The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1900-12-07
THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEYStIP CONTEST.

to the pending contest between himself and
Mr.. Cook:
'My principal object in commencing the
contest was TO get recount of the ballots
and the matter may stop there. There is
no provision of law for a recount without Il
contest The recount. which is now made
possible, ought to take place within month
or such a matter. 1t will take the County
Clerk only about three days to make the re-
count, as only the ballots for Prosecuting
Attorney will be re-counted. The law pro-
vides that this recount shall be made by the
county clerk behind closed doors with only
the parties interested and their attorneys
present. The 'oflicial count which is al
ways made by the county clerk Immediately
after an election. is not a recount, but is
simply the adding together of the totals GER
titled to him from the various election pre-
cincts. The ballots are never re-counted
after being sealed up at the various precincts
except in case of contest. Should the re-
count give Mr.. Cook anything like de-
cisive majority | will cheerfully dismiss the
contest on the completion of the recount.
And should the recount give me decisive
majority, it will also practically settle the
matter.
1t is true that | have alleged in my notice
of contest that certain persons not legally
entitled to vote at the late election voted for
Mr.. Cook, and within twenty days from the
date of my notice, the time prescribed by
law for that purpose, no doubt Mr.. Cook
will serve notice on me alleging that certain
persons voted for me not being legally en-
titled to vote.
To what. extent these allegations might be
established by proof on either side, can not
be definitely told at this time. But sug
gested above, the recount may show such
majority one way or the other as to elim-
nate the issue of illegal voters. To try the
case upon the issue that illegal votes were
cast. would involve considerable cost, and
would require the testimony of quite num-
Der of witnesses. The cost and trouble,
however, of recount is comparatively
slight, and inasmuch as the result, according
to the official returns, was very close, there
being difference of only four votes, and in
view of the fact that re-counts in other in
stances have shown marked variances from
the official returns, think that recount is
justified. | would not for a moment be con-
sidered as appealing from the verdict OF the
people, nor do | claim that the Judges of
election knowingly counted single vote inn
properly, or that they knowingly permitted
anyone to vote not legally entitled to do so,
or that they knowingly refused anyone the
right to vote who had legal right to vote.
But it is undoubtedly true that the best
election officers are liable to make mistake
in making the count of the ballots on election
day. The cases cited below which We're
carried to the Supreme court of the state
tend to show that this is true.
The case of Some VS. Williams 130 Mo, $50
appealed to the supreme conrt from Cole
county, shows this state of facts: In 1894
Some and Williams were opposing candidates
for the office of Sheriff of Cole county The
official count gave Williams Ii majority.
Some contested and the recount gave Some
35 majority. The total number of votes
cast in Cole county that year for the two
candidates mentioned were less than the total
number Of votes cast for Prosecuting Attor-
ney in this county this year. In the case of
Nash VS. Craig 134 Mo. 347, appealed to the
supreme court from Buchanon county, these
facts appear: Nash and Craig were oppos-
inc candidates for the office of county clerk
of Buchanan county in 1894. The official
count gave Craig q majority of one vote.