The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1916-10-15
KNOTS ELECTION is ASSURED.

w. V. hnotl, Woutu heNS oSSii N
long ago.
Taking into consideration the involved
system of tabulation required by the Bryan
Primary Law, which sought to accomplish
in one primary what had previously been
done in two, it would have been miracu- |
Ious had there been no errors; errors that |
in the event of a very close election might |
incline the victory one way or another.
The vote as first reported was as fol- |
lows: Cats, 30092 first choice, 1887 sec.
ond choice.-total SO, 400 Knott, "A, 720
first, and S,449 second-total, SO, loo, or
difference of only $50 in favor of Cats.
To verify the vote, friends of Mr.. Knott
secured copies of the tally books, from
which it was Immediately evident that in
a number of cases the second choice vote
had been incorrectly tailed and in other
cases was quite unintelligible. Anybody
who examines the tally methods will see
how natural it was for such an error to
creep in.
The vote as recounted shows: Cats,
30,067 first, and 1851 second-total, 3d.
41S; Knott, 24,765 first, and S674 second
total, 33,439 - majority in favor Of
Knott, 81
Denying the right toIcorrect even an OBJ
vious error, Mr.. Cats, and his partisans,
claimed that he had been victimized by
what he was pleased to term political
ring; and added the gratuitous assertion
that the Supreme Court was in collision
with the ring.
There have been a number of rings in
the United States, but this is probably the
first time on record that judicial body has
been charged with being part of one.
While Mr. Cats made the accusation be-
fore the recount was made, we are not to
infer that he would have charged crime and
an abandonment of democratic principles
| had it confirmed his nomination.
The fault of the recount was therefore,
not that it recounted but that it declared
Knott the nominee.
Had there been two primaries, Knott and
Cats would have run the same on first
choice-Catts, 3O092, Knott, 24,720. But
since Knott was the second choice of more
people than any other candidate, he would
have forged ahead in the second primary
and with only the first and second choice
votes, OF which mention has already been
made, the result would be as it has been
shown on the recount majority of 81
in favor of Knott
but there were other notes.-the % 16O
, which Hudson, Woods, and Farris received
in the aggregate. OF these, only 11.7Se
have been accounted for in the second
? choice, the balance, 1874, having been
!, wasted on one of the three low candidates
:, Receiving seventy-two per cent of all the
: known second choice, it is logical to sup
pose that knott's favoritism over Cats
would continue in the same ratio had the
i unused votes been available during SECOND
{ primary.
: That would give Knott 1921 of tht
: unused votes. and Cats 4,753-making TIL,
, grand totals as follows: Cats, 1871
: Knott, 45 600
= Cats, by abandoning his party obliga
: tons, by the series of contradictions il
6 which he has involved himself, bv his I'm
dignihed campaign in which wild assertion
/ has been substituted for proof, and billings
8 gate for logic, is alternating people from hi
S cause every day.
u But even if this were not the case. th
|, 2o,i60 democrats who voted for Woods
!, Farris and Hudson, will stand by thei
u party. Cats as he could not win their cor
idence in the first place, will not be able te
q induce them to bolt now These democrat
y will make common cause with Mr.. Knott.
!, 24,16o first choice supporters against Gait
u attempt to disrupt the democratic party an
81 exalt the negroes, of whom there are a pos
e sible 10000 electors in Florida, to the ba
ance of power