The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-03-11

other words, voting tickets WITHIN tickets.
But there is no pretense that any double
tickets were voted. There is no pretense any
where in the record that any tickets were folded
in these tickets The only claim is that the
ticket was of such a character that such a thing
might have been done without, in fact, having
been done. The testimony Of divers witnesses
has been taken to prove that it was possible by
the use of these tickets to vote illegally, or to
duplicate votes, or, to express it differently, to
use tissue ballots in connection with these
ballots. But there is not the slightest
evidence in the record that anything of
the kind was done or even attempted to
be done. On the contrary, it is a marked fact
in this case that the ballots and the poll lists did
not materially differ from each other. On this
point Mr.. Brown, in his eXamination.in-chie
testified, in answer to the question, Were there
more names than tickets on the poll listP An
swered-Ther were in some instances; not
many Nothing of that kind is shown to have
occurred in this election, in this county, differ
ent from what ordinarily occurs at all elections.
Inasmuch as the law has fixed no standard in re-
spect of the quality or weight of paper to be
used, the fact that one ticket could be distin-
gurshed from another when i'll the hands of the
voter does not make the ticket an illegal one.
No statute has so provided, either of the State
or of the nation.
"The voters at that election used these tickets.
There is no law against a voter allowing it to be
known for whom he cast his ballot, and if he
saw fit to use q ballot by which it would be
known for whom he voted, or what ticket he
voted, or in any other way made it known what
ticket he voted. or for whom he voted, that is
his own individual concern. These tickets were
received by the election boards and counted
without objection, as is abundantly shown by
the testimony. 1t is not for this contestant or
the House of Representatives to disfranchise
these voters because they saw fit to make use of
a ballot by which they disclosed the manner in
which they voted. The secrecy of the ballot
is for him. 1t is designed to protect
him; and if he wants no protection, it
is not for this contestant or anybody else to
| ntQlnnSn tO n We If IN him and thapn is nowhere
in this record any witness who has testified that
he would have voted differently from what he
did but for these ballots. If they are satisfied
as to whether their votes were secret or not, no
body else has any right to make any objection.
y But it is claimed that by the use of
these ballots certain persons were induced or in
Inundated to vote this ticket who would other
wise have voted some other ticket, and that
therefore such ballots are to be deducted from
the contested. And this refers to what they
call the Jail votes and the poor-house votes.
The absurdity of this is to be found in the fact
that from the beginning to the end of this
record no evidence is adduced by which it is
proved that any man voted one of these tickets
who did not desire to do so. 1t is nowhere
proved that any man would have voted other
wise than as he did if these tickets had not had
an existence. All that is in this record on that
subject is hearsay and conjecture. = y
1.-THE point is made in contestants brief that
there was a counterfeit ticket used at that cleo
ton; that is to say, a Democratic ticket with con
testees name on it for representative in Con
gress. Now, in the first place, we have to say
of this that it appears from this testimony that
there was no concealment of the fact that these
tickets had contestees name upon them, and II
the fact was known, as it appears to have been
known by the parties amongst whom they were
distributed, that contestee's name was on these
tickets, then it was not a fraudulent ticket.
They had a right to vote that kind of a ticket
with the name printed in, if they wanted to.
They had a right to erase from a Democratic
ticket the name of the contestant and write
in IN the place of it the name of contestee.
They had a right to print on a slip the
name of the c%ontestee, and paste it
on the Democratic ticket. They had a right
any way they chose to change that Democratic
ticket so as to vote for whom they pleased. Now
if a ticket were presented to them with the name
already printed on it, and they knew that fact
and concluded to vote that ticket, it is not in any
sense a fraudulent ticket. 1t is only when such
a ticket is clandestinely used and the voter de
ceived that it becomes a fraudulent ticket. But
now, where is the evidence that these men at
the freight-hOuse voted those tickets? At the
recount that was made by Brown he testifes
that not more than a dozen of those ticket were
foundin the box, while the other commissioners
say that there were not to exceed more than FIVE
or six of them in that box. There is no evidence
that these tickets were distributed elsewher
than at the freight house.
OFFICIAL INTIMIDATION.
"We are gravely informed, at page 50 of con
testants brief, that in the city of indianapolis
there were seventy four regular policemen and
$50 extra policemen on the day of the election,
all Republicans; and that there were 'eighty-five
United States officers, including employees,
clerks and mail-carriers, in the city on the day
of election, all Republicans. We presume that
the United States officers here referred to are
the federal judge, the clerk of his court, the
marshal of the district, the postmaster, and the
clerks in the postofice, etc. And we presume
that the learned counsel who prepared this brief
and the contestant intended to have the com
mittee infer that these officials, and es-
pecially these D.. mailcarriers, were raging
around the city of indianapolis teyrorizing
the Democrats to such a degree as that they
were unwilling to risk an attempt to vote at this
election. This matter, so gravely put forward
in this case. seems to be the very climax of tine
absurd and ridiculous, especially in the light of
the fact that there is not a syllable of evidence
that there was a single federal officer at the
polls, not even a mail carrier.
"There were, it is said. seventy-four regular
policemen. This is italicized. as though it were
something unusual and extraordinary that there
should be seventy-four policemen in a city of
the size of indianapolis. And they were regular
policemen, not for that special occasion, but in
regular employment for the purpose of preserv-
ingthe peace of that city. And there were $50 extra
policemen. On the day of an excited election it
is not only not unusual, but very proper that
there should be extra policemen, to the end that
in case of disturbance the peace may be pre-
served, ana tnefe is no evidence thaJ any OF
these extra policemen were at this poll"
1t is claimed by the contestant that fifty, or
sixty, or one hundred persons were deferred
from voting in the Seventeenth ward by this
pretended violence and intimidation. The brief
adds:
"And yet not a single person is called who tes-
titles that he was thus deferred. If these were
legal voters in that precinct their testimony could
have been produced, and the fact that they were
deferred from voting could have been main
tanned; and if they were there as legal voters and
vote for contestant, he could have proved that
fact, and when proved their votes would have
been counted for him by this committee. Buthe
has produced no such proof; he has examined no