OCR Text |
Show That Supreme Court Decision. As stated last week Tin: Kiutiim-(AN Kiutiim-(AN has no deslie to lehash the In-lell-Laisenciise the Kepubllcan p.irty p.ir-ty has come Into what It feels Is lightly its own, and can be magnanimous magnan-imous but the local lepiesentation of Demociacy makessucha ildlculous-ly ildlculous-ly ludlcious attempt to defcnil the action or the lower couit and scoies the higher com I with such vlndlctixe-ness vlndlctixe-ness that tlie matter should hardly be passed. II Is not light that the people peo-ple should be Imposed upon. In Its Tuesday's Issue Thu Journal, , after seining Judge Il.utch pioceeds to say that the court decided .the case upon a pailial statinent of the facts, "its Laisen's attorney only took upastiiteinent of ceitaln witnesses whose testimony wjis consideied most f.norableto his contention, and in deciding the ease the opinion only quotes a eiy small pait of the iccoid, and Ignoies entliely the i est of the evidence befoie the couit, explaining and modirying It " Now thats biilliant. Did tlie Journal expect Mi. Walteis to take up Mi. Fancll's side ol the matter and pieseut it to thecouit, and have the case decided on that? Judge llait tiied tlie case, Attorney Walters appealed and cited objections to a number or Mail's decisions. The law expiessly piovldesthat "the objection must be staled with as much or the e Idence as is necessaiy to explain it ! and no moie." Mr. Walteis presented present-ed such objections as he saw lit, and just so much of the evidence as he felt was necessaiy to establish the oblectlon ami by the wav the laigei p.ut or that evidence was the testimony testi-mony or Mr l'ai loll hltiiM'lt, Miss Owen a copies! in his oillce, A. M. Clayton, Mr. Hindi's assistant, and Ml. Woilov. the couit house Janitor. The objections weie sustained laigely 011 the evidence ot Cleik Panel! and his deputies. Can the .louinal object to that? And why should Mt. Walteis piesent such evidence as he conceded even In the lowei couit as against him. All points he did not tiling out weie conceded to Hie opposing council. coun-cil. The .louinal wants people to believe thai the ballots weie not tampeicd with, simply because no one saw them handled by any unauthoiied poison. That's iinothei billllancy. Theie is no disposition to say that the ballots weie tiiinpeied with, but ir they weie does Tlie .louinal suppose th.it the l'"ison or poisons so opcnting would nave attempted to do it when they weie under the suivclliinceor a half a dozen pah of eyes? Ilaully so. It Is piesiinied by this piodlgy that "That the st longest evidence that could be pioduced that theie had been noiainpoilng with these ballots while JnUieclcik's hands, was thai In the dlstilcts, foui In nniubei, whcicthe judges of election lmd fulled, to secuiL'ly seal llm l.lirkaVs, and In tiaiisiiilssion thi'y had biol.'t-n open befoie leaching the haiidsor thocleik, the huijoiity of Kanell upon the idcmuit In couit, was e.actly the Ktmeasthe letuins by the election judges, and the dllfeiencu was found hi the packages thai weie lound seeuiely scaled as when delivered to the cleik by the election Judcv.s," If the ballots weie tamiwred with in this case, it was certainly a deep-laid deep-laid scheme, and does The Journal suppose that the person or persons with neivc and ability to accomplish this thing would do the thing in such an Impelled and bungling way as to defeat the cause they weie hoping to make successfulV Tlie ballot packages pack-ages weie sealed with ordinary wax and without any special seal. The sealed packages could hac been opened, open-ed, the ballots 111,11 ked and the package pack-age resealcd without leaving a trace or the action. To have ie-iiiarkcd any of the ballots In the biokcn packages would have been worse than foolhardy. fool-hardy. The deception would have been dlscoveied at once. The Journal says "the ballots, which were tlie actual cxpiesslon of the people's will were 1 ejected by the Supreme Couit. Tiik Hki'Uiiml'ak contends that the will of the people Is can led out by the decision, and that Instead of being a stn prise as the .louinal states, the decision was such .'is was expected by the greater iiinn-bei iiinn-bei of people who followed the evidence evi-dence at thetilal. A lev lew of the case leads to lllls: The official letuins from :i" dlstilcts, ii total of HH election Judges, "I of whom weie Demociats and :i7 Itepub-llcans, Itepub-llcans, show Unit Fin roll, Democrat, had icceived but IlOiio votes to Larson's Lar-son's .;hii, a majoilty of ii for the kit-tci. kit-tci. Kvidcucc iit the tilal nrovod that the ballot packages had not been kept In such a way as to pieclude all possibility or a doubt that the packages could have been handled and tarn-peied tarn-peied with. Heroic these ballots in said dlstilcts weie ouleied counted, the plaintiff placed the witness Far-idloii Far-idloii the stand, and he tcstllled substantially sub-stantially that the ballots weie icceived ic-ceived by him fiom tlie election judges: that they weie left lying foi seveial days on a bench hi the inner 100111 of the Cleik's oillce until the of-ticlal of-ticlal count of the 10th of Novemboi, alter which they weie placed in a telephone 100111 or closet In the outci oillce: that said telephone; 100m had no lock or key; that tlie seals on some of the packages weie bioken: that one vviis not sealed at all, or weie tlie ballots bal-lots placed inside the envelope; that many poisons weie in and out of the telephone loom and oillce; that the janltoi of the building had a key to the loom in which the closet was situated: Now this may not be enough to pioveto tlie J0111u.1l that sulllcient caie had not been exeiclsed in keeping the ballots, but In a similar case In Illinois tliat of.lotei vs. lladly, the Supieme Couit held that though the ballots had been kept In the vault at all times, the veiy tact that tlie couit house and cleik's oillce did not have special locks making It inipiob-iible inipiob-iible that otliei keys might open same, and because otheis than the cleik knew the combination to Hie saTo, was pioor that siitllclent cue had not been bestow ed. In view of the fact th.it the Demociats Dem-ociats had eveiv advantage at the last election, being in power at the time and appointing election judges in whom it placed reliance: for tlie leasnn that It had two of eveiy thiee Judges tiivcuable to Its own candidate, and to whom they would most cei-talnly cei-talnly have given the benefit ot a doubt, which was their ilglitmi pii- liege; I'oi the iciison tliiit on the ie-count ie-count Mr. Andeison, lopublican, gained hi votes instead or losing as did Laisen, for this and a hunched I icasons that might be mentioned, I seven tenths of the people ot this county believe and always will believe that Mr. Fin idl was licked fair and jsipiiiio and should have been willing I to stiiy licked the opinion of Judge I SING1N4, TJLl'KAISKS or our goods woii'f fi.,.i (hem better. I'nlessthey possOss iniiu meilt wc would iK'sltute to (.jajin It for them. These musical hisiiiuiionu have been selected with the gieatest cart'. They aie fiom lactoiles lainous for the quality of theli pioduetlons. Thoioughly tested befoie being put on sale. Kven tlie veiy cheapest aie beautiful and well finished. These ilfuies piovc U10 miuiIIiks of Gin flllcesl GultiiH t.)Ihi up: mandolins iloo up: (RcowilOiis 4.iin up; violins W.oi up. Now best stilngs, violin losln. dottulo bass rosin, etc., etc. at the veiy lowest prices. We have also over 2,000 copies of the best sheet music at lOo a copy. Also all the latest novelties at fiom i'i to M) percent discount. O. & H. Thatcher, 13 South Main and 0 Center Sts. Halt to the eontiary notwithstanding. notwithstand-ing. However, theie Is now no need of stirring this matter. Mr Fanell is well liked and lespcctcd: he has proved an excellent oillcial, and 110 one gets paiticular pleasuie out of his foiced depailuic from tlie couit house only for the reason that they believed theli lights weie Involved. |