The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-03-07
Wizards Nose Healed, Mr.. Linck Was Re-
instated and Relieved of His Fine.
The General Appropriation Bill Passed the
House. but the Senate Majority Endorsed
Beasley's Measure-Legislative Notes.
ROBBED OF HIS SEAT.
Senator Biehowski a Victim Of Democratic

senator Bfchowsk1 q Victim OF Democratic
Buccaneering.
The Democratic majority in the Senate
crowned their many acts of infamy, last
evening. at 7:30 o'clock, by unseating, with
out any cause whatever, Francis v. Bichow-
ski, the Yigo county Senator, aud swearing
in David Grimes. The action was not a
surprise to the minority, who have learned
to expect anything from the men who cry
party first and State next, but it came at a
time when nobody was looking for it. The
committee on elections considered the evil
denee more than six weeks ago. and the
long delay in making a report was
recognized as IN admission of the
weakness of Grimes's claims. Democratic
Senators themselves, from time to time.
said that Senator Bichowski ought not be
unseated, and had it not been for political
pressure brought to bear upon the commit
tee. the case would never nave come again
before the Senate. During the last two
weeks John T.. Lamb, }. g. McNutt. and
other agents of Daniel w. Voorhees,, have
been here constantly, urging that Mr..
Crime be given the seat. Finally a caucus
determined to carry out the wishes of the
politicians, and authorized the election
COulIulJJce 10 submit the lOng-0elayeu re-
ports, which, without any notice TO the
minority members, was offered at the begin
ing of the afternoon session, yesterday.
The matter, of course, was rushed through
under the gag-law. The majority not only
denied the members the right to hear the
evidence upon which the report was based,
but after Crimes's case had been presented,
they moved the previous question without
permitting Senator Bichowski's friends to
make "a defense. The majority report was
signed by the four Democratic members of
the committee. No specific ground for seat
ing Grimes was stated. although the report
covered many sheets of typewriter copy.
It charged in a general way that bal
lots bearing a distinguishing mark were
voted, that money had been used
by the Republicans. and that illegal votes
had been cast. The report was honest
enough to state that Bichowski was not a
party to the purchase of any votes, but it
thought that as an honorable man, The
would not hold a seat to which he had not
been legally, electedn It was charged
votes. but not a line of evidence was sub
mitted to prove it. The conclusion of the
report was that Grimes had q plurality of
thirty-five votes.
The minority report of the committee was
presented by Senator Sears. 1t was signed
by the three Republican members of the
committee, and in the beginning stated
that Bichowski received a total of 6,173
votes and that Grimes received GAS
votes, Bichowiski thus. according to the
canvassing board, being elected by a plu-
ralty of twenty-eight. Afterward, Grimes
petitioned the Vigo court for a recount,
which was granted, and gave Bichowiski a
plurality of twenty-five votes. The re-
count, the report says, was held by Judge
j. L. Scott and A. b. McWhinney, Demo-
Gratis, and Merritt N. Smith, a Republican.
After giving the grounds upon which the
contest was brought the report states that
the committee found that Democratic
United States marshals were at each poll
ing precinct In Terre Haute, and that their
appointments were made at the request of
Dem ocrats. The report then says:
1t also appears in evidence by the agreement
or the parties that in said county OF Yigo. at the
late November election, the candidates for
ticket received pluralities ranging from 159 to
2s2 votes; that the Republican candidate for
votes; that the entire Republican county ticket
was elected by pluralities ranging from % to 2S7
votes, excepting the candidates for sheriff, treas
urer and coroner, the Democratic candidates for
these offices being elected by 40, 90 and 81 votes,
respectively; and that the Republican candidate
contestee herein, the canyassing board giving
him a plurality of % and the commissioners of
RECOUNT reducing his plurality to % votes,
grounds mentioned are the only ones TO which
tie evidence of the confession was specifically d-
under ground No. 5, and that the evidence of the
contestor pointing 10 Illegal voting addressed
itself indisGriminatel to all the other grounds of
testor under Ground 3, relative to the
Illegal votes cast for the contes;
TO show that the heading, Republican Ticket"
was so printed as to show through the paper on
tinguishing mark upon the tickets so voted. Hap
PLY for us, this precise question has been decided
by our supreme Court in the case of the State ex
rel. Julian VS.. Adams, in Sixty-fifth Indiana Re-
ports, page 1893, in which the Supreme Court
holds specifically that the fact that the ballots
east for the candidate or q particular political
party for n certain Office are SO printed that law.
ful names and designations printed thereon can
be seen through the paper does not render such
ballots illegal.
The section of the Statue under which il is
claimed the said ballots were illegal, reads as
THAT all ballots which may be cast at any cleo
ton hereafter held in the State shall be written
or printed on plain white paper without any dis
finguishing marks or other establishment there
on, excepting the names of the candidates and
the office for which they are voted for. and in
spectOrs OF elections shall refuse all ballots
offered of any other description, provided. moth
ing herein shall disqualify the voter from writ
ing his own name on the back thereof" Under
this section Ii has been held by our Supreme
Court that writing or printing upon the face or
inside the ballot the words ''Union City Ticket"
Ticket or Republican Township Ticket" is not
IN violation of the law and does not authorize
the rejection of the ballot.
Decisions to this effect were rendered in the
cases OF Druliner VS.. the State, 29th Indiana, sos;
Stanley vs.. Manley. 35th Indiana, 275; Mullhol-
land vs.. Bryant, seth Indiana, 1868. In the case,
The State ex rel. Julian VS.. Adams, cited, the
Supreme Court says; The only distinction be-
tween the distin gushing marks upon the ballots
which were held good under the above decisions
and those which We are now considering is that
in the present case the printing on the Inside OF
the ballots could be seen upon the outside
through the paper, while in the former cases it
does not appear whether the printing upon the
inside of the ballots could have been SO seen or
not To push the meaning OF the statute 10 the
extreme of holding that the inspectors of elections
shall refuse 10 receive ballots because the print
ing upon the inside. which Is not unlawful. can
be seen ON the outside through the paper, we
think would be q most unwarrantable e~onstruc-
ton OF its language"
Ground number four of the contestor's COM
plant alleges that there were received and
counted for the cOntestee at the late election the
votes of thirty inmates OF the Nigo County Poor
Asylum who were not legal voters in said pre-
cinct. The only witness who testified as to the
voting of these person. was Joshua Hall, the
present superintendent Of the poor-farm. he hav-
Ing been called as "A witness for the confession.
Mr. Hull testified that he Is a Republican and
VIII have been the superintendent of the poor
house two years the LIST day OF next March.
When asked the number of male inmates at the
that there were f0rty-tw0 males over twenty-one
leave the house. The number that he thought
had voted from the poorfarm he placed at thir-
ty-tWo. When asked 10 give a list of the names,
ne named twenty-nine as having voted, as he
was informed Hull testified that these men
were supplied with both Republican and Demo-
cratic tickets, and that he didn't know person
ally how they voted, as he didn't supply any OF
them with tickets and see them vote. The wit
ness tesuned a. TO the length of time these men