The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1905-05-20
Montgomery Democrats
File Bill in Equity
Take Primary Election Law Controversy Into
Court-Voters, Stirred by Article IN me
Times. Are Given a RejOInder.

If was in response to this sentiment, IL
is declared, that Delegate Johnson IN
trodueed the bill modelled closely AFTER
the Baltimore city law, in ~hteh ths
public had confidence. Ihat Ia" was
known to be the result of years OF
thought and labor of The reform eieiSsnt
in Baltimore city, where 50 Huc1 naa
become known of machine crooReuness
There was disgust and indignation
therefore, when Senator Jones offered III
the Senate his substitute for the Johh-
son bill which was an entirely new
measure of his own.
Laws Bad Provisions.
This measure, according to the sworn
bill now before the court. makes no pro-
vision for counting the ballots cast,
charges no officer or person with re-
sponsibility for making count under
oath or penalty, and does not TX the
custody of the ballots after the poles
are closed. and creates no penalty upon
anyone who might assume the CUSTODY
OF the ballots for destroying them or
substituting others
However, there appears to pc ample
punishment by law for any citizen VINO
might intrude to see what the JUDGES
may be doing with the ballots, ana d
penalty of 81. 40 is imposed upon me
even TO get their ticket on the general
election ballot Voters do not hesitate
tn assert that these conditions are
worse han formerly ,I ea sgresd an be ne
TN cen the house and senate, mas ao-
nittedly been tempered with, .hey say;
and they feel that these alleged cieFicai
errors affect items of the utmost i'm
portance. none conducting toward q Iaif
election.
Shifting the Blame.
The local papers editorial referred to
quotes at length from the comment in
The Washington Times and attempts 70
turn the present agitation against the
law into a reflection upon DR.. u. G
Etchison. Samuel Riggs and Henry Ri
Lindig. who constitute the hoard OF
election supervisors. But as these gen
tlemen had nothing to 90 with the pas
sage of the law, il is seen that their
names have only been used In an at
tempt TO ALLEVIATE their friends and pro-
vide d screen behind which the leading
figures in the present complication may
dodge their own responsibility:
The feature of this editorial defense
! of Senator Jones which amuSes his OPP
ponents most IS that the provision
which, it is alleged. turns the primary
election In this county into a mart OF
trade Is not SO bad after all, as 1t Is
Identical with the general election la
which was in force when the Repub-
lcans swept the State in 1885.
Citizens VINO remember that campaign
say that II was largely the inequalities
and partisan character OF that law and
| the high-handed proceedings under II
which caused a revolt in the Democratic
party, resulted In an overw helning Re-
publican victory and the repeal of that
election law, and that the Democratic
party after it subsequently regained
power, did not dare TO re-enact it. 1,
seems to be the judgment of conserva-
| tive Democrats that such reference
to the old election law Is unfortunate
and that instead of pointing to thai
| measure as precedent It would be fan
| wiser for Democrats Of the Jones fac
| ton to regard it as a warning.