The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-03-05
ENTITLED TO HIS SEAT
MR. SIMS WILL STAY IN CON r GRESS.
Elections Committee No. Refuses to Allow the Claims of the Contestant-Fight on
 Dortch Law.
Advertiser Bureau.
 Colorado BuiIdine,

| ssa s WaahlngtnFl. March
 Represents atiya Gllas tEl. his delsal af his seat in C6ngrs6 fEaEn the Elghtt | TenneAsee Districl. witch F. M. Davis. l Republican. has been oonfAstgng, has ali the time fought to sustain the Dortch law, which Davis attacked It is the Iopinion of Tennesseeans that had Davis succeeded In his contest, the result would have been Republicans would have been encouraged to make contest in every Democratic District in the State in the hope of getting their seats from a Re- publican Congress. S
 1 From this point of view the contest was unusually important. Chairman Olmstead of Pennsylvania of Elections Committee No. 2, having charge of the case. made the report and with 1t the following statement:
 l For the information of some who seemed to have expected a different re- suit. 1t Is perhaps proper that a very brief statement should be made the sit- ting member. The gentleman from Ten nessee, Mir. Sims, was returned by a ma- l5ority of 976. There were some trifing irregularities reducing that to e70. No ai- legations of improper conduct In this case were made against either parties, but the contestant. Davis, claims that the so-called Dortch law in Tennessee
 
 set aside. and in that event 1O6t persons named not voting. ought to be treated as If they had voted and their votes had been cast for him. We sent for the Dorth law and the decisions of the Ten- nessee courts declaring 1t to be consti- tutionaL The contestant claims that it provides form of official ballot which requires the person voting to read in or der to vote, and 1t therefore violated the VkF faN Nf thaA kakA adding a qualification not contained 1 therein, and also violating the provision that elections shall be free and equal in Tennessee. The courts however, sustain ed the Jaw as constitutional
 We are pointed decisions in Kentucky. Virginia, Ohio. Michigan. Pennsylvania, which seem to be in conflict, and we are asked to follow those other decisions We | have not. however, found it necessary to attempt to decide between those decis- ions. In order to pass upon the further point suggested by the contestee that in any event the Legislature drives it's DOW CT from the Federal Constitution which cannot be controlled by the State Consti- tuition. Those important questions We have not passed upon. for the evidence We have taken as to the persons who should have voted for the contestant. is not sufficient to establish his caze m
 
 Dortch law. Of 1.06i persons named as the number that would have voted for him if the law had not been in force. there were only twenty called
 "As to the other 1.0G1 we had only the evidence of third parties, that they were Republicans and that they could not read and could not vote and that in the opin- ion of the witnesses they would have voted for the contestant. But as to most of them. at least many of them, there was no evidence of registration of the tax payment. or of qualification to vote under any law. and we therefore declined to count such unvoted votes.
 Then there were 1920 additional votes of persons estimated by the witnesses as having desired to vote for the contest. ant Their names were not given: it WIZ not shown that they were qualified to vote at all; and we have not been willing to accept that character of testimony fin this case, testimony in regard to per sons who did not attempt to vote and Of whom we have no very satisfactory evi. dence that they would have voted. or fl they had voted would have voted for the contestant Therefore. in the view we have taken. the sitting member is in any event entitled to his seat"
 ,ts R. H. Watkins