New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-30
A STOLEN STATE.

1t Is a satisfaction to know that the Hon.
William III. Jackson, now representing the LIST
Maryland District In the House Of Representa-
tives, will contest the certificate of election is
sued for that district to his recent Democratic
opponent, the Hon Thomas a. Smith. In 1900
Mr.. Jackson was elected in the lst District
by a vote Of 1914, to 1911 for j. P Moore
Democrat. In 1902 he was reelected by vote
of 1905 TO 1919 for James E. Ellegood. the
Democratic candidate. This year he has been
declared defeated by vote Of 1902 to 1852
for Mr.. Smith. Mr.. Jackson will ask the next
House CT Representatives to reverse this YER
dict on the ground of wholesale trickery and
fraud. The contestant alleges that sS7 ballots
cast for him by duly qualified and registered
electors were not counted by the county re-
turning boards. But he goes even further than
this, and attacks as Illegal and fraudulent the
devices employed by the last two Democratic
legislatures III Maryland to disfranchise Repub-
lican voters in certain OF the counties of which
the LIST Congress District is composed.
We have more than called attention to
the petty thievery By which Mr.. Jackson's de-
feat was accomplished and by which seven Of
Maryland's eight electoral votes We're lifted"
into the Parker and Davis column. The contest
now begun will insure thorough ventilation
Of the sneakthief methods employed by the
Democratic machine in Maryland to defeat the
rate. 1t will at least expose the tricks practsed
by partisan election boards to convert the bal
lot into Chinese puzzle for Republican voters,
while making it an easily decipherable riddle
for voters Of the Democratic faith, Under @
law passed by the legislature last winter the
election boards In certain counties where the
Democratic machine was in full control were
authorized to strike the party designation from
the official ballot and to arrange the names of
candidates for electors and Congress in any
manner they might see At. AS consequence
In those counties the Democratic voter received
an undue assistance in identifying and mark
ing Democratic candidates, while for the Re-
publican voter every trap was set TO confuse
and nullify his choice.
The effect OF this trickery is plainly seen in
the vote returned for Presidential electors The
first candidate on the Republican ticket Charles
J. Bonaparte, received .497 votes. That was
the highest vote cast for any eector. The first
Democratic candidate received 109446 votes.
But the other seven Democratic candidates all
received more votes than were cast for the sec
ond highest Republican elector, whose total was
only 106,993. The difference between the first
and second Republican electors was 1854. The
difference between the first and second Demo
cratic electors was 1859, and this variation,
though small, was great enough to throw seven
OF the States eight electoral votes from Roose-
welt to Parker.
This peculiar result IN Maryland cannot be
ascribed to accident. Many other States have
divided their electoral votes. But In every re-
cent case the highest opposition elector has sue
ceeded In defeating the lowest elector on the
winning ticket-as in California In $780, 1892
and 1895. in Ohio and Oregon In 1892, and In
Kentucky IN 1896. But nowhere have ordinary
mistakes In marking ballots SO worked out as to
give one party the highest elector and the oppo-
sition all the rest. Clearly the will Of ma
jority of the qualified voters In Maryland was
oVerridden and nullif1ed when certificates were
issued TO seven Democratic electors. Anu we
feel confident that Mr.. Jackson will find no diff
fculty In proving to an impartial jury that he,
too, was defeated by the same machinery OF
suppression and fraud.