Baltimore Evening Sun (8 April 1913): 6.

Getting ready for the Rev. Dr. W. W. Davis at Back River. The trees are being whitewashed. The beer coils are being cleaned with bird shot and permanganate of potassium. The civil service examination of waiters is called for Sunday, May 18.

It is refreshing to note that the court before which the indicted election officials are being tried is making a sharp differentiation between errors obviously innocent and errors indicating gross carelessness or deliberate intent—a differentiation not made by the somewhat over-eager grand jury.

Consider, for example, the case of the four judges and two clerks of the Seventh precinct of the Twelfth ward, who were tried before Judge Dobler last Thursday and promptly acquitted. In all, the votes in that precinct were counted four times before the Judge reached his decision—first by the accused officials at the polling place, then by the party watchers at the same place, then by the grand jury and finally in open court. Here is a table showing how the various counts differed:

{table}

The difficulties of counting so long and complex a ballot must be plain to everyone. It bore 40 names and showed a total of 2,593 votes. It had to be counted quickly, in a crowded polling place, and by men fatigued by 12 hours’ work. And yet they made, according to the grand jury’s recount, but 31 errors, or less than 1¼ per cent. What is more, some of these alleged errors were not made at all. That is to say, the judges’ count was right and the grand jury’s count was wrong.

Observe, for example, the case of Lee, near the head of the table. The judges’ count showed 95 votes for him for first choice; the grand jury count showed but 94. The recount proved that the judges were right. Observe again the case of Fink, at the head of the second section. Here again the judges were right and the grand jury was wrong. And the same thing is visible in the cases of Stump, Wiederfield, O’Dunne, and and McNulty. In all, if I figure rightly, the judges scored on the grand jury almost as often as the grand jury scored on the judges. Here are the complete figures:

Judges right and grand jury wrong 7 Grand jury right and judges wrong 12 Both right 12 Both wrong 9

Save in the case of Ways, the maximum discrepancy between the count of the judges and that of the grand jury was but two votes, and this maximum occurred in but five cases. In 17 cases the error was but 1 vote—certainly no evidence of an attempt to stuff the ballot box. What is more, most of these microscopic errors were in favor of candidates not supported by the organization. The Hon. J. Albert Hughes, who seems to have been the special pet of the stuffers, didn’t get a single vote that he wasn’t entitled to. The Hon. Thomas F. McNulty, according to the grand jury count, got one less that he should have got, but the recount in court showed that the judges were right and the grand jury wrong. The vote for the Hon. Bob Carr was counted correctly. The Hon. Young Gorman got but 1 vote too many. The Hon. Blair Lee’s vote was counted correctly by the judges and incorrectly by the grand jury. In all, the grand jury made 16 mistakes, involving 21 votes. The judges made 23 mistakes, involving 31 votes. The maximum mistake of the grand jury was 4 votes in the case of Locke. The maximum mistake of the judges was 5 votes in the case of Ways.

The judges and clerks thus brought into court absurdly and put on their trial for an offense of which they were palpably innocent were William H. Moffett, Robert H. Hoblitzell, Wesley S. Hanna, William V. Kelley, William H. McGeady and Reginald D. Moffett. Beside the injustice to these men, the effect upon the remaining cases must be considered. There seems to be small doubt that many of the judges and clerks accused were actually guilty of gross and inexcusable carelessness, if not of a deliberate attempt to sophisticate the returns. Certainly the grand jury did not help to the conviction of these offenders by its reckless joining of the innocent with them.

Down with the Hon. Henry F. Schoenewolf! Up with the $1.75 “solid gold” ring!

Letter from a distinguished public official who favors the proposed dollar-a-day tax on bachelors:

Once it is on the books, we bachelors will be no longer under any necessity to act as bankers for married men. On looking over my accounts I find that I lent $865.50 to married men last year. Not 5 per cent. of it is recoverable. This means a net loss of more than $800. I’d much rather pay a dollar a day. LEt the Collector of Taxes give each bachelor a formal receipt. If I had sucha receipt I would show it to married men who come to me to borrow, and gently but firmly refuse. Now I can’t. I have no good excuse. It seems to be universally believed that a bachelor has no use for money. If he refuses to make a loan, he is denounced as a miser or worse.

Another correspondent comes forward with this solemn warning:

Have a care! Suppose the Maryland Suffrage News decides to support the bachelor tax. That will mean its finish. The Suffrage News has killed the Vice Crusade by supporting it, just as Anderson has killed Isaac Lobe Straus. Have a care!

No fear, dear fellow! The Suffrage News will never support the bachelor tax. It is pledged to the alternative plan of sending all bachelors to the slaughterhouse.