The Topeka state journal., 1901-06-22
Counting Double Ballots Parker
Has Majority of 26.
THE REPORT IN DETAIL
Numerous Objections, All Noted
by the Commissioner.
Recommends That Court Exam
inc Character Of Markings.


the supreme court, thus closing the
contest until the case is heard by the
court.
The report covers s5 typewritten
pages, Of which 54 are devoted to the
testimony of the election judges re-
garding disputed ballots. The report
shows that J. w r. Hughes received
6.2s5 unchallenged votes. and Albert
Parker 6,125. The totals including the
objected to ballots are. Hughes, 6,339;
Parker, 6.340. If double marked bal
lots rejected in First ward are counted
Parker would have % more, or 6,S65.
The report shows 215 ballots cast for
Parker objected to by Hughes at
torneys and "a Hughes ballots objected
to by the Parker attorneys. The classi-
hcatiOn of the Hughes ballots objected
to is as follows:
Imperfect markings. "a; double mark
ing for Hughes, being in blank space,
l. name of voter written on ballot, 81
N arked with pencil other than black,
also in ink, II; marked for Hughes and
Parker, 6; distinguishing marks on
ballot, 8; ballot with party title or head
cut off. 1.
The objections made to Parker bal
lots are as follows:
Imperfect marking and initials on
ballot, Is; double marking for Parker
and others, 76; double markings for
Parker only, so; names of voters writ
ten on ballot, z; marked with pencil
other than black, S; marked for Hughes
and Parker, 6; double marking for Par
ker with one partly erased 13; double
marking for Parker with lines drawn
through names on the Republican col
unn, z; distinguishing marks on bal
lot, 3.
Commissioner Larimer makes the fol-
lowing observation regarding the chal-
lenged ballots:
..The above classifications are N ade
in the best way that language can ex-
press the objections, and it is next to
m nT0ESihI2 n a
lots without a. personal examination of
the same by the court"
The report shows 2 Parker ballots
voted and not strung and Hughes 3,
which were not tailed by the recount,
and which are in addition to the bal
lots objected to.
The report shows S6 ballots from the
second precinct of the First ward that
were returned i'll a package marked
defective" or objected to-" ballots
mot voted" OF that number there are
Is double marked Parker ballots. for
Hughes. blank, not voted for mayor
and defective. The testimony Of the
judges shows that the ballots were cast
but not counted and were not returned
in package OF ballots voted.
The report shows that in the second
precinct of the First ward Albert Par
ker received 334 tailed in the recount
and Hughes $50, ballots objected to by
both 6, making a total tailed in the re-
count 620 with A blanks for mayor,
making a total number of ballots 624.
The total number of names on the poll
book of persons voting 653, ballots re-
turned not voted SO. Adding the 36 to
the 624 makes a total of $50 ballots,
while only 653 names on the poll book,
making a difference of Z.
The report shows in the third pre-
cinet of the Third ward Hughes bal
lots returned not voted and 1 Parker,
and blank for mayor. The third pre-
cinct of the Fourth ward shows 3
Hughes ballots returned not voted.
a description
every ballot objected to and a general
statement of the nature of the objec-
tions. The ballots objected to will also
go before the court Monday the at
torneys expect to go before the court
and ask that the case be advanced for
an early hearing.
CLEMENS IS DISSATISFIED.
In speaking of the report C. c. Glenn
ems said:
only the proposed report has yet been
prepared by the commissioner. Counsel
are to meet with him and consider the
changes which should be made. am
pretty sure he viii not report, as his
proposed report does, that counsel re-
served the right to make other objec-
tions than those indicated in the re-
port. In the first place. no such right
could have been reserved, in the face
of the supreme courts specific order;
and in the second place, no such reser-
walton was ever made It was never
proposed until after the case had been
closed, and when proposed we, on our
side, made strenuous opposition. AS
we were counsel on one side of the
case, 1T would hardly do for the COM
missioner to report that Counsel all
cOunsel-'reserved' any such right. We
doubt not the commissioner will either
omit the matter entirely, as he should
for it is none of his affair as commits
sioner. or state the actual truth about
it. and that will be equivalent to keep
ing still on the subject. If such a thing
were attempted the court would order
him to correct his report to- comply
with its order. But who proposed this
drag-net scheme? The counsel for
Hughes Yet they signed stipulation.
on file in the case and upon which the
courts order was based, expressly pro
viding that the real objections should be
noted once for all and nothing be left
open but the legal questions involved
upon the objections actually reported
by the commissioner. They did more
They went with US before the court and
united in asking for the very order the
court signed Now they seek to go on
a fishing excursion and try to catch
something they may have overlooked
Both sides agreed to overlook some
thing. That agreement was published in
the State Journal The agreement was
acted upon, and the ballots to which
we waived our objections under that
agreement had gone into the general
mass-been counted for Hughes-before
Judge Carver began to talk about re-
serving the right to make other objec-
tions.'
7 do not cross creeks till they reach
me- have no doubt the commissioner
will tote faih.' If he don't. the court
is his master and viii get a policeman
that will. think know Jim Larimer
and have no doubt he will make a re-
port which viii not only be correct. but
viii be one of the best ever made in a
contest case; one that viii ease the Ia
bors OF court and counsel, who will