National Republican., 1884-05-13
The Enr,,sb-PesIIe Contest.

case has boen regarded in the nature Of
big joke Every one who has given it the
slightest attention knowsit Is without merit
An average justice of the peace would not hes
itste to dismiss it, aud court that would
permit it to remain on the docket would beaa
proper subject for impeachment. But be-
cause the contestant is the son of Hon. Will
lam H. English, q wealthy democrat who
ran for vice president In 1880, tho house is
| not only to be forced to consider it, but un-
der the whip Of tho elder English, backed up
by Mr. Mcdonald and his FREQ trade party
friends, majority of democrats are to be lashod
into its support.
! Evidence that there is absolutely no ground
upon which to base a contest much less q
vote, to unseat Mr.. Peelle is to bo ignored. 1t
is not q case in which evidence is allowed to
play any part Mr.. English demands that his
son be seated, and the only question to be de-
cided is whether Mr.. Englishs demand shall be
granted or refused. Ifit be granted, then every
democrat in every district in every state who
ran for congress in 1882 is entitled to his
seat and his $4,000 salary.
OF course Mr.. English has gone through the
form of complying with the law governing
contests. Ho served notice and took testi-
mony within the required time, and more
recently an argument or brief has been sub
mitted in which six points are presented for
the consideration of tho committee oil cleo
tions. But as only two of them-the recount
in Marion county and tho quality of paper
upon which tho tickots we're printed-are
urged by the elder English in his interviews
with democratic members, it is unnecessary
to refer to the others.
Mr.. Peelle was elected by majority of 81
votes, result not unexpected. Mr. English
was unpopular on account Of his father.
His nomination, too, had been forced
over the protest of many democrats in
tho district, and his defeat was pre-
dicted from tho outset. When the result
was announced, therefore, and for weeks
afterward, contest was not thought of. Sub
sequently the democratic nominee for sheriff
VI @hhibOh Npuhhyt NAN iihN AeAaSN Va ga WV
tion by 10 votes, instituted a contest, and a
commission of three, two republicansan and one
democrat, was appointed by the circuit court
to recount the ballots for that office. The
count occupied four days and resulted in gain
of 40 votes for the republican sheriff elect
On tho second day of the recount, and
after nine wards in the city of Indianapolis
had been reviewed, it was discovered that the
democratic commissioner, Mr.. Austin II,
Brown, was also making recount of the
ballots for congressman. He admitted that
no had been hired to do this by the elder
English, and ho was obeying Mr. English by
doing it elan deStinely. But from that time h'
was watched and followed very closely in hi
nnnnt. aud at tha end Of each Preoinot hi
recount was compared with that Of his col
league. Mr.. Byran. On several occasions
being shown that his recount was incorrect
he was compelled to change it to correspond
with the count made by Mr.. Byran. This
fact is testified to not only by the republican
commissioners, but by Mr.. Meyers, who is
democrat, and who was present at the entir
| recount in the interest of the democrati
- contestant for sheriff. At tho conclusion o
y the recount Mr.. Brown remarked to tn
= other commissioners that it would increas
o Mr.. Peellc's majority. This statement is ais
" sworn to by several witnesses
Subsequently, when notice of contest wa
| hx,M H. En 1;al,
evidence was being taken to establish il
:, Brown testified that his count gave Mr.. Eng
lish 90 votes moro than the official re
turns, which would elect him by 12 vote
On cross, examination he admitted that b
y could not give the number of errors occuI
6 ring in each precinct, nor could he remembC
90 any particular precinct in which an error ha
e been discovered. At the completion of II
10 count he said he had simply given Mr. EN-
lish written statement to the effect th
his count, as shown by his memorandum, ga,
I'd him 90 votes more than tho official coun
L. When asked to produce his memorandum
1t said it was destroyed. He had kept h
to memorandum for the recount of the sher
er vote, but as for the vote on congressman,
ly use his own language, II regarded those p
pers as of no value and destroyed them"
This is the history of the recount, and O
w. thoro is of it. 1t was made without a
"" thority. in a clandestinG manner, by pa
no partisan friend, and in such manner tn
~ to escape the pains Of perjury it was nece
% sary to destroy all evidence Of it; and y
IN this so-called recount is the chief and pract
cally the only ground for asking that NJ
Peelle be unseated.
- The other point made is in relation to VIII
}, is called "spring back" ballots. The statu
49, of tho state of Indiana provides that Il
ballots = shall be written or print
on plain white paper of a uniform width
!" 90 three inches, without any distinguishil
~ marks or other embellishments thereon"
is not claimed for the tickets that they a
NC not on "plain white paper" or that they q
his not of the required width, or that they h
he any distinguishing marks or other cmbellis
is incnts 1t is charged simply that by bel
ost printed on paper slightly heavier in weil
vas than tho democratic tickets, it could
IN, known how men voted, thus destroying d
secrecy of the ballot But the statute fix
no standard as to quality or weigl
....t I Gh,U tho contestant ha allowed IN do q