The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1907-05-24
DEMOCRATS OUSTED
in LOUISVILLE.
Court of Appeals Says No
Legal Election Was Held.
Gov. Beckham Directed to Ap-
point Officers to Serve
Until November.

Frankfort, KY. May 22.-Waiting one
of the most terrible indictments of
corrupt political machine ever scored
in judicial decision in the history
of this country the Court of Appeals
of Kentucky to-day decided the Louis
vile contested election cases growing
out of the election of November, 1905,
by virtue of which Paul c. Barth and
the other city any and county Officers
of Louisville hold office and declar-
ed that election null and void because
of proven fraud, crime, conspiracy and
force in which the Democratic cam
paign committee of Louisville, the
police force, various city and county
officeholders, hired thugs and thieves
are held to have been participants.
In discussing the action of police,
firemen and Democratic Ward heel
ers in refusing TO answer questions
asked by fusion attorneys while wit
nesses the court says:
THE testimony shows many out
RACES and crimes done by the police
and yet, when these men are plac-
ed on the witness stand, and interro-
gated as 10 what they know, they in
variably sheltered under the law for
bidding self-incrimination; and when
the question as to whether the wit
ness should or not be forced TO answer
was certified TO the Chancellors, the
witnesses were always protected by
their ruling.
Suppose a secret murder had been
, committed and the police on that beat
when asked about it, should say. 1
decline TO answer for fear of incrimi
mating myself this, under the rule
invoked, would protect the witness
from answering, but how long would
it justify his retention on the roll of
police? What would be thought of
those who left the public safety in his
hands longer than it would require 20
discharge him?
Suppose a bank has been robbed
and the bookkeeper, the teller and cash
Ter were Intercepted should say, L de-
cline to answer under advice of coun-
sell What would be thought of a
Board of Directors who would af,e
wards leave the bank in the hands
of such men? This is precisely the
situation here. Peace officers whose
duty il was 10 prevent and expose
crime, when called on TO expose II,
sheltered under the rule against self
incrimination, and yet these men still
wear the official uniform, still draw
salaries from the public purse and
this is made possible only by the con-
sent of those who are the apparent
beneficiaries of their silence.
I'VE need not repeat here the many
acts of violnece, fraud and intimida-
ton. 1t is sufficient TO say that ev-
cry note on the gamut of election
crimes was sounded on election day
by those whose sworn duty it was to
prevent it.
The court then cites number of le-
gal propositions as established by this
case, following closely the opinion in
the Princeton case, declares the cleo
ton null and void, gives the law as
to appointments, and concludes the
opinion as follows:
I'VE cannot feel that our duty in
this remarkable case is fully performed
without insisting that it is absolutely
necessary for the preservation of a
Democratic form of government that
the right of suffrage should be free
and untrammeled. No people can be
said to govern themselves whose cleo
tons are controlled by force, fraud