The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1886-01-07
JACKSON, OHIO, THURSDAY JANUARY z,

majority has reversed the Court be-
low upon each and every point, on the
ground that the Canvassing Board
could not be controlled by the Court,
although as they admit that there Is,
upon the face Of the returns, or one
of them at least, that of Precinct IA
of the Fourth Ward, ''strong suspi-
cions of fraud" Still they say the
Board could not be controlled in cam
vassing. These frauds in Fourth
Ward. A, are apparent from an in
spection of the face of the returns.
They not only furnished "a strong
suspicion of fraud and forgery, but
demonstrate beyond all cavil or con-
troversy that it was false, fraudulent
and forged. With all due respect it
seems to me that bare inspection of
this return will convince any man, be
he lawyer or layman, that this return
was conceived in fraud, born iniquity,
and nurtured to cheat the honest vo-
ters OF Hamilton County by MAORI
ty of the Canvassing Board, which
thereby made itself co-consrrator
in consummating the crime.
Take the case of the Fourth Ward,
GA" Let us see if this statement is
borne out. The Judges of the election
had been furnished with blank forms
for poll-books and tally sheets. On
the first page is printed directions to
the Judges and clerks of election, with
places for the signatures of the judge
and clerks. The names of the judges
there signed, as well as the names of
the judges signed at the end Of the
poll book, are fac-similes of each 9TH
er and are all evidently signed by the
same person, though there is some
doubt whether one of the names is
not written by some one else.
At the bottom of the poll-book,
which ends with 645 names, the certi-
fcate required by law as to the num-
Der of electors IS left blank. There
was folded within the envelope three
sheets of common cap paper, claimed
to be continuing of the poll-book,
vritten by different persons, all of
which, by comparison of handwriting,
except one, was not an officer of the
election Some of these names upon
these loose sheets were evidently writ
ten by Mr. Whitehead, the clerk. All
the other names are to my mind man
ifestly the work Of several strangers.
There is no reference to these sheets
as part Of the poll-book. They be-
gin with number 655, and end with
996. They are not certified to as a
continuation of the poll-book, nor
signed as the law requires, nor is there
a certificate of the number of electors
voting, as the law requires. By these
vital omissions they escape indictment
for certifying to a false poll-book.
On the back Of these loose sheets
there are figures in pencil showing
that the Democratic candidate had re-
ceived 726 votes, the Republican 48,
and the Prohibition o. In another
place there are figures showing that
1876; Republican and Prohibition add
ed together, 70, leaving the Democrat
ic vote 726. When we refer to the
tallies we find that they correspond in
number to the 796 as total vote, and
were afterwards raised to 926, making
the total vote $685.
In addition to this, all the candi-
dates for State and county offices on
the Democratic ticket were in every
instance raised from to a 8 as ap-
pears from above in favor of the Dem
ocratic candidates, as well as upon the
constitutional amendments. When
first written they were all 726, and
were afterwards changed to 926 ;ss
shown above, except In the case of
Judge of the Supreme Court to fill IA
vacancy, Treasurer of State, Attorney
Geueral, and member Of the Board Of
Public Works The 726 in their
cases still remain 1876 and all the votes
received by the Republicans was ex-
actly 4S. aud those in the ci,-e of the
constitutional amendments are exaci-
ly 4S against and 926 in favor. NJ
Scratching "n either side! Most re-
rnarkabI', snppositiun, especially In
the case Of the. constitutional amend
mtrts. Another noticeable fact l.,
that no vote whatever for the Prohi-
bition candidate is given in the proper
column, though the tally-sheet shows
they received number of votes.
In the face of these facts the major
ity Of the Court hold that the Board
may count them, and the Court can
not interfere because of the-care they
feel that the honest coter should not
be disfranchised.
lie | had the time | should like to
state the defects and irregularities
found upon the face of other returns
| give this merely rs sample case.
Much has been said concerning the
excess of tallies over poll-books, and
the action of the Circuit Court there
on is severely criticised. The statute
requires the Board to cease counting
when the number Of tallies equals the
number Of names upon the poll-book.
When the tallies largely exceed the
number of names upon the poll-book,
it is convincing fact that the ballot
box has been stuffed or names fraudu-
lently omitted When the excess is
but little, such presumption is very
slight, but when the excess Is large in
proportion to the votes cast, it Is, to
my mind, convincing. And where
the judges have no means of purging
the ballot-box, by throwing out the
fraudulent votes. the whole return
should be rejected, leaving to be de-
termined upon contest the number of
legal ballots rctually cast.
Much criticism has been indulged
in because it fixed the number 10 as a
dividing line, all under 10 being pre-
sumed not to h. and all over 10 pre-
sumed To b. fraudulent.
think the Court erred in not re-
jecting this entire return as fraudu-
lent upon its face. But having de-
cided to distribute this excess, no er-
ror occurred to the prejudice Of plain
tiff in error, or those he represented,
the Democratic candidates for the sew
eral Offices.
In conclusion, my regret at this de-
niSinn iS doanor than CON ha ovnroaroI