New-York tribune., 1905-11-28
OPENING THE BALLOT BOXES.

Mayor McClelIan's representatives profess TO
fear the delay of a recount. They think that
Mr. Hearst is merely seeking by opening tne
ballot boxes to prolong hopeless contest beyonu
December and force the Mayor TO continue III
office as q hold-over instead of taking the oatn
unchalIenged for a new term Ii delay Is "hat
they wish to avoid however, they are going the
wrong way about 1t. The threatened appeal from
the order of Justice Amend for the opening OF
tbe hallot boxes In five districts would introduce
into the situation complications the end of wnlcn
cannot be seen. A recount in the 194S electloh
districts would certainly be tnconVenlent, ana IL
Is +rue AS the Assistant Corporation Counsel
argued, that the order respecting five districts
opens the door to a similar procedure Tor all
others in which errors can be shown But such
inconvenience, if faced at once, is less danger
GUS than a controversy which may be prolonged
indefinitely in the courts, perhaps at last to re-
suit In that wholesale recount
It is undoubtedly true that the statute means
to determine elections promptly and smut on nsh-
ing excursions and recounts on suspicion Ihe
renort of an election board is and ought to be
conclusive. unless it can positively be shown TO
be incorrect. When it is shown to be incorrect,
obviously the only safe recourse is to the ballots
themselves 1t will not do to trust explanations
and take the memory Of inspectors concerning
the figures which they ought to have set down
or meant to set down. The explanations may be
nIausibIe transposition of figures may have
been made and a 81 instead of % may give a
proper total; but any correction Dased on such
an explanation is, after ALL cOnJectural, and Ger
tifcates of election should be based on fact, not
conjecture. 1t Is not to be supposed that MI.
Hearst's lawyers, at least after winning their
poin and getting access to the boxes in districts
where they have any reasonable expectation OF
finding material errors, will seek recount OF
votes when there is no moral doubt Of the ac-
r11racy of the return as corrected without re
course to the ballot boxes. Returns from most
Of the districts, we suppose, will be FOUND on
their face entirely accurate and Will oer no pre-
text for a recount Opened ballot boxes In a
few other districts will show clearly whether or
not any discrepancies serious enough to change
the declared result of the election are to be ex-
pected If the allegations Of gross misstatements
uniformly fall to the ground with the early re-
counts Mr. Hearst's contest will eVaporate into
thin air If on the other hand, serious errors
are discovered and a large number OF ballot
boxes must be opened, there is no reason why
the new count cannot be made In a few days,
provided no legal delays are put in the way.
The original count was made in few hours
on one night The canvass involved the vote for
many Offices. The contest involves only one. If
the court were to order every election board TO
meet and recount the votes for Mayor at a
given time the work could be done in an hour.
Even a schedule might be prepared so that a
comparatively small body Of expert watchers on
each side could inspect the recount and the
work could be done in week. A recount, wher-
ever there is evidence of error, is perfectly prac
ticable without any postponement of the Mayors 8
Inauguration. if the lawyers on each side VIII
only cooperate to get at the merits of the case
The essential thing is assurance how the people
really voted and if both sides want TO know
that they can know it quickly.