Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-06-25
HEARST AND THE RECOUNT
PRELIMINARY STEP IN BROOK.
LYN AND RICHMOND.
MCGOWAN Vetoes Supplemental Bill.
Predicts It Would Take Courts
Years to Finish Count

NEW YORK, June 25.-Counsel for Will
liam r. Hearst filed yesterday in the county
| clerks office in Brooklyn a bond of the Ma
! tional Surety Company, under winch Mr.
Hearst gives surety to make good the cost
of proceedings for a recount of the votes for
mayor cast In 1905 in Brooklyn and Rich
mond. The document states that Mr.. Hearst
intends to file in the Supreme Court a petit
ton for a summary canvass of the votes In
each and every election district in that ter
rltory, Mr.. Hearst to pay all the costs of
the proceedings. Under the law he must file
a bond for $3.50 for each election district
The amount Of the bond is not given, but it
is the regula ton bond and was approved
by Supreme Court Justice Maddox after he
and Mr., Hearst's lawyer had conferred. The
FORMAL application for a recount and recan-
Vass Of the votes cast in Brooklyn will be
made on Thursday morning.
Acting Mayors Veto.
President MCGOWAN of the board of alder
men vetoed yesterday the supplementary
recount bill. Mayor Mcclellan went out of
town again yesterday afternoon leaving Mr..
McGowan as the acting mayor AS indIca-
tive OF the mayors program when the re-
count begins, If 1t does begin this clause in
terested politicians:
There is one other point on which too
u,
the fmprobabilfty of ever reaching a fnality
In this whole matter. Many citizens believe
that recount and recanvass Is a simple
numerical proposition that can be finally
determined in a few months. 1t is not. 1t Is
matter that is going to take years to de-
eide. If this recanvass is allowed to proceed
am advised, and fully believe, that there
will be at least one hundred thousand bal
lots which will have to be legally passed
upon by the courts Every ballot upon which
the cross-mark Is obscure or uneven, every
ballot that Is torn or defaced, every ballot
that may have been marked by the can
vassers themselves on election night, will
have to pass through the courts and the
appellate division before it can be finally
congested, and other litigants will be forced
to stand aside. 1t will be a matter of years
before this matter can be finally decided,
and perhaps such decision may not be
reached during the term of the present in
cum bent. What incomprehensible folly it is
to burden the mayor, the city and the pub
lie with such litgation!'
To Test Bills Validity.
1t is known also that the mayor intends
to test the validity of the bill Itself The
purpose of the supplementary measure re-
jected yesterday by Mr.. MCGOWAN, is to
relieve Mr. Mcclellan of the burden i'm
posed in the, originally drawn bill of hav-
ing to bear personally any of the cost of
recounting the votes Mr. MCGOWAN saws
however, that it will be necessary for the
mayor to engage an army of lawyers, see
ing that the recapvass of the vote in each
election district is to be a separate pro-
ceeding; and that the cost of being repre-
scented by counsel in each of those pro-
ceedings will be enormous.
Mr.. MCGOWAN also objects to the supple
mentary bill on the ground that while it
ostensibly provides for recount of all the
votes, such thing is impossible under the
terms of the bill. Says Mr.. MCGOWAN on
this point.
ic
ballot boxes containing the ballots cast at
this election were carted about the city
and the contents of some of them strewn
about the streets, while some of these boxes
have been made the subject of midnight
raids by deputy assistant attorneys general,
presumably acting in the interest of the
defeated candidate for mayor.
Provisions of Bill.
This bill prohibits a canvass Of the vote
in any election district In which the ballots
have been found by the court not to have
been preserved. If the bill provided that
there should be no recanvass of the vote in
the city unless all the ballots cast in the
city were found to have been preserved
there would be no objection whatever to
this feature of the measure. But what is
to happen if it shall be ascertained that
every ballot in an election district has not
been preserved? Is it to be assumed that
an election is to be determined or the re-
suit Of the declared election changed, upon
a partial canvass of the vote cast? Are
the voters of the entire district to be dis
franchised? If it snail be found that there
are one or more ballots in the boxes less
than those originally accounted for, is the
vote of the entire district to be thrown
out?
TT has been claimed that the effect of
this provision is merely to allow the orig
1nal canvass of such district to stand as
declared at the time of election. If this is
L1 ,.tA f.ff 1n yyh
not be clearly expressed? The bill does not
say that the original canvass shall stand.
It is odd to say the least that such pro-
Vision should be carefully omitted