New-York tribune., 1900-03-05
FRAUDS IN ALABAMA.
CASE OF ALDRICH AGAINST ROBBINS
BEFORE HOUSE on TUESDAY.
IBY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBUNE.I

icy TELEGRAPH THE TRIBUNE.l
Washington. March 4.-On Tuesday the House
of Representatives is to dispose Of the contested
election case OF Aldrich against Robbins OF the
WITH Alabama District This is district which
has gained a most unenyiable reputation, which
it seems TO enjoy, account Of the Democratic
election frauds therein perpetrated. The name
Of Dallas County Of which Selma is the capital,
has become historic in the annals OF Congress
relating to election contests. The OF
Aldrich against Robbins, pending is the
eleventh consecutive contest that has been
brought before the House of Representatives
from the Iyth District, and Dallas County has
been a prominent figure in all Of them ac-
count OF the fragrant frauds there committed
and permitted for more than twenty years.
With a fair and full vote and an honest count
the district is Republican by majority of from
eight thousand to ten thousand yet Repub-
ncan has represented it in Congress save
the result of contest This has happened four
times out Of ten and the pending contest is the
third that Mr.. Aldrich has successfully made.
He is man Of means and unblemshed personal
character, and prominent citizen, who enjoys
the confidence and respect of his fellow citizens.
But he is not a Democrat, and therefore to cheat
and defraud him and his party when he is a
candidate for Congress is considered praise
worthy by the Democratic leaders and their
tools
FRAUD IN DALLAS COUNTY.
The district is composed Of six counties in
five Of which the white voters are in the ma
j0rity. The color line is not drawn in those
counties. and in 1898 Mr.. Aldrich carried four
OF them by substantial majorities. In Dallas
County the coiored voters outnumber the white
voters by than six thousand. and nearly
all the former Republicans The pending
contest therefore. turns that county, no
white" counties. According to the official
turns Of the election in 1895 Aldrich received
5.6S5 votes. and Robbins 6915 votes, majority
OF l.2o0 votes. The net majority for Aldrich in
the five white" counties SIC; the majority
for Robbins in Dallas County 2,046, ac
cording TO the same returns. The Republican
majority OF the Elections Committee after a
careful analysis and review Of the testimony
reached the conclusion that the majority in
Dallas County for Robbins 605 instead of
2e46. and that Aldrich's majority in the dis
trict was 206. The Democratic minority Of the
same committee admitted frauds and irregu-
larities which reduced Robbins's majority In
the district from 1,230 to 3S9. Both the ma
jority and minority OF the Elections Committee
found fraud, but the latter found less than the
majority did
After vainly fighting fraud in Dallas County
for sixteen years. the Republican managers in
II Election Day they requested the Republican
a voters to remain away from the polling places
that day. This request was generally obeyed
Trustworthy Republican witnesses however,
were on the ground at each polling place to
&C unit all the voters who entered the polling
booths and make and preserve lists Of the
same The election was held and the returns
made when it found that the election Off
GERS tall Of whom partisan supporters of
the Democratic candidate) had returned as being
voted not only the Democratic votes actually
cast, but the Republican votes not cast, and that
nearly all of them had been counted for the
Democratic candidate.
UNSEATED BY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
Overwhelming proof of this wholesale Demo-
cratic fraud was submitted by Mr. Aldrich TO the
Elections Committee of the LIvth Congress, and
the result the unseating OF the Democratic
Beneficiary of the fraud and the seating Of Mr..
Aldrich. In 1896 the same performance was re-
peated by the election officers, who, in violation
of the State law. were all partisan supporters
of the Democratic candidate. Again Mr.. Aldrich
submitted conclusive evidence of the fragrant
frauds that had been committed and the Demo
cratic beneficiary. who was the same Mr.. Rob
bins who is the contestee in the pending case.
was unseated by the Lvth Congress and Mr..
Aldrich seated.
BY no means weary Of i'll doing the Demo
one voting precincts again resorted in 1898 to
the tactics Of fraud which had failed In 1894 and
1896 and the Republican managers employed
the same means to combat them. In the eleven
precincts various kinds and degrees Of fraud were
committed or perpetrated by the election officers
all of whom partisan supporters of Robbins,
except a small number who Were literate Repub-
licans In all these precincts the lawful requests
OF the Aldrich managers 10 have certain kepuD-
and cd he min itIy
inspectors and clerks Of election either
refused or ignored by the County Board, which
was exclusively composed of Democrats. and
Democrats or unsuitable persons were appointed
instead. The law requires that all persons ap-
pointed as precinct officers of election shall be
notified of such appointment ten days before
the election. In the case Of the eleven precincts
referred to the law disregarded and vio-
lated; the appointments We're not made public
until the morning of Election Day. and the most
diligent efforts of the Republican managers to
time were thwarted, and they were kept in
ignorance Of the instruments chosen to operate
the machinery OF fraud.
REPUBLICAN CONTENTION UPHELD.
The majority OF the Elections Committee just
ly contends that, under such circumstances, the
Republican managers were fully justified in
questing the Republican voters TO keep away
from the polling places and abstain from vot-
ing, and that the latter were fully justified in
needing the request. Every of them knew
that If he voted his vote would be counted for