The daily sentinel., 1908-10-27

them ready for shipment to Grand /
Junction by Friday evening. Smith
Brooks called up and informed Mr.. |
Bunting that owing to the fact that
they were crowded with orders they
could not turn out the ballots as
promised.
II was very sudden change in this 4
regard that the Smith-Brooks people |
experienced.
\ Powerful Argument.
Following Mr.. Bunting's testimony
the arguments were taken up.
| The argument for the plaintiffs |
was made by Attorney Ed. C. Slim
son, of Denver. He spoke for about
an hour and half and his argument
was one of the clearest. most COM
I prehensive and telling heard in the
: court room in many day. Attorney
Stimson showed clearly that he un-
/ derstood the mechanism of the ma
chine. its faults and drawbacks, it's
virtues and its short comings. Hel
also made a most convincing presen-
tation of the facts that show that the |
use of the voting machine in Mesa
county will be unconstitutional, in
direct violation of many phases of the
election law, will be unsatisfactory
to the voters, will leave every voter
in more or less doubt as to whether
he has really voted for anybody or
any ticket. He fully presented every
important phase of the objections
raised and the complaints made
against the voting machines by the
| plaintiffs.
Attorney Stimson made it plain
! that there was no way to decide a
contest should one arise and should
it be proven that fraudulent votes
had been cast on one or more of the
machines and as no record whatever
is kept of the individual votes cast,
4 there is no way under the sun to
cast out or reject fraudulent votes.
He declared that when a voter enter
ed within the curtain of one of these
Il machines and voted, he or she had no
way of telling whether his or her
vote had been cast or recorded or
whether he or she had voted at all.
, The voter must simply depend on the
accuracy and trustworthiness of the
voting machines.
, A great many other phases of the
!, inadvisability of using these voting
machines were presented by Attorney
, Stimson.
To many people who watched the
case throughout the question asked
occasionally and the comments made
now and then by the court indicated
that he would deny the application
and decide for the use of the ma
chine.
Attorney Logan Argues.
Following Attorney Stimson's S
argument Attorney Straud NJ. Logan,
for the defendants, entered into an
extended argument in defense of the
machines. He took issue with all of
the leading contentious made by the
plaintiffs and undertook to show that
the machines were all right in every
particular and could be used and
operated without any conflict with
the laws. Attorney Logan, like At
torney Stimson, cited many authori-
ties. At noon Mr. Logan was still
talking. An adjournment was taken
4 at noon until two O'Clock at which
| time Attorney Logan resumed. He
talked for some time.
Starr Talks of Cost.
This morning County Clerk r. e.
starr was recalled to the stand and
| he endeaVored to point out where
the purchase of the machines had
saved and would save the county
much money in expenses of election
judges. printing of ballots, etc. How
ever, when it is considered that the
expenses for carrying the machines
to the various precincts. rrinting
name slips for every machine and
every one of the name plates on the
:
instructors and experts, etc, amount
! to as much or more than the expenses
of the old system, this argument of
County Clerk Starr fell mighty flat !.
) Star Tells OF Expert "
When asked by Attorney Stimson
what provision had been made to
guard against some of the machines
getting out of order, Mr.. Starr repli-
ed, I'VE have made ample provision"
hn
| made?' was asked the county clerk
and the question had to be put sew
eral times and the court finally had
to request Mr.. Starr to answer the !
question in direct manner before a
detailed answer was secured
Mr.. Starr stated that he had ar
ranged for three experts" to be on
duty on election day. They would
| be placed at points where they would
| have "a portion of the county to watch
over and be ready for a call should
one come from any precinct. With
just three experts to watch all of
| the machines in the various CLOSE
| in and far out" precincts of the
| county 1t can be understood how Sc
cure CD every precinct is from being
| confronted with machine which re-
| fuses to work correctly.
From all reports these three "ex-
perts'' are J. f. Brink, Charles C.
! Knowles and Carl Byers, local men
who have never made an extended
study cf voting machines or who have
never been employed in a factory
where such machines are made. The
workings of the machines have simp-l
| ly been explained to them and they
have made close examination of the
mach 'nes since the machines have
been here. Could they be called ex-