Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1880-11-17
DEMOCRA TIC "WARE'S
NEST"

4 DEMOCRA TIC "WARE'S
NEST"
Will Democratic follies never cease
The latest scheme hatchcd by William
II Barnum and John Kelly for divert.
ing attention from their blunders is a
project for calling IN question and set.
ting aside Garield's majority in the
State of New York Kelly, at least, is
not quite such an idiot as to expect
that this piece of bravado will succeed
but if it should screen him from the
Democratic Indignation which his
treachery has aroused it would accom-
plish the only purpose for which he
abets it. If, with Barnum's aid, he
can succeed in raising dust of contro.
versy over the legality of the New
J ork election and can enlist the party
in this State in reckless attempt to
give the New York electoral votes to
Hancock. he hopes to slink away in
the resulting confusion. Barnum has
a similar motive for raising false issue
for shielding himself frpm Democratic
censure.
The basis of this wild, reckless
scheme is that the Congress which will
count the electoral votes is Democratic
in both branches, and a presumed will
lingness on its part to count out Gar
field if plausible pretext can be invent
ed for doing so. If the electoral votes
of New York could, by any kind of
desperate hocus pocus, be counted foc
Hancock, he might, after all, be the
next President. Even if pretence
could be found for rejecting the New
York votes as illegal the election of
Hancock might still be looked upon as
possible, since the choice would then
devolve upon the Democratic House of
Representatives The artfulncss of
Kelly consists in getting Barnum to
cooperate with him in holding out this
deceitful prospect to the Democratic
party, and, by exciting false hopes, put
off the day of reckoning with himself
Even Irving Hall and the World seem
in danger of being inveigled into this
trap. But the more wary and clear
sighted Brooklyn Eagle detects and
denounces the snare, and exposes it as
scheme to protect the recreant bosses
What are the pretexts on which it
is sought to nulify Mr. Garfeld's ma
jority in New York? They are two
in number, and both Of them futile and
ridiculous. The one first invented is a
charge of wholesale Republican colo
nization from other States. The local
Democratic committees are put upon
| this false scent and asked to be busy
in following it. This is like drawing
red herring across the trail in a fox
hunt to battle the pursuing hounds
Kelly and coadjutors hope by this
means to divert the avenging chase
while they run to covert
But within the last day or two a new
mares nest" has been discovered to
amuse Mr. Kelly's Democratic enemies
and engage their attention. 1t has
come to light that in one election pre-
cinct in Oswego the Garfield tickets
were not printed as a recent law cf the
State directs, and it is assumed that
similar tickets have been widely used
in Western New York 1t is claimed
that these irregular ballots will upset
and reverse the majority for Mr.. Gar
field in this State, and that when they
are thrown out the Hancock ticket will
be found to have been elected Should
it SO turn out Hancock may be the
President.
An election law passed by the last
Legislature requires that the caption
presumed to mean the outside words
Of ballots be printed as single line, in
a prescribed kind of type, without any
distinguishing mark or device, in order
to make it impossible for persons hang
ing around the polls to tell for which
party electors have voted. The pro-
fessed design of this enactment was to
protect the secrecy of the ballot and
shield the voters against intimidation
1t is now alleged that the Republican
party has viol; ted its own law, and
that in the western part of the State
a large share of the Garfield ballots did
have a distinguishing caption, which
is forbidden by the recent law. 1t is
contended that all such ballots are ille-
gal and must be rejected in the final
count, and that when this is done the
Hancock ticket will be found to have
been chosen in New York, the State
which turns the scale and decides the
election. The Democrats who clay
this hatteriDg unction to their souls"
relv on the third section of the act
passed at the last session, which is as
follows =
SECTION 3.-It shall be unlawful
for any person to print or distribute,
or to cast any ballot printed or partly
printed contrary to the provisions of
this act or to mark the ballot of any
voter or to deliver to any voter such
marked ballot for the purpose Of ascer-
tanning how he shall vote at any cleo
ton"
Now, while it is declared unlawful
TO print distribute or cast ballots which
are not in the prescribed form, the act
does not forbid the inspectors to receive
and count such ballots. The law is
very stringent against their preparation
but it's prohibitions cease from the mo.
ment they are deposited in the boxes.
1t has not a word nor syllable which
precludes the inspectors from receiving
or the canvassers from counting them.
If it had gone to this extent the Judi
ciary would no doubt have declared
the law unconstitutional, as conflicting
with rights of voters established by an
authority superior to the Legislature.
The drift of judicial decisions in this
and other States on similar points is
that the substance of the suffrage must
not be yielded to mere points of form
| nn1 that La W. mnst not he Strained