The Indianapolis journal., 1894-03-17
THE LAW is IGNORED
County Commissioners Fail to Re-
divide Certain Voting Precincts.
When Questioned They Gave Evasive
Answers Through the keepers of
Their Official Conscience"

The County Commissioners have met in
regular session for five consecutive months
since the last municipal election and for
seventeen months since the last county cleo
ton. at each of which elections it was shown
that there were a number of precincts in
which more than two hundred and fifty
votes were cast By the provisions of the
election law the commissioners are re-
quired to divide precincts containing more
than this number of voters, that each
precinct shall contain, as nearly as possible,
two hundred voters. The election inspector
in any precinct where more than two hum
dred and fifty votes are cast is required to
report this fact to the commissioners. The
provisions Of Section l Of the election law
upon this are as follows:
Each precinct shall contain, as
nearly as practicable, two hundred electors
based on the number of votes cast at the
last election for presidential electors; but
no precinct shall contain more than two
hundred and fifty electors. If at any cleo
ton hereafter two hundred and fifty
more votes shall be cast at any voting
place, 1t shall be the duty of the inspector
in such precinct to report the same to the
Board of County Commissioners, who shall
at their next regular meeting divide such
precinct as equally as possible so that the
new precincts formed thereof shall each
contain two hundred electors, as nearly as
practicable; but no precinct shall contain
more IMAM TWO nunQreO anu uIly electors,
and shall report such division to the clerk
of the Circuit Court of such county, and to
the Governor of the State, together with
the estimated number OF votes in each of
the new precincts. If such board shall fail
to act as herein directed, any qualified voter
of the county may apply for writ of man.
damus to compel a performance Of this
duty"
The commissioners were asked yesterday
why they had not compiled with the pro-
visions Of the law on this subject. Com
missioner Reinecke answered that the board
intended to do so. AT this tuncture Arthur
V. Brown, Keeper of the commissioners
official conscience" who never permits any
of the commissioners to commit themselves
without first giving the commissioners the
cue for their answer by answering him
self, interposed and said the board would
divide the precincts at their June meeting.
But the law requires that they do ii at
their next regular session after the election
at which the votes are cast and requires the
inspector in the precinct TO notify the COM
missioners of the excess of voters. Have
any of the inspectors notified the commits
Sioners of the eXcess?' asked the reporter.
Commissioner Reinecke answered the ques-
tion. He said none of the inspectors had no
titled the commissioners of an excess, but
the board had knowledge that there were
several precincts, having received their
knowledge from the election returns. When
the question was pressed as TO why the
commissioners had not complied with the
law and divided precincts at their next
regular session after the election, they
evaded the question and reiterated that they
would do so at their June term. The keep
tured to say that such had been the ''cus-
TOM"