OCR Text |
Show The School Board Muddle. Continued from Page 1 that In ns much as Mrv Jacques desired to see the question In court whether or not the candidates desired td avoid litigation; and further In as much as Mr. Thatcher had acted Wore upon legal and other advice to award the certificate to Henderson, and further In as much as the democratic members mem-bers had attempted to take advantage advant-age of a clerical error in one case ard to cpnsider nothing but that error and award Mr. Henderson the certificate certifi-cate upon that error, tie did not feel disposed to go outside the province of the canvassing board and therefore there-fore would not consent to the plan at that time. Now the question is, Why did Thatcher Change front? Was It from thu fact that the board would tiot permlt-thp award of a certificate to any one on an error In returns and an error that was apparent to ally Against Fair Play. The board vas lb determine fiom the returns the number uf votes cast h for each candidate and not to settle ties or any other legal question. Why then did the democratic mealiblfs tote to award the certificate to one mem-ber mem-ber because he had not from all the returns received a majority vote? Why did they vote "No" on the question of a tie when the returns, If left to any fair committee, would be Judged a tie? why did they not vote for fair play when the Judges of election, Including the democratic Judge, said there were only 40S ballots counted and there were 204 for each candidate? "Fess" up, boysl Was It not for political advantage? ad-vantage? If not. what was It? We commend to the public the closing paragraph of the Journal's article on this question as published last Saturday. Satur-day. A little fairness and not so much party advantage would havejpbably settled this question. Who 'whs It that attempted to uUp advantage? - The Journal accuses Or. Thomas of being extremely partisan In this matter. mat-ter. If the Journal wilt enlUliten us as to wherein there was anything partisan In Dr. Thomas's vote to de. dare the result a tie from the evidence evi-dence before the board then we will agree with them. Would It tiavo crltlsised him for votlng'to award Hen-erson Hen-erson the certificate on the showing made? Does the paper desire to Imply that he was partisan because he plan of Mr. Thatcher was rejected? If that is the Implication Is it not well to take Into account the fact that such a plan could only be adopted by the new board at the request of both the candidates .and not by any action of tho present board. Is the Journal aware that Dr. Thomas suggested such a course to Mr McLaughlin several days before Mr. Thatrher had thought of It? This Is a fact and Mr. Thomas did not know what course Mr. McLaughlin Intended to persue In the matter further than that lie had repeatedly stated that he, Mr. McLaughlin, Mc-Laughlin, did not desire to see the matter brought Into court from tho fact that such proceedings tend to rn'ike the board more partisan and tiutsiiu)t action would be more or less detrimental to the new board. Again, we ask; Why did the Journal Journ-al consider l)r, Thomas's abtlonpartl-san? |