The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-20
WE HOPE THAT ENDS TT.


 l WE HOPE THAT ENDS IT.
 The decision of the New York Court Of Appeals that 1t has no power to order recount of all the votes cast at the late election for Mayor will, we presume. settle the matter so far as the possession of tho office is con- cerned. MT. Hearst might institute quo warranto proceedings in the case of each ballot box, a course which will involve years of litigation and probably benefit him nothing in the end. Or he may apply to the Legisla- ! ture which assemblies in January and endeavor to get some relief" at the hands of that body. It is not likely that either course would seat him or unseat MT. Mcclellan.
 The action of the court will have a good effect-and one not so good. It will relieve New York or having such a man as Hearst for Mayor, and this we consider no small good. Like Mayor Dunne, of Chicago. Hearst during the campaign was lav- ish of promises and pledges as to the course he would pursue and the many things he would accomplish if the peo- pie would elect him. Like Dunne he would have found it impossible to l make good, and if he had been seated and could have carried out all his pro- l claimed policies the city would have been still further humiliated, if not actually disgraced. It is certainly good thing for New York and for good government that he has failed. The only fly in the ointment of gen. eral satisfaction is that it will be said that there remains a shadow of doubt on McClellan's' title to the office. While we firmly believe that he was elected, and that fair and full | recount would have demonstrated that fact. there is and must remain a doubt and that doubt will not be confined to Hearst's friends, for while McCleilan's supporters will believe he is fairly en- titled to the place they will feel that there is in the minds of many good men a feeling of uncertainty which cannot be removed.
 Another regrettable result of the de-
 
 tunity to pose as martyr. If the election of Mcclellan had been estab- lished beyond question, so that all must have admitted it Hearst would have been done for. He would have been compelled to admit that the de- cision of the people was against him and no ground would have been left for him to stand on. As 1t is he and many thousands of his friends will claim that he was counted out and thus he will be enabled to make cap ital out of his martyrdom. It will give him opportunity to keep himself before the people as a man who was cheated out of his office and as such he will keep up tho agitation until he can be elected to some office or until he is again defeated. Hearst as Mayor of New York would be sorry specta- cle but as a self-posed martyr he is likely to be a nuisance. That Is the unfortunate feature of the decision
 When we come to view the decision aside from any effect 1t may have on either of the contestants we are com pelled to regard 1t as a wise and proper one If the claim were made that fraud was committed at certain vot- ing precinct, or that certain ballots were fraudulent and should not be counted, there might be some justice in demanding an investigation in such instances, but for the court to order a recount of the immense number of votes cast In that election would be monstrous. It would be an immense task, if not an impossible one. and we cannot conceive that the laws of New York ever intended anything of the kind. To correct certain designated errors is one thing but to order that half a million or more of ballots shall be recounted in order that defeated candidate may be sat- isfied is an entirely different one. One looks to the fighting of an actual wrong and the other looks to the grat- ification of a dissatisfied candidate. Let us hope that the courts decision is final. even though it gives Hearst a much desired opportunity to ex- ploit himself as a martyr.