The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-11-12

Oeh' Atklns. Inc supporter oil senator
Harris told me that his figures showed
majority OF sixty-fve for Senator Harris in
the county.
/ did not at that time stop to add up
either the Harris or the Atkins list TO dis.
cover whether the totals as given me were
correct. | discovered, however, differ
ences in the figures in several wards and
districts. Mr. Sparrell Hill, Chairman Of
the Democratic Executive Committee, in
formed me Wednesday night about $50
o'clock that all OF the returns from the
Senatorial primaries had not reached him.
i thus had two lists, varying at pivotal
points, each claiming majority for a
different candidate. Seeking further
information touching the claims Of Gen.
Atkins friends, l went to Maj. John
jenkins, one OF his most active supporters,
and we compared his list of the returns by
wards and districts with the list which the
advocate OF Senator Harris had given
me. found the following points OF
variances between these lists, which i
wrote down in my note book and read TO
Mr. jenkins ailerIwe had gone over both
lists. Mr. Jenkins's record gave the
Eighth Ward to Gen. Atkins by vote OF
220 10 1919 for Harris. The Harris list
gave the ward 10 Senator Harris
by q vote of 220 TO 100, the two
lists being thus Numerically opposed.
The jenkins list gave Harris 2l2 votes
in the Tenth Ward; the Harris list gave
him 2l3 votes in that ward, q difference OF
one vote there appearing. The jenkins
list gave Atkins 1853 votes in the Four
teenth Ward; the Harris list gave Atkins
1873 votes in that ward. The jenkins list
had Atkins % and Harris 1876 votes in the
Seventeenth District; the Harris list had
Harris l25 and Atkins 80, difference OF
10 votes thus appearing. The Jenkins
list gave Atkins So votes and Harris 80
votes in the Nineteenth District. The
other list gave Atkins 81 and Harris 80
votes there. The jenkins list had no re-
turns from the Second Precinct OF the
Third District, and Mr.. jenkins said he
did not believe any such box had been
open. We inquired few minutes later,
however, and were told positively that
there was such box.
40 not remember what was the total
vote for Gen. Atkins, as recorded ON Mr..
jenkins paper, nor do | remember the
total on the Harris list, but | do remember
distinctly that, granting the correctness of
the Atkins figures at the points where they
varied from the Harris figures, and con-
sidering the returns from the Second Pre-
cinct OF the Third District, as figured up
the returns, Senator Harris even then had
a majority Of seventeen over Gen. Atkins,
and | 80 informed Mr.. jenkins.
Mr.. Jenkins aud | then separated. At
that time both lists had the vote Of the
Thirteenth District recorded at 766 Tor
Atkins and 10 for Harris.
Several hours later n gentleman gave
me the returns from every ward and dis
trict, stating that the Thirteenth District
and several others had been heard from
that night and that all were now in and
the record was ollcially correct. / revised
the lists | already had according TO this
new srccorl aud published II the next
morning. The statement that Chairman
Sparrell Hill had reviewed the returns
was an inference OF mine from the state
mcnt made to me late Wednesday night
rs 20 all the returns being in and the list
Us then given me officially correct. Chair
man Hill at no time furnished me arecord,
either partial or complete, or made any
statement 20 me rs to how the county
had gone rs 10 the Senatorial primaries.
may add that the gentleman who fur-
nishcd me the list late Wednesday night
had seen some election officer from each
Of the polling places from which returns
had not been officially received, and he
had seen all Of the official returns which
had come In; from the best information
obtanable the record he gave me was COZ
rect. The official returns from the Fifth
Ward and Seventh District are the only
ones now not in, and am confident from
all the information before me that the
published returns, which gave the county
10 Harris by 2lS votes, will not DO varied a
dozen votes.
The reason why make this statement Is
that have learned since Thursday morn
ing that Chairman Hill had not officially
reviewed the returns, IN ho had not re-
| cciyed them, and the statement in the
american that ho had 40 reviewed them
was inaccurate. Tho facts demand this
statement
may also add that the publication Of
the Senatorial returns in Thursdays Amer.
icdn was the result OF unofficial iniorma-
ton, but which was believed 10 be correct,
secured by me in the search for news, and
was not suggested, inspired or directed by
the editor or any director OF the american
or other person directly or indi.
rectly connected with the paper or
county Democratic management Those
returns then believed personally 10 be
correct, and am still satisfied that the full
official returns will not vary them dozen
votes GEORGE II. ARMIsTEAD,
City Editor Ameriodn.
| Nashville, Tenn, November 10.
Il