“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.”

“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.—”

“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.’”