The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-07-11
AS A POLITICIAN.

Judge Robinson Is making fool OF
himself. 1t is perfectly in accord with
the etiquette of respect for the Supreme
Court to say so
Instead Of filing dissenting opinion
in the recent election case. he steps down
from his judiciary position, comes to st.
Louis and delivers. apparently on the
street, stump speech Of vituperati0n of
his associates on the court and Of mis-
representation of all the law and facts.
What he says is to be treated, not as
the sober judgment Of Supreme Court
Justice, but as the mouthing Of q big
oted politician.
Take this as an example: "You go to
a polling place on election day and find
a man standing by you. He votes your
name and you are told that you have
voted, and there is no recourse. What
will be the result? 1t simply shuts out
an honest ballot, which is the founda-
ton principle Of the government"
There is absolutely nothing in the SUI
preme Court decision which interferes
with the prosecution Of fraud like that
described. If you find the man stand
ing by you and learn that he voted in
your name, it is easy to prosecute and
punish him.
But give Judge Robinson the benefit
OF meaning something else in his sloven-
ly statement. Suppose he means that
somebody has voted in your name, but
that you do not know at what hour or
by whom the act was committed. The
Missouri law and the Supreme Court de-
cision place you exactly where you are
placed by every election law in the
Union. You have the opportunity to col
lect proof, to inspect the ballot, to pro-
duce your name on the registration list
and to convict your man.
The Supreme Court decision, which
does not, by the way. touch the sections
known as the Nesbit law, places not the
slightest obstacle In the way of proving
and Furnishing specific fraud or other
violation Of the law. It does not shut
up the ballot boxes. 1t simply says that
wholesale public comparison. of the
ballots with the registration lists fs a
violation Of the citizens constitutional
guaranty Of secrecy. II that is not
sound law, why did not Judge Robinson,
who says that he saw It coming" scat
ter confusion among his brethren on the
court by proving in dissenting opinion
| that secrecy ia not guaranteed to. the
citizen by fundamental law?
To bolster Judge Robinson's stump
speech the Giobe-Democrat returns to
its citations from the answer in the
mayoralty contest case fled by Mayor
Weiss attorneys. Mayor Wells alleges,
says the Globe-Democrat enormous
frauds, precinct by precinct but his
party shuts up the ballot boxes to pre-
vent the proof Of fraud.
This is Ananias in an advanced stage
Of decrepitude. Technical methods of
pleading, more the fault Of courts than
Of lawyers, have forced upon the profes-
sion in such cases extreme minuteness
Of detail in laying foundations for fu-
ture evidence, under the principle that
evidence cannot go beyond allegations.
Obeying this custom of minute detail in
pleading, the Mayors lawyers have in
their answer laid q foundation fol-
evidence by allegations of fraud, du.
plicated precinct by precinct. The
| Globe-Democrat seizes this technical
pleading and pretends that the Mayor
himself states the exact total amount OF
fraud which the Globe-Democrat reaches
by Jumping the duplicate charges.
Judge Robinson and the Globe Demo.
crat are alike. They present no issue
but talk politics, and not very profitable
politics. They falsify, dodge and howl
II anything in the election law can be
bettered, let US amend it. II there il
any laxity in the prosecution Of fraud
let us know who is at fault. II secrecy
Of the ballot is an obstacle to the detec
ton Of fraud, go before the people will
the issue and let them decide.
On such a subject of essential impor
lance as 1t is to every citizen, a man oil
decent instincts could not bring himself
to utter disingenuous and misleading as
sertions.
-.
SH LOUIS'S GLORY.