The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1900-04-20

is so widely known as not to be dis
cussed here. An example of the fair
ness of the Goebel law, In its applica>
ton, in the appointment OF precinct
officers, shall give the following facts
all established by affidavit.
OF the thirty two precincts in Fay>
cite county there were but four Re-
publican sheiihs appointed, the other
party having the other twenty eight,
who gave the deciding vote on every
contested voter. In the city of Lex>
ington there were eight voting pres
cincts In which three officers out OF
the four were Goebel Democrats, viz. !;
Precincts 10, II, %, rs, 26, az, 80 and
81. In the same city there were four
precincts in which all the election of
ficers were Goebel Democrats, viz. /:
Precincts 10, rs, 81 and 81. Had
such injustice been perpetrated under
the old law, the County Judge would
have been liable on his bond and re-
sponsible to the people, but under the
Goebel law the three irresponsible
Commissioners, appointed by the State
Board and under no bond, can with
impunity trifle with the sacred rights
of the people.
In Christian county these irrespon
sible County Commissioners appoint~
ed as officers OF election fifteen Me-
groes who were not able to read or
write and this in defiance of the law
itself, but the equally irresponsible
State Board winked at all of these ir-
Irregularities and let them pass, as by
this law they are the sole judges from
their "decision there is no appeal"
give the above merely as samples
of the fraud committed under this law,
but there are thousands OF others
which could be mentioned.
Col. Campbell as an excuse for the
passage of the Goebel law, repeats
with apparent hesitation the story OF
fraud in the Eleventh District in the
election of 1896. He does say that he
credits this story, but seemingly for
lack of something better, he gives it,
saying that it is based on assertion
and belief only. That story which
evidently Col Campbell does not be-
lieve, credits the carrying of Kentucky
by Mckinley in 1896 to frauds perpe>
trated In the Eleventh District.
Let us look at the figures on this
matter and see If there Is any founda-
ton for this "belief and assertion. 4"
In 1895 the Republican vote in the
Eleventh District was FL, 297; in 1896
it was 27,I66. a gain of ~ per cent.
In 1895 in same district the Democratic
vote was Q. 22o; In 1896 it was IL, 7S3,
a gain of SO per cent. Is it in accord
with reason to charge fraud in this
Republican stronghold when the Dem
ocratic gain was II per cent in excess
of the Republican gaip' In contrast
with this, let us look at the correspond
ing vote in the first District, which
has always been styled the Gibraltar
of Democracy in Kentucky. In 1895
the Republican vote in this district
was o,65S; In 1896 it was 1884. a
gain of IS per cent. In 1895 the Dem.
ocratic vote in same district was 49,.
40; in 1896 1t was 2S,S43, a gain of
GO per cent.
The figures taken from the official
returns in the Office of the Secretary
of State, show that in the Republican
stronghold the Democrats gained II
per cent more than the Republicans
and in the Democratic stronghold they
(the Democrats) gained 81 per cent
mole than the Republicans.
Again referring to Col. Campbell's
opinion of Kentucky honor, that each
party steals all it can, ask from the
evidence above given which party he
thinks did the most stealing2
Col. Campbell enters at length into
the discussion OF the legality of a con-
test. No one disputes that contests
are allowable and in many instances
justi6able. Individual contests have
been frequent when the election has
been close; and they have often result.
ed in the interests of justice. A con-
test before an impartial, unprsj JUDGED,
non-partisar jury is an essential part
of free government, and no one OBJ
jects or can object to it, The contest,
so called, provided for by the Goebel
law has been such farce, and such a
travesty upon justice, that it has, as
Henry Watterson said, "heralded the
proud name of the old Commonwealth
as by word to the ends of the earth"
1t was, to start with, not a contest
Of individuals, but a party contest
agreed upon in a caucus Of party lead
ers in which those who were by this
law to decide the contest we're present
and advised the contest to be made.
1t was a contest wsged only because
the eontesting party controlled the
jury and were assured OF favorable
verdict before the trial began. 1t was
a contest In which the committee who
were to try 1t were by fraud made to
consist Of ten staunch supporters OF