testant, in any of said townships or precincts, which were rejected and not counted for him; and denies that there were cast in said precincts legal votes sufficient to elect said contestant; and denies that errors were committed by said election boards, or any of them, sufficient to change the result of said election, or sufficient to elect the contestant if corrected. The incumbent further answering denies that there was misconduct and errors committed on the part of the judges of the election in each or any of the several townships and precincts in Wright county, Iowa, by their failing, neglecting or refusing to correct and return all legal votes cast for contestant for said office and denies that by reason of such alleged misconduct and errors the contestant was deprived of any legal votes cast for him, or that the result of said election was changed in consequence thereof. The incumbent further answering, denies that the board of canvassers in each or any of the townships and precincts of Hancock county, Iowa, committed errors in counting the votes cast at said election, and in declaring the result of said election, which in any manner deprived the contestant of any votes legally cast for him, or that such alleged errors affected the result of said election in any manner adverse to the interests of the contestant. The incumbent further answering, denies that the judges of election and the several boards of canvassers in each of the said townships and precincts of Hancock county, or that anyone committed errors in canvassing and counting the votes cast at said election, or in declaring the result of said election adversely to the contestant; and denies that legal votes were cast at said election for said contestant in any of the said townships or precircts, which were rejected and not counted for him; and denies that there were cast in said precincts lagal votes sufficient to elect said contestant; and denies that errors were committed by said election boards, or any of them, sufficient to change the result of said election, or sufficient to elect the contestant if corrected. The incumbent further answering, denies that there was misconduct and errors committed on the part of the judges of election in each or any of the several townships and precincts in Hancock county, Iowa, by their failing, neglecting or refusing to count and return all legal votes cast for contestant for said office; and denies that by reason of such alleged misconduct and errors the contestant was deprived of any legal vote for him, or that the result of said election was changed in consequence thereof. DIVISION II. The incumbent for other and further defense states: That at the general election held in the counties of Hancock and Wright, in the state of Iowa, on the 2d day of November, A. D. 1897, there was to be elected a member of the general assembly of the state of Iowa, to-wit: a representative in and for the seventy-fifth representative district of the state of Iowa, and which district is composed of said counties of Hancock and Wright. That this incumbent was a candidate for said office at said election; that he is legally qualified to hold said office; that he was regularly nominated and his name legally placed on the official ballots for said election as a candidate for said office; that a large number of votes were cast for him at said election; that he received more votes than any other person at said election for said office, and that he was duly and legally declared elected to said office by the proper board of canvassers, and certificate of election has been issued to him. That as incumbent has been credibly informed and believes Milton Remley, attorney-general of the state of Iowa, at the request of one E. L. Tiede, of Wright county, Iowa, wrote, dictated and delivered to the said E. L. Tiede a letter purporting to expound the law of the state of Iowa relative to the proper and legal manner of counting votes cast for the office of representative in said seventy-fifth representative district, a copy of which letter is hereto attached, marked exhibit "A," and by such reference made a part hereof. That as incumbent is credibly informed the said E. L. Tiede was county chairman of one of the political parties in said Wright county and took an active interest in said election, and exhibited said letter and caused the same to be exhibited to numerous persons, electors and judges of election throughout said county of Wright. That acting on the construction of the law, as construed in said letter, and the advice of the said attorney-general, as expressed therein, the incumbent is creditably informed and believes that the judges of election and the several boards of canvassers in each of the several townships and precincts in said Wright county, Iowa, committed errors in counting a large number of votes as being legally cast for the said contestant, and the counting of such votes for him by said canvassing board, and each of them, was erroneous. That the erroneous counting of said illegal votes affected the result of said election in regard to said office, in that it deprived this incumbent of the majority he in fact had at said election, and that but for the counting of said illegal votes for the contestant this incumbent's majority would be larger than at present appears from the returns of the several canvassing boards. That the judges of election and the several canvassing boards in each of the several townships and precincts in Wright county, Iowa, committed errors in canvassing and counting the votes cast at said election in each of the several townships and precincts, and in declaring the results and making returns, in that a large number of votes cast in the said several townships and precincts for the incumbent, John Christie, Jr., for said office, were rejected, and not counted for him, which votes if they had been counted, would have greatly increased the incumbent's majority. That the judges of election and the several canvassing boards in each of the several townships and precincts of Hancock county, Iowa, committed errors in canvassing and counting the votes cast at said election in each of the several townships and precincts and in declaring the results and making returns thereof, in that they counted a large number of votes as legally cast for the said F. C. Hartshorn, contestant, when in fact said votes were not legally cast for the said contestant, and the counting of such votes for them by said canvassing boards and each of them was erroneous. That the erroneous counting of said illegal votes effected the result of said election in regard to said office, in that it deprived this incumbent of the majority he in fact had at said election, and that but for the counting of said illegal votes for the contestants this incumbent's majority would be much larger than at present appears from the returns of the several canvassing boards. That the judges of election and the several canvassing boards, in each of the several townships and precincts in Hancock county, Iowa, committed errors in canvassing and counting the votes cast at said election in each of the several townships and precincts and in declaring the result and making returns, in that a large number of votes cast in the said several townships and precincts for the incumbent, John Christie, Jr., for said office were rejected and not counted for him, which votes if they had been counted, would have affected the result in that it would have greatly increased the incumbent's majority. Signed: JOHN CHRISTIE, JR, Incumbent. A. C. RIPLEY AND DANIEL Kelly, STATE OF Iowa, ss. HANCOCK COUNTY, I, John Christie, Jr., being first duly sworn, on oath say that I am the incumbent, named as such, in the foregoing answer, and statement of defense to contest; that I have read the same, and that the statements therein contained are true, as I verily believe. (Signed.) JOHN CHRISTIE, JR. Subscribed and sworn to before me, and in my presence, by [SEAL] the said John Christie, Jr., this 1st day of January, 1898. ISAAC SWEIGOOD, Notary Public in and for Hancock County, Iowa. E. L. Tiede, Esq., Belmond, Ia. (EXHIBIT "A.”) DES MOINES, Ia., Oct. 21, 1897. DEAR SIR-Your favor of the 20th inst. at hand and while it is not in the line of my duty to give opinions to any but certain state officers, in view of the fact that the matter inquired about is of general interest, and the law is new, I will state wholly unofficially what appears to me to be the true rule to be adopted. Section 1120 provides among other things, "The making of a cross in a square of another ticket than the one marked in the circle shall not affect the validity of the ballot except as to the office for which the person opposite whose name such cross was made is a candidate, and as to that office, the vote shall not be counted." To place a strict construction on this the ballot marked as you designate in the form enclosed, viz., putting a cross in the circle of the republican ticket, and a cross in the square opposite Hartshorn's name in the independent republican ticket would preclude counting the ballot for Hartshorn, notwithstanding there is not a person named as candidate for representative on republican ticket. I think it is far safer to impress upon the voters the necessity of not marking the circle at all, but to mark in the squares opposite each candidate voted for. It is true, there being no candidate for representative on the republican ticket, the voter expressed his intention to vote for Hartshorn for representative, and he does not thus vote for two candidates for representative, and the reason for the provision above quoted wholly fails. I think a liberal construction would be placed upon it and the vote counted for Hartshorn; if I were a judge of the election I would so count it. But such is the language of the law, and it is uncertain how a court might construe it. The safer way is to mark in the square opposite each candidate. This section is in accord with the decision of the supreme court under the old law. The reason for the decision was that a man voted for two persons for the same office and it could not be determined for which one he intended to vote. I said that the reason for the rule fails where there is a blank left on the republican ticket for representative. Hence, in my judgment, the ballot should be counted for Hartshorn for representative, but the safer way is to mark as above stated. This is not an official opinion. I return you the ballot. Yours truly, MILTON REMLEY. The following committee clerks were duly sworn in January 11, 1898: Committee on Insurance-Reua M. Root. Committee on Retrenchment and Reform-E. R. Hutchins. Committee on Horticulture-Amy Turner. Committee on Elections-Clara Keller. Committee on Banks and Banking—H. E. Flemming. Committee on Ways and Means-Lillie Fox. Committee on Suppression of Intemperance-A. W. Van Houten. On motion of Mr. Klemme the House adjourned until 10 o'clock A. M. tomorrow. HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DES MOINES, Iowa, January 12, 1898. House met at 10 o'clock A. M., pursuant to adjournment, and was called to order by Speaker Funk. Prayer was offered by Rev. E. G. Beyer of Hazleton, Iowa. SENATE MESSAGES. The concurrent resolution relating to stationery was taken up. Mr. Edwards moved its adoption. Carried. The Speaker appointed the following committee on mail carrier: Messrs. Lavender, Prentis and Bailey. Mr. Eaton offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolved, That a committee of five members of the House be appointed by the Speaker, to consider all matters relating to the contest filed on the part of and in behalf of F. C. Hartshorn, contestant. Said committee shall inquire into the merits of said contest and shall report findings of law and facts. The committee shall have full power to send for necessary persons and papers, examine witnesses and do all things necessary in the premises. Adopted. The chair appointed the following committee: Messrs. Eaton, Edwards, Brighton, Power of Lee, and Penick. Mr. Smith of Greene presented a petition relating to claims that soldiers' orphans were county paupers. Referred to committee on Soldiers' and Orphans' Home. Mr. Potter of Pottawattamie, offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolved, That all bills, amendatory to the code, shall refer to the page of same on which law sought to be amended or repealed appears. Withdrawn. The following report from the joint committee relating to additional help other than clerks, was read: |