Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1898-02-26

The latter Sentlomeu TebuTu 10 Their
homes in western Kansas.
Photo. Brown was considered pop
ulist by all well informed Republic
cans. Peacock did not attempt to
throw out the vote because Brown
probably held valid residence here
He was not too far away, and certain
ly voted for Balcom.
OF John Smiths politics it is enough
to know the gang he trains with. His
vote was not challenged which shows
that the gang were satisfied to let
him vote-legallv or not legally for
their candidates.
Baker came into the county with
Artz and Fordice and had exactly the
same standing as Fordice except that
he made settlement on his claim be-
fore Fordice did. The ArtZ gang were
all pops. Baker voted unchallenged
only because he slipped his vote in
while the republican challengers were
at dinner and afterward laughed at
them about his cuteneSS.
John Zeman repeatedly said he
would vote for Balloon. He afterward
repeatedly said he voted for Balloon.
He also said he would not vote for
Peacock. No doubt he was advised
to swear differently but on the stand
his courage failed and his conscience
prevailed. 1t was painfully evident
that he had been told to swear that
he voted for Peacock but he could not,
would not and did not do so. He con-
WINGED all his hearers that his repeat
a6 tato re 10
he voted the democratic ticket.
''Joe Zeman" did not figure in the
trial in any way.
Peacock had twenty days in which
to get evidence. Balloon had sixty.
The assertion that Balloon lost his
case because he was poor man is
strange comment upon the populist
supreme court. This poverty talk is
all buncombe. He is as wealthy as
his competitor. Furthermore, the
Independent said that meeting was
held at the office of d. III. HenkeI,
long before the trial began, for the
purpose of raising funds to assist Bal
com. Frakes, Olson, Henkel and Uf-
ford were there. What became of the
money? Did Balloon get the benefit
of 1T? Do these s'poor men" now
make Balcom'S poverty an excuse for
soliciting another party contribution
or subscription to reimburse them
selves? 1t is known that one of them
made such plea several months ago.
Everybody knows that there was no
personal controversy between Balcom
and Peacock. The contest was be-
tween Peacock and the men who rails
ed the money to prOlOng the fight and
Peacock won in spite of all the devil
try their wits could devise or their
money could buy.
This gang sent man to Topeka to
see Baker and to Emporia to see
Bailey and could have taken their
dispositions at so cents a piece, if the
evidence was such as they were hunt
ing. The expense could have been
divided between Musgrave and Bal
com and the evidence used on both
cases. The same man could have
taken Morgan's deposition for so
cents, making $3.50 in ALL
Albert Christensen was brought to
town on his own expense and could
nave been used on both cases. GRAY
was also subpen9d by Balloon and
kept here at Gray's expense, and Mr..
Balloon could have put these men on
the stand without costing him one
cent. If all these men cast illegal
votes for Peacock then Balloon could
have saved his case at total expense
of 81. so of which Mr.. Musgrave might
equally pay One-third. Smith was
also right at hand and his evidence
would not have cost Balloon one pen
ny, if he could use it. Any fool knows
that before the trial that there was
no record to transcribe and conse-
quently no expense to be incurred in
that way. The real trouble was not
on account of expense but because the
evidence all proved the wrong thing
for the purposes of Balloon and his CO.
adjutors and so, as the Independent
says, they had to rely upon the s.mer-
its of the case" which gave them dead
away.
Technical means ''pertaining to
fl,ov adantaI tho