The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-07-02
Mays Says Proposition OF
Local Candidate is Most
Astounding One.
II CAN SEE NO
REMEDY" HE SAYS
If Congressional Committee
Attempts to Write Its
Own Decision IN Place of
That of People. Primary
System Will Receive a
Heavy Blow, Says Mays.

The following copy of a letter Aa-
dressed to J. Walter KehOe, from Dan
Mite H Mays, il answer 10 Mr.. Ke-
noes letter 70 Mr.. Mays published in
The Journal a few days ago, was
received yesterday:
Mays's Reply to kehoe.
Monticello. Fla, June so, 1898.
Hon. J. Walter Kehoe,
Pensacola, Fla.
Dear Sir: / am in receipt of your
letter of the 9th instant, and l no
tice by Tie Pensacola journal OF the
2Sth that you have shown me the dis
courtesy o. publishing that letter,
which did not purport to be an open
letter, before yoIT received by reply
instead of waiting until you should
have received it. when. mad you so
dsiTed, you could have made the cor
respOndence public by publishing both
letters at the same time
Your letter bears to me the most
astounding proposition that I have
ever known to proceed from one can
didate to another You claim that
you have been informed that some
voters who were not qualified cast
their votes and had them counted in
the last primary. ] mad learned OF
this claim on your part by the gatling
gun contests which you attempted
to institute before some oS the county
committees in the effort to reverse my
majority when you became aware that
you had been beaten on the face OF
the returns. and by the same means
/ had become informed that your
claim consisted OF disqualhcatiOns
resting almost entirely on the non
pa gmentl ofsBofft taxes IF Your insof--
| nation is correct. no one regrets
| more than / that such ballots should
have gone into the box: nor is nv
regret augmented by the conscious
ness that possibly you got the greater
part If not all of those votes. / can
see no remedy and your proposition
simply astouHdS me. In IL YOU seem
to draw a distinction between the
| cases where TINS was done with the
cOnnivance. knowledge and consent
of the inspectors" and where it was
not so done. in the former case YOU
propose to throw out the precinct in
toto; in the latter, to reject a number
of votes equal to the number o. I'M
qualified voters voting. taking those
votes from votes of each candidate
in the proportion that his vote bears
to the whole number of votes cast in
the precinct In either case Won
would work far greater wrong than
| that OF some unqualified votes being
cast, as wrong IS that NAV be- The
vote OF the unqualified voter O1fy
partially destroys the Sorce of the
vote of the qualified voter, while in
your proposition in the one case YOU
would have the congressional commit
tee destroy the qualified vote alto
getheT, and In the other change II
after it had been cast into the ballot
r. NrvFa r-sT
reject a precinct in toto even though
it be for the misconduct of the IL
spectOrs mot voter you destroy tbs
votes of all the qualified yOter5-yOu
deny them Cor no crime of their
Own-the right to have their votes
counted; a crime far greater than
permitting a few persons. unqualified
| by reason Of the non payment of q
poll tax "a debt due the state, and
| this no state election but simply a
Democratic primary or otherwise. In
| the other case where you propose 10
deduct the votes from each candidate
in the proportion that his vote bears
to the whole number Of votes cast IN
! the precinct. you must also admit
| that unless you deducted from each
candidate exactly the same numbeE
| OF votes that there were illegal votes
cast FOR him, a thing that would not
happen once in a thousand times Uus
der your proportion scheme, YOU would
leave one candidate with more and
| the other candidate with less Of tha
qualified votes than he received which
would be nothing more nor less thar
! the committee changing votes aftef
they were cast-the greatest crims
which could be committed against the
freedom and honesty Of the ballot
and makes no difference whether Il bs
committed with vouT consent and
with my consent. by the inspectors OF
committee. clandestinely or openly.
And I am surprised that such a prop
osition should come from a states
attorney OF the state Of Florida. Your
profession Of solicitUde for the purity
and integrity Of the primary law would
7 have struck me vita more force had
YOU not made such a proposition
Should the congressional committee
attempt b. any such scheme of de-
stTuction and Justification Of votes
cast TO write their own decision in
place of that OF the people. as certified
! by county committees the primary
system viii receive blow Ear greater
than the mere adHittance Of a few
Illegal votes by inadyerteHce OF other
wise at the polls.
Respectful.