The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-18
al DIsAGREEMENT

Chairman Hawkins did not agree with
Mr.. Hugg on the proposition that there is
no remedy in court. In his opinion the
courts are open and an appeal could be
taken 1T is evident 10 me-" said DR.. Bray
ton, that this is court of final resort.
| am so assured by The author OF this law,
who ought to be conversant with it
Albert Middleton. member of the board
from the Eighth ward. held that Dr. Bray
ton should make more specific charges.
Pearson Mendenhall. another member of
the board, thought the board had no au-
thority TO investigate the vote Or. KID
path said he should like 10 have some legal
decision on the matter. George Lancas-
ter said he was opposed TO Mr.. ketcham
moUion, because il opened a broad field Tor
the board TO canvass. DR.. Brayton hdd
made no specific charges, he pointed out
James r. Twiname. of the board, Sald ne
was not clear as TO how he should vote.
but il seemed TO him that the board ought
not TO interfere with the work OF the cleo
tion boards. IF we vote TO go into TINS
matter" he said. I'VE would be doubling
these men without specific charges"
Attorney Hugg met this contention with
the remark: IF a recount shows that there
was fraud these men ought 10 be con- con-
demned. II IL shows that everything is all
right then they are not hurt.
Chairman Hawkins finally put Mr. ketch-
am s motion 10 vote and II was lost.
precincts mentioned and the same number
voted against a recount Chairman Elliott
cast the deciding vote. which was against
a recount. The eight voting in favor OF Mr..
Ketcham's motion were Pearson Menden-
hall. Henry w Bennett, John J.. ketcham.
James T. Dayman. ". 5. Johnson, Byron
Dawson, James Norwood and Dr: Light
Those voting no were James +. TWi-
name. Harry Negley, Albert Middleton,
Charles Hopkins, Or. II. w. Ridpath. ).
\. Hogue, George Lancaster, @. a. Stan
ton and Chairman Elliott
ESTABLISHED A PRECEDENT.
At this juncture De Witt V Moore, one
of the candidates for surveyor. inquired
Of the board if the vote just taken estab-
Iished a precedent. Mr.. Hawkins replied
that il probably did. and Mr.. Moore de-
cided he would not ask for investigation
in his case. DR.. Brayton asked Chairman
Elliott if certain packages of ballots had
not already been opened to obtain missing
records. The chairman replied that they
had and explained why they were opened
DR.. Brayton showed no feeling as a result
of the cards decision. and after thanking
the board for its courtesy, left the hall
smiling and smoking one of his success
full opponents cigars.
The board then began the work OF can
vassing the vote. But one change in the
figures announced, and that was on
the vote of William +. Davis, the success
ful candidate for clerk. This change was
in Davis's favor. giving him q votes in the
eighth precinct of the Fifth ward that uad
been credited to Mr.. Hare. through an
error. The board concluded its work about
o'clock
1t was discovered yesterday morning that
Willis r. Miner should have been declared
a nominee for representative instead of
Benjamin A Richardson. The error was
made in figuring the votes given the diff
ferent candidates.