Middletown transcript., 1905-10-28
THE SHELLpOT ELECTION CASES

THE SHELLPOT ELECTION CASES
Last Friday two or three ac-
cused officers who held the Re-
publican Primary Election in
the Third Election District of
Brandywine Hundred, commonly
known as the Shellpo District,
were convicted and one was ac-
quilted. 1t will be remembered
that at this election only Il votes
were returned for Isaac c. Ell
lott, who had been a candidate
for Levy Court Commissioner.
Afterwards, seventy men made
affidavit to the effect that they
had voted for Mr.. Elliott, and on
the contest before the County
Committee, the box was opened
and the votes counted. As there
were only Is votes in the box
for Mr.. Elliott, the Committee
could do nothing The Attor-
ney-General presented the men
to the Court of General Sessions
under the provision of the Con-
stitution which gives that Court
the power to try such otfenses
without the intervention of d
grand or petit jury. The trial
lasted nearly the whole week and
81 men testified that they had
voted for Mr.. Elliott. The de-
Tense could and did enter only q
simple denial of the crime, and
the Court unanimously found
Matlack and Watson guilty of
failing to read the ballots prop
erly and of reading ballots cast
for Isaac @. Elliott for some other
candidate or candidates and SEN
fenced each of them to one year
in the work house and to pay a fine
of $3.50.
Against this verdict and SEN
tence'there has only been one OBJ
lection raised. This is that sew
eral years ago Democrats charg-
ed with worse crime against !
the ballot were fined Il less sum.
EUery EUening says in discussing
this phase of the case that there
was vague or shadowy case of
this character. In order to be
perfectly fair and open we have
done what the EreJy E'Uening
might have done, examined the
public records and find that at
the February Term 1897, James
F. Early, Edward Clark, James
E. Drane, Michael A. Carroll,
Hugh Wallace, Michael T. Con-
way, Albert Abberger, Thomas
F. Martin and Edward A. Brand
were indicted by the Grand Jury
for the crime of altering a certif-
cate of election. The last named,
Brand, was tried and convicted,
and the others thereupon pleaded
guilty. The facts, as brought
out at the trial of Brand. were
that these men and others who
escaped altered the certificates of
election by taking from the num-
Der of votes cast for William T..
Finn, the Republican candidate
for Sheriff, fifty votes each and
the same number to those
cast for James B. Toman, the
Democratic candidate. The in
tent was, of course, to count out
Finn, and count in Toman. AS
a matter of fact, one of the dis J
trictS whose certificate was
changed was the fourth district
Of this hundred, but the Inspec- {
tor who did the altering was one
Of the lucky ones who escaped.
The Court sentenced Brand and
each of the others to pay IL fine
Of $500. The difference between
the cases last mentioned and the \
ohellpot case was that in the \
former the actual will of the
people as expressed at Il general
election was attempted to be
jhwarted, while in the latter, the
at the primary was de-
srauded of nomination, which i,
was not equivalent to an election.
Is the Districts now represented il
by Democrat
But this is no excuse for the Ii
men, nor no just rea-
son why they should have re- 4
;eived a smaller sentence. The :,
;rime of which they were guilty, a
Us well as the former one, is one
If the gravest that can be COM S
nitted. Under the American p
system Of government, major
ty of the voters rules. To de- 7
eat the will of the majority, n
when legally expressed, is to de-
eat the principle of free govern n
nent, "by the people" If these h
men had been let go free, no one
Knows what would have been at u
empted next, not in that dis 3
riot particularly, but anywhere Ia
n the county or state. We do g
lot know if any one or more per- a
ons were behind these officers n
n their crime, but if so, he or
hey should be punished even IL
more severely than they. The {,
'riber, or tie promoter of evil, is u
more dangerous man than the 81
ne who takes the bride or COM al
nits the crime at the wish of ii
mother. In the one case it is u u
deliberate crime; in the other, .