The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1916-09-26
THE ALACHUA RECOUNT.

Saturday, limited that it would support
Knott if he is the democratic nominee.
We hope it will. Sincerity has so far
characterized the devotion of The Tribune
to the cause of Cats, and, this same homes
ty of purpose should keep our contempor-
airy from boiling the party it has sworn to
support as a certain disgruntled element
that takes its obligations less seriously,
has boosted it would do.
But as The Tribune is unquestionably
enrolled on the side of truth, we are frank
ly unable to understand its editorial
of Sunday in which it objects so
strenuousyl to a recount being made
of the entire county of Alachua, be-
cause Cats wants only one precinct
counted. According to The Tribune itself,
this precinct is Disqualified; Cats wants
it counted because he thinks it gave him a
majority Says The Tribune:
at would never do to let you have the benefit of
these votes, because they would put you ahead IN
the and make it necessary to declare you
the nominee. Our good friend, Knott, must not be
sidetracked in any such way. Well recount the
whole county of Alachua and then, perhaps, Mr..
Knott's friends find enough "gans" for him
other precincts to overbaance the Cats lead the
omitted precinct and still keep him in the lead"
The Tribune knows full we'll why the
vote in the entire county is ordered. 1t
knows full we'll that Knott's mandamus,
to have the entire county recounted, ante
dates Cats, to have one precinct counted,
by fifteen days. Everybody else knows it,
too. But leaving this to one side-will The
Tribune, which has heretofore been dis
tinguished by such illuminating logic, ex-
plain why it objects to the recount of an
entire county when one precinct gives (ac-
cording to averment) a substantial ma or-
ity in favor of its candidate? Surely with
so delicious a sample, the customer would
want the whole! And surely if Knott were
the ud-planning person he is painted,
he could doctor" one precinct easier than
he could an entire county.
The Tribune says further that through
out the contest proceedings Knott ''has
been permitted" to designate where he
wants the counting done "Permitting"
Knott's friends (to) find enough gains"
surely requires further elucidation Like
the keyhole, it lets us see too much and
hides too much. Does the Tribune mean
that courts decision is a permit to per-
sonal ACKNOWLEDGEMENT? Does the facile
reference to the friends being allowed to
find gains mean that our legal institutions
are venal? Does it mean that the Tribune
thinks the Supreme Court is guilty of col
luS1on? If it does mean that then the
Tribune will not be doing its duty unless
it produces the proof in order that so
monstrous an outrage may be stopped IF it
does not mean this, then every charge the
Tribune has brought against Knott falls
of its own weight.
Of course we who know Mr. Knott
know how false the accusations are, and
how impossible of fulfllment were the
gigantic frauds imputed to him. had he
been so evil minded; but we want to find
out if the Tribune knew it too.
And while we are in this inquiring mood,
we might ask the Tribune why, if it must
discourse on fraud, it doesn't talk about
the Cats star witness who was arrested
for perjury.