The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-06-20
MAYORALTY CONTEST.
Parker Has the Votes-CIemens
Says Hughes Attorneys
Are Frightened.

The Hughes forces are making a last
struggle to bring the present contest
for the Office of mayor down to a ques
ton of drawing lots. on the pretext
which can not possibly be substanti-
ated, that Parker and Hughes received
the same number of votes.
Counting all the ballots cast for the
two candidates and claimed by the at
torneys, Hughes received, including re-
jected ballots that are claimed, 6,252,
and Parker 6.352. There are many ways
to figure the ballots, but the result in
any event is a m ajority for Parker. In
speaking of the situation G. Q. Glenn
ems said this morning:
In the second precinct of the First
ward the total number of votes strung
was GA. The total number of voters,
653 Thirty-six ballots were in the re-
Jected package more than the total
vote, so z of the rejected ballots could
not have been voted. The question
arises, Which seven? We shall make
short work of that question. We can
say they were all Parker votes, for we
don't need them in our business. Par
ker would then have of the rejected
ballots IT. Hughes 4, including those
objected to.
The question whether the double
marked ballots shall be counted will be
decisive, and the court will not be like
~ to look further. Three supreme
courts, Michigan, New York and Wyom-
ing have expressly decided that such
ballots must be counted. and that, too,
under the most rigid statutes as to
distinguishing marks. No court has
decided the other way. So we feel pretty
Where are we then2 Exclusive of the
second precinct of the Firt ward, there
are IT'S double ballots. Hughes ap-
parent majority, after excluding all
these and AZ besides. is 100 So, if all
the objected ballots but the doubles be
left out of the case. as they have been,
Parker will have Is majority, without
the disputed First ward vote. If all
the ballots objected to should be count
ed, Hughes apparent majority would be
PA because of a gain of 54 objected
ballots, but Parker would gain III dou-
bleS and 42 Others making 219-a major
ity of 5. Some objected ballots cannot
be counted, for the law expressly says
so. These are the blue pencil ballots
and those with but a single stroke in
stead of cross. These must be de-
Quoted from Hughes 81 and Parker's AZ.
OF the blue pencil ballots Hughes had
IL Parker 4. of the single stroke ballots,
Hughes had 8, Parker ?. Deduct 10 then
from "a and Hughes would get IS count
ed. Deduct 6 from AZ, and Parker would
get Sc counted. So the figures would
stand:
Hughes apparent majority. 100
Objected ballots counted. S5
1s5
Parker Pf5sr o doubles i 6s;iot: 1as
pa
Parker's majority .....-..-....... 10
This computation excludes First ward,
which would give Parker 20 more ma
jority- Thus. if only the doubles be
counted of the objected ballots. Parker
wins whether the rejected ballots of
second precinct of First ward be count
ed or not. IF all objected ballots be
counted, Parker wins. If all but blue
pencil and half cross ballots be count
ed, Parker wins. What is there then for
the supreme court to decide but the
double ballot question? Any other
question would only afTect the amount
of Parker's majority. for he has a ma
jority in any event"
Mr.. Clemens, in speaking of the ac-
ton of the Hughes attorneys who an
nounced that they would not stand by
their agreement in regard to objections,
said:
If anybody had any doubt that the
attorneys for Mr. Hughes were not SO
confident as they have pretended in the
newspapers, that doubt should have
been dispel1ed by their conduct yester-
day before the supreme court commits
sion
When the count Of unob5ected bal
lots had been ended, we took up, b.
mutual agreement, the ballots objected
to and went over them again with
view to eliminating frivolous objec-
tons, of which many had been made
by either side drew up a stipulation
Satisfactorily u DOln Sues n copy OF
which was published in the State Jour
nal The objected ballots were gone
over and We're weeded out in accord
ance with that stipulation. The case
was closed. and we adjourned to meet
again only at the call of the commits
sioner and only to consider the draft
of his report. Yet yesterday, Mr.
Hughes counsel appeared before the
commissioner and asked him to again
open the objected ballots and let them
be gone over a third time in order that
additional objections, If any could be
found, might be noted. Strange conduct
for lawyers SO absolutely sure OF win
ming as things already stood But
Commissioner Larimer refused the re-
quest. and held that only the objections
already made would be reported to the
court
"On the other hand. we have been
willing that every ballot should be
roafn fa7-<ho4 <l,o,.a e1-,,,I.7 - ,1,