The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1905-1910, 1909-07-13

The provisions Of the statute and
party law are wise and just, and made.
as stated in the party law. lin order
that any fraud or error practiced by
the election officers. may be discovered
and corrected. These laws were
made to secure fairness. and prevent
any candidate from forcing himself
upon the party by fraud. For these
very reasons. am trying to invoke and
enforce these just and wise provisions
Of the law. From the very beginning
OF my contest. | have taken every step,
in the manner provided by law. There
has not been any c6ntention. or even
an intimation that have not tracked
the law, in every detail. The legis-
lature and the party authorities under
took. in their wisdom and justice, to
secure fairness and correct fraud, but
neither of these virtues Of the legis-
lature and party authorities seem TO
appeal to, or have any consideration at
the hands Of my opponent, since his
sole and only purpose and effort has
been to prevent hearing and trial Of
the contest.
have done nothing in secret. My
charges Of fraud and false returns are
contained in my notice Of contest. and
in the pleadings. on file in my suit. !
only demand the right to prove the
fraud as charged and am prevented
from doing so by my opponent. He
does not want the facts heard.
From the very beginning of the cor
test he has done everything in his
power to prevent a trial and hearing Of
the facts. II there ever was any,doubt
as to the truth of my grounds of con-
test. such doubt is unquestionably re-
moved by his last act. in preventing the
committee from hearing the contest
upon the facts as ordered 10y Judge
Bell.
The opinion Of the Court of Appeals.
in the Harrison County case, and which
my opponent publishes with comment.
as an advertisement instead Of signing
his name thereto. contains no new
principle and is not in conflict with the
decision Of Judge Bell.
have never contended that the de-
cision Of the County Committee, upon a
trial of the contest was not final, or
that It could be appealed from or cor
rected by any Court. My contention
has. all Of the while. been that the
committee had never heard or decided
the contest. Judge Bell sustained my
contention and did SO. after hearing all
proof. His decision was based upon
the proven and admitted facts. He
was perfectly familiar with the Beaz'
ley case. so copiously cited in the Har'
rison County case. and never based his
opinion upon any right Of the Court to
correct or control the decision Of the
committee upon trial of the contest
, He simply held, as was clearly estab
. lished by the proof. that there had beer
no trial or decision of the contest, a
, fact. well known to every person in thu
(. community.
Again, in the case advertised an'
I commented upon by Mr.. McCarty, tn
4 contestant. as appears from the opin
: ion, had attempted to comply with tn
G party law. and so have the committee
}. open the ballot boxes and count tn
ballots therein. but it was decided b.
v the committee, after full consideration
that he had not complied with the par
n ty law, in that he had not filed his pc
r titions in time. and SO recount Of tn
/. ballots was refused. This action of tn
4 committee was upheld by the Court an
' properly so. 1t was conceded in tina
' case that contestant had the right. upo
a compliance with the party law, to hav
A the ballots counted. but he had no
: complied. and 80 was not entitled
o have q recount.
a Now, in my case. there was no CUES
n tion rs to the legality Of the petitions
3 or a. to their being fled in time. III
d petitions filed BY me. we're never cor
sidsrsd by the committee. Some me-