Democratic messenger. [volume] (Snow Hill, Md.) 1869-1973, 1905-01-28

(c) In 1902. when you were again
elected under the very law which YOU
now allege is unconstitutional.
DENIES ABUSE OF POWER
deny your allegations wherein you
say "the election officials, partisans of
yours. abused the powers conferred up
on them by these laws, with the intent
and to the effect of unfairly and unlaw-
fully preventing the casting or the
counting for me of the ballots of up
ward of 1900 legally qualified and reg
istered voters who attended at the polls
to vote for me" If you were familiar
with the election laws of the State you
would not accuse the judges and clerks
of election, who received and counted
the votes, of being partlsans or of giving
an advantage to the candidate of either
party. because you would know that
the law provides that there shall be
four judges and two clerks at each
polling place. two judges and one clerk
selected by the Democratic party. and
two judges and one clerk selected by
the Republican party. The registers
are chosen in similar manner.
No vote can be counted without the
assent of at least one representative of
each party. and after the counting has
been completed the result must be
certified as correct by all the judges of
election representing both parties Such
certificate was signed by each of the
four judges and two clerks in every
voting precinct in each county of the
First Congressional district
In addition to the fact that BIZ
partisan board of judges and clerks of
election certified to the correctness of
the vote, the Boards of Election Super
visors in the several counties of the
district. composed of two Democrats
aud one Republican, each in an official
letter to the Governor of Maryland
stated that the election was conducted
fairly and the law complied with.
In this connection l call your atten
ton particularly to letter signed by
all of the Supervisors of Election of
Worcester county, i'll which you aIlege
great irregularities. in which letter all
the supervisors of election state 1--WE
can unhesitatingly say that we know of
no unfairness in the conduct of the
recent election or i'll tn appointments
and arrangements prior thereto, and
that we know nothing in relation there
to that was improper in any respect"
FURTHER DENIALs MADE
Mr.. Smith. in his answer, then goes
on to deny the various allegations of
fraud. irregularities aud violations of
the law made by Mr. jackson. He
denies that the form and arrangement
of the ballot in some of the counties
were agreed upon in secret by the two
Democratic supervisors. and also that
in Somerset county, the type, STYLE
and appearance of the ballot were in
geniously contrived to make it as trouble
some as possible for Republican voter
to mark his ballot" He denies that
SS7 ballots marked for Mr.. jackson
properly were not counted because they
were misfolded He refers to some of
Mr.. Jackson's charges as "splenetic y
The various Jackson allegations in
reference to Kent. Queen Aune's.
Talbot. Worcester and other counties
are specifically denied and a general
denial is made as follows:
l deny that in any voting precinct of
any county of the First Congressional
district any votes were counted for
me that should not have been counted.
or that any votes were rejected which
should have been counted for you. as
alleged in paragraphs to l2, inclusive,
of your notice of contest. and deny
each and every item of the tabulated
statements therein contained.
The taking of testimony on behalf of
Mr.. Jackson, it is stated, will begin i'm
mediately and the law grants him 40
days in which to complete his testimony
after which the same time is given to
the contestee.