The Punta Gorda herald. [volume] (Punta Gorda, Fla.) 1893-1958, 1916-11-02

ed second cnOlce NUIcS Cast loi
Sidney j. Cats. To the right OF
Hudson IS name and in the Cats
second choice column is marked 1,
although no first choice votes were
shown as having been voted for
Hudson. Yet, of the votes which
were cast for Hudson, first choice,
which was none, one second choice
vote is credited to Cats as coming
from the voter who voted first
choice for Hudson. A manifest
error. OF the ten first choice vot
es cast for Knott, four OF these
are credited as having cast sec
ond choice vote for Cats. OF the
eight first choice votes cast for
Wood six of those voters are cred
ted with having cast their second
choice vote for Cats. AT the bot
tom of the Column eight second
choice votes are credited to Cats
without it being shown for whom
those voters cast their first choice
votes. These eight second choice
votes could not be counted at all.
Of the four second choice votes
credited to Cats and shown as
having been voted By those who
voted for Knott first choice, they
could not, of course, have been
legally counted for Cats. The
inspectors by placing every sec
ond choice vote to the immediate
right of the name of every can
didate, inadvertently placed them
all in the Cats second choice col
umn. When the same inspectors,
and in the presence of the attor-
neys and friends of both sides
recount them, it was shown that
not a single second choice vote
was cast for Cats and that Knott
gained 6 second choice votes,
Wood s, Hudson 2 and Farris /.
Can any reasonable man deny that
Knott should be entitled to have
the 6 second choice votes to which
he was entitled and that Cats
should be deprived Of the second
choice votes to which he was not
entitled?
As the fight was between Knott
and Cats, the newspapers simply
stated the net gain Of Knott with
out mentioning the other candi-
dates, from which some people
claim it is {" very strange" that
Knott was the only one to gain in
the recount. 1t will be observed
in that precinct, that Cats did not
receive any first choice votes in
either count. None of the inspcc-
tors were for him, This was there
fore necessarily am uninteational
error.
Add to precinct No. % CT Mar |
ion county, the same error occur
red, all of the second choice votes
are placed to the right of the
names of the candidates and in the
column headed "Second choice
votes cast for Sidney j. Cats. "
AS Al first choice votes were cast, |
it is not natural to presume that |
all OF the voters voted for Cats
either first or second choice. A |
error. The courts there
fore ordered a recount. The re-
count shows that of the 16 first
choice votes cast for Knott, 3 of
these voters gave Cats their sec
ond choince votes and that of the
Ia first choice votes cast for Cats
3 Of them voted for Knott and |
for Farris. Of course, neither of
these could be counted for Knott
Or Cats, as they were the two
high men. Knott received 6 sec
1nd choice votes from the voters
who voted first choice for Farris
from the voter voting first choice
for Hudson, | from Woods first
choice vote. Wood gained 4 sec
md choice votes, Knott 8, Hudson
|, Farris 6, Cats lost II, net gain
in kott s favor as against Cats of
l9 votes. Can any one say that
Knott was not entitled to this
gainY Can any one say that the
errors of the inspectors by which
Cats was enormously Counted
In" should not give place to the
wish of the voters themselvesY al
voted in this precinct. Knott's