New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-30


enumeration demands" and he says that the au
thority thus conferred hal the legal effect OF
making tine returns mere guides and aids to be
used by the Secretary of State in the performance
of the duties imposed by the Legislature. but
rot to lie literally followed, whether right OF
wrong"
In other words, according 10 Frank Rice, th'
returns of the enumeTatOrs who went around from
house TO housa asking how many people hvcc
there and what their names were and whether
trey were citizens aliens, were not n record OF
fact to be by him reported 10 the Legislature
precisely as it was written, but merely SuSges
ton from which he entitled TO figure any
result that appealed to his personal Judgment, and
he so regards the returns because this section IA
empowered him 10 confirm their accuracy ny
"comparisons' and Investigations Mr.. Rce Ii
in desperate straits. 1t would dignity his contcn-
ton to say that there is no judge IN the STATE oil
New-York who would not laugh at railways ex-
cepting. of course, his friend and creature, Isaac
H. MAYNARD, who having solcmnly argued TO his
colleagues in the Court of Appeals that it was law
ful and prOper for him 10 commit grand larceny
by the theft of an election return, might naturally
I've expected TO agree to the lawfuness of any vii
lany that any other rascal might pcrperate in
the interest Of tie Democratic party.
The character of the foundation which Mr. Rice
laws for his statement is we'll sustained in the
statement itself. 1t is in the main confession.
lie says the cnumerators were, as whole, capa-
BILE men, and were duly instructed by him as to
their work and TO the distinction between
citizen and alien But upon examining the re-
turns it was found that many enumerators had
failed to naApery interpret the statutes TO cii
zenship anT alienagc' and in many cases they
made mistakes Such manifest errors" he
saws. were corrected, and such persons were
counted as citizens as the interests Of true
enumeration demanded" Mr. Rice denies that
in any case returns were rewritten because of any
changes or erasures made in his office. lie says
that they were rewritten only in three cases, and
that in these cases the originals had been written
with lead pencil
These statements arc essentially false. The
Tribnne's assertion that several rolls were copied
because the originals hal been so scratched by
the fraudulent changes that had been made in
them by the crasure Of the letter A" and rs
the writing in of the letter &C" where the erasrl
letter had been. Is true in spite of Rioe's three
weeks late denial. Erasures and changes were
made not only where manifest errors had been
committed by the enumerators, but in thousands
upon thousands of cases where there was not the
slightest reason to believe that tie enumcrators
had made any mistake at all.
Well knowing that tie rolls in hi, Office, if
exposed to view, would show these changes, and
thus absolutely convict him, Rice attempts to
throw the responsibility OF the alterations upon
the cnumerators themselves. in some cases,
he says, an examination of the rolls shows that
changes were made before they were received
at this Office presumably by the enumcrators,
rpon fuller information than was obtai3abe at
the time when they were first written. III some
Of tie districts referred to by The New
York Tribune especially is this the case
Then, remembering that there are duplicates on
file in the County Clerks Offices all over the
State Of every original roll u his possession, and
that The Tribune has been talking only of what
comparison between dunca,e and original
will nrove, he cautiously adds 81 do not know
that The same corrections were made in the dupi
Gates on file in the County Clerks offices by the
enunerators" This is not the speech of dull
man, as one might naturally suppose, but of a
caught man. of a man who knows he cannot sus-
tain his position and who finds himself compelled
TO hedge on every justification or excuse he
offers
We have had the duplicate rolls examined in
several counties. Everywhere the fact is re-
vealed that Rice has reported TO the Legislature
fewer aliens than the enumerators returned. In
the Second Assembly District of Ncw-lork City.
lie made in one roll 2G4 changes; in another,
2l8; in another. 2l9; in another, ~, in another,
420; and in another, col. In the Third District
in one roll he made s0i changes. In tho Fourth
another 2O6; in still another, 200; in
another SIS; in another. 1868; in another, ee5
be mace in one roll si4 changes, and in another
$50. IN the With District he made IN. one roll
22o7 changes, and in another, 2ec. In the Eiil,h
other 45l in another sl4 in another 254, and IN
another the unbelievable number of l,o6S! In
one roll IN the KIN District he od made ado 'GS
almost every roll throughout the city Of New
York. Only the fragment Of fraction OF these
alterations can he justified or excused on the
ground that the enumerators had made manifest
errors
Mr. Rice denies the charge that alien inmates of
public institutions were fraudHlently counted as
citizens. Nevertheless The charge is true.
Mr. Rice SAYS that neither 2G,53o nor any num-
her was arbitrarily added 10 the population OF the
city Of Brooklyn. lie explains this chargc By say
ing that the figures in his report; as it IS now
being sent out are identical with those contained
in the manuscript report which he sent to the Leg
islature on April q but that in the rccapitnla-
tion giving the results OF the enumeration by roun
ties for the convenience Of the Legislature AMI the
press clerical error Of 1910 wae ma made IN
lation of KINGS County and the city Of Brooklyn
the population of the first eighteen election dis.
t5cts Of the T,Wenty,llh Ward Of the city OF
purpose but for the unfortunate fact that TIC pop.
uation of the first eighteen election districts Of
the Twcntyffth Ward Of the city o, Brooklyn does
nouncement Of this explanation, however jus;iics
U.S. from our knowledge Of the real facts, in de-
clarng much more positively than We have ever
declared before that this Brooklyn pcstscriptum
was a clear, distinct Of fraud. We have never
been altogether sure that il did not admit Of en-
planation until Mr. Rice venturcd this one. Bit
In view Of what Mr. Rice says, and Of what we
know 20 the contrary. cannot hesitate longer
to express firm Judgment that that addition OF
26,5S0 to the population CT the city Of Brooklyn
was plain case OF fraud.
Mr.. Ricc denies that results We're secured by
Al nt.l,t1 a(A. fl.n
was presented 10 fhc Legislature. Nevertheless,
the charge is absolutely true In a word all
OF our charges az originally made on May I,
1892. notwit.standii. all that Mr. Rice says IN
this interview. are strictly and precisely true.
The plain fact OF the mfI1'cr is this Wherever
our charges rest record which cOud not
r,Nle