The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1900-10-10

clerk and handed to the voter, and
when he would return from the booth
he would usually return the ballot
folded in the same manner that II had
been delivered to him; most of the
ballots that we're returned by the vot.
ers there at the precinct, took charge
of and tore of the secondary stub.
placed the ballot on a 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. ..
page 40, 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 WSIS Hltu USlOIS Inc DOdTu. lHcy
showed for themselves, as does the
one l have exhibited here today. The
evidence of their illegality was con-
elusive and overwhelming. No hon
est or impartial man can contend that
these ballots ought to have been count
ed. To do so would be not only to VIC
late the statute, which prescribes the
character OF the ballot, but also the
1 l4AA -
self. II 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 he.
cause 1t 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, Magoffin,
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.
lucky, in the case of Nall vs.. Tinsley,
already referred to, has given the an
swer of the law to this contention
hear It:
1T is suggested that such an inter-
probation may disfranchise voters, and
that they should not be so disfranchis-
cd by reason Of the fraud or mistake
of some county clerk whose duty, I'M
| der the law, is to furnish the ballots.
| Whilst the voter may lose his vote by
reason of such conduct by a county
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 or
these is the home of Caleb Powers and
John Powers. The latter is now coun'
ty school superintendent of Knox
county. On the 28th day of August,
John Powers, with a 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
heen under indictment for the murder
VI WV NOCDCl lOi Ola
he has remained in the mountains I'M
mOlested. When the election commits,
sioners of Knox 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
sioners, remained in the streets wLhe
the county board was in session and
Nral IYr
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, II the secrecy of the ballot is
destroyed, 1t will result in the utter
dlsfranchisement of hundreds of hon
est but timid men. A majority of ruff
fans have no legal or moral right to
disfranchise the orderly and peace
full element of the community, and the
law will not hear them when detected
and they cry out against the disfran-
chisement of themselves.
A Bounden Duty.
The votes of these four counties, by
the plain letter Of the constitution, as
construed 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 bounden duty of the
board and of the general assembly 10
disregard this vote.
On the face of the returns the state
board found that Taylor had a major
ity of 2,3S3 votes. This included the
majorities of the tissue ballot coun-
ties, viz: Knox, 1885; Magofin, 1926;
Martin, 473, and Johnson, 1878. These
majorities aggregate 3,062. The Tay.
lor majority, shown on the face of
the returns, deducted from the latter
number, defeated Taylor and elected
Goebel by 679 votes.
The Republican orators ana press
call this stealing the Offices, and de-
nying to the people OF these counties
a voice In the election. The dominant
party in these counties, through their
officials, procured these unlawful bal.
lots for use, and by means thereof,
sought, through publicity and intimida-
ton, to disfranchise the timid voters
of the minority, and to corrupt those
that could be purchased. There is no
means Of knowing TO what extent they
succeeded The familiar maxim Of
the law that no one can take advan-