THE LOUISVILLE CONTESTED ELECTION CASES One month later, to-wit, on May 22, 1907, the Court of Appeals, composed of five Democrats and one Republican, deliv-. ered a unanimous opinion based solely on indisputable facts, reversing the Chancellors on every point, deciding in favor of the Republicans, setting aside the entire elec tion, and ousting every Democrat. The opinion describes the election and shows the degraded political conditions in Louisville, the bold methods by which the Democratic machine has been stealing elec tions, and the criminal conduct of many of the higher city and county officials. It was a great victory for honest government. The main proposition on which the cases turned was that through the conspiracy of the Democratic candidates, the Democratic campaign committee and many prominent Democratic city and county officials there were 6292 voters entirely disfranchised by fraud and violence. As it was impossible to tell how many of those disfranchised would have voted if they had had the opportunity, or how they would have voted, it was manifest that "no degree of certainty existed as to the fairly expressed will of the electors. " Therefore, as under the statute "neither contestant nor contestee could be adjudged to have been fairly"elected," it was adjudged that there was no election. The scope and the plan of this conspiracy and this disfranchisement were thoroughly established by the evidence, and were clearly exposed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The .evidence was obtained largely from hostile witnesses whose pres ence and whose testimony were secured only by compulsory process. The leading coun sel for the contestants, a distinguished lawyer of wide and varied experience, says in his report to the Committee of One Hundred : "I do not believe any case can be found in the annals of American or English juris prudence which approaches this one in the matter of obstructions thrown in the wav
of investigation into the facts. I never realized how complete and strong the organ ization opposed to us was until I encoun tered it in this contest, and that we have been able to bring out as much damaging testimony, and have accomplished, as you shall presently see, such satisfactory results, is due, I think, alone to the fact that a contest was not expected (none before of this character had ever been instituted), and the frauds, violence, and unlawful expenditure of -money were so flagrant that jt was impossible to cover them up.. Yet, notwithstanding the gross nature of these wrongs, and the apparent impossibility of covering them up, our opponents were not discouraged, and there was no shock that could be put under the wheels of progress in the investigation that was not promptly and unhesitatingly put there." A few illustrations of the different devices used to obstruct the investigation will be of interest. In September, a policeman went with the editor of the Police Bulletin to the house of a widow who had asked him to aid her to secure the release of a son of hers in the House of Refuge, and handing her a written, list of four repeaters asked her to memorize them and, if anyone asked her, to say they lived at her house. Later the policeman learned that the widow had reported the facts to her friends, and he went back to get the list. The transaction was given great publicity in the papers at the time. In February, five months later, the police man was placed on the stand by the con testants, and on the subject of the return visit testified as follows: Q. You did call her into an adjoining room; did you not? A. I don't recollect. Q. What did you do when you called her back? A. I didn't do anything only ask her if she was going to move everything out and fasten the house up. Q. Do you say here in your deposition
