New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-02-14
SAMPLE DEMOCRATIC FAIRNESS.
HOW IT IS PROPOSED TO COUNT OFT MIR. JOY ~

HOW IT IS PROPOSED TO COUNT OFT MIR JOY ~
THE CONTEST MADE BY MIR o'NEuf~
Washington. Feb Il (SpeciaD-1he mai rliy -
the House Committee on Elections f. anxious % call
I'D the case ~ ONcll against joy. ~ the Min MIS-
souri, District tomorrow. bur 10 is expected mat Mr.
Hland and his followers viii resist the motion. and
the action upon the election contest may therefor"
H.. uostuoned until the Imitation b has been passed
The decision Of the Democratic majority # the ti"o-
tlons Committee In favor - the contestant WAS
peculiar one. and Is fairness and soundness We"
sharply qucsiiOnc. 10y sev"rnl Democratic members
who are lawyers and have taken the trouble T. study
the laws and testimony hearing on the case The d"
cision In fact. contrary to both tn aw and the
facts as is clearly shown IN the minority report
which was prepared by that - una lawyer ana en-
incut turst. Representative Daniels. ~ N""-N ORR
The careful and thorough analysis ~ the testimony
submitted by the minority shows that all the bal
lots for either candidate that were rejected for
various reasons had been counted by the official
yassers Joys majority. instead Of being q, re-
turned by them would have been considerably larger
The majority Of the committee. however has sue
ceeded in manufacturing fictitious majority 81
2l0 for O'Neill.
In order to produce this result the majority was
COMPELLED TO resurrec and breathe the breath Of He
into an obsolete and dead statute II Missouri which.
as the minority shows. was totally inappiicabc 10
the election Of 1892 That statute required the voter
himself t. mark his registration number and the
number OF his yOt" the ballot ana IN csr 81 hS
failure DO the ballet was not T. be counted Ihat
was a provision II the law ~ 1889 AFTER that and
prior to the election Of 1892 the election law was
changed entirely new system being a"pted. Tn
der this law. ballots furnished 70 voters by one
II the Judges Of election. t. each voter. but be-
fore delivering the ballots the Judges must write
their MINES or initials the back Of each ballot.
and before the ballot deposited In the box 1t must
be numbered by the judges II election IN The order
in which it is received. The law further provides
that no Judge Of election shall deposit any ballot
upon which the names iriti1ls Of the Judges do
not appear.
1t appears that COZ OF the Joy ballots ana 800 OF
the O'NeiI ballots which counted by the can
lacked either the number or Initials of one
OF the judges. both the number ana on" OF the
initials or were otherwise technically defective.
There was no testimony TO Indicate that SINCE
Of these ballots not cast In good iath by voters
who were entitled to vote. that Il single one Of
said voters had not complied with all the require
ments Of the Jaw 50 FAR as he was concerned. me
ballots defective through no faut OF IN" voters
but because the Judges OF election In three precincts
neglected In part to perform the duties required OF
them by law The existing law Of Missouri does
not say that the voter shall BE- deprived Of his
that 1t shall not be counted Simply because a
Judge Of election has neglected his duty. and. as
before mentioned the majority Of the committee
was compelled to resurrect a dead law and res,
OF the case and 1t Is the only one upon which the
majority OF the committee relies the minority
hc other relating to this hi ,S general sp9
iect
opiniOn of Judge Barclay, and therefore need no
sncciaI reference In the preparation OF this
nnrt II was there shown where ballots have been
legally rejected that It has resulted from declan-
lion Of nuIlity in the law. or else a prohibition
against the counting OF the ballot, neither OF
nbinb "a contained in the system for providing
for The election which was held In ST. Louis ia
Nnvember lSg2 IL Is. in the Judgment OF the mi
norty a harsh and nnwarrnntts n construction cor, 10
iscoverns provisions applicable alone TO the SUPER
a,J ss.etn Tor the forfeiture OF the votes OF the
se esy s 20 bs Congressional district to whom
mo- fault whatever can be attributed No duty or
,,,,a.ior nnosed BY law upon the voter has been
omifftad but what has taken place has resulted
ro ,ho persons who were appointed TO carry IL into
u. w ~ that election. And. accordingly. Ii is be-
rcd that the baliots which were not numbered:
neh"I ,tdch affect this result only to the extent
ana %nie" ,ha,rty.tbree votes and those in
Ior,sS by the initials Of both judges Of election
are en.' retrnng officers who presided over the
Whe the Republicans n the House VII Offer no
case Is By no means unlikely that II view Of
all the iaG nsmocrats shall furnish the quorum
tnas s..sry to confirm The unjust partisan decision
OF the .nd they will be fully justified In 50 doing