New-York tribune., 1907-06-07
MAYOR ON RECOUNT.
CALLS MEASURE UNFAIR.
In Letter to Legislature Says Cost
Would Be ProhibitiUe.

Mayor Mcclellan last night sent to the Senate
and Assembly letter calling attention to what
he says is an extreme injustice to himself an
individual in the recount bill. 1t is the Mayors
first public utteranCe the bill He charges
that Hearst deliberately threw away the oppor-
tunity for speedy recount. He says that the
bill is its face dishonest and unfair, in that
it allows the defeated candidate TO pick such
districts as he may desire which to predicate
his contest.
The BILL he says. prevents him from taking
any action to protect his rights. Mr.. Hearst,
says the Mayor. on December 1, 1905, abandoned
his attempt to obtain impartial recount be-
cause he became convinced that such a recount
would show change in the final result. He
says that If he had not retained office the city
government would have fallen into chaos and
public work of all description would have been
stopped as the city could not legally have sold
bond. The Mayor holds that the financial cost
of being represented in each OF thousand con-
tests which may be brought by MI Hearst is
prohibitive far he is concerned. He asks,
if the vote for Mayor can be recanvassed twenty
months after election, why not the vote for
Governor or for President.
The essential portions of the Mayors memo
rial follows:
Permit me TO say that because of my personal
interest In the subject matter OF this bill de-
clined to conduct the public hearing provided
for by the constitution and laws Of the state.
The hearing WAS conducted by the Acting Mayor
of the city. OF whose action you will be duly ad-
vised by him
l shah not. therefore. discuss the reasons
which would have guided me in acting on this
bill If had been free to consider 1t apart from
the personal element. do feel an obligation 10
point out to your honorable bodies the extreme
injustice OF this measure to me as an individual
l base my objection on two grounds:
itself
(21 Upon the Injustice of reopening a contest
which ha been deliberately prolonged Il
testant for his personal advantage. in which each
OF his claims has been successfully proved false
sponsble for deliberately throwing away the
opportunity for speedy recount, while such
recount was possible.
1t must be clear to any one who understands
the machinery OF an election that Mr.. Hearst 3
rights were fully protected He had his watch
ers on election night in every district In the
city. They had full opportunity to protest such
ballots they desired. AS a matter Of fact
they did protest thousands OF my votes, all OF
which. I ehall subsequently show. were after
ward passed upon by the Supreme Court As
TO those ballots which they did not protest at
that time II is a fair presumption and a legal
presumption. that they were honestly counted.
CALLS BILL DISHONEST
This bill is on its face dishonest and unfaiI.
II fails To provide for a full recount and
canvass of all the ballots cast in the Mayoralty
election 1t generously allows the defeated
ddate TO pick such districts he may desire.
He may ask for recanvass in ten districts, in
a hundred or in a thousand as he may deem
it advan tageOus to his own interest. On the
other hand. I. as tine successful candidate. am
denied the right OF asking a recanvass in sin
gle one OF the remaining districts. l say am
denied this right, because the bill provides that
an applicant must present his Ietition to the
court within tweny days after the passage OF
the act, and at the same time must file a bond
for all costs. as ii guarantee that the result OF
the election will DO changed. In other words
unless l apply for Il recanvass, and give a bond
that will not only lose my office. but will also
pay all the costs and expenses of the litigation
IL do not l cannot have a fun recanvess of
IA a ffnr
that will lose my office? Certainly 1 do not
expect 70 do so.
Let US assume that my late opponent will seek
a recanvass OF the vote IN five hundred OF the
election districts which gave my greatest
pluralities. This would require the recanvass
OF more than 10000 ballots. II Is possible that
a close inspection by the courts, ruling on tech
nicalites, would show that ten or perhaps hf-
teen thousand OF these ballots were technically
defective The letter OF election law is ex-
ceedingy strict In regard to the manner OF
marking a ballot, and In all probability in every
election thousands OF ballots are counted In all
honesty for both sides which would fail TO stand
n rigid test as 10 their validity.
1t should be remembered also that marks are
frequently made by the inspectors and the poll
clerks on tho ballots during the process Of count
ing and checking up the votes after election
and this fact might render defective hun
dreds Of ballots which, when they were cast
were valid in every respect IT. then such q
TecanVaSs Is to be made only In the districts
where my vote IS largest. and many votes are 20
be thrown out on technical grounds IL ia obvf-
GUS that my loss will be greater than my op-
ponents That is II my total vote In those dis
tricts is TO my opponents two is to one thus
Tor every vote lost by the contestant through a
technicality. shall lose two for IA mathematical
equation holds true even in the fairest Of cleo
tions. By continuing this process through all
the districts where / received substantial plu-
ralites and avoiding the districts where nv on
ponent received his largest vote. It can readily
be seen that my total plurality might be serious
iy threatened II not overcome. Is this tugalery
10 be sanctioned by the law?
Logically. a recanvass in those districts which
gave my opponent his largest puralitIes would
IN ike manner proportionately diminish his total
vote. But this bill forbids to ask for such
recanvass. for It provides that no application
for recanvass shall be made after twenty days
from Its enactment. II allows my opponent to
go as far as he desires. and farther. and de-
MES 10 me the right OF rebuttal
STOPPED FROM PROVING VOTES.
am estopped from proving that as many or
more ballots about which II is possible to raise
technical question we're counted for my oppo-
nent as were counted for me. In short such a
law this makes II possible to overturn the
squarest and fairest election ever held provided
only that the plurality is small enough 10 make
the attempt worth while.
1t amounts to n declaration that In the future
successful candidate must have from % 900 to
10000 plurality to be safe from attack provided
his opponent is rich enough carry on an agi-
taton for recount. Is this the fair count
which has been recommended by the Governor?
To me II seems deliberate attempt TO throw
the whole matter into new and utter confusion
Out OF the mass OF statements circulated by my
opponent Immediately after the election there
were three claims, and only three, worthy OF
any attention. First, that the official had
been falsled after the original talies had been
made up and that an inspection OF the tally
sheets would prove that deliberate errors had
been committed. which, when corrected would
seat Mr.. Hearst as Mayor. Second. that a ma
jorty Of ten thousand ballots which had been
set aside as void or protested had been validly
cast Tor Mr.. Hearst, and that examination
Of the ballots by the courts would result in the
counting Of these votes for Mr. Hearst and
establish his election Third, that the opening OF
"A hAN eZ1sy