The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1891-10-20
THE EXCESSIVE VOTE ON MAYOR.

The Sentinel makes another attempt
to account for the excess of 1,20O votes
cast for Mayor over the total number
cast for any other Office. The various
theories it advances might ccoun for a
small portion of the excess, but the
idea of trying to account for an excess
of 1000 by any of these theories, or all
of them combined, is preposterOus.
One of them is that several hundred
Democrats, intending to vote the
straight ticket, stamped n head of the
ticket, as required by the old law. Now,
the old law never provided for stamp
ing in front of the head of the ticket as
O e of voting the straight ticket.
1t provided that stamping in front of
the title of the ticket, as democratic
ticket" or Republican ticket" meant
that the voter intended to vote the
whole straight ticket, but there never
was any provision that a stamp in front
of one name should count as a vote for
any but that candidate.
The Sentinel cites the returns of the
Massachusetts, election to prove that
under the Australian ballot law the
number of votes cast for the head of the
ticket may be largely in excess of those
cast for other candidates. 1t asserts
that the total number of votes cast for
Governor in Massachusetts, was 6,956
more than those cast for Lieutenant
governor. This is a mistake. The vote
on Governor was 2S5. 500, and that on
Lieutenant-governo 279,570; difference,
1856, instead of $3.50. The total vote
in Massachusetts was 2S5, 500, ald the
total vote on Mayor in our city election
was 26,24e. Taking the Massachusetts,
election as a basis, and allowing for the
same ratio of excess on the head of the
ticket here as there, the total vote on
Mayor should have been only go more
than on the rest of the ticket, whereas
it was 1900 more. No theory that has
been suggested, nor all of them to-
gether, will account for more than a
small part of the excessive vote for
Mayor in this city, except the theory of
fraud.
1t is q suspicious circumstance that the
change made in the law last winter en-
ables a Democratic inspector to identify
every straight Democratic ticket that
passes through his hands. As originally
passed the law required the initials of
the poll clerk to be placed on the back
of the ballot in the lower left hand cor
ner. The amendment of last winter re-
quires them to be placed in the upper
right hand CORNER, and the ballot must
be folded SO as to leave the initials in
sight. The upper right hand corner is
the ROSTERS corner. 1t follows that
every stamp placed on the rooster square
is visible from the outside after the bal
lot is folded. This is to all intents and
purposes a distinguishing /. mark for
Democratic inspectors. 1t enables the
Inspector in any precinct to tell with
absolute certainty whether particular
individuals voted the straight Demo
cratic ticket or not. This change in the
law practically destroys the secrecy of
the ballot.
The sudden and surprising confidence
shown by the Democratic managers
about forty-eight hours before the cleo
ton, following q period of apprehension
and doubt, could only have been caused
by the success of some scheme the sue
cessful operation of which was in doubt
up to that time. What nat scheme was
we do not know, but we have no doubt
that the 1000 excess of votes on Mayor
are the result of its operation. The
splendid organizer" who lad charge of
the Democratic campaign and of an
enormous corruption fund could doubt
less tell all about it if he chose to.