Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1900-10-12

OF chance were violated, then the
drawings In the constitutional conve.
tion and the other drawings In the gen.
eral assembly were likewise unfair.
BY what rule would those who COM
plain Judge these drawings? How or
ten may the majority prevail, and how
often must the minority lose? How
near must the result approach the DO.
litical proportions Of the members IN
order to be fair? Is IL free from suspi.
cion when this proportion has beeen
reached? Does II become unfairer
when this proportion is departed
from? II so, where does fraud set In
and fairness end? The devotee of
chance whose life has been given to
the study of these inexplicable prob
lens has never yet been able to formu-
late a rule. It would seem, however,
that the Republican rule is that when
ever they win the drawing Is fair, and
when they lose 1t is unfair. This as.
sault made upon the drawing of the
contest board has no fact to sustain it.
The reputation and character of the
officials who conducted these draw
ings, publicly in the presence of the
general assembly, is a sufficient refu-
tation of the baseless charge.
The Law and the Evidence.
But it has been persistently charged
that the contest board and the general
assembly acted without law or evil
dence, and that by excluding the votes
OF the city of Louisville and the coun-
ties of Johnson, Magofin and Martin
the people in these localities were de-
MED the right of suffrage, and Taylor
and his co-officials deprived of their
Offices; or, to use the form of express
sion which Mr.. Yerkes has adopted,
the board and the general assembly
stole" the offices.
The contest board and the members
of the general assembly were aetna
under oath when they determined this
contest. Mr.. Yerkes is only speaking
as the partisan nomineee of the politl-
cal party which is directly responsible
for the assassination of Mr.. Goebel,
and which has approved the action of
the murderers. A presumption of fair
ness and faithful discharge or duty
sustain the official action of the
board and the general assembly. Mr.
Yerkes' statement is weakened by the
that attaches TO the utter
ance of man who is speaking in be-
half of a criminal whose conduct he
approves.
One of the grounds upon which the
election was contested was that in
a number of counties, including John
son, Magofin, Martin and Knox, the
ballots used were printed on paper so
thin and transparent that the printing
and stencil marks could pc easily dis
from the backs thereof. If
this be true the entire vote cast in
these counties should be disregarded
in arriving at the result The ballots
were printed and cast in violation of
the supreme law of the land.
In Section AZ of the constitution of
Kentucky it Is provided that "all cleo
tions by the people shall be by secret
the Kentucky statutes it is enacted
that "all ballots shall be printed on
plain white paper, sufficiently thick
that the printing can not be distin-
guished from the back"
The object of the provision of the
was to secure the secrecy
Of the ballot. The reason of secrecy
was to afford the timid and weak an
to cast their ballots free
from intimidation or molestation and
10 prevent the corrupt voter from
for the sale of his vote.
When the ballot is printed on paper
1ot sufficiently thick to hide the print
ing and the stencil of the voter, the
object of the law fails, and it is no
more than system of viva voce vot-
ng. The court of appeals in Nail VS..
rinsley, 21 Ky. Rep, 1,167, held that
IN election with ballots, by which the
officers of the election could see for
whom the vote was cast was invalid.
The law being plain and well set
led, the question of fact is now pre-
Iented, did the evidence authorize the
contest board and the general assem-
bly, to find that in any of the counties
objected to thin or tissue ballots were
lsed, in violation cf the law?
Sample Tissue Ballot.
have here one Of the ballots which
vas used in Johnson county and filed
before the contest board by j. M. Pres
ton, county clerk of that county, on
The 18th day of January, 1900, as
shown by the endorsement thereon,
by w. p. Thorne, Jr., clerk of the
board. BY reference to volume 2,
page 70, Of the transcript Of the rec
ord flied in the supreme court OF the
United States, for use in the case of
William S. Taylor and John Marshall,
plaintiffs, In error, against ]. c. w.
defendant, in error, the evil
ience Of Mr.. Preston will be found,
n which he states that he caused
.hese ballots to be printed at the Paw
paw printing office, In Catlettsburg.
KY. You will observe marks as Wei
rom the back as from the face OF this
ballot.
Upon page 112 OF the same volume
will be found the testimony of J. ID.
Kirk. county court clerk OF Martin
county. He testified that he procured
Ill Of the ballots used In his county
1t the election in November, 1899, to
70 printed at the Pawpaw ONCE. he
lied a smaple. printed on the same
'aper. and just like the Johnson coun.
y ballots in every respect except as
o names.
On page 61 OF the same volume will