The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1914-09-16

| between the ges OF % and So (polI tax
! able ages. and were marked exempt
| first vote These exemptions were
mostly in the precincts with q more or
less shifting population.
The frauds connected with the last
city election have already cost the
taxpayers Of the county more than
$1,000 and for the present revision
of the registration books we must add
another $500 to be paid for by tax
payers. This IS merely a monetary
cost: the damage morally has been in
caiCu1abIe
Now to whom must the blame for all
This be charged2 What has this to do
with the recall election
Look over the flies If our local
pal ers from July to H. 1918 You
eau there read the testimony that
shows the registering Of men without
their knowledge. or consul" whose
names are given IS Il by guess YoJ
viii find Foreigners. minors of II. -
and % years. citizens Of other states
ami countries, al Apparently who
were thought TO be inclined u vote
right. whether he willcd il or ~.
fivc4! ur 50 he could cast his hailo-.
fictitious persons enrolled. the absent
still voting: and even a dead man re
called from a watery gray" to oXe--
else his suffrage,
The man in who's" interest a# this
was done and as the evidence shows
in some cases. with whose knowledge,
consent and assistance il was done.
was nominated city commissioner In
the first primary. receiving 9s3 out Cf
1871 votes cast. q majority Of -. In
the second primary. when this cand:-
Ia g 10 hal 5a- her
were cast 1860 balIots-n nearly 500 less
than in the FIRST primary This differ
euce is not far from the number "f
Single shot" votes cast for the prescu.
Police commissioner. II Is not an easy
inference that Of this large vote 1r-
ranged for by this candidate and his
abettors there were much more than
enough to change the result Of first
primary and the election Have not
the candidates of the reCalIerS a just
right to claim that. eliminating this
large illegal vote. they could have been
nominated in the second primary? sub
tract from the 9S2 votes received by
tho leading candidates say three nun
dred of the illegal votes and that would
have brought his total below that Of
both Mr.. Greenhut and Mr.. Semmes,
and would have left Mr. Andrews in he
second primary.
DisreEarding the record Of this com
missioner since his Inauguration. can
amy more damning evidence Of his
unfltness he produced than was
brought out in that investigation ~
Solicitor Loftin. and subsequently,
during the trial in February? Can any
offense be So deserving OF the rebUke
OF removal from office a 8 that Of par
tiCipating in CorrUpting elections,
thwarting the purposes Of the elector-
ate. that is to say rohbing the citizen
of his most sacred right? Many man
has suffered much more punishment
for a much less serious Cffense.
Mark you. there was no denial Of
this guilt when this man was on trial |
The plea entered was that the &C
cused was not conscious OF doing a
wrong,
No conscious Of doing a wrong, That
plea worked with the jury in securing
an acoUittaj. and he was found not
guilty technically.
Rut, think. after this admission ~ ,
lack OF . sense of wrong in doing such !
things. he asks your votes again, for !
the highest Office Of the gift Of Dur !
citizens
II CLAY APNSTPD\c; /