Evening star., 1901-12-25
FRAUD WAS PRACTICED
JOHN C. SIMMERING OF MARYLAND
MAKES THIS CHARGE.
Says Democrats BurgIarized State by
Means of Trick Ballots in
Recent Election.

Mr.. John C. Simmering, chairman of the
committee on illiteracy of the Maryland
republican state central committee, has for
mulated table showing the claims of the
committee that the party at the recent
election was 'burglarized' of what was
it's just rights. The table is interesting for
the student of Maryland politics. In 1t
will be found the number of ballots count
ed. the majority each party received at the
last election held under the law that the
special session Of the legislature repealed,
the number of rejected ballots at the last
election. the majority returned for the
democratic candidates for the legislature
in the counties where the trick ballots were
used. or hybrid Independent republican
tickets placed on the official ballot the
percentage of the votes rejected as COM
pared with the votes counted (and this is OF
the most important Of alD, the percentage
Of registered voters in 1899 that could not
write their names and the total vote cast
at the last five elections in which the par
ties in the state, as whole voted for the
same candidates.
Mr.. Simmering shows that change of
three votes in Caroline county, where 1876
votes were rejected, would have elected a
republican member Of the assembly; a
change of eight votes in. Carroll county,
43t TeJecleu, WUulu nave erected another; a
change of fourteen in the second district of
Baltimore city, $4,000 votes cast and 1000
rejected, would have elected another; a.
change of twenty-three votes in either ST.
Mary's. Somerset or Talbot counties. in
which there were rejected, respectively,
S3S, 1,07S and $50, would have elected g.
member from each county, or in other
words, a gain Of ninety-one votes for $500
rejected ballots. or a change of forty-eight,
would have given the house of delegates to
the republicans.
"The illiteracy Of the registered voters of
Prince Georges county" Mr.. SHINING says,
''is 80 per cent, and that Of Queen Anne
county 30 per cent, yet the farmers Of the
firfist named county had over 50 per cent
of the rejected ballots as compared with
the counted ballots, while the latter county
had only Sh per cent. Prince Georges coun-
ty had a counterfeit republican independent
ticket, while Queen Anne. strongly demo-
cratic county, had nothing but the election
law with which to contend. The rural pop
ulation cannot learn too much about the
frauduiency OF the late election
THE yeters of the state were victimized, %
he says, mot In proportion to their Hitter
acy, but the Tatio Is relative to the unlaw-
full and abhorrent methods practiced, as
published In the county paper in proper
form as fac simile Of the official ballot,
but the official ballots handed to the voter
on election day. in Calvert and st. Mary's
counties We're the greatest naonstrosities in
placed before American citizens to vote.
''The extent Of the Acknowledgement is
seen at a glance when 1t is remembered
that the greatest difference in any OF the
five prior eleetions between the registered
vote and the ballots counted at the election
had been 30OO0 but at the last election it
amounted to the enormous sum Of more
than S5,0O0..ss
The pluralities of the democratic legisla-
tive candidates were as follows: st. Mary's
the two candidates for the house had A and
97, while the candidate for senator had 1O8:
in Prince Georges the three candidate for
thehouse had, respectively, II, 133 and 238
while the candidate for senator had "a;
Somerset. A.; Charles, three candidates had.
respectively. So5 S56 and 461; Anne Arun-
60: Frederick, Lbs: Hartford. 10: Cecil oas.
Washington, IA; Carroll county, three can.
didates had, respectively. IA. Is and 10;
ty. Worcester, Howard and Baltimore coun-
ties there were small pluralities for con-
troller. 81