The Indianapolis journal., 1884-02-05


which the Republican ticket was printed
book paper; and, in addition to this, Mr. Peello
put on the witness stand three of the leading
expert witnesses who had been examined on
behalf of Mr.. English as his own witnesses, and
they substantially agree in their testimony that
there is no difference between what is known as
Western plate paper and book paper of light
weight
This is really the only question in Mr.. Peelle's
case, although considerable stress is laid upon
the testimony of Austin H. Brown, who, one
of the three commissioners appointed by the
Circuit Court to recount the ballots in the
test of Lemon. VS.. Hess, candidates for sheriff,
was employed by Mr.. English to keep count of
the votes cast for Congress. He testifes, in sub
stance, that he did keep the count of the ballots
cast for Messrs Peelle and English, and that ac
cording to his count of said vote, Mr.. Peelle had
ninety-nine less votes than was returned for him
by the board of canvassers, leaving Mr. Peelle's
majority in Marion county 541, instead of $40,
as returned for him by by the board of canvass
ers. And, to meet this, Mr.. Peelle put on the
witness-stand N. S Byram, of Byram, Cornelius
& Co., wholesale merchants Henry @. Adams,
late sheriff, and r. o. Hawkins, late city at
torney all of whom testify that at the conclusion
of the recount of the votes cast for sheriff
Mr.. Brown, in a conversation, admitted
that Mr. Peelle would gain votes on
a recount than had been gained to Mr. Hess the
Republican candidate for sheriff, and he had
gained forty nine on a recount In addition to
this, Mr. By ram testified that he had also kept
the count of votes on congressman commencing
with the Tenth ward in the city of indianapolis,
"a 41,ak IL 4I.
returns as made in the first nine wards in the
city, Mr. Peelle gained 127 votes more than were
returned for him by the board, making his ma
jority in Marion county 767, instead of $40
Mr.. Byram also testified that in the Fourth
ward Mr.. Brown called his attention to gain of
seven votes for Mr. Peelle and in the Seventh
ward to gain of two; but Mr.. Byram does not
include these nine votes in the gain Of 127 for
Mr.. Peelle. But on this question, it not likely
that the committee on elections will for mo
ment consider this unauthorized count of the
votes to change the legal returns
and if they should Mr. Browns
tetimony stands alone, unsupported,
and with his admission that Mr.. Peelle would
gain more on a recount than had been gained by
Mr.. Hess Besides, from the time Mr.. Byram
commenced to count, frequent charges and cor
rections were made by Mr.. Brown at the end of
the count of each precinct, so as to make his
count correspond with that of Mr.. Byram, and
sometimes Mr. Byram would also make correc
tions, as testified to by Mr.. Byram, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr. Adams, and also by Smith H.
Myers the Democratic watcher who was present
in behalf of Mr. Lemon
Hiram w. Miller, of Wayne township, testi-
hadi II, ra1af fo {1a ~,
farm. He said that there were fifty-one votes
cast from the poor farm, and he thought two
thirds of them w,rs De-l.ooI.--s, for the reason
that about that proportion of them had voted
for him when he was a candidate on the Demo
cratic ticket for trustee of that township 1
take this from Mr.. Miller's testimony
Q.-The county asylum is located in Wayne
township A.-Yes, sir.
Q-YOu were a candidate for township trus-
tee on the Democratic ticket some years ago2
Ayes, sir; was twice; l was elected twice.
Q-You say about two-thrds of those folks
voted for you when you candidate for town
ship trusted A.-Yes, sir; 1 think there was
more than that
Q-You polled them at the last election, did
youl A-No sir
Q.-How did they come to be on that poll
book; you said you polled them and there were
5ll Al did not take their politics at all.
Q.-Did you poll it at alll A.-Yes, sir.
Q-For what purposel A.-For election pur-
poses. Mr.. Wright and his daughter gave me
their names
Q.-You had voted them before for you7
Mr.. Wilson--He did not say that
Q.-They had voted before for youl Al
think they had.
Q-And they were polled out there that time
by the Democrats for election purposes2 A
Yes sir; polled them four days before the
election.
This is an immaterial question in the case as,
under the constitution of Indiana, no man who
is otherwise qualified to vote can be deprived of
his right to vote because his poverty forces him
to seek home in the county poor-house.
Quite number of witnesses were introduced
by Mr.. English to show that the Republican
ticket was easily distinguished from the Demo
cratic ticket and from the line of his evidence on
this point it would seem that he attempted to
show that the Republican ticket was more unlike
the Democratic ticket than the Democratic ticket
was unlike the Republican ticket, and thereby
more readily dstinguishable, whereas the truth
is, as everybody knows, that if because of
the thicknessof the paper the Republican ticket
could be distinguished from the Democratic
ticket, the Democratic ticket, because of its
thinness, could be as easily distinguished from
the Republican ticket So the main question in
the case resolves itself into farce and leaves
nothing in the case but Democratic Congress-
which will certainly hesitate before depriving
the people of the capital district of their choice of
a representative in the Forty y-eighth Congress.
The most amusing part of tho testimony in
this case appears to be that Of the Hon. Joseph
E. Mcdonald, the leading aspirant in the country
for the presidential nomination. who stated in
his examination as witness in the case
that he could distinguish the Republican
ticket for the Democratic ticket fifteen OF twenty
feet away, and this, too, Notwithstanding he was
sixty -four years of age. Whether he could dis
tinguish Democratic ticket from Republican
ticket that far away is questionable; but one
thing is certain and that is that the old man