The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-05-15
THE ENGLIsR-PEELLE CONTEST.
A Review of the Evidence Upon Which
Con gressiOnaI Seat Is To BE Stolen.


Con gressiOnaI Seat Is To Be Stolen.
National Republican.
Until recently the English Peelle contest case
has been regarded in the nature of big joke
Every one who has given it the slightest atten-
ton knows it is without merit An average
justice of the peace would not hesitate to dismiss
it, and court that would permit it to remain
on the docket would be a proper subject for i'm
parchment But because the contestant is the
son of Hon. William H. English, wealthy
Democrat, who ran for Vice president in 1880
the House is not only to be forced to consider it.
but, under the whip of the elder English, backed
up by Mr.. Mcdonald and his free trade party
friends majority of Democrats are to be dashed
into its support
EYdence that there is absolutely no ground
upon which to base contest, much less vote
to unseat MIR. Peee, is to be ignored. 1t is not
case in which evidence is allowed to play any
part. Mr.. English demands that his son be
seated. and the only question to be decided IS
whether Mr.. Englishs demand shall be granted
or refused If it be granted, then every Demo
GRAFT IN every district in every State who ran for
Congress in 1882 is entitled to his seat and his
SO 900 salary.
OF course Mr. English has gone through the
form of complying with the law governing con-
tests. He served notice and took testimony
within the required time, and more recently an
argument or brief has been submitted in which
six points are presented for the consideration
of the committee on elections. But as only two
of them-the recount in Marion county and the
quality of paper upon which the tickets were
printed-are urged by the elder English in his
interviews with Democratic members, it is un-
necessary to refer to the others.
Mr.. Peelle was elected by a majority of 81
votes, a result not unexpected. Mr.. English
was unpopular account of his father. His
nomination, too had been forced over the pro-
test of many Democrats in the district, and his
defeat was predicted from the outset. When
the result was announced, therefore, and for
weeks afterward, a contest was not thought of.
Subsequently the Democratic nominee for
sheriff of Marion county, who had failed of an
election by twelve votes, instituted q contest,
and commission of three, two Republicans and
one Democrat, was appointed by the Circuit
Court to recount the ballots for that Office The
count occupied four days and resulted in a gain
of forty nine votes for the Republican sheriff
elect
On the second day of the recount, and after
nine wards in the CITY of indianapolis had been
reviewed, it was discovered that the Democratic
commissioner. Dir. Austin H Brown, was also
making q recount of the ballots for congress
man. He admitted that he had been hired to
do this by the eldsr English, and he was obeying
Mr.. English by doing it clandestinely. But from
that time he was watched and followed very
closely in his count, and at the end of each
precinct his recount was compared with that OF
his colleague Mr.. Byram. On several occasions,
being shown that his recount was incorrect he
was compelled to change it to correspond with
the count made by Mr.. Byram. This fact is
tcStlneQ TO not only Dy Une h6puUlCtu COllllIlS-
sioners, but by Mr.. Myers, who is Democrat.
and who was present at the entire recount in the
interest of the Democratic contestant for sheriff.
At the conclusion of the recount Mr.. Brown re-
marked to the other commissioners that it would
increase Mr.. Peeles majority This statement
is also sworn to by several witnesses.
Subsequently, when notice of contest was
served upon Mr.. Peelle by Mr.. English, and
evidence was being taken to establish it, Brown
testified that his count gave Mr. English ninety
min mr. "a which
would elect him by twelve votes. On cross-ex-
animation he admitted that he could not give
the number Of errors occurring in each precinct.
nor could he remember any particular precinct
in which an error had been discovered At the
completion of the count he said he had simply
given Mr.. English a written statement to the
effect that his count as shown by his memoran
dun. gave him ninety nine more votes than the
official count When asked to produce his mem
orandum he said it was destroyed. He had kept
his memorandum for the recount of the sheriff
vote, but as for vote on congressman, to use his
own language, II regarded those papers as of no
value and destroyed them"
This is the history of the recount, and all
there is of it. 1t was made without authority.
i'll clandestine manner, by paid partisan
friend: and yet this so-caled recount is the chief
and practically the only ground for asking that
Mr.. Peelle be uuseated.
The other point made is in relation to what Is
called spring back ballots. The statute of the
State of Indiana provides that all ballots ;
shall be written or printed plain white
paper of "a uniform width of three
inches, without any distinguishing marks
OF other establishment thereon 1t
not claimed for the tickets that they arc not on
plain white paper" or that they are not of the
required width or that they had any disting
uishing marks or other embellishments. 1t is
charged simply that by being printed on paper
slightly heavier in weight than the Democratic
tickets, it could be known how men voted, thus
destroying the secrecy of the ballot, But the
statute fixes standard as to quality or weight
Shall the contestant be allowed to do sol The
Democratic ticket was of lighter weight paper
and therefore thinner than the Republican
ticket. Why. then should it not be re-
garded illegal also: for vote printed on
thin paper would destroy the secrecy of the
ballot as quickly as one printed on thick paper.
Thus the utter absurdity of the claim is seen at
a glance But as a matter of fact, the testimony
of host Of Witnesses including such men as ex-
Governor Baker and Governor Porter, proves
conclusvely that the Republican ticket when
folded and ia the hands of the voter could not be
distinguished from the Democratic ticket Amy
member of the committee on elections or of the
House can see this for himself by comparing the
two tickets.
1t is by such puerilities that Mr.. Peelle is to
be unseated, and when 1t Is done the Democrats
of the lower house of the Forty eighth Con
gress will have added another strand to the rope
which they are making for tho psrtys gibbet in
November next.