OCR Text |
Show A LESSONONTIIE LAW The Allon Ballot-Box Stuffing Case Beaches a Conclusion Before the Commissioner, AN ABLE OPINION RENDERED. In Which the Duties of the Elector to the franchise and Ballot Box is Fully Explained, The concluding chapter in the case of the People vs. W. .!. Allen, charged withsluHing the ballot box, was arrived ar-rived at yesterday before Commissioner (ireenman when the defendant took the wi'ness chair and told his story, on which the prosecution subsequently turned their batteries. They were unable un-able to break it even with a fusiladu of eloquence and technical ingenuity, however, and when the testimony was finally closed end the arguments submitted, sub-mitted, Commissioner lireennian adjourned ad-journed until 10 o'clock Ibis morning, when tho subjoined opinion, that is rich iu lessons on the duly of tho elector to the franchise and ballot box was read: "Wo have had iu thiscase the evidence of one hundred and fifty witnesses, most of whom testily simply that they voted for certain candidates for ollic.es while some five or six witnesses gave evidence of what they deemed to be irregularity in the manner of receiving and depositing ballots by the defendant at the election July 14 for school directors. direc-tors. A large majority of the witnesses when questioned admit led that their ballots were received and deposited all right; they saw nothing wrong while the few who noticed whnt they term something out of the usual order of business, admit that while they noticed those strange things, they did' not remonstrate or say anything about if. Much has been said about the evidence evi-dence of Mr. Thorn burg, who lestilies that he is a nativo born citizen of tho Cniled States; that he noticed peculiar motions anil actions on the part of the, defendant iu handling and depositing his ballot or so.ne other ballot, yet made no remonstrance or said anything nliiuil: it nnd the tact did not seem to dawn upon his mind until afterwards he got to thinking about it and came to the conclusion that something some-thing was wrong. "The same is true of all the w illiesses who testified that there were strange things over the poll at which the defendant de-fendant presided. Although they were citizens whose duty it is to sacredly guard the privacy of the ballot aud to expose, correct and immediately take alcpa to deter and prevent any violations viola-tions of law or fairness on the conduct of tho ballotingthcyelosedlheirinoutbs and allowed what they deemed wrongs and strange actions to bo perpetrated and did not liml fault or remonstrate. "A citicn who stands by and sees or notices anything savoring of fraud or irregularity, in tho conduct of our elections elec-tions and does not immediately call attention at-tention to tho fact is not deserving of thu .elective franchise, aud his after assertion iu relation to such facts should be viewed with suspicion. Although pointing toward to-ward discrepancy aud irregularity iu the conduct of the election at poll N;o, 2, Fourth precinct, at the July election, the evidence does not disclose the fact that the defendant did anything wrong, at least sullieionl to support the charge agaiusthim; and iu view of the fact that among all tho judges, challengers, checkers, and onlookers none deemed that anything was transpiring to warrant any remonstrance or interference, inter-ference, seems conclusive evidence that there wero no illegal or overt violations of law on the pari of defendant, and if there was any miscount, or if the tally sheet end of the number of votes cast did not agree, all tho judges at that poll were careless and should be corrected. But, unless il, can be shown that the samo was done or omitted with intent to defraud or subvert the will of the people, a criminal action will not lie, lint can bo determined by eiil action on the part of the contestant for office. After giving the fullest scope to the evidence evi-dence of the people and carefully noting all the fads, my impression is that, the evidence will not warrant holding to the grand jury, and tho defendant is discharged.'.' The (Incision was the occasion for no particular manifestation unless ou the part of Mr. Allen, the defendant who read iu it a vindication of his good name and character among those who know him most, intimately. Il appears in every chapter that he was iwtdo tho victim of a political romance auii that even the proseculiou had been doceived by certain witnesses who told in th star chamber what they declined de-clined to repeat under oath. Mr. Allen Is receiving congratulations not only from those whose political sympathy be commands, but from tho lawyers who prosecuted him. |