Litchfield enquirer., 1871-05-11
9dt56eIS Gnquirsr y, Litchflelds Thursday, May n .lS7I
|" Under Which oovernor3',1

Litchneids Thursday, May ll .lS7l
 Under Which Governor"
 The developments resulting from exami
 nation of the votes in towns where there swsara alaims.ofz mistales,- are is be zfeund iE
 another column. They will convince any
 unprejudiced man that Gov. Jewell wal
 fairly chosen governor of the State at the
 April election.
 Take first the Cheshire and Enfield mat. Nstsrs and English is left without 8 majori. st Then comes up the New Haven Fourth noT Ward Icount, with an apparent mistake -Gaagaihst Jewell of 100 votes. On careful
 examination it win be seen that this makes ssthe muddle worse than, ever. regarding the
 votes in that ward. tsa5 3 ;ssx Tho C6rans sums up the difncultiea [ raised by esuppesing that the ballot box
 opened on Friday contained all the votes saputintoIit Iit on the first Monday in April, as - f0llows: .,l g,-,e,s . ....4..s ,i ~ss I. According to the present count, English, and
 he entire state ticket, run 100 in excess of Mir. -asivs to t6s lsgisiasurs~ which f is Incredible.
 A. In addition, it makes Jewell and the entire s Republican state ticket run just 100 behind John hS l. Treat, the Republican candidate for second
 representative, which is also incredible <. g. h addition, 1t makes Kendrick, who was 2 sorGt6hed on 1O5 Democratic votes, run within s frss votes of Mr. stoddard, their candidate for
 ssco1d representative, and within few votes of e,-s-A Further, it makes Mir English's majority in this Ward 2s2, whereas his highest majority in the ward heretofore has been only 79. =r ! os~ There seems to bemuch misapprehension regarding the proper object in view upon ,zsa recount of xotes The Democracy as- se sun1e that we must, in all cases, adopt the ;- the recount as showing the exact number
 of votes cast. Such is not our view of the se-ease.l The recount is just as liable to be sit unsafe from the box having been tempered ,Niths as the original count was to error .sifom hasle and inaccuracy. Its sole use is osthAti 1t may explain manifest mistake. The recount is only resorted to when dis
 crepancy between the check List and the ofacial return of votes shows that there was
 error in the original count, and then only ss with a view to the explanation of that error. sdIn the Enfield case the examination and recount explained the original error per. ;, tsctlys and satisfied all those present, even the Democratic representative from New
 Haven, that MT. English's vote had been returned twenty too large. In the New !. Haven case, however, the recount meets, T indeed. the difficulty between the check list and the returns, but it raises other difficult ties much worse. It reduces MT. Jewell's zvots far below what by testimony of vo.
 ters is proved to have been cast. It
 makes Q difference between the State and representative vote that is wholly unac- scountable, and it involves all the other ab-
 surdities. exposed by the Cowant But,
 say the Democracy, you have taken the recount as correct in Enfield, and now you 4 must abide by it in New Haven't Not so. '. When the recount explains an error in the 1 sdosiginal count satisfactorily, it is certainly
 entitled to credit. In New Haven, on the S contrary, it only shows two things. conclu- ssiyely; 1st, that there was originally 6 fraudulent excess of votes in the box 2d, !, that the box has been tampered with and sA some of the honest votes removed, leaving sthe fraudulent ones to fill up the number called for by the checklist. Hence such recount ceases to be of any value as test asofItheivote cast in April. a 'a3a That we are doing the Democracy. who have had charge of the box no in- Istustice in our supposition that it has been . tampsred with, is evident from their own z admisaions. The Hartford Times speaks of the sNewI Haven votes in the following terms: E&q sn1 n2sd ca ssat ss. a4rl.-
 s. Yhy have been kept fun month in . public building scaeye the boxes could oe e0sily opened OG Gs.'sRy smss, and votes taken out or fresh ones SWhat then is to be the result of this ex-
 amination2 The return of the Cheshire Democratic moderator is shown to be ut. 'sfsrly unwarrantable and the Enfield mis- ,ltaks is corrected, leaving neither candidate Wsmajority. The statements, under oath, of
 oyer Ave hundred and fifty voters of the Fourth Ward of New Haven that they voted for Mir. Jewell, settles the fact that some of the votes put into the ballot-box of that ward for that gentleman have since sdbeen remoyed therefrom. It also settles Atks sfact that the 71s votes counted for Mr.
 English in that ward were never cast for
 him. Under the circumstances the Legis.
 lature would be justified in doing either of ASthres things: 1st, declining to yield MT. - English any advantage from the recount; -a2d, Sadeducting from the total vote checked eathe number proved to have been cast for si q TIT, Jewell and allowing Mir. English the 4remainder; or. sd, throwing out the entire OsFourth Ward return. as having been vi. S tiated bya fraud at the outset, made ir. ssasemediable by subsequently, tamperine 4aaMithathe ballot-box.u In either case the Will Of the majority of the people of Con
 Sneeticut would undoubtedly be carried out Saby the inauguration of Gov Jewell. Gaf.
 -RSaNas sils-------@-----~ >---------- '