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

drawings in the constitutional conven
ton and the other drawings in the gen
eral assembly we're likewise unfair
! BY that rule would those who com.
plain judge these drawings? How OF
! ten may the majority prevail, and how
| often must the minority loser How
J near must the result approach the po
| litical proportions of the members in
order to be fair? Is il free from suspi
| cion when this proportion has been
reached? Does 1t 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. II would seem, however
that the Republican rule is that when.
ever they win the drawing is fair ana
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 sufficient refu-
tation of the baseless charge.
The Law ana 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, Magofiin and Martin
the people in these localities we're 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 acting
under oath when they determined this
contest Mr.. Yerkes is only speaking
as the partisan nominee 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 of duty
sustains the official action of the
board and the general assembly. Mr..
Yerkes' statement is weakened by the
presumption that attaches to the utter.
ance of a 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, Magoffin, Martin and Knox, the
ballots used were printed ON paper so
thin and transparent that the printing
and stencil marks could be easily dis.
tinguished from the backs thereof. II
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 1t is provided that "all cleo
lions by the people shall be by secret
Official ballot" and by Section lac Of
the Kentucky statutes 1t 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
constitution was to secure the secrecy
of the ballot. The reason of secrecy
was to afford the timid and weak an
opportunity to cast their ballots free
from intimidation or molestation and
to prevent the corrupt voter from bar.
gaining for the sale of his vote. When
the ballot is printed on paper not sur.
ficiently thick to hide the printing and
the stencil of the voter, the object ol
the law fails, and it is no more than
a system of viva voce voting. The
court of appeals in Nall VS.. Tinsley,
81 Ky. Rep, 1,167, held that an cleo
tfnV, xtfffh ha1lnkc hxy xnyhfnh tho
of the election could see for whom
the vote was cast was invalid.
The law being plain and well set
tied, the question of fact is now pre-,
serted, 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
used in violation of the law?
Sample Tissue Ballot.
have here one Of the ballots which
was used in Johnson county and filed
before the contest board by ]. NJ. 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 filed in the supreme court of the
United States, for use in the case OF
William S. Taylor and John Marshall,
plaintiffs, in error, against J. C. w.
Beckham, defendant, in error, the ev-
idence of Mr. Preston Will be found,
in which he states that he caused
these ballots to be printed at the Pau
paw printing office, in Catlettsburg,
Ky. You will observe that you can see
the printing and stencil marks as well
from the back as from the face Of this
ballot.
Upon page 112 of the same volume
will be found the testimony OF ]. d.
Kirk, county court clerk of Martin
county. He testified that he procured
all of the ballots used In his county
at the election in November, 1899, to
be printed at the Paupaw Office. He
filed a sample, printed on the same
paper, and just like the Johnson coun.
ty ballots in every respect except as
to names,
On page 81 OF the same volume will