New-York tribune., 1891-12-18

pNcedents and votes according to the method fol
| lowed BY the majority in the last Congress made
a"eo IN faVor of the contestant OF II 634 votes
i"rees' fraud ever shown IN the history of q Con
sess'onai election. Applying II according TO tn.
method followed by the minority made a change o
ohs s'o4s votes in favor Of the contestant-no
s"ncieht 10 overcome the majority returned for tn,
oon'estee Mr.. McDunfe asserts that the application
OF the same rules to the present case will, show his
eiccuoh by about $500 aorty and IL is probable
'nat the claim will be sustained by the Republican
n'horiN OF the committee though perhaps the ma
lority as found by them will be smaller Under the
r'leS adopted by the Democratic minority In the last
congress, and which, II NAV be expected the majority
VIII follow In this, the majority returned for Turpn
VIII not be overcome
The other southern case Miller agt Elliott from
south Carolina. will almost certainly be decided In
lsVOr OF the contestant despite the fact TINT he is
southern Republican negro and seated by the
last House over the votes of The Democrats. This
piSdcuon may be made with confidence. for the
reason that IL is beyond the skill OF partisan sophletry
TO formulate report which will sustain the right
OF Elliott to the seat, and scarcely less difficult 10
show that Miller Is not entitled to It, rie district
is one Of the strongest Republican districts in the
United staes-so strong that Mt this election. though
the Republican vote somewhat divided, Miller
received n clear plurality OF nearly $500 Of The
votes as cast counted and returned. Elliott who
majority Of the votes, deny that Miller did
neither does lie claim that any OF the voters who
voted for Miller did not have right TO vote Eott's
title rests solely the contention that ell the votes
cast for Miller should be thrown out for alleged techn
cal imperecons in the ballots. They were thus thrown
oul by the county canvassing boards In Onchalf the
counties in the district, and il is to this action that
the contestee owes his certificate OF election. The
canvassnS boards in the other counties did not throw
tllat fhpy he
thrown out by the committee and the House.
The alleged imperfections in the ballots first
that they were not printed plain white paper
second, that they less than five inches long
third, that they had printed them the word for
before the words Representative In Congress; and
fourth. that the name d" Thomas l.. Miller was so
printed that il possible 10 fold the ticket In such
way as TO leave the impression OF the type visible
on the back Of the ballot and that The tickets In fact
were so folded for fraudulent purposes.
The last charge Is the only that makes any show
of being substantial Whether the tickets in
fact folded In peculiar way not will be known
when the ballot boxes. whick in the OF the
Committee Elections under seal, opened. There
is no evidence that they were peculiarly folded except
a remark alleged 10 have been made by the contestant.
The witness testlfyng to this remark Is impeached
and contradicted by three witnesses, each at least as
creditable himself Even if it could be shown that
the ballots thus peculiarly folded the charge
would have little substantial merit land it is quite likely
every body body knows, it is Impossible to print any
thing with type on the paper used for ballots with
This impression i, removed in the finer quality Of
books by keeping them for some time under power
newspapers and circulars. it is never perfectly re
moved. The name Mr. Mler's tickets is printed
in somewhat larger type than that on Mr.. Elliott's
but the type which Mr. ElllOtt's name is printed
has sharper edge and narrower face and the i'm
preston on the other side is consequently palmer
than on the Miller tickets. Moreover the name on
Miilers ticket is printed lower down, whee. IN the
the inside While the name on the Elliott tickets IS
printed where the impression will naturally be folded
the outside IL Is hardly possible that so snght
feature on either the Miller or the Elliott tickets could
be used identify the ballots TO facilitate bribery
or intimidation and there Is not parcle OF eVGence
that il used. Mr. Elliott cites Two precincts
where the ballots were identified in the election OF 1883
but there only two precincts at that election and
the tickets wee then printed In materially different
way.
In the brief of the contestee Just filed the second
and third points are given up would be imp1ssiDe 6s
setting the cutting machine Ths word for before
south Carolina in other States and could not posi-
bly, serve any evil purpose. -, -
Number OF expert m wona a, be e hpo%
as plain white paper" and anybody who VIII examine
M Es ce are euS p6sd S On psper 9, slightly
blush tnge ers on less thoroughly bleached paper,
ence In the tint is not greater than that between the
paper Of one newspaper and an4ter usually r. ts is
shade ad texture OF paper unless they are made
at the same time b. the same person IRON the an same
when the n ballots ae oey printed int By the
OF course II is possible, by careful scrutiny, to
distinguish the tickets by the quality Of the paper
Elliott's paper the standard and throwing
out Mllers than accepting Miller's and dscardng
cepted, both Millers and Elliotts ballots might be
thrown out and those of the third candidate Brayon
be accepted, his ballots printed paper much
whittier than that used for either the Miller or the
Elliott ballots. The South Carolina law provides no
remedy by which it is possible 70 avoid such dstlnc.
don this and therefore cannot be construed TO have
| 4
grounds all the votes honestly cast for Miller by quail
fed voters thrown out, he must he held 10 have
been elected and even II they could be thrown out it
is impossible to see on what ground Elliott who is
fessedy the minority candidate, can sustain his right
to the seat which lie now occupies by virtue OF n
fraudulent certificate.