The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1900-03-01
was asserted that no penalty for offenses
committed by election officers was pro-
vided bv the new law, and consequently

WAS a6serteu tnat no penalty IOf OHenSeS
committed by election officers was pro-
vided by the new law, and consequently
there was no law providing punishment
for such offenses. But In the. suit to
test the validity of the law the Appel
late Court adjudged, as the advocates of
the law had contended, that the penal.
ties provided by the original secret ball
lot election law remained in force and
were applicable to every wrong done:
after enactment of the new Law. 1t was
claimed that because the new statute
did not provide for appeals to the
Courts from decisions Of election-con-
test boards in election contests, there.
fore that right was destroyed. But the
Court of Appeals decided, as the Demo.
Gratis contended, that the right of ap.
peal to the Courts remained unaffected
in every case in which there was such
before the new law was enacted
The republican platform declares
that the law commits lSaad power to
irresponsible Commissioners not chosen.
by or accountable to the people for their
acts. To whom is q county Judge in
any of the mountain counties having
large Republican majofities responsible?
And what would such a Judge care for
criticism because he had not, in appoint.
ing election officers, divided them among
the political parties? Under the old law
the action of the County Judge in APP
pointing election officers could not be
reviewed, nor could be be removed from
office nor be in anywise punished for
|iaisregarding the law governing the app
pointment of election officers. There
can scarcely be imagined q more ire
sponsible power than that conferred by
the old law upon the County Judge.
"But the new Law empowers the State
Commissioners to remove from office at
any time any County Commissioner. go
that whenever any County Commission
er violates the law there is an Immediate
remedy by bring the matter to the at
tention Of the State Board.
THE OHIO. LAW.
'sIt was SAID this law was without pre-.
cedent. but in Ohio the Republican
party has for years had in operation a
law which vests in ore man, the Secre.
tary of State. the power to appoint
County Election Commissioners for all
counties in the state save those contain
ing the large Republican cities, and in
those excepted counties, which usually
go republican even when the state goes
democratic, the power to appoint the
Election Commissioners is vested in the
Mayors. The Republican press of Ohio,
of course, continues to denounce the
Infamous kentucky election law.
The character of the opposition to
this law is the best evidence Of it's
necessity and wisdom. Every corrupt
and malisn influence in the comm on.
wealth or out of it that concerns itself
with our elections opposed the enact
ment of this law, denounces it now and
demands its repeal. When the bill for
the law was pending the rrilroad lobby,
the Book Trust lobby and every other
corrupt influence at Frankfort used
every possible means to defeat III.
Every influence and neency that fought
the Democracy in JA,6 And helped ia
steal Kentucky's vote opposed the
enactment of this lay, and is.against ii
now.
The real objection to this Law it's
opponents do not state; that objection
is that this Law insures honest elections.
This law takes the vote of Kentucky V
out OF the vote market which Hanna
established in Kentucky in 1895. It
destroys the assumed inalienable right
Of the Republican party to steal cleo
tions. It is the barricade which the
Democracy Of Kentucky have erected to
repel the invasions of Hannaism, and it
will prove effective to pre- vent repeti-
ton of the theft of 1896 6'-Cincinnati
Enquirer.