The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-11
SEVENTH DISTRICT CONTEST.
Points from the Brief Filed in Behalf
of Mr.. Peelle by Hon. J. NJ. Wilson.
The Unauthorized Recount of VOtes-The
Question of the Tickets-Absurdity
of the Charge of Intimidation.
,noo..1 to the Indianapolis journal.

English eele contested elecUlon case, was HIeu
with tbe House committee on elections to-day.
The document is very lengthy, and is divided
in three sections-the recount of the votes, the
alleged i~llegality of the Republican tickets, and
the claim of fraud at the polls. The brief mar
rates the circumstances under which the COM
missioners were appointed to make a recount of
the votes, and shows that they were appointed
for the special purpose of making a recount of
the votes cast for sheriff, and that they had no
authority to make a recount of votes cast for
representative in Congress. The brief then con-
tinues:
trWe need not argue to this committee that
the official count made and returned by the
officers upon whom that duty is devOlved by law
is to be presumed to be correct. and that the
official count must prevail until it is overcome
by testimony that is Of a higher and more GER
tain character than the official count. 1t must
be incontestibly proved that the official count is
wrong, and that the recount OF the ballots IS
correct. 1t must be shown afirmatively and be-
yond all controversy that the ballots were kept
as the law requires, and that the ballots that
were recounted were the identical ballots-the
same in number, the same in condition, with the
same names upon them-that were cast by the
voters and used in making the official count.
McCreary on Elections, page 1913, uses this Ian
guage:
"'See. 40. But of course the parol evidence
offered to set aside a return upon the ground of fraud
must be such as to establish the fraud or mistake in
the reception and deposit, or in the count or return
of votes. The official acts of sworn officers are pre-
sumed to be honest and correct until the contrary is
made to appear.
"'It has accordingly been held that a return cannot
be set aside upon proof that a recount made by unau-
thorized persons some time after the official count has
beef made showed a different result from the official
count. This was upon the ground that the count
made by sworn officers Immediately upon the closing of
the polls was better evidence of the result than a
count made by interested parties, not sworn. at a sub
sequent period, and after the result of the official
count had been made known. Such evidence comes
far short of establishing either fraud or mistake in
the official count (Gooding VS.. Wilson, Forty-second
Congress.)
This law is now so we'll settled that it is be-
yond the realm of controversy 1t needs no. au-
thorities to support it. The very statement of it
is all that can be necessary. Then we come to
consider whether or not these Indispensable
requisites to setting aside the official count have
been shown by the contestant in this case. He
must show that the ballots were kept as re
quired by law. He must show that they are the
same ballots, and then he must show that those
ballots were correctly counted and in an au-
thorized way by the party who made the re
count and ~testifies in respect thereto. These
things he has failed to do.
THE REPUBLICAN BALLOTS q
"Another point made is in relation to what is
called 'spring-back' ballots. The contention in
regard to this is anomalous. The statute of the
State of Indiana provides as follows:
IA ballots which may be cast at any election
hereafter holden in this State shall be written or
printed on plain white paper of a uniform width of
three (31 inches, without any distinguishing marks or
other embellishments thereon. except the names of
the candidates and the offices for which they are
voted for Section 40, Revised Statutes of 1871
1--WE will here remark, in passing. although no
point is made upon it in the contestants brief,
that the words Republican ticket or Democrat
ic ticket printed at the head of a ticket, are not
regarded as distinguishing marks, or a part of
the ticket. This has been repeatedlyadecided by
the Supreme court of Stat State.
1--WE wish, further, to call the attention of the
committee to the fact that the Supreme Court of
Indiana has decided, as to distinguishing marks
referred to in said statute, that the distinguish
ing mark must be on the outside of the ballot;
that if the ballot is even printed on such paper, or
in such manner as that the lawful names printed
on the face of the ballot shall show through the
ballot with such distinctness as that they may
be read on the back of the ballot, that even that
is not a distinguishing mark.
Now, in the record in this case will be found
some of these so-called 'spring-back tickets
An examination of them, which we invite, will
show that these tickets, in point of width, are
in. accordance. with this statute. They are printed
on plain white paper The color is unmistak
ably and undeniably white. There is no doubt
about-that. The committee will see that for
themselves. The only question that is made is
as to the weight of this paper. That it is
paper will not admit of any sort of
question. Much testimony has been taken on
that subject. Many experts have testified that
this is paper, and many experts have testified
that it is plain white paper. But we apprehend
that this committee, upon examining these bal
lots, will not need to invoke the aid of any
expert upon that subject. But we will refer to
the testimony.
Son the question as to the quality of paper
the contestant examined twelve witnesses, five
of whom were experts, and, with one single ex-
ception, every witness testified that the material
upon which the Republican ticket was printed
Xuas and that tla oo1op uvac TlaiO Nuhifa.
while one witness, Mr.. Edward Mill, of Cleve-
land. O., testified that while the material was
paper, the color was what was known as a toned
color, and that white paper could not be
made without bluing. While, on
the other hand, on this point, Mr.. G..
b. Wing, one of contestants witnesses in this
case, and who sold the paper, testified that there
was bluing in the paper, and that the action of
the weather would tend to discolor it. 1t is true
that these witnesses say plate paper, instead of
book paper, or print paper, or writing paper. and
for the obvious reason, as testified to by all the
witnesses who claim to have any knowledge on
the subject, that the term plain white paper
does not define any particular kind of paper, but
may mean plate paper, book paper. print paper,
or writing paper, so that to designate what kind
of plain white paper, it is necessary, as all pa
per manufacturers and dealers agree, to go
further andsay plain white book, plate, print,
or writing paper, and it was to obviate the diff
Guilty which might arise by the use of technical
terms and the differences of opinion that might
exlst, that the Legislature OF lndlana IN the sec
ton quoted used a generic term applicable alike
to plate, book, print, or writing paper. =
Nov let us see. What they complain of is
that by the use of these ballots it could be
known exactly how every man voted, If he
voted one of these tickets it was apparent that
he was voting the Republican ticket. Let US see
how that will operate. If that be so we might
turn about and say that every Democratic ballot
that was cast in that county or in that city was
an illegal ballot because it was printed on paper
so thin that anybody in looking at the ticket
was voting the Democratic ticket, and we might
with just as much p~ropriety claim in this
case that the contestant had had these tickets
printed on thin paper so as that he might
know who was voting a Democratic ticket, as
for them to claim that because our tickets wero
a little heavier than theirs that this was an lille
vol finlaf n,.ooA Co., 4lo ..-oo - vino