Justice To The Commissioners

The last Ajgus doses a bitter attack upon the election commission of the county with this paragraph : There must have been an ibject in ehanging the place o( the regular ileniocratk tickei on the ballot. That object must have been to eause some voters to make mistakes in voting and so lose the democratie national and county tickets some votes. The immediate beneficiarles wouW liave been the republican county offlcers who were candidatos for re-election. They were responsable for the contemptible trick and shouW b held to a stri -t accountability for it next Tuesday." Tlie Argus knew, if it knew anything about it at all, that there was no trick p'layed by anybody. After the supreme court had ilecided the question of location for Wayne coun'y. the commis'ion met anl Judge Babbitt insisted that the decisión applied to the state at large. Messrs. Dansingburg and Rehfuss held that It only applied to "Wayne tounty. Judge Babbitt insisted and said before before hc would allow the ticket to remaim as it was in the proof, he would go to the eourts. He madatained that the Republican ticket should have first place, the Prohibition second place, the People's party third place, under the law, and the others go wherever the commission chose to put them. Then the republiiiean members of the board saild if there was any change in the ticket as first agreed upon, they would change the posittion of the siflver ticket from sixth to iifth place. Mr. Babbitt still insisted, and the changes were all made with the consent of every member of the commission. This statement is correct, the writer being a witness to the entire proceedings. The Argus in accusing honorable people oi trickery should investígate and find out the truth before stigmatizing men as trickst-ers. To be sure etection is past, but the stigma of the Argus accusation of doing a disreputable deed rematas, and the Argus owes it to itself tö right a wrong it has done. The proper thing for that cotnmissiou to have done would have been to have kept the ticket in the form in which it was first printed. The senior proprfetor of the .vrgus, together with Mr. Duffy and Mr. Kearney were each members of an election commission in this city that refused a republican commiittee the use of a vignette simply, solely and only because it had the power, and the advice of Ezra B. Norris. That was not considered disreputabl by them. -but it was, ïwo of those same gentlemen were the great kickers in this instance, which was no injustiee but a perfeetly fair, honorable, honest thing to do. The arranging of the ticket as far as new parties are concerned, is a thing entively in the hands of the commission, and they had a riírht te do it as they pleased. But no commission had a right under the law to refuse any party the use of a vignette. If there is any law compelliag the commission to arrange a ticket just the way the democratie bosses want it, the same never has been heai-d of as yet. Thiis was a plain case of bulldoze, nothing etee in the world, and the men who acceded to the demanda of the bulldozers are kicked, abused, and called tricksters and the people asked to condemn them at the polls - why ? Because they yfelded and did an injustice to themselves and their party, to please their opponent. The only injustice about the transaction was in the last change made ; which ■was an injustice to every man on the republican ticket. They were the only ones who had any right to kick, and the only ones who suffered. Do you think, for a minute, that had the situatian been reversed the republdcans would have been prranted one iota of favor ? Not a bit of it. The past actions of the democratie election commissioners proves very conclusively what they would have done. As a prominent democratie politician remarked in a chuckling way, just aft-er the bulldozers had succeedèd in their scheme : "If the republiea.ns do win this county it will be beeause the good Lord favors '.hein, not because of their own political shrewdness or ability." Passengere who get mjured on railroads, whem they sue for damages, do so on the theory that they pay. their money and are entitled to all due care and diligence from the company which contracts to serve them. People are beghming to apply the same principie to the town governmente posslble to a greater degree than heretofore and we hear of a considerable number of suits lrought agalnst townships for damages sustalned by reason of accidents on the publte roads and bridges. The taxpayer pays his raoney and he Is entitled tQ have it spent to ths best advantage to the public. PossLbly after a while the varlous local governments will find it cheaper to have at least sater roads.- St. Jchns News. 0