The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-18
He Filed a Petition Asking that the
Vote of Certain Precincts
Be Counted Again.
MINER FOR REPRESENTATIVE
OFFICIAL CANVASS PLACES HIM
AMONG THE VICTORS.
A Slight Change in the Vote for
County CIerk-WOrk of the
Canvassing Board.

The Board of Primary Election Commits
sioners met at the office Of County Chair
man Elliott at 4 o'clock yesterday after
noon and spent two hours canvassing the
vote Of Fridays primaries. The canvass
resulted in making one slight change in
the figures submitted by the chairman.
The board spent some time in arguing
construction Of law over question raised
by the petition of DR.. A. w. Brayton. which
asked for a recount in some of the city
precincts. DR.. Brayton was a candidate
for denomination for coroner, but accord
ing to the figures was defeated by Harry
d. Tutewiler. The vote was close, how
ever, and DR.. Brayton proceeded on the
theory that a recount might give him
sufficient number of votes to nominate him.
His petition was as follows:
'In view of the fact that in certain pre-
cincts of this county in the primary cleo
tion of March IA. and more specifically
in the second, seventh and eighth precincts
of the Sixth ward; also the second pre-
cinct of the Fifth ward in which pre-
cincts L had justifiable reasons to expect
a greater number of votes than are grant
ed me by the published list, and comparable
in ratio l received in other wards:
Whereas, am now credited in the pre-
cincts designated with but SO votes. while
my chief opponent is credited with 436 votes
or six and one-half times more than his
plurality of 81 votes-I respectfully demand
that in accordance with the provisions of
the primary election law, generally known
as the Joss law, that your committee order
a recount of the votes for coroner in the
precincts designated before you render any
formal or final decision as to who is the
successful candidate.
This / ask Of you after consultation
with eminent Republican counsel, both
lay and legal, and upon the advice of the
author of the Joss law himself, that L
may be assured and that the twenty-five
thousand Republican voters of Marion
county may also be assured that there is
no mistake in the marking. recording and
counting of these votes, and that they were
honestly and truly cast and made matter
Of record as the primary election law di-
rects and demands
ARGUMENT OVER A RECOUNT.
DIR. Brayton was represented by Attorney
Martin Hugg, who presented his case to
the board. Mr. TutewiIer was represented
by Attorney John w. Bowlus. In reply TO
the petition Mr.. Bowlus said they were will
ing to have a recount. But we feel said
he, that if DR.. Brayton thinks there was
fraad that he should make his charges
specific so that we can meet them"
John L. Ketcham, a member of the Board
of Election Commissioners, expressed him
self as favoring a recount of the votes in
the precincts mentioned by DIR. Brayton
and moved that committee be appointed
TO open the bags in those precincts and go
over the vote again. 'As long as Mr.
Tutewiler and his attorney are willing TO
grant a recount said Mr.. Ketcham. Il
think il would be the most satisfactory to
the board and all others concerned -
Attorney Roscoe O. Hawkins chairman
of the board. was opposed TO the sugges-
tiOn of Mr.. hetcham. He held that the
board had no right 10 recount the ballots
because il is not a judicial body Mr..
ketcham spoke up and wanted TO know if
this could not be done by common consent
II suppose" replied Mr.. Hawkins ..if
these gentlemen should go out and draw
straWS to who should have this nOmi-
nation il would be all right. but this board
is not here 10 count ballots or TO pass on
questions of fraud. We are oniy here 20
abulate the returns made by the election
boards" Mr.. ketcham called attention TO
Section q of the primary election law,
which he thought was plain on the subject.
Mr.. Hawkins held that the section does
not provide for a.recount OF the ballots.
the board. remarked: Any count we may
make here will not suffice 10 deprive these
men of any remedy they may have in court
II seems TO me that no possible harm can
come of a recount"
Attorney Hugg replied that the only pro-
vision In the law in this State for an ap-
peal 20 the court IN contest OF this kind