1902] JOURNAL OF THE SENATE. 111 their votes at said election, and for this reason the election in said precinct is invalid and void, and the votes therein cast ought not to be canvassed and counted, for it is not the result of an election at which all the voters in said precinct were permitted to cast their votes. Fourth. That in the first precinct of the fourth ward of Julian township, Dubuque county, Iowa, there were two republican clerks, although there was no vacancy in said board of election, and one of said clerks was not appointed by the board of supervisors and there was no necessity for said extra clerk, and therefore this contestant believes that the vote of said precinct should be rejected. Fifth.-That the judges of election and board of canvassers in each o the precincts of Dubuque county, Iowa, counted a great number of votesf the exact number being unknown to this contestant, for the incumbent, Phineas W. Crawford, which were voted in said precincts at said election, marked with a cross in the circle at the head of the democratic ticket and with a cross placed in the square opposite the name of the incumbent, Phineas W. Crawford, which appeared in the line and under the appellation or title of "Republican," of the ballots prepared and used in said election. That the number of said ballots so erroneously counted for the incumbent in said several precincts of said Dubuque county were greater in number than the majority the incumbent had over the contestant for said office of senator as declared by the canvassing board, all of which errors the board of county canvassers ratified, accepted and acted upon in declaring the incumbent elected. Sixth. That the judges of election and board of canvassers of the several voting precincts of said Dubuque county, Iowa, committed errors in the counting and canvassing of the ballots, in that ballots were counted and returned as having been cast for the incumbent, Phineas W. Crawford, which were in fact voted for him, some of which had identification marks, and failed to count and return ballots as having been cast for this contestant, which were in fact voted and cast for him according to law, but the exact number so wrongfully counted and returned for the incumbent, and the failure to count and return for this contestant, he is unable to state, but he alleges that the errors so made in favor of the incumbent and against the contestant if counted would give him, the contestant, a greater number of votes than were cast for the incumbent. Seventh.-Contestant further alleges that the several errors and mistakes herein alleged, were each and all of them affirmed, accepted and acted upon by the board of county canvassers in declaring the incumbent elected, and if the same ballots be counted and said ballots correctly canvassed, this contestant will receive a greater number of votes for senator than was counted for the incumbent. Wherefore and by reason of the premises, the contestant asks the honorable senate to make a thorough and complete canvass of all the votes cast in each of the several precincts of said Dubuque county, Iowa, being said Thirty fifth senatorial district, and that it summon the auditor of Dubuque county, Iowa, with all returns, papers and ballots, showing the acts and transactions complained of herein, and that it summon and bring before it such witnesses and papers as shall be necessary to show the a Contestant. I, Thomas F. Nolan, on my oath depose and say that I am the cont ant in the above and foregoing statements and declaration of contest a that I have read the allegations and causes of contest set forth in the fo going, and said declarations and statements are true as I verily believe. THOS. F. NOLAN. Subscribed and sworn to before me by Thomas F. Nolan, this 9th day December, 1901. Comes now the incumbent, Phineas W. Crawford, and moves that contest of Thomas A. Nolan, contestant, be dismissed for the follow reasons: First.-Because the contestant did not serve upon the incumbent list of illegal votes as required by section 1233, of the code of 1897, law Iowa. Second.-Because the declaration and notice of the contestant in statement of facts as distinguished from the statements of conclusi does not make a showing which if taken as true wonld entitle the cont ant to the office claimed by him. Third.-Because in the declaration and notice of the contest, he d not raise an issue or. make a claim to the office that the senate investigate. Fourth.-Because on the whole record the contestant does not show 1 the contestant has any cause of contest. In the Senate of Iowa, session of 1902. THOMAS F. NOLAN, Contestant, vs. PHINEAS W. CRAWFORD, Incumbent. P. W. CRAWFORD, Answer of incumbent to notice declaration of contest. The incumbent denies that the judges of election and board of canvas at the election precincts of Dubuque county, Iowa, committed any err 1902] JOURNAL OF THE SENATE. 113 or were guilty of any misconduct; and further, incumbent objects to the allegation, that "if such judges and canvassers had properly performed their duty, they would have found that the contestant had received more votes than the incumbent," as being the statement of a conclusion and an allegation so general and indefinite as not to be entitled to receive the consideration of any tribunal. First. For answer to the first specification of the contestant, the incumbent denies, that in truth and in fact as shown by the ballots, tally sheets and records of said precinct, the contestant received eighty-eight votes in the voting precinct of Iowa township, Dubuque county, Iowa. Second. For answer to the second specification of the contestant, the incumbent denies that the contestant received 101 votes in the precinct known as Vernon township, Dubuque county, Iowa. Third. For answer to the third specification of the contestant, the incumbent denies that the judges of election and board of canvassers of the voting precinct known as Farley precinct, of Taylor township, Dubuque county, Iowa, rejected a ballot with a cross in the circle at the head of the democratic ticket, being a ballot that should have been counted for the contestant. Further, the incumbent denies that the said judges and board of canvassers of said last named precinct refused to allow John Keefe, John Jennings, Ed Jennings, John Huber or Uber, Frank Huber or Uber, Joseph Huber or Uber, Richard French and others to cast their votes at said election; and further, the incumbent states, that if the said judges of election and board of canvassers of Farley precinct, Taylor township, Dubuque county, Iowa, refused to permit any persons to vote at the general election held in November; 1901, in Dubnque county, Iowa, such refusal was because the said persons were not entitled to vote at said election. Fourth.-For answer to the fourth specification of the contestant, the incumbent states that he denies the allegation that there were two republican clerks in the first precinct of the fourth ward of Julien township, Dubuque county, Iowa, and further, incumbent denies each and every allegation in the fourth specification of the declaration of the contestant. Fifth.-For answer to the fifth specification of the contestant, the incumbent first objects to the allegations in the said fifth specification as being too general and indefinite; that the said contestant should state the precincts in which the said ballots marked with a cross in the circle at the head of the democratic ticket and with a cross placed in the square opposite the name of the incumbent were cast. The incumbent further denies that the judges of election and board of canvassers counted any votes for the incumbent that were marked with a cross in the circle at the head of the democratic ticket and with a cross placed in the square opposite the name of the incumbent. Further, the incumbent denies each and every allegation in the fifth specification of the declaration of the contestant; and further, the incumbent objects to the consideration of the fifth specification of the declaration because the same is general and indefinite and merely states conclusions. Sixth. For answer to the sixth specification of the declaration, incumbent objects to the said specification as indefinite and general stating merely conclusions; and further, the incumbent objects to the c sideration of the said sixth count for the reason that the allegations ther are uncertain, general and indefinite; and further, incumbent denies t the judges of election and canvassers of the several voting precincts Dubuque county, Iowa, committed errors in the counting and canvassing the ballots, or that the said judges and canvassers counted and retur ballots as having been cast for the incumbent, Phineas W. Crawford, t were not in fact voted for him. Further, incumbent denies that the judges and canvassers failed to count and return ballots that had been for the contestant; and further, the incumbent denies each and every all tion in the sixth specification of the declaration, and further alleges, 1 matters alleged in the sixth specification are unsufficient to entitle then the consideration of the senate. Seventh.-For answer to the seventh paragraph of the declaration of contestant, the incumbent denies the board of county canvassers accep and acted upon any errors in declaring the incumbent elected. Furt incumbent denies that a correct count of the ballots cast would have gi the contestant a greater number of votes than the incumbent, and fur denies each and every allegation in the seventh specification of the decl tion of the contestant. Eighth.-The incumbent expressly denies that there was any fraudu conduct on the part of the judges of election and board of canvasser Farley precinct, Taylor township, Dubuque county, Iowa; and fur denies that any legal voters were prevented from voting at the said Fa precinct at the general election in Dubuque county, Iowa, in Novem 1901. Tenth. The incumbent states that at the general election held Prairie Creek township, Dubuque county, Iowa, in November, 1901 judges of election and board of canvassers closed the polls at the hou 6 o'clock, P. M., and that the contestant received 112 majority over incumbent, as shown by the returns of the said Prairie Creek township. Eleventh.-The incumbent states that the contestant does] not a and show that the ballots cast at Dubuque county, Iowa, at the ger election in November, 1901, have been so kept since the said ballots canvassed by the board of supervisors of Dubuque county, Iowa, warrant the same being recounted by the senate of Iowa. Twelfth.-The incumbent asks the senate not to consider the t fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh specifications of the declaration of con because the matters alleged in such third, fourth, fifth, sixth and sev specifications are vague, uncertain and indefinite, and not suffici certain and specific to entitle an investigation of such specifications b senate. Wherefore the incumbent asks, that the senate do not make a thor and complete canvass of all the votes cast at each of the several pred of said Dubuque county, Iowa, being the Thirty-fifth senatorial district that the prayer of the contestant be wholly denied, and that the declaration of contest of the contestant be dismissed. I, Phineas W. Crawford, being first duly sworn, do depose and say, that I am the incumbent above named; that I have read the foregoing answer of the declaration of contest of the contestant, Thomas F. Nolan; that I am acquainted with the matters and facts in the said answer stated, and that the matters and facts in the said answer stated are true as I verily believe. PHINEAS W. CRAWFORD. Signed in my presence and sworn to before me by the said Phineas W. Crawford, this 22d day of nuary, A. D. 1902, as witness my hand and notarial seal the day and year last above written. Comes now Thomas F. Nolan, contestant, and in reply to new matter in answer to incumbent, and states: First. That as to the closing of the polls in Prairie Creek township, Dubuque county, Iowa, he has neither knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and therefore denies the same, and there is no allegation that incumbent was prejudiced by same even if his allegation were true. Second. The contestant further states that it was not necessary for him to make allegation with regard to the preservation of the ballots, as the law requires that same should be kept for certain specified time. Wherefore, contestant prays as in his original statement. STATE OF IOWA, Polk County. SS. THOS. F. NOLAN, I, Thomas F. Nolan, being first duly sworn, say that I am the contestant above named; that I have read the foregoing reply, and that the matters stated therein are true as I verily believe. THOS. F. NOLAN. Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said Thomas F. Nolan this 24th day of January, 1902. H. M. JONES, Deputy Clerk Supreme Court, Iowa】 Senator Hopkins made the following motion: |