Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1900-10-12


ballots that were returned by the vot-
ers there at the precinct, I took charge
OF and tore off the secondary stub. /
placed the ballot on book that was
lying on the table and detached the
stub from the ballot, and without any
effort on my part to see who the voter
voted for | could easily distinguish
who he had voted for.
d. B. Faulkner, election commission
er OF Knox county (Vol. 2, page 93) =,
testified that he had examined large
number of the ballots; that they were
printed on transparent paper, and that
the stencil mark could be seen
through the paper upon all that came
before the commissioners.
]. f. Stanfill, who was a Judge of
the election in Knox county (Vol. 2.
page 11tJ, testified that the ballots
were transparent, and that he could
see from the back of the ballot how
the vote was cast.
The ballots from these four coun-
ties were filed before the Doard. They
showed for themselves, as does the
one have exhibited here today. The
evidence of their illegality was con-
elusive and overwhelming. No hon
est or impartial man can contend tnat
these ballots ought to have been coun-
ed. To do so would be not only to vio-
late the statute, which prescribes the
character of the ballot, but also the
letter and spirit of the constitution it.
self. IL four counties of the common
wealth may disregard the constitu-
ton in respect to the character OF
their ballots, then 1t may be done by
any number of all the counties. The
present elaborate system of voting in
troduced in Kentucky was adopted be-
cause it was supposed to secure Sc
crecy. No man can look at the ballots
and say that the secret of the voter
was preserved in Johnson, Magofin,
Martin and Knox counties.
An Appellate Decision.
But the Republican press and ora
tors have charged that the voters Of
these counties should not be disfran-
chised because OF the fraud or mis-
take of the clerks in procuring these
ballots. The court of appeals of Ken
tucly, in the case Of Nall VS.. Tinsley,
already referred to, has given the an
swer of the law to this contention
hear it:
"It is suggested that such an inter-
probation may disfranchise voters, and
that they should not be so disfranchis-
ed by reason of the fraud or mistake
of some county clerk whose duty, un-
der the law, is to furnish the ballots.
Whilst the voter may lose his vote by
roo 80 kxt
clerk, still that fact can not change
the meaning OF the constitution and
statute.
These four counties are in the heart
of the zone OF assassination. One of
these is the home of Caleb Powers and
John Powers. The latter Is zow coun.
ty school superintendent of Knox
county. On the 2Sth day of August,
John Powers, with bodyguard of ten
desperate, heavily armed men, at his
home on Brush creek, executed, before
the county judge and county clerk of
that county his bond as school super
intendent. Although John Powers has
been under indictment for the murder
of Gov. GOebel for nearly six months,
he has remained in the mountains un-
molested. When the election commits
sioners of Kn1x county assembled to
canvass the returns and certify the
result of the last election, an angry
mob Of 500 or 600 Republicans, with
ropes to hang the Democratic commits
remained in the streets while
the county board was in session and
freely threatened them with death IL
they failed to certify according to the
opinion of the mob. In a county like
this, where violence and lawlessness is
the rule, and force and intimidation
control, If the secrecy of the ballot is
destroyed, it will result in the utter
disfranchisemen of hundreds of hon
sst but timid men. A majority Of ruff
fans have no legal or moral right to
disfranchise the orderly and peace
Pul element OF the community, and the
law will not hear them wnen detected
and they cry out against the disfran-
chisement Of themselves.
A Bounded Duty.
The votes OF these four counties, by
the plain letter of the constitution, as
contrued by the court of appeals, as
well as for the considerations last stat
ed, should not have been taken into
the estimate when arriving at the re-
suit 1t was the bounded duty of the
board and Of the general assembly to
disregard the vote.
, On the face of the returns the state
board found that Taylor had a major
Ity of 1883 votes. This included the |
najoritiesS Of the tissue ballot coun-
ties, viz: Knox, 1885; Magofin, 1926; |
Martin, 473, and Johnson. S78. These
majorities aggregate 3,062. The Tay-
Ior majority, shown on the face OF |
he returns, deducted from the latter |
number, defeated Taylor and elected |
Soebel by $40 votes.
The Republican orators and press
,all this stealing the Offices, and de- !
lytng to the people OF these counties
voice in the lection. The dominant
party in these counties, through their
procured these unlawful bal
OTIS for use, and by means thereof,
sought, through publicity and intlmlda-
ion, to disfranchise the timid voters
If the minority, and to corrupt those
hat could be purchased. There is no |
means Of knowing to what extent they
succeeded. The familiar maxim OF