The daily morning oasis. [volume] (Nogales, Ariz.) 1917-1920, 1920-05-26

WlCH puDllcaClOn OF Cne eiecClOn re-
turns yesterday morning, "The Oasis
would have been content to let the
election of Monday pass into the
limbo of finished events, sand say
nothing further about it; but in ar
editorial mention yesterday evening
there was two mistatements sc
positive that to let them pass unan.
swered would be instanced as ac
quiescence in the false allegations con.
veyed. So they are given space ir
this article, conveying also their an
swer. The mistatenents are con.
veyed in this paragraph:
"Until yesterday morning The
Herald was of the opinion that the
entire Non-Partisan ticket would be
elected. Then, when we saw the mum.
ber of Non-Partisan votes being
thrown out" by the Election Judges
we were in doubt as to what the
final outcome would be. Many right
ful voters who favored the Citizens
ticket principles were denied their
privilege of franchise. The Herald
specifically charges that many voters
in the Morley Avenue addition of the
city which was taken in four months
ago and who favored the Non-Part-
isan ticket, were disqualified, while
others living in the same area were
permitted to cast their ballots be-
cause of known democratic affilia-
tions. A list of the voters, sub
stantiating this charge is being pre-
pared and will be duly published"
Daily Herald.
With regard to the allegation
against the election board, which the
Herald sought to besmirch both on
election day and in the paragraph
quoted, the very paragraph itself
shows the weakness of the allegations,
end the specific charge falls to the
ground.
Residents in North Morley Avenue
Addition had not lived within the City
of Nogales six months, which the law
requires them to have done in order
70 entitle them to vote. The Herald
Gays the Addition was taken in but
four months ago. Then its people
were not residents of Nogales six
months ago. Then, having resided in
Nogales less than six months, they
were subject to challange, and upon
examination, if developed that they
we're not entitled to vote, it was the
sworn duty of the election board to
reject their votes, if offered and chal-
ienged.
With regard to others living within
me same area who were permitted to
vote "because of Their democratic af-
filiations," as charged by the Herald:
Either tie Herald is ignorant of the
law. or it dc'iNc~a' ~ distorted it in
the quotation cited An election
board does not reject voters of it's
own Valition. The law provides chal-
lengers to set into operation the ma
chinery of rejection. Each party has
its challenger who is a recognized
part of the election machinery Writ
ten authority for such challengers to
act il; on file with the election board.
If they do not act, that is no fault of
the board.
Whenevr any person offers to vote
the only duty If an election board is
TO determine whether that party is
registered or not. If not registered,
they are told so, and asked to retire.
If he neglects or refuses to depart
the election marshal elects him.
If the clerks report the applicant
is registered ballot is given him, he
enters a booth, marks the ballot, ac-
cording to law, and then presents it
TO ths Inspector. There is where the
challenger's duty begins. Unless
ther9 is interposed a challenge the
inspector has no other course than to
accept that ballot and, after remov-
ing and stringing the stub, deposit
TIE ballot in the ballot box If any
>'?tor "of democratic affiliations" re-
siuilr IN the North Morley Addition
''got by" the Inspector, the Non
Partisan challenger was "asIeep at
the switch" If any Non-Partisan
voter in residing in that locality was
blocked, the democratic challenger
was "onto his job" 's