The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-26
JACKSON COUNTY SEAT.
BrOwnstOwn Presents It's Side of the
Election Controversy.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journals
The Seymour correspondent of the Jour-
nal, in speaking of the cause of their de-
feat in the county seat removal election,
charges 1t to frauds, Irregularities and in
Limitations committed by the anti-removal-
lists, which statement is incorrect in every
respect. If the statements were true he
failed to mention where and by whom they
were committed. The fact is all the frauds,
Irregularities, etc., that were committed
were done at Seymour and by the removal
lists as we will clearly show. We openly
charge them with fraud and they dare not
deny it. In the first place, Jackson town.
slip cast 1922 votes. which is 355 more votes
than were cast at the presidential election
in November, 1896, eleven months ago, when
every vote in the township was got out by
the united efforts of all the political or.
ganizations. This gain of 355 votes which
We're evidently. mostly fraudulent, repre-
sents an increase in the population of about
1900, which is too absurd for any intelligent
and honest person in Jackson county to be-
leve. Again, Section 5 of the cOunty-seat
law provides that there shall be not less
than two persons from each side to witness
the count, and that they need not be voters
of the precinct, but voters of the county.
The committee for the anti-removalists APP
pointed eighteen respectable and honest men
to go to Seymour and witness the count at
the nine different precincts, as the law pro-
yfdes but at only two precincts were they
allowed to enter-Nos. 4 and 9--where the
anti-remoyalists had a judge on the board,
and where no frauds were likely 10 De
committed and where there were none. NO.
also had a judge who was favorable 70
the anti-removalists In these precincts
1896, was only thirty-three-about eleven to
the precinct. In the six precincts where the
watchers were refused admittance the IN
256 an increase of forty-four TO the precinct,
These figures are self evident facts that
frauds irregularities, etc, were committed
in those precincts, as they show gain OF
from thirty to sixty to the precinct All OF
the other townships in the county show a
falling off from the vote OF 1886 from nfteen
to thirty to the precinct, except Browns
town, which shows a slight gain-about
forty-six. Rrownstown township cast 500
votes, and not as much gain in the whole
AS the E. & r. Railway has suspended OPP
peration since last November good num-
Der of families have left Seymour, when when
Parties who were in Seymour the day or
the election selling chairs from wagon
and who were not residents OF the County
state that they were approached by citizens
of Seymour who insisted on their voting.
These same persons told them that they
had voted one man nine times that days
which meant one vote In each precinct.
AS to the charges made against Mr.. a. Al
Dawson, including the statement that No
was representing the sentiment of six hum
dred citizens of Seymour who we're against
relocation, they are untrue as Mr.. DAWSON
told me, time and again, that there were
not over fifty persons in the township who
would vote against relocation. All the braS
and buster they are now making about
coming again at the December term OF
the commissioners court with new petit
ton is bosll. The special law got up for
special purpose has been acted upon by the
voters of the county, it's mission Is ended,
it is null and void, and at an END. Inc
farmers of jackson county have passed
their verdict against It by majority OF 44O
outside of the vote of Seymour and Browns
md mr. uaf
seat Of Jackson remain where it of right
should beat the geographical center of the
county, Brownstown. TAXPAYER.
Brownstown, Ind. Oct. 25