The Frankfort roundabout. [volume] (Frankfort, Ky.) 1882-1908, 1901-01-05

1 OhOAO NullO III OC1 OhC ClCOblOu,
and, being rather generic in its
character, the writer did not feel
called upon to reply to it. The
last one, however, is much more
specific, being under the very in
/ teresting head, Ballot Padding,
and specifically naming Switzer,
Bailey's Mill, and Crutcher's
Schoolhouse as the Padding Pre-
cincts. "
1t is not the purpose of the
writer to offer any defense for the
officers of the Bailey's Mill or
Crutcher's Schoolhouse Precincts.
1t does, however, seem to be pre-
sumptuous in an extreme degree
to publicly charge officers with
fraud with no greater evidence
than that there were a few more
votes polled at the November
election, than at the primary,
which is no surprise to any one in
a heated campaign like the last
one.
Now let us consider the facts so
far as the Switzer Precinct is con-
cerned.
No stronger argument need be
made in defense of there being
fair election at this place than to
name the officers, not one of
whom will any man'dare to charge
with fraud, over his signature.
The following are the names of
officers with party affiliations:
George Smith, Judge. Rep.
E. R. Jones, Judge, Dem.
H. B. Stigers, Clerk, Rep.
]. H. South, Sheriff, Dem.
Sargent Perkins. Challenger,
Rep.
Stewart Lucas, Challenger,
Dem.
The above-named Republican
officers are among our most prom
inent citizens, having the conf
dence of everybody who know
them. They will testify that there
was never fairer, or more per-
fectly harmonious election held in
this precinct than the last one.
This ought to be sufficient. but
I offer still more evidence in vim
dication of these gentlemen from
these Infamous charges.
The first article charged that
there we're about twenty-five votes
too many, as compared with for
mer elections. This Knowing one,
however. did not tell the public
that the Switzer Precincts boun-
Diary line has been so changed as
to take in quite a number Of
voters additional. This fact may
not have been known by the
writer of the article, yet it renders
him none the less culpable in
hastily criticizing honest men in
the discharge of their sworn duties.
The last article charges that the
Democratic primary vote was
twenty short of the November
election, being irrefutable. proof
that here had been Ballot Pad
ding" at the general election.
The writer was an officer in
both these cleo tions, and has a
copy of the official ballot of each
in his pocket. On comparison,
he finds the following: Demo-
cratic vote, November election,
149; Democratic vote, primary
election, 147, being difference of
two votes only, instead of twenty.
In addition to this, he can name
as many as eight Democrats who
did not participate in the pri-
mary. r. X. JONES.
If our friend will examine the
official vote, as published in cur
paper, he will find that the Demo-
cratic vote for Bryan in Switzer
Precinct is given at 149. In the
primary election the Democratic
Committee certify that the Demo-
cratic candidates for County Judge
received a total of 129, which
gives the difference, as stated by
the article in the Roundabout,
which was also communication,
although, by mistake, not given
as such. Bryan received the
largest Democratic vote cast in