted at said election than persons voting, most of said ballots being wrongfully counted for said Peelle.
That said cardboard spring-back tickets were further designed to and did prevent persons from voting for this contestor, who desired to do so, because said tickets were not printed on "plain white paper," as required by law, but on cardboard so sized and supercalendered, that the name of this contestor could not be securely placed over the name of said Peelle, by reason of which 100 votes were lost to this contestor.
That Republican inspectors of said election, supporters of said Peelle, refused to receive the votes of 200 qualified voters at said election who presented legal ballots, containing the name of this contestor for Representative in Congress from said district, by reason of which unlawful and unjust refusal, 200 votes were lost to this contestor.
That in all, or nearly all, the election precincts in said district the supporters and agents of said Stanton J. Peelle circulated spurious and fraudulent tickets, being in exact similitude of the Democratic ticket on which said William E. English's name appeared for Representative in Congress, except that said counterfeit tickets had the name of Stanton J. Peelle printed in the place of the name of this contestor, and in some instances the name of other Republican candidates for other offices were printed in place of the Democratic candidate, but in all cases such fraudulent tickets so circulated by the supporters and agents of said Peelle were headed “Democratic ticket," with the names of the Democratic candidates for State offices thereon, and in many cases with the names of all the Democratic candidates thereon except the name of said English, for which the name of said Peelle was substituted, by reason of which fraudulent devices and practices 300 electors voted at said election for said Peelle who in truth and in fact intended to vote for said English, and actually supposed they had so voted until said fraudulent and spurious tickets were discovered.
That in the city of Indianapolis, in said district, a number of persons, who were qualified electors in said city, who desired and intended to vote for this contestor in the precincts in which they were entitled to vote, were deterred and prevented from so doing by the threats, menaces and intimidation of Republican policemen, United States deputy marshals and others, working in the interests of said Stanton J. Peelle at said election, and that by reason of said wrongful and unlawful threats, menaces and intimidations used in behalf of said Peelle by his supporters at said election a large number of votes, to wit, 200 votes, were at said election, in said precincts, cast for said Peelle by the electors so threatened, menaced and intimidated, which votes would have been cast and counted for this contestor but for such threats and menaces; and 200 other legal voters were deterred from voting for this contestor by reason of said threats, menaces and intimidations, and did not, by reason thereof, vote at all.
That Republican officials or others, working in the interest of said Stanton J. Peelle, took from the Marion County jail and the station house of the city of Indianapolis 100 prisoners, and caused them to vote 100 ballots for said Stanton J. Peelle for Congress at said election, the said 100 persons so voting not being qualified voters, or voting for said Peelle because of the threats, intimidations and undne influences of said Republican officials or others.
That Republican officials or others working in the interest of said Stanton J. Peelle took titty-seven paupers out of the Marion County poorhouse, and by threats, intimidation and undue influence caused them to vote for the said Stanton J. Peelle for Congress at said election, which they would not have done but for the wrongful acts of said Republican officials or others.
That Republican officials or others working in the interest of said Stanton J. Peelle took thirty-five-persons out of the city hospital of said city of Indianapolis, and by threats, intimidations and undue influence caused them to vote for said Peelle for Congress at said election, which they would not have done but for the wrongful acts aforesaid.
That persons working in the interest of Stanton J. Peelle imported persons into said district who were not entitled to vote therein, but who voted at said election for said Peelle to the number of 200 ballots, which ballots were wrongfully counted for said Peelle, and 100 other persons voted for said Peelle in election precincts in said district in which they were not entitled to vote, and such votes were wrongfully counted for said Peelle.
That said election was wrongfully interfered with by Republican officials of the United States Government, who, under the pay of the General Government, came from Washington City and elsewhere in large numbers, to wit, the number of 100, to control and overawe the lawful electors of said district to elect the said Stanton J. Peelle; and to further that end a large fund was raised by assessments upon Federal office-holders by J. A. Hubbell's committee, and by other parties, and brought into said district by the said Stanton J. Peele, or his agents or supporters, and was, with other moneys, unlawfully and corruptly used to promote the election of the said Stanton J. Peele, whereby he received 500 more votes than he would have received but for such corrupt and wrongful interference.
That in several of the election precincts in said district, ballots that were for this contestor for Congress, or intended by the person voting to be for him, were wrongfully rejected and not counted for him because they contained the wrong middle initial letter of his name, and for other insufficient causes, and in several precincts the return made is not a true and correct return of the legal ballots voted at such precincts.
Wherefore, this contestor alleges that said Stanton J. Peelle was not, but that the said William E. English was, duly and lawfully elected Representative in Congress from said district at the election aforesaid. November 29, 1882.
WILLIAM E. ENGLISH,
District of Columbia: Before me, the undersigned, a notary public within and for said District, on this day personally came - to me well known, who being duly sworn, upon his oath says that on the day of December, 1882, at said District, he personally served the within notice on the within-named Stanton J. Peelle by delivering to him a true copy thereof.
Witness my hand and notarial seal this — day of December, 1882.
I accept service of the within notice of contest this 7th day of December, A. D. 1882. I have received a copy of the same, but waive no right by virtue of this acceptance.
STANTON J. PEELLE.
(In pencil:) Be sure and fill dates in the above and insert name of person serving the notice; and when completed, please mail this to
WM. E. ENGLISH,
THOMAS B. MESSICK, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination by Mr. Wilson, attorney for Mr. English: Question. State your name, age, and residence. --Answer. Thomas B. Messick; my age, at my nearest birthday, 42; my residence, 218 Blackford street, in this city.
Q. Were you in the city of Indianapolis on the 7th day of November, the day of the last Congressional election ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you attend that election that day?-A. Yes, sir; I did, sir.
Q. Did you act in any capacity that day at the polls?-A. No, sir; not officially. I held the poll-book; that is the book of the poll of the ward.
Q. You were challenger?-A. Yes, sir; I acted in that capacity part of the time.
Q. Did you see the Republican ticket voted at that precinct ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will call your attention now to the ticket headed “Republican Ticket,' and on the back indorsed Exhibit B to Mr. De Vay's testimony, and I will ask you if that was the ticket that was voted on that day by the Republicans ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I also call your attention to the ticket labeled at the head “Democratic Ticket" and indorsed on the back Exhibit C to Mr. DeVay's testimony, and I will ask you if it was the ticket used by the Democrats that day?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention to the ticket headed “National Ticket” and marked Exhibit D on the back, to Mr. De Vay's testimony, and I will ask you if you know whether or not that is the ticket voted and used by the Nationals at that precinct?-A. I do not recollect of having seen that ticket at all, in fact there was very few of them there.
Q. Could you at that precinct tell from the appearance when a Republican ticket was put in the box that it was a Republican ticket?-A. Yes, sir ; most generally I could. I stood right up close to the window.
Q. Could you tell that ticket from the Democratic ticket, watching them as they went into the box?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of material, if you know, is that Republican ticket printed on? (Objected to for the reason that the witness has not shown himself competent to tell.) Q. I ask you the question in the popular sense, not of you as an expert ? (Objected to as intmaterial and incompetent.) A. I should judge that the ticket is what has been generally termed card-board.
Q. Could you tell that ticket from any ticket of a similar size and width of fold if that other ticket were printed on plain white book paper, plain white print paper, or plain white writing paper-ordinary plain white paper of that character ?
(Objected to as immaterial and incompetent for the reason he has not said that he knew what plain white book paper or print paper was.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What effect did the use of that Republican ticket printed on that material have, if any, on the secrecy of the ballot at that precinct ?
(Objected to as immaterial and incompetent, and as a conclusion of law.)
A. I think it had some, from the fact that there was a number of colored people in that precinct over there that had signified their intention of voting the Democratic ticket, and when they came to the election that morning and saw the style of the paper and the kind and quality of the paper that the Republican ticket was printed on, they were almost afraid to risk it.
(Objected to for the reason that the testimony of the colored man is the best evidence.)
Q. Where were you standing in relation to the ballot-box at your precinct, and how far from it?-A. I suppose I was not more than three feet from it.
Q. Could you see the tickets as they were dropped in?-A. Yes, sir. Not all the time; but part of the time.
Q. When you could see them plainly could you tell what was the character of the tickets, as between the two parties ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many votes were cast at that precinct, if you know?-A. That I do not remember.
Q. Were all the Republican tickets voted there of that character?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Approximately, how many Republican votes were there?-A. I suppose 150.
Cross-examination by Mr. PEELLE:
Q. What is your politics ?-A. I am a Democrat.
Q. Was there any complaint made to the board that day as to the character of the Republican tickets?-A. No, sir. I think not.
Q. Do you know of any man who was misled or deceived in voting that day in consequence of the Republican ticket being on the kind of paper it was?-A. No, sir. I did not hear of any.
Q. Do you know of any man that would have voted differently if the Republican