The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-06-14
up TO The court.
Recount in Parker Hughes Case
is Completed.
Majority For Parker Counting
Double Ballots is So.
ARE 2O2TWICE MARKED
If These Are UncOunted Hughes
Majority Would Be I'll.
No Longer Amy Question About
the "WiIl of the People,


The settlement of the question of who
was elected mayor at the last municipal
election hinges upon one point; wheth-
er the ballots marked in both the Dem
ocratic and Citizens columns for Al
bert Parker should be counted or not
If the 202 double marked ballots are
thrown out then Hughes will win. If
the 202 double ballots are counted then
Parker was elected mayor by a ma
jority of So. Parker received a majori-
ty of the votes cast at the election
Paying no attention to ballots that
were challenged by either side and
counting the ballots as it is evident
they were voted without regard to any
technical objections. Hughes received
$3.50 and Parker received $3.50. a major
ity for Parker on all votes cast of 81.
The following table shows all the
votes cast, for Parker and Hughes at
the city election, as shown by the re
count:
UnehaIenged ballots received by.
Challenged ballots for Hughes. 81
Total Hughes vote $3.50
Unchanenged ballots received by Par ,o-
chalenged hal s1 tseiis Ballots for Parker Is
Double ballots for Parker counted by
the judges of the election and chal-
lenged by the Hughes attorneys 178
Double ballots from the First ward
for Parker and not counted by the
election judges OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES. "A
Total Parker vote e....................6,s $50
Parlser's majority, disregarding all
objections ----.--.---...-.-----..- Il
On this basis of figuring, if the 2oz
double ballots are thrown out by the
supreme court, then Hughes would win
by III majority.
AS some of the ballots challenged in
the recount will undoubtedly be reject
ed by the supreme court, then the chal-
lenged ballots must be considered in
all conjectures as to the ballots to be
finally counted for both candidates
Allowing all objections made by the at
torneys for both sides, but counting the
double ballots, Parker would still win
by So majority. The Hughes attorneys
objected to 43 Parker ballots upon the
same grounds that the Parker at
tOrneyS objected to 81 Hughes ballots,
making the excess of objections IL in
favor of Parker.
The following table shows the result
with all objections considered and the
double ballots counted.
Unchallenged ballots received by
unchaiienged adii ballots received by PAR -
Hughes ballots objected to 81
Parker ballots objected to-------------- 4S
Excess of objections in favor of Par
Add to Parker's tailies the lis double
ballots found in the recount of votes
ana the 23 double ballots rejected
in the First ward. a total of 202, and
Deduct from Hughes total the excess
of all objections in favor OF Parker,
and Hughes has a net vote off,. -6.274
Leaving for Parker. with all object
ions considered, majority of-..-..-- 50
on this basis Of figuring if the 202
double ballots for Parker are thrown out
then Hughes would have majority OF
13S. OF the rejected ballots, not includ-
ing the double ballots found in the First
ward. there are six Hughes ballots and
five Parker ballots that it is claimed
should be counted which gives Hughes
an advantage of but one
Any way that the situation may be
looked at and any way that the result
can be figured, Hughes can win only
by the supreme court throwing out the
POP ballots marked twice for Parker. If
the Hughes attorneys succeed in win
ming their case it will be upon technical
tiles alone as it is clearly shown that a
majority Of the votes cast at the election
were in favor Of Albert Parker for.
mayor The opinion of many attorneys
is that the supreme court Will not reject
the double ballots as if such is done the
votes of 202 citizens would be thrown
out and their wishes would not be con-
sidered.
CONTEST COURT ADJOURNS.
The Parker-Hughes recount was ad-
journed this morning until O'Clock
be examined to show why certain bal
lots were rejected.
The agreement entered into by both
sides and accepted by the supreme
court stipulates that witnesses can be
subpoenaed and examined. The wit
nesses viii be summoned by Sheriff
Cook. The following is the list of wit
nesses that will probably be called
upon to testify before Commissioner
Larimer.
First ward. second precinct-W. S
Eastman, judge; NJ. F. GamlOwski.
judge; Fred Xoeth, judge; D. A. Lewis,
Third ward. third precinct-W. NJ
Core, Judge; J. T. Ward, judge; Grant
Gaines. judge; S. H. Roberts, clerk;
James Martin, clerk.
Third ward. first precinct. w
Stout. judge; J, 3. Mccoy. Judge; J. NJ
Hart Judge; J. w. Stephenson, clerk;
J. j. Dyal, clerk
Fourth ward, first precinct-W. A S
Bird. judge; F. R. Baker, judge; J. ".
Bell Judge: Robert d. Carver clerk:
Leo Won Langen. clerk
Fourth ward, fourth precinct-J. M. 1
West judge; c. L Vanderpool, judge;
John C. Rogers, judge; Al Wick, clerk;
J. II. Curran, clerk
Fourth ward, third precinct-R. NJ
r. johnson, Judge; T. F. Thacher,
clerk; c. A. Wieneke. clerk
Fifth ward. second precinct. F.
Carter, judge; P. II. Souther, judge; H.
W. Parker, judge; Frank Peltret, clerk;
A. r. Upp. clerk.
The witnesses viii be used to testify
as to rejected ballots The attorneys
for both sides viii want to pprove that
certain ballots in the rejected bundles
were tailed and others were not The
Hughes attorneys will contend that a
large number of rejected ballots found
for Parker should not be counted on the
ground that parties voting them were
given other ballots which were voted.