LITMIR.BIZ

      It rained on election day. Had it not rained, the anti-divisionists would have probably polled more votes. The rain impeded the automobiles as the swifter means of bringing men in from the oil fields to vote. Coalinga was the center of the day's conflict — a veritable "bloody angle" for there the Hanfordites were in strength and marshaled their forces, contested every inch of the ground with shifty tactics and methods to put to blush the boldest of metropolitan ward bosses. As Senator Cartwright stated after the thing was over, not dreaming of what was to come thereafter: "Every inch of the ground was contested, but Fresno did not lose any tricks, even though the cards did seem to be stacked at one stage of the game."

      The first bomb cast into the camp of the anti-divisionists was a ruling early in the day by the election board that whoever had registered, even up to and including the day of election, could vote. This ruling was on the advice of a Visalia attorney, who represented the annexationists in all the legal proceedings. The ruling cast to the winds the general election law provision that a voter must be registered a certain number of days before the election day. The Fresno committee protested against the ruling but it was of no avail. So it decided to take the bull by the horns and it also went after anti-annexationists that had not registered within the forty-day limit. Such votes were offered but being anti-division voters their ballots were refused on the ground that their names were not on the register. Kings County men were permitted to vote on a certification by a deputy registration clerk, who by some well-directed mischance seemed to have omitted the names of those who might have been favorable to Fresno.

      In the confusion that ensued the Visalia attorney was besieged and committed himself to a proposition on registration. The Fresno committee prepared certifications and forty-five or fifty votes were polled on the same basis as the Kings County "emergency voters." Registrations were also proceeded with but these were not voted or made avail of. As a matter of fact 270 names had been added to the great register since October 30, the day when registration for the election should have ceased. Challenges at the polls were in order all day long, a total of twenty-six from Fresno. It was also stated that for divisionists as well as the antis some 300 affidavits had been taken during November and December of persons whose names did not go on the register because the time was after the forty days before the election. These had been taken for possible registration on the first entertained theory that the election might not be held on the 10th as there was a question as 'to the legality of the election call issued before the remittitur from the supreme court came down in the first test case. Election day was a day of excitement wild and long to be remembered.

      But if beaten at the election, there were other shifty tactics to be resorted to and they were on Tuesday, December 17, at Coalinga, when three of the commissioners actually declared the election held null and void and made announcement of another election to be held on the 14th of January, 1908. The commissioners were to have met to canvass the vote on Monday the 16th but did not. In a sworn affidavit made by Commissioners Guiberson and Herbert they deposed that they met at the appointed hour at the office of the commission with an attorney who was clerk of the commission in Coalinga to canvass the returns. The clerk locked the door, refused them entrance, or to have access to the returns, or to inspect them, whereupon the commissioners met outside the door and by resolution adjourned until two o'clock on the day after. The affidavit also stated that Scott Blair, another of the commissioners, was present in the building at the time and although requested to do so refused to meet with the two commissioners or to canvass the returns, the meeting having been at the call of the chairman theretofore given.

      The reason for not holding the meeting became apparent at the proceedings on the day after. Evidently the program had not been completed the day before and had not been rehearsed. It was an excited meeting this assemblage of the full commission with enough legal talent on hand to back the hope of the chairman that it would put them right in the proceedings to follow. The returns of the Coalinga precinct were produced for canvass. The precinct register index was missing but as it did not show who had voted it was inconsequential. Its absence was seized upon by the chairman, De Long, to raise the point whether it was not for the commission to question anything done at the election outside of and not according to law, in other words to go behind the returns.

      This was the cue for the Visalia attorney, who launched forth in an argument that the election was not conducted according to law and that it was for the commissioners to determine whether the returns had come to them in a manner provided by law, maintaining also that it had appeared that people had voted at the election that were not qualified to do so because they were not on the great register.

      Reply was of course made by the attorneys representing the anti-divisionists and the question was squarely presented whether the duties of the commission were not purely ministerial in the canvassing of the votes cast and certifying the result, and not judicial as maintained by the divisionists in going behind the face of the returns and passing on whether ballots are legal or illegal for any reason.

      The law giver for the divisionists went further to declare that there is no legal procedure to contest a special election such as this, and maintained that if any illegal votes had been cast it was the duty of the commission to declare the election null and void.

      Commissioner Guiberson in Anglo-Saxon more forcible than elegant or parliamentary asked how the board was to determine this question?

      Without attempting to answer this problem. Chairman De Long announced flat-footedly for an inquiry into the legality of the votes. The lawyers argued and argued but all in vain. A program had been resolved upon and it was the intention to carry that program over rough shod, if need be. Guiberson forced on the issue to proceed with the canvass. The vote was a tie, he and Herbert voting for the motion and De Long casting the deciding vote, making it; Ayes two; noes 3. Effort followed to take up the returns of another precinct but it proved a failure, for at this point advance prepared resolutions were introduced and of course adopted by a vote of three to two. If evidence were needed to prove the existence of a pre-arranged program, tile resolutions furnished it.

      After this there was nothing more to do before the commission. The question was asked of the chairman: "Would this action have taken place had the election gone the other way?" The reply: 'It would in my case, so far as I am concerned," provoked incredulous smiles.

      After long recitals, the resolutions declared that the election held on the 10th of December "was not in truth, or in fact, or in contemplation of law, such an election as provided for in said act;" all proceedings taken in relation to holding the election were voided and set aside and another election was ordered for January 14, 1908, and the secretary was ordered to demand of the county clerk a certificate showing the names of all qualified electors resident in the district prior to three months before the new date of election and registered.

      It was a remarkable piece of work that of those three commissioners. As H. H. Welsh remarked: "This thing has positively reached the degree of indecency." As monstrous a lie as could be manufactured out of whole cloth was the declaration in the program resolutions that County Clerk W. O. Miles had refused "to furnish the board of commissioners any certificate under seal showing the additional names of the voters on the great register of the county of Fresno registered as residing in said territory described in said act, since the last register." He did furnish a copy of the great register and of all additional certified to names of voters on the register within forty days of the election and of those who had transferred

Скачать книгу