No Recount In Washtenaw

NO RECOUNT IN WASHTENAW

Board of Canvassers Had No Power.

TOWNSEND IS DENIED

The Privilege of Discovering 

Whether of Not He Can

Judson's Money

The County Board of Canvassers, by a unanimous vote yesterday decided not to recount the vote on congressman in this county.

The wonder grows why Mr. Townsend should allow Mr. Judson to put him in the position of seeking to impose a large expense upon Washtenaw County solely for the purpose of striving to avoid the payment of election bets by losers. Many of Mr. Townsend's warm supporters here have expressed their amazement at it, and the chairman of Mr. Townsend's congressional committee, Mr. Prettyman, will be asked by many voters to explain a postal card he sent out the day before election personally vouching for Mr. Townsend's freedom from the Judson influence.

At the meeting of the board in the morning Mr. Townsend was represented by F. A. Stivers and Gen. Wood by T. D. Kearney. State Oil Inspector Judson was an observant spectator. The lawyers were limited to 20-minute speeches.

Attorney Kearney's answer to the petition averred that Townsend was elected to congress by more than 3,000 plurality, and being so elected he had no legal aggrievance or other aggrievance that can or out to be considered by the board. 

He claimed in his answer that the board had no legal right or authority to recount the ballots as prayed for in said petition; that the authority of the board in relation to the canvas of the returns from the boards of the several voting precincts in said county.

He averred also that the petition is totally without merit and is not made in good faith, but for the purpose of reversing the plurality for said petitioner to secure the payment of certain bets made by friends and supporters of said petitioner in the result of the vote for said office in said county of Washtenaw.

Attorney Stivers' main contention in his first address to the board was that it was not a matter for the Board of Canvassers or Mr. Wood to determine whether Mr. Townsend was aggrieved or not.

"I wish to state to the Board," he continued, "that I represent no one else." This he reiterated several times during his very oratorical speech and the only man in the room whose face did not wear a smile was Mr. Judson. 

The statute says that a person must "conceive himself aggrieved," while the petition of Mr. Townsend only stated that he believed himself aggrieved. There was some intimations on the part of Mr. Stivers that Chairman Norris was too technical in raising this point, but Mr. Stivers could not well answer the point raised.

"I understand," said Mr. Norris, referring to the statute, "that the person aggrieved must set forth the nature of the mistakes."

"I understand," replied Stivers, "that the attorney general-elect of this state drew this petition!"

"That doesn't prove anything," was the decisive answer, "if he drew this petition he had better get somebody else to try the railway case."

Attorney Kearney briefly pointed out the faultiness of the petition in complying with the statute. He then proceeded to show by a Supreme Court decision in this state that the Board had no authority to make a recount and further called attention to Art. I, Sec. 5, of the U.S. Constitution, providing that each house had the power only to grant an election certificate for a recount for its on members. "It is preposterous that Mr. Townsend should be aggrieved," said the attorney, "when he has been elected by over 3,000 plurality."

Then it was that Mr. Stivers, in dramatic way threatened the Board that if they did not take cognizance of the matter, "There might, there might be," said he, "a committee from congress appointed to adjust the matter!"

Chairman Norris asked a series of rapid-fire questions as to the authority of the Board to grant a certificate of election on member of congress and whether not having that authority they had any authority to recount.

The board then went into secret session. After some time the attorneys were recalled and decision pronounced.

Chairman Norris said : "I think, Mr. Stivers, that the bi is insufficient for a number of reasons. That is my personal opinion and I need not go into them for the board has unanimously decided to deny your application on the ground that the board is not vested with authority to recount." 

Mr. Stivers was complimented by the board and said that he would not take the matter to the courts.

The amount of money bet on Townsend's carrying Washtenaw county is not known to the Argus. It probably is not over $300 here, one bet being for $230. But it is said to have been much more at Jackson and one authority has it that it reaches $2,500 there. 

But to Mr. Townsend belongs the doubtful honor of being the first man to save the money a bosom friend bet on election by employing the election machinery the state law interned only for determining whose the people had elected to office.

THE DEATH OF DANIEL LE BARON

A Supervisor of Washtenaw for 

Twenty-Two Years.

Died at His Home in Bridgewater

Wednesday Aged Eighty-

Five Years.

Daniel Le Baron, who was a respected member of the Washtenaw county board of supervisors for 22 years, died Wednesday, at his home in Bridgewater after the silvery locks of 85 years had wreathed his brow. Mr. Le Baron was one of the most respected citizens of the county during his long and active career. He was born in Genesee county, N.Y., in 1817, son of Francis and Sabra La Baron, natives of Connecticut and Vermont, respectively. He received his early education in the district and select schools. In 1842 he married Jane Farley, and in 1948 came west and settled in this county. Mrs. Le Baron died in 1872. Of the four children three are living - Mrs. Annette Lazell, Clarence a resident of Flint, Mich.,and Edith, a resident of Lockport.

In 1875 Mr. Le Baron was married to Mrs, Martha Gray, daughter of Isaac and Elsie Ayres. After his second marriage one child, Burt was born.

In 1854 he was elected supervisor, and for over a score of years ably discharged the duties incumbent on him.

His integrity and steadfast enthusiasm were known to all who knew him and his many friends are bowing their heads in sorrow at his passing. 

HE ELOPED WITH HIS OWN WIFE

Under the heading "Eloped with His Own Wife," the Detroit News contains the following Washtenaw County item:

If Mr. and Mrs. Clay Kingsley, of Salem, Mich., are in Detroit, they will convey an everlasting favor and great relief on some 30 or 40 of their relatives, who arrived in the city today to look for them, by making their exact whereabouts known. 

Clay, according to the story of one of his relatives who came to the News office in the progress of the search, is now 20 years old, but will be 21 tomorrow. For two years, in fact, ever since their wedding day, he and his wife have lived on the farm at Salem, which belongs to Mrs. Charles  Kingsley, of Ann Arbor.

On Oct. 28 Clay hitched up the family nag and he and his wife in their best store clothes drove away, the wife calling back to the hired man, as they passed out of the bar yard, that they would be back to supper.

Since then Clay and his wife have not been back, and the relatives who set out to ascertain their whereabouts, have only been able to learn that they drew $500, which they had in the bank at Salem, left the horse and buggy at Plymouth, and took a train. 

Some of the neighbors who came to Detroit a few days later have an idea that they saw Clay and his wife on Woodward avenue, all togged out in new fixings, and working on the theory that they are here now, the relatives have set out to find them and inquire if they are going back to the farm.

"We haven't any idea of foul play," said Clay's sister, "but we can't see what on earth they wanted to elope like that for. If the boy had eloped with someone else, it would have been different, but with his own wife-ain't it funny?"