El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1918-10-05

OF the gross fraud practiced in the
first precinct OF Douglas. where ~
ballots were changed from Campbell
10 Hunt by the election officers Of
that precinct The lower court which
examined these ballots was convinced.
and any school boy could tell upon
examination OF them that the cross
opposite CamobelTs name had been
erased and another placed after Hunts
name
The supreme court adopted the the
DRY that detectives changed the bal
/ lots, when as a matter Of fact no de-
tectives were employed in the case IN
til the ballots were IN the possession
OF the superior court at Phoenix The
inspection In the court at Phoenix first
disclosed that they had been mutt
lated, and the inspector OF the cleo
ton precinct had fled the state
Record Contradicts High Court.
The supreme court says that "all
OF the officers who offieiated we're
residents OF ana electors OF Douglas
precinct" but the record shows they
left this precinct to vote in the ad-
joining ones where their names were
written on the precinct register. as
provided by law IN Par. 1881. The
court says: The election board was
composed OF Republicans and Demo
Gratis" The record OF the trial shows
no Republicans served The court
says that no bystsnder observed any
thing wrong being done. yet the I'M
impeached testimony OF deputy sher-
If Cross SAYS that after hearing COM I
plants OF irregularities he Inspected
the ballots being counted and found
small bits OF rubber and paper still
adhering to the ballots where tney
had been erased.
Watcher Was inundated.
The court says that no party I
watcher made any compliant me
record Is that {. ". Redlins was
forced TO leave the polling place IN
der threats OF the election board when 4
he complained OF the method Of count
ing. The court itself, in its decision, /
describes the marked ballot in Doug
las No. 1 as being mutilated- The
law SAYS that mutilated ballots shall /
not be counted, but the supreme
court counted over 20 mutilated bal
lots in Douglas No 1 for Hunt
The sworn inspection notes made by
Hunts inspectors and submitted TO /
the supreme court IN the mandamus
case brought by Tom Campbell 70 OBJ
tain possession Of his office. admitted
q loss Of 16 votes from the Official re-
turns Of Douglas precinct No. 1. There
were more ballots than names on the
poll book The ballots, after being
changed, did not agree with the count,
but the supreme court held that the
official returns Of the election board
were correct
desperate Fraud Says Judge Sim
ford
The supreme court would not con-
slider the confession OF H H Hart, the
election judge, made to Bruce Stephen
son. assistant county attorney OF Co
chise county, in the hearing OF another
attorney, nor the confession
of Hart made to W ". Holther IN the
hearing OF five Witnesses S2e an ex-
United States marshal, and another
The city attorney OF Douglas. This evil
iencs was never impeached-
Judge Stanford. IN ruling on this
precinct, after listening 10 all the evil
ience, said: Desperate fraud was
committed IN Douglas precinct No. !"
and found the ballots were taken
from Campbell and given to Hunt at
some time during the count or shortly
lfterward.
II Judge Stanford was correct in his
finding that the election officers stole
81 votes for Hunt IN Douglas No. /,
egally cast for Campbell. the supreme
court OF the state OF Arizona. in de- /
siding against Campbell gave him the
-awest deal ever given a man in the
history Of American politics.
The record shows that the supreme
,ourt Is in error when II found that
he board OF supervisors OF COcOnino
county reconvened within the six day
,eriod and duly canvassed the returns
II Camp Ten, which had not been re-
,eived along with the other ballots.
tut which the supreme court counted
or Hunt.
The supreme court, IN It's decision.
Construed the mark (S) as the word
cross" as set forth In section 2941.
Notice TO Voters They then looked
Dictionary, and under the definition OF
he word cross" found four other
lind OF crosses" which they substi-
uted for the mark CXO in order to
ounty IS ballots for Hunt. while
Eortly before this IN their decision
hey held that voter must substan-
tally comply with the law
Blind To Distinguishing Marks.
The supreme court says. IN regard
o Distinguishing marks. in order TO
cunt a majority Of eight such votes
or Hunt: There is not a particle OF
violence that any OF the ballots had
he marks now appearing on them
Then they were found in the ballot
OK" They might have said the same
hing about the voting marks for
but this would have pre-
luded any recount at all
The supreme court made no decision
or guidance OF the electorate in pre-
CRYING the sanctity Of the ballot, but