The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1916-10-22


be used at all or in the first column
to the right of the names of the cam
didates, regardless of whom the voter
cast his first choice. This error or
mistake seems to have been commit
ted without any intention whatever
to injure any one, but where the sec
ond choice votes were so Tailed the
county canvassing boards were, of
course, unable to tell for whom to
credit them. The board, having no
authority to ego behind the returns"
lin other words, open the boxes to
examine the ballots and verify the
returns) had to leave out such err
roneously tailed second choice votes
from the official returns made to the
state board.
In view of the pending contest over
the nomination for governor, an ex-
PLANTATION of this point might make
it clearer to those who have not
given the matter mature thought as
to why a re-tally of second choice
votes might justly occur, and was
more than likely to occur, especially
if the first returns showed a close
race. The reasons which seem con-
elusive may be stated thus:
First: The tabuiation of the re-
turns made by the state canvassine
board on June rs showed that from
such second choice votes as were cor
rectly tailed and returned, Mr.. Knot
received 8,449 to Mr.. Cats 1887
These votes came only from the
voters who cast their first choice fol
| the eliminated candidates-Farris
| Hudson and Wood. In othet words
Mr.. Knott received proportion o
| about 8 to Mr.. Cats of all sucl
second choice votes as were correctl.
tailed and returned for them; ant
of course this proportion would con
tinue relatively should the missing
votes be counted.
I Second. On the face of many tall,
sheets from which the RESPECTIVE
county canvassing boards took thei
figures there was indicated to be a
average (conservatively estimated) Q
from % to 100 second choice votes t
be divided between Knott and Gait
in each county, should they be col
rectly tailed. There being So coun
ties in the state with an average "a
least calculation) of about so secon
choice votes for these two candidate
not properly accounted for in eac
county, there would be about ESQ
of such second choice votes in all th
state, if properly Tailed, to be adde
to the totals of Mr.. Knott and M
Cats respectively as the ballots il
Dictated. Therefore, if the first n
turns showed that Mr.. Cats only ha
260 votes lead over Mr.. Knott wit
Mr.. Knott getting the proportion I
8 to Mr.. Cats second choice vote
the conclusion is unacceptable that
the various inspectors responsible f
the errors were required by the usu
course of mandamus proceedings
u reassemble and correctly tally a
: return the said 1900 votes, or ev
u minor portion of them, that n
! Knott would very soon overcome n
!. Cats lead of only Poor 800, cour
q ing the SO that should have been
le Guided from Precinct in Alach
y county. No one doubts that who b
given the matter serious thought.
u From the standpoint of winnil
'e no one would blame Mr.. Cats for !
e sisting the recount, for the result "
"a inevitable, if the ballots were pl
~ served, and the recount was ma
~ In fact, it would not be recon-
al but a count of all the votes actua
" cast.
le The greater portion of the secc
~ choice votes going for M. Knott
undoubtedly accounted for in the "
ry known fact that the special instr
re ton of Mr.. Cats supporters in
- parts of the state, by means of {