The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-26
THE PROPOSED RECOUNT.


1t is reputation of republican in
situations to permit a fraud upon the
ballot to become successful. The man
who is willing to hold the Office of Presi-
dent or Governor by fraud is unworthy
the confidence of the public. and should
not have been elected. Good government
has much to gain 10y the defeat of all
fraudulent attempts on the part of parties
or men to obtain office except by the free
and untrammeled suffrages of common
wealth.
But recount by the Legislature will
satisfy no one. In the first place, if the
Republican managers call for a recount of
the vote in San Francisco because Budd
obtained a large majority there the
Democratic managers may with equal
propriety call for a recount at Los Ange-
les, San Diego and other parts OF the State
where Estee received a large majority.
If 10 receive a large majority is pre-
sumptive evidence of fraud, David B,
Hill should at once call for recount Of
the votes of New York.
The pending contest. if it is before the
Legislature, will cost the State at least
$780, 900. A legislative investigation will
involve practically recount of the entire
vote of the State. This would bring
crowds of witnesses to the State Capital
hnr Of nd, Of
members of election boards, Clerks of
counties, witnesses who would swear
or deny that the returns had been tam
pered with, custodians of the tally sheets,
and others in still other categories
which the investigation would suggest.
The mileage and per diem of those wit
uesses would amount to an enormous
sum. The political Sergeant-at-Arms of
political Legislature receives fees upon
scale which makes it to his profit and
interest to have large number Of wit
nesses. The mileage of witnesses from
San Diego alone would be S13O; from Los
Angeles, about 500 and from San Fran
cisco, about $40 each; while the per diem
of these witnesses would add TO the eX-
travagant aggregate. If, to avoid this
expense, a legislative committee were
sent to various parts of the State to act as
a Returning Board to recanvass the votes,
then few men would have the deter
mination of the whole question at issue.
If the votes are to be recounted before
the Legislature that performance cannot
be accomplished IN hundred days; and
moreover, an examination by a legis-
lative committee cannot be completed
within the ordinary term of Legislative
session.
contest over the election of Governor, it
should be taken to the courts of the vari-
GUS counties, and the contestants them
selves should pay the BILL if this is not
practicable, then the counties where the
frauds were committed should be made to
stand the expense of a recount. Ii the
people of any county have conducted the
election within that county fairly, no
part of the expense of a recount
should be entailed upon them. Let
the localities where frauds exist or
TO which the allegation of fraud at
taches stand the necessary expense
OF exposure. The presumption of
law is that the returns on their face are
correct. When the Secretary of State has
ft,a 49,
PARTY shown to have majority or plu-
rality must receive certificate of cleo
ton. He is, prima facie at least, elected.
The only basis of allegation for fraud
which has been suggested up to the pres
ent time was the surprise of the Republi-
can managers at the large majority for
tho Democratic candidate in San Fran
cisco. The Republican candidate in a
letter over his own signature says that he
came into San Francisco with very
large majority to find that majority over
come by the majority votes cast or de-
clared to have been cast for the opposing
candidate. We have no doubt that David
r. Hill experienced great shock OF sur
prise at the large number OF votes cast
for Governor Morton. We have no doubt
but what Budd himself was surprised at
Mr.. Estee's majority in Los Angeles, San
Diego and various other counties in the
State. But the miscalculation OF poll
tician is not presumptive evidence OF
fraud. A recount which is to entail