Chapter VII: Election Methods of the Democrats

"Bourbon" campaign intolerance, ballot-box stuffing and other similar crimes against human liberty have become a common practice in the political contests in Alabama. It is said frequently by the opposition in this state that one's skill in fraudulent election manipulation wins promotion in the councils of the Democratic party. It is also not untrue that voters who have been accomplices in perpetrating election frauds have been rewarded with official positions "on account of efficient services rendered the party."

The election law in Alabama was framed for facilitating fraud as an alleged necessity for protection from negro supremacy. But, once having secured the "machine," the "bosses" have taken advantage of this "original purpose," and have carried the practice of stealing ballots so far as to feloniously take white men's votes in order to preserve the "machine" intact. This practice has been carried out to such an outrageous extent that an overwhelming majority of "white" ballots have frequently been reversed by the "machine bosses" in order to continue the evolution of the office-holding hierarchy. The original ballot-box stuffing law has been recently displaced by another equally as iniquitous. This new law was enacted at the last session of the Legislature and is known as the "Sayre Election Bill." As fair and able criticism that has been made of this bill appeared in the _Alliance Herald_, Montgomery, Ala., edited by Frank Baltzell, one of the ablest and most forcible writers in the South. The _Alliance Herald_ says of this measure:

"The law should be captioned, 'A Bill to be entitled an Act to
Perpetuate the Frauds which have heretofore been practiced in
Alabama.' It is very ingenious in its draft, very adroit in its
omissions and very mischievous in its operations. The principal
idea in the bill is that it absolutely puts the control of
elections in this state into the control of the inspectors of
elections, by making everything about voting so hedged about by
secrecy that it is impossible to ever get the evidence of any fraud
that may be committed, and by making them the absolute directors
and controllers of those who may not be able to read and write. The
principal omission of the bill is that it does not provide for the
appointment of inspectors from each party or faction, or rather
fails to make provision for the enforcement of the existing section
in the code which provides for it, effective and certain to be
enforced. All the frauds in the elections are due to that defect.
The probate judge, clerk and sheriff do not pretend to enforce the
law fairly. Appeal to the courts to secure enforcement is a farce,
as appeal from the decision of the court delays the application of
the remedy, if the supreme court should order it, until after the
election shall be past. Each party or faction should be guaranteed,
under a heavy penalty upon these officers, fair and just
representation in the management, by having at least one inspector
and one clerk--those, too, whose names shall be suggested; for to
appoint one ignorant, careless or indifferent inspector, to watch
two inspectors and two clerks, is folly. The average ballot-box
stuffer can count out every time, when that is done. One man is
needed to watch the one who reads the ballot, and another to watch
the clerks. Without these two, the 'slick' artist can count out
every time. This omission in the bill makes it safer than the
present law, for a voter can now keep a list, and those of his
party can give their names and voluntarily tell him for whom they
voted, and thereby afford evidence available in a contest. This
bill purposely does away with this right by putting all the power
in the hands of the inspectors and keeping everybody fifty feet
away from any evidence whatever. The law is almost wholly devoted
to how voting shall be done. Nobody is concerned about that.
Everybody wants to know how the counting will be done, or how the
stuffing will be prevented. That power is kept securely in the
hands of the inspectors, and the inspectors' appointment is equally
as firmly kept in the hands of the judge of probate, clerk and
sheriff. That may seem a very adroit way of perpetuating fraud, but
it is neither smart, shrewd nor fair.

"The law provides for booths or stalls--one for each fifty voters as
shown by the preceding election. One voter at a time gets a ticket
from an inspector, goes into the booth and is allowed five minutes
to prepare his ticket. If he cannot read or use his hands to make a
cross mark opposite each name of the candidate for whom he desires
to vote, the inspector appoints one of the partisans of his
party--not the voter's--to fix the ticket. He will fix it, too.
Nobody can see or hear what transpires between the voter and this
appointed manipulator. No penalty is provided for deceiving or
wrongly marking the ticket. All the frauds about that feature are
protected. When it is marked, the voter casts it. Why not number
it, so that it can be identified in case of contest or dispute?
That would prevent fraud, and is not wanted. No one is allowed
within fifty feet of the voting place nor the booths. There is
great particularity about the way the ticket shall be prepared, and
none shall be voted unless they shall have the initials of the
inspector who hands them out, on the ticket. Any other ticket, if
voted, shall not be counted. There is another chance for fraud.
Suppose the inspector refuses to mark his initials on the tickets,
there is no penalty and each one can refuse and defeat the
election.

"The law requires the registration of voters to be completed the
first twelve days in June, before the August and November
elections. Before registering for each election, the voter must
present his poll-tax receipt. When he registers he gets a
registration certificate. When he votes he must present this
registration certificate and leave it with the inspector. The way
is not plain how it will get back to him, when he delivers it in
August and desires to vote in November, but it is supposed that he
will have a slim or good chance at that, as he shall be in accord
or opposition to the officer who ought to return it. If the
registrar fails to act after he shall be appointed, there is no way
for the voters of the beat to register that year; the probate judge
and registrar can manage that little trick so as to disfranchise
all the opposition beats with heavy majorities. The probate judge
can appoint another, but there is no penalty for not serving nor
for the appointment of an incompetent registrar. That feature is
well fixed. The bill provides penalties for everything to protect
secrecy, but nothing to protect the honesty of the count. It seems
to proceed on the assumption that the principal thing about an
election is secrecy, and that the honest expression of the will of
the voters is not to be protected. The inspectors will fix that for
the party to which they belong and the probate judge will see that
no other party or faction has any chance or prospect. As a remedy
for the troubles now complained of in the state, the bill is wholly
at variance from everything needed. It simply puts in the power of
the probate judge, clerk and sheriff of a county the power to
control every election."

The foregoing review of the "Sayre Election Law," is no more than a just exposure of a legislative document devised and enacted for the subversion of the will of the people. In other language, this law is nothing more nor nothing less than a legalized plot to commit treason against a republican form of government.

With the registration of voters and the management of elections in their own hands, the "machine bosses" of the "black belt" never fail to return any majority "that is needed." As an instance of this corruption, let us refer to the vote of last August, and of last November, in some of the polling places in the "black belt" counties. In the city of Montgomery, when in fact less than 1,000 votes were cast in August, 3,561 votes were returned. Some weeks after the state election, one of the managers of election in Beat 5 in Montgomery county, stated to Captain Kolb that there were about 200 votes actually cast in this beat in the August election and that the Kolb ticket received over one hundred and fifty of them, and Jones the balance, but the returns gave Jones over four hundred majority! This statement was made to Captain Kolb unsolicited, and by a man who said he had voted for Jones, but was suffering from a punctured conscience on account of the wrong he had done the people of Alabama and himself, by assisting in ballot-box stuffing. Hundreds of similar cases that occurred in the August election may be given, where the ballot-boxes were not only stuffed, but the count reversed.

During the session of the Legislature, at the time of the election of district court solicitors for the present term, a gentleman who happened to be in Montgomery at the time, found the following letter on the floor in the office of the Merchants' Hotel:

"HATCH., Nov. 8, 1892.

"MR. J. V. SMITH, Seale, Ala.:

"We are going to be 'snowed under' here to-day. Our only hope is to
be able to throw out the box. Write me by this P. M. mail the most
complete plan to do it. Would too many ballots in the box do it? or
which is best?"

"Yours, L. 3--3.--"

The envelope which contained this interesting letter, was addressed "J. V. Smith, Esq., Seale, Ala.," and bears the postmark--"Hatchechubbee, Ala., Nov. 8, 1892." This letter revealed "election methods." Upon investigation, it was learned that Hatchechubbee is a small box of not over 300 votes and that it took two days to do the counting, and then, in spite of being "snowed under," the Democratic ticket claimed 79 majority! It is only ten miles from Seale to Hatchechubbee. At Oswichee, a beat in the same county of Russell,--in which is Hatchechubbee,--there were 74 more votes in the box than were voters' names on the poll list. Just such "double-dealing" as this, no doubt, won Cleveland's majority in this county. It is useless to add that "J. V. Smith" is an office-holder. He was elected solicitor for the present term in the Third Congressional District. As to "L. 3--3.--" it will be noticed that the letter _C_ is third in the alphabet, which makes "L. 3.--3.--" when the letter _C_ is used in place of "3.--3." read "L. C. C." This "L. C. C., Hatchechubbee, Ala.," is quite partisan in his feelings and is very much disturbed in his sleep with nightmares of "negro supremacy!"

"Doctoring" registration lists is an effective way of preventing boxes from being thrown out on account of not having enough names on the poll list. In some of the "black belt" counties these lists are very sacred, as they contain the names of many dead negroes and good coon-dogs. An ex-sheriff of Marion county stated to the writer that, in the discharge of the duties of that office several years ago, it became necessary for him to save his own life by killing a negro criminal, who had attacked him. The ex-sheriff said that the occurrence often came to his mind, which was full of regrets because of the affair. "However," said he, "I am now feeling easy over the affair, as upon examining the registration lists at the court-house a few days ago, I found the name of this same negro registered, and learned that he was voted for Jones."

Many are the ways by which the Democratic party has overcome any opposition in Alabama. "Doctoring" registration lists, stuffing ballot-boxes, reversing the count, throwing out election returns, etc., has been quite a pastime for the "machine bosses." And soon they will begin to realize "the cost of their game."

Suppose the opposition party, which now has control of thirty-nine counties out of the sixty-six in the state, should resort to the shameful election tactics of the Democratic party! Who could picture the termination of such a result? Referring to such a revolutionary improbability, the _Alliance Herald_ says:

"When the thirty-nine 'white' counties shall commence to count, if
they should regard that as the last resort, the figures in a state
election would be as startling as amusing. Think of Dallas rolling
up 10,000 majority one way, and Etowah rolling up 12,000 for the
opposing ticket. Then let Montgomery roll up her 7,000 and see how
they would compare with Coosa's 7,000 or Cleburne's 5,000. Then let
Wilcox come serenely forward with her usual 6,000 and DeKalb call
her hand with 7,000. Lowndes, too, could bob up serenely with her
6,000 and Dale could 'see her' with as blossoming a rose of
innocence in a game she does not understand and show up 6,000. The
'white' counties have been holding aloof, until the tricksters
worked them in November, but they have found out a thing or two,
and if counting must be done they will startle the natives with the
unblushing character of what could be done. The 'black belt' had
best not force this competition. When Dallas kills 5000 'white'
votes in a 'white' county, by fraudulently counting that number of
negro votes in order to succeed, should the whites play for even,
it will not be difficult to divine what will be the result. The
_Herald_ does not advocate this sort of tactics nor does anyone in
the 'white' counties, but there is a great deal of silent thinking
about it. No one wants to do it; but if self-preservation shall
demand it to thwart the aggressions of the 'black belt,' just watch
and see how the innocent and guileless man can 'swear to conduct
this election for the best interests of the white people' and down
the 'black belt.'"

But the writer thinks "self-preservation" will not demand such a course. This is not a time for such practices. The common people know it. They are determined to press forward their revolt against the party that gave birth to such revolutionary ideas. The common people of Alabama will not submit longer to such outrages. They are demanding, and, in the name of God and humanity, _will have_ a free and fair expression of their political will on the rostrum and at the polls.