New-York tribune., 1907-06-07

ernment on January l. 1906 Therefore I felt
II my duty TO offer opposition But after such
an order had been granted 1 publicly announced
that l had instructed my counsel TO take no
appeal from that order, and would consent to a
were produced I'm court, and the recount was
begun. Tho count OF the first three boxas
showed net gam Tor my opponent OF seventeen
me count or the fourth box agreed exactly with
the official figures. while the fifth box was never
opened because Mr.. Hearsts counsel desisted
then and there from continuing the proceeding.
In other words, on that Friday afternoon, De-
cember l, 1915, with conceded opportunity to
push recount through TO a conclusion. MT
Hearst through his counsel. forever abandoned
MS attempt to obtain simple and impartial
recount.
Such recanvass as he then sought. and was
denied by the courts. would have occupied so
much time that no one could fairly say when It
would end. In the mean time. there would
nave been chaos In the city government.
1t would have been impossible to have planned
a single public Improvement to have sold a
city bond 1t would have been impossible TO
persuade competent officials to accept office un-
ger the administration, and 1t would have been
impossible to remove those who failed Was Il
my duty TO acquiesce in such a condition? II
seems 10 me that should have been false To
my oath Of office II had done so. In the posi-
tion that l took was sustained by the Court OF
Appeals which said that Mr.. Hearsts remedy
rested in quo warranto proceedings. In that liti-
CATION 10000 ballots had been actually recan-
vassed by the courts 200 more had been re-
counted. with the result that my plurality finally
stood 3,474. according TO Mr.. Hearsts own fig
ures or about the same that was credited to
~ASSSNAoRNCA
election.
Mr.. Hearst. neither in his original contest or
by means of proposed legislation such as this
bill. has ever sought a recount recanvass of
the whole vote, but has continually aimed at a
partial recanvasS of those districts where I re-
ceived my pluralties.
The Governor has stated more than once that
the granting of a recount a simple act OF
justice. May 1 ask what evidence he has that
injustice has ever been done? Is it not his
plain duty, not only to me, but to all citizens of
New York. II he has such evidence, to dis
close It?
This bill Will not permit the introduction OF
evidence to show that the ballots are or are not
I'm the same condition they We're when the
canvass made. What guarantee did the
Legislature have that the boxes had not been
tampered with? The ballots themselves were
subjected TO many kinds of markings by the
canvassers on election night. When they had
closed their count, and that count was undis-
puted by any OF the watchers present, II is a
fair presumption that they did not give the bal
lots that same care they might have paid them
had they known that twenty months later IL
would be proposed 10 recount them.
COST WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE
There is another phase OF the question which
| am reluctant to take up. but which must be
faced That is the enormous and prohibitive
cost with which l. the legally elected Mayor am
to be personally burdened IL desire to prote,t
my rights in this contest. II the contestant
should demand recanvass of the vote in one
thousand election districts. each district is a
simultaneously. The cost of being represented
by counsel at each of these PROCEEDINGS is an
Item which any other than very rich man must
seriously consider when aspiring for public
Is 1t a simple act OF justice to drive an oficial
out OF office at the instance of a man whose
financial resources unlimited?
My duty has been clear TO me from the be-