The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1912-07-25
PUT FRAUD Aside.

IL was IOuuIy Proclaimed ny NhalI
man Joe Shannon, following the elec'
ton OF 1910 in St. Louis city and
county, that gross frauds had been per
petrated in behalf of the successful
republican candidates for the supreme
court, for state superintendent Of
schools, and for railroad and warehouse
Commissioner. So determined and
persistent were the charges Of Shannon
that the democratic state committee
took the matter up and induced the
defeated democratic candidates to file
contest proceedings in the supreme
court. The history Of these proceed
ings is well known now to all Missou-
rians especially to members of the
democratic state committee, who must
provide Tor the payment Of costs, ag
gregating several thousand dollars, in
addition to SIS, 900 to $40, 900 already
paid out for attorney fees and other
expenses.
The best comment on the charges
instigated bv Shannon and set out by
the contestants in their petition, is that
Of the supreme court in one Of the
three cases decided recently, wherein
the court SAID:
We content ourselves with ruling
on the record before US. Attending 10
that, the very heart, the sum Of the
matter is this: Neither by the recount
of the beard OF election commissioners
certified here, nor that certified here
by the county clerk Of 81. Louis county,
nor by the testimony, nor by the report
and findings Of our own commissioner,
are the averments OF contestants pc
ttion relating to fraud, and his conse-
Quent damage thereirom, established.
indeed, we are no little inclined to put
that construction on the concessions
tf counsel in oral argument. As appo.
site to the whole situation we may
borrow a venerable figure gravely used
in sober discourse. Il is said Of Lord
Shaitesbury's career as lord chancellor
that it was like March-it came in like
lion and went out like a lamb - his
discourse flew so high in a certain par
ticular at the start and became so mild
at the end. So here Of the phrase Of
the petition relating 10 fraud and injury
| ,Aeretrom, as compared with the facts
uncovered. True, suspicious are in
dulged in briefs. But we know Of no
accredited Treatise on Suspicious, up
. this time, whereby metes and bounds
may be put to them, or (what is much
closer home) whereby a Judge may
discern their Office in a law suit, il iany,
or the rules for applying them, il any.
Indeed, suspicion is but smoke, con,
| lecture, AS the dream Of a sleeper
fades at daybreak, so conjecture and
suspicion fade in the sunlight Of the
ilcts in a litigated case,
The sensible and sufficient rules to
70 by are; What does not appear from
admission or proof is taken BY the judge
as non-existent. In fraud he who al
leges in court holds the burden OIL
proof. Fraud or dole is not to be pre-.
slmed. Honesty and good faith are
presumed, absent proof to the contrary,
So that it matters not that fraud will be
followed relentlessly and its fruits
snatched away by courts with a willing
md ungloved hand. 1t must first bt
found 10 exist before it bears any frui
10 be snatched away.
Giving heed to these precept
, (and the premises all considered) thi
cause cannot be determined in favor O
contestant on the theory that he wa
iefrauded out Of his election, as alleger
n his petition.
Accordingly we so hold, and pu
'raud, as such, 10 one side"
GsrrymandeT Major.