Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1877-02-21

FEBRU AIRY 81. 1877.
Was it BulldOzing
A recent issue of the Democrat con-
tanned the following communication
copied from the Jefferson Bunner:


copied from the Jefferson Bonner:
JEFFERSON, Wis. Jan. 20, TT.
Mr.. EDIToR:-Your last issue con-
tanned an article in regard to the pro-
prlety of procuring the Louisiana Re-
turnin Board to count the votes cast
on the institute question. aud change
them in favor of purchasing the same,
although against the will Of the maj or
ity of the people. Now, it would cost
the friends of education an immense
sum of money TO transport that Board
to these northern chimes, aud as we are
not possessed of Chandler's Influential
key to the public treasury, we can OBJ
:ain the desired result by procuring
tic services Of the Returning Board of
the First ward of the city of Water
town. They certainly are capable of
performing the desired result, IS they
well demonstrated nearly four years ago
In counting the votes for County Judge
in which they allowed uncle Aaron
only three votes. Whether the dem
ocratic vote was thrown out on account
of intimidation or the Board was bull
dozed, | never have been able to as
certain; but it is enough to say that
there are at least twenty Eve democrats
In that ward who are willing to make
afhdauits to the effect that their votes
were cast for the venerable Aaron.
Nearl y every issue of your paper speaks
about encouraging home industry, and
why not practice that good advice in
this case. A SUB.
It appears to us the Democrat did
not do the fair thing under the circum-
stances, in failing to defend the First
ward Returning Board of 1878, against
the Banners attacks. AS the Board
was decidedly Democratic in its pro-
elivities, it would seem as if the men,
bers thereof were entitled to hearing
through the columns of their party
organ. The Alderman at the time was
Eugene Wiggenhorn and the can
vassing Board as organized by him
consisted of the following persons, viz:
Charles Goeldner, VIM. Humphrey, l.
S. Carr, John Miller and H. A We'd
eneyer-a majority of whom, it will be
seen, were Democrats. We leave it to
these gentlemen to settle the matter
among themselves. If they cannot
explain how it was that "uncle aaron"
received only 8 votes in the LIST ward,
let them call upon Joseph Giles, John
Davis, Christian Mayer, Constance
Wiggenhorn, Henry S. Howell. William
II. Rohr, Charles W. Schultz, and
other prominent Democrats. And
while the investigation is going on let
it extend to some of the other wards
where "uncle Aaron's" running quail
ties were no better than in the First
ward. His entire vote in the city was
about 80, We believe, and we'll do we
remember the CONSERVATION which pre-
vailed among Democrats when they
found the meagreness of his vote. In
the ist ward, for instance, there was
terrible squirming among the faithful
who had voted for one or the other of
the opposing candidates, but intended
to fool "uucle Aaron" by laying claim
to having voted for him, they suppos-
ing that enough votes would actually
be cast for him to- afford shelter for
their claim But when the ballots
were counted and only three were
found bearing his name, a number of
prominent Democrats almost wished
they had never been born, for they
could not all take refuge as they ex-
pected to behind the solitary Rankin
votes actually returned-and one OF
which it was known was given by a
Republican. We commend the entire
subject to the Banner, the Democrat,
the Democratic Returning Board OF
1878 and the Democracy of the city
generally. We only ask that no re-
Elections may be cast upon Republicans
for any part of the business in which
they had no share or lot. Whether
it was "bulldozing" or little "heathen
Chinee" performance at the expense OF
''uncle Aaron" Democrats are alone
responsible for it. We do not believe
that uncle Aaron" will be fooled by
any such nonsense as that put forth
by the Banner and copied so approx
ingly by the Democrat.