New-York tribune., 1907-06-25
RECOUNT VETOED AGAIN
ACTING MAYOR DOES 1T.
Objects Because of Raids on Bores-
Ballots an Streets.

Patrick F. MCGOWAN, President OF the Board
of Aldermen, acting as Mayor. late yesterday
afternoon vetoed the supplemental recount bill.
The Mayor was at the City Hall as late as 3
o'clock, but between and left. presumably
for Princeton, at which time Mr.. MCGOWAN be-
came acting mayor.
The chief reasons assigned for disapproval of
the bill are the great cost in lawyers fees to
Mayor Mcclellan in protecting his interests;
that recount will involve endless litigation, as
the courts will have to pass upon every ballot
in dispute and that many of the ballot boxes
were the subject of midnight raids. were
''carted about the city and the contents StreWn
in the streets.
Mr. McCfowan's memorandum is as follows:
l recently had occasion 10 consider the recoun.
bill (so-called), and reached the conclusion that II
unconstitutional in form, vicious in prihciple
and unfair to the people of the city ana us uuiS
elected Mayor. Prior 10 the discussion whlch lol,
lowed the public hearing on that bill the press ana
public had been led to believe that luil Iecouil
and reCanvass had been provided for by that meas
ure surrounded with safeguards that would allow
the present incumbent of the office of Mayor 10
defend his title without serious financial loss AFTER
the unfarness of the bill had been pointed out anu
public opinion had condemned a measure so gross
ly defective. il became necessary to pass an alneh-
atOry act The Legislature a result, was forced
to enact the present supplementary bill
The advocates of this measure say that II RENE
dies the manifest injustice of the hrst nli IN that
it provides for recount of all ballots cast in
that election; that if the contestant fails in his
claim he will have to pay all the costs, and that
no part of the large sum for costs and expenses
necessary to defend his title to office Will have 10
be borne personally by the incumbent of the ohce.
/ take 1t that II any of these claims are not sus-
tained there will be defence OF this measure
among thinking
An examination Of the two bills clearly shows
that neither of these propositions is true II is a
notorious fact that many Of the ballot boxes con-
tanning the ballots this election were carted
about the city and the contents Of some of them
StreWn about the streets. While some OF IHeSe
boxes have been made the subject OF midnight
raids by Deputy Assistant Attorneys General pre-
sumaby acting in the interest OF the defeated can
didate for Mayor
This bill prohibits a canvass of ;he vote in any
election district in which the ballots have been
found by the court not to have been preserved
II the bill provided that there should be no re-
canvass Of the vote in the ctAunless all the bal
lots in the city were found TO have been pre-
served. there would he no objection whatever TO
this feature OF the measure. But what is TO happen
II II shall be ascertaned that every ballot IN an
election district has not been preserved? Is it 10
be assumed that election is 10 be determined or
the result or the declared election changed upon a
partial canvass of the cast? Are the voters
of entire district to he disfranchised? II it
shall be found that there are more ballots
In the boxes less than those originally accounted
for, is the vote Of the entire district 70 be thrown
1t has been claimed that the effect of this pro-
vision is merely to allow the original canvass Of
such a district to stand declared at the time
OF election. II this is the intent of the section.
Why sHouid II NOT be clearly expressed: Inc oi,i
docs not say that the original canvass shall stand
II IS Odn 10 say the least. tnat SuCl provision
should be carefully omitted
The claim that this bill relieves the Mayor OF the
city OF the of defending his title equally
incorrect II is true that the present bin provides
that the person who now holds the Office OF Mayor
shall be relieved Of the necessity os giving a bond
10 pay tho costs, but extreme care seems 10 have
been taken to place the financial responsibility
upon the present Mayor II ne defends his title %
his Office. Of paying out OF his pocket for the
services or an ntmy ot lawyers that will he neces
SaFy 10 look aitN his interests In the canvass OF
the votes the lG4S election districts of the
city. II must De remembered that recanvass OF
N" vote In each election district is separate pro-
ccedine. ana that all L. carried on simultane-
ousy. The cost OF being represented by counsel In
each OF these proceedings will be enormous. Such
a sum OF money would easily reach far be-oud the
total compensation allowed by the charter for the
services os the Mayor. and l do not believe the
decent citizenship ~ this community or the public
demands that condition ouerous and unjust
should be eXacted as a penalty for defending ones
utlr Office
The city Of New York has already paid once for
tho canvass OF the votes in the election OF
1905. Not one iota Of evidence has ever been pro-
duced 20 challenge the accuracy and fairness Of
that count. refuse by any act OF mine 20 place
upon the taxpayers OF the city the enormous bur
den Of paying n second time for such a canvass
Neither VIII consent the passage OF a bill
which forces the Mayor OF the city Il New York
to practically attack his titlc TO office in case
Mr.. Hearst only asks the court for a partial re-
canvass Such proposition is absurd 1t Is not
right 10 ask the legally elected Mayor TO take up
the work wherever Mr.. Hearst desires leave Of.
nor Is IL just 10 him 10 be placed in position where
he must either spend large fortune defend his
title or else desert the great number Of citizens who
elected him 10 his high office.
There is one other point which too much en-
phasis cannot be laid. and that is the improbability
OF ever reaching l. hnality In this whole matter.
Many citizens believe that recount and recanvass
is n simple numerical proposition that he finally
determined in a few months. II is not. II is
matter that is going TO take years to decide. If
this recanVass is allowed 10 proceed l am advised
ana fully believe that there Will be at least one
hundred thousand ballots which Will have 10 be
legally passed upon by the courts. Every ballot
upon which the cross mark IS obscure uneven.
every ballot that Is torn defaced every ballot
that may have been marked by tho Canvassers
themselves on election night, will have to pass
through the and the Appellate Division before
II can be finally counted. IT. the mean time
courts will be Congested and other Htgants will he
forced stand aside. 1t will be a of years
before this matter can be finally decided and per
haps such decision may not he reached during the
term of the present incumbent. What incompre-
hensihle folly IT is 10 burden the Mayor. the city
and the public with such litigation, For these
refuse to accept this bill behalf OF the
city OF New York