The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1904-12-13
Governor Garvln Drew Check to
Pay Changers Supervisors,
GEORGE FARNELL REPORTS
Watcher for Governor Tells About Defective
Ballots Thrown Out BY the State
Returning Board.

the report or stenographer George Far
nell TO Governor Garvin. the text OF
which was given out today II Ia inter
eetins to know that Gov. L. r. C. Gar
win has drawn check on the fund AL
ely tGTfs the the slsts ssse 81 sSssFnor
ID. l.. ID. Granger for the watchers who
were present at the official count OF the
votes for the congressman:
The GOVERNOR In explaining his action
in using this money intimated that the
make UP OF the state returning board was
the reason for his and Mr.. Granger's
was for the interest OF the people Of the
state and that IL was only right that
public money should be used 20 pay the
men.
THE WATCHERS.
Joseph p. Canning. John Richards.
Dennis OBrien, Willis r. Richardson
and Royal Gladding started 10 watch the
count, each man having Granger Gre
ding. however leaving the job after a
few days.
George Farnell also watched the count
first as representative of Gov. Garvin.
ton Candidate Conibear.
Mr.. Farnell will be paid out OF the
state funds. designated TO the use Of the
governor. the governor said yesterday.
under the caption OF watchers at the
state count. Mr.. Gladding, Mr.. Brien
and Mr.. Richards will be further reim-
TO be paid as the governor said. out of
the governors own pocket.
There would be no need OF having
watchers" sand the governor. III the
up. Two years ago / selected Edward
Sullivan TO serve on the board and he
was thrown down; last year / named
Col. Donahue, but the senate did not
board"
''It will be remembered" tbe governor
continued, that I strongly opposed the
selection OF the man picked out by the
Republicans TO be the Democratic mem
ber OF the board. therefore. why should
the peoples interest not be looked after
board is such that everything is seen only
in Republican light?
DISTINGUISHING MARKS.
The following is an abstract OF the re-
port made TO Governor Garvin by Mr..
George Farnell, in regard TO the count
by the state returning board. OF the bal
lots cast for congressman In the First
Rhode Island district. at the state elec-
tion OF Nov. s. 1904:
In the count OF the votes cast in the
First Congressional district at the re-
cent election. the state returning board is
proceeding under a rule which may be
worded as follows:
"All marks outside the cross will be
considered as distinguishing marks and
will throw out the ballot bearing such
marks"
The effect OF this rule has been TO give
the returning board very wide margin
OF discretion and discrimination which,
as might -hays heen expected from the po-
litical complexion OF the board does not
seem to have been exercised in an alto
gether impartial manner.
The distinguishing marks" are divisi-
~ Ill Avpt In, tx1,-
portance are the so-called dot" The
oretically, a dot is a very easy mark to
make but II Is highly improbable that one
who starts out with the fully formed In
tention to deface his ballot~with a dot.
for the purpose OF identification. will
choose the middle slip of large sheet con-
tanning FIVE and sometimes six folders,
each folder being an individual ballot.
II Is unreasonable TO suppose that he
would deliberately place such marks on
every fold or slip OF the compound bal
lot sheet, sheet which contains a boil
lot sheet, a sheet which contains a bal
state officers, a ballot for congressman.
and ballot for state senator and rep
resentatives. the latter frequently being a
double sheet.
ACCIDENTAL DOTS.
For thi. reason Il aas been very evident
In the count so far that dots" have not
played as important a part as seemed TO
have been expected: and for the same rea-
son, N Salloting OF ballots for identifica-
ton or for the purpose OF indicating that
the voter voted the required ticket for
some illegal consideration. was INDUCED
in 10 any considerable extent at the last
election. such identifying marks will be
found on the presidential ballots or on
the state representative ballots those be-
ing the FIRST and last folders. respectively
OF the combined ballot sheet. Many
dots" have been found on the ballots
so far counted
By far the greater number OF such
"dots' were undoubtedly defects In the
stock from which the paper was made
Under some circumstances. and in many
Instances. II has been = physical impos-
sibility to determine whether a given dot
was a defect in the texture OF the paper
or had been made by means OF lead
pencil The genuine dots which have
been found were evidently made In very
natural way. For instance. a man enters
the polling station, places himself in front
of the voting shelf. spreads out HIS bal
lot sheet takes the pencil between his
fingers and glanoing down the list OF
names for the one opposite which II Is his
purpose 70 place his cross. and then puts
square. His next act is 10 run his eye
along from the square 20 the left 10 see
~ such square Is opposite the name for
which he intends TO vote. Finding n 20
be such he instinctivsly and unwittingly
raises the point OF his pencil before he
commences 10 make his cross The result
OF this n that he has uncOnsciously left
a faint impression on the paper. which.
under the rules of the returning board.
destroys the effect OF mis- vote.
The members OF the state returning
board are on the lookout for Just such
cases. There has probably not been a
single instance during the count OF which
~ could be raid with n fair and reasona-
bic degree OF surety, that the voter In
teptionalIy placed his DOT on his ballot
for congressman.
DEFECTS IN PAPER.
Defects In the paper are not limited
10 dots. Lines OF varying lengths and
thicknesses. many OF which are evidently
caused by thin particles OF straw In the
texture Of the paper. occur Frequently.
the fneness Of the straw or It's relative
position in the body Of the paper, renders