Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Asked whether the excess was drawn out fairly, or were Republican ballots fraudulently fished out, he answered, "They were fairly drawn out according to law." He also swore, "I claim to be a true Democrat." (See Record, p. 721.) Your committee thinks that little comment is necessary upon this testimony.

It is evident a fraud was perpetrated by the stuffing of the ballotbox; it is equally evident that it was a fraud by which 29 votes honestly cast for Mr. Lee were withdrawn and destroyed; that Mr. Lee's vote should be increased by 29 votes, which were honestly cast for him but were not counted by the managers; that Mr. Richardson's vote should be decreased by the same number of votes which the managers counted for him but which were not cast for him by the legal voters.

Making this correction, and it is evident that Mr. Lee received from the voters' hands 149 votes, and Mr. Richardson, in like manner, 82 votes. Lee's majority was thus 67 in place of 9 votes, as was reported by the managers.

In view of the above your committee correct the vote of Williamsburg County, as follows:

By the returns of the State board of canvassers Richardson received 2,084 votes and Lee 1,585 votes. This would give Richardson a majority of 499, which it is evident goes to make up Richardson's assumed majority of 8,468.

Your committee here summarize their correction of the vote of this county by precincts, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The above table shows the vote of this county as shown by the testimony, and in place of a majority for Richardson of 499, as given him by the State board of canvassers, your committee find a majority of 412 votes for Lee, and we so accord it.

HORRY COUNTY.

The State board of canvassers certify that Mr. Richardson received

in this county 2,173 votes and Mr. Lee 599, giving Mr. Richardson a majority of 1,574. (See Record, p. 228.) But it appears from the Record, page 236, that the board of county canvassers did not canvass or count the vote cast at Martin Hill precinct, in that county; their reason for so doing they state as follows:

In view of the facts as set forth in affidavits hereto annexed, to the effect that the polls were not opened at above precinct at the hour prescribed by law, the board of canvassers, on inotion, decided that the vote of this precinct be not canvassed or included in the general statement.

The ex parte affidavits referred to are found in the Record on page 237. Moses F. Sarvis swears that owing to the fact that Nimrod Davis, one of the managers, did not arrive till about that hour, the polls were not opened until about a quarter past eight o'clock in the morning.

John Martin swore he was there at 7 o'clock and could not deposit his vote because the polls had not been opened.

Frank Wilson swore that he was there at 7 o'clock and could not deposit his vote because the polls had not been opened up to that hour, "and that he and others had to go to Cedar Grove to vote."

Upon this ex parte testimony the poll was rejected. The three managers who held the election certified (Record, p. 236) that Mr. Lee received 172 votes and Richardson 13 votes, giving Lee a majority of 159 votes, which he lost in the count by the rejection of this poll.

McCrary declares (sec. 114):

That a few minutes' delay in opening the polls will make no difference, but several hours' delay may render the election void, and certainly will have that effect if the party complaining of it can show that he has been injured thereby.

But when we analyze the case it appears that only 185 votes were cast at that poll; that the polls were open continuously from 81 a. m. till 6 p. m., and that some and probably all of the few persons there about 7 o'clock in the morning went to Cedar Grove and voted. It does not appear for whom they voted or wished to vote. This is one of the few polls at which there is no pretense of intended fraud. There is not the slightest proof that either Lee or Richardson lost a single vote by the failure to open the polls promptly at 6 o'clock in the morning. Your committee feel that the simplest statement of the facts affords the strongest commentary. And we count this poll as the managers did, and accord to Lee 159 majority, and as the result of the foregoing your committee add to Mr. Richardson's certified vote in this county 13 votes and to Mr. Lee's 172 votes, making the vote as actually cast by the voters and counted by the managers for Mr. Richardson 2,186 votes and Mr. Lee 771 votes, giving Richardson a majority of 1,415 votes, instead of 1,574, as allowed him by the State board of canvassers.

DARLINGTON COUNTY.

The State board of canvassers certify that Mr. Richardson received in this county 4,671 votes and Mr. Lee 2,117 votes, giving Richardson a majority of 2,554 votes. (See Record, p. 228.)

But the secretary of state certifies on page 228 of the Record that "no managers' returns from any precinct" in Darlington County were on file in his office, nor were any returns from any voting precinct in said county sent to his office by the county canvassers. It is impossible, therefore, to ascertain what was the vote at any precinct in this county by anything in the record from the State board of canvassers. Only the gross result is given as above.

But on pages 570, 571 of the Record the contestee, Richardson, for

the purpose of supplying this deficiency, introduced in evidence a schedule showing the precinct managers' returns for each and every polling place in Darlington County, by which it appears that according to the managers' returns Richardson received 4,567 votes in place of 4,671 votes, as certified to by the secretary of state; in other words, the secretary of state gives Richardson 104 votes more than did the managers who held the election.

But section 4 of the act of 1872 of South Carolina made it the duty of the chairman of the board of county canvassers to forward by a messenger to the governor and secretary of state "the returns, poll-lists, and all the papers appertaining to the election." We think it cannot be questioned that the statement of the managers who held the election, verified by their returns and poll-lists, &c., is better evidence than the certificate of the secretary of state, who certified that he never saw the returns and poll-lists, for they were never sent to him as the law requires.

It is manifest that Mr. Richardson's majority grew to the number 104 votes, by his own testimony, after the polls were closed and the result declared.

Florence Precinct.

Contestant in his notice of contest distinctly charged that the polllist at Florence was "falsified by the insertion thereon of fictitious names." This is as distinctly denied by contestee. L. W. Gadsden, a United States supervisor, swears there were 18 more names on the polllist kept by the managers than there were ballots in the box. (Record, p. 371.) In this he is corroborated by W. J. Bradford, who was present and kept tally. (Record, p. 176.) He swears there were 1,048 names on the poll-list kept by the managers, and only 1,030 ballots in the box. Both these witnesses were sworn and examined on February 25, 1881.

On the 15th of March of the same year, William McKenzie (Record, p. 507), a witness for contestee, swore he was one of the managers at this poll, and that all the managers were Democrats. He was exam ined at length, but he does not deny that the poll-list was falsified as above set forth.

Capt. E. W. Lloyd (Record, p. 518), also a witness for contestee, was examined on the 16th of March, 1881. He swore he was clerk of the board of managers; he was also a Democrat. He ought to know all about the poll-list. He does not deny or even mention the alleged falsification of the poll-list by the insertion thereon of 18 fictitious names. No witness in all the record denies the statements of Gadsden and Bradford in regard to the poll-list at Florence, though some 16 were put upon the stand and examined by contestee touching that poll.

L. W. Gadsden, United States supervisor (Record, p. 365), swears that he arrived at the poll a few minutes after 5 o'clock a. m.

The managers were then there; the door was guarded where the poll was; the place was crowded with a lot of Democrats; I could not get within ten feet of the door.

He states that a few minutes before the poll was opened he attempted to go in to witness the opening and to examine the box; that he was obstructed from getting in by a crowd of town authorities or policemen; that he showed his commission as United States supervisor, and told them he was going in; that one Captain Gaillard told him he must wait until he, Captain Gaillard, saw Captain Blackwell, to find

out if he had any right there or not. Gaillard came back and said it was all right. He started, and was stopped again. Captain Gaillard then assisted him, and he then got in.

The box was locked, and the voting had been going on ten or fifteen minutes. "I asked the managers to let me copy the names off their polllist; they said they had not time to stop, and could not stop the clerk." He further testifies :

I asked to be allowed to have a clerk, and was refused, and was not allowed to copy those names on the managers' poll-list that had voted. (See Record, p. 365.) He also testifies, on Record, page 369, on his cross-examination: Q. Did you stay there all day?—A. Yes, sir; only absent for about three minutes. Q. How do you account for the fact that you were there all day as a life-long Republican, watching the election, for there being more names on that poll-list than there were ballots in the box?-A. They must have had a false poll-list prepared beforehand that they carried in there, and failed to put enough ballots in the box to tally with the poll-list. I was not allwoed to examine the list. The box was closed before I was allowed to go in.

Q. Did you witness the count?-A. I did.

Q. You stated that you were there all day except about three minutes. Now did you or not see the names that were written on the poll-list ?-A. I did not, for I was not allowed to examine it.

Q. Did you ask to be allowed to examine that poll-list?-A. I did ask, and asked further to be allowed to copy from it.

Q. Who did you ask?-A. The managers.

Q. What time of day was it when you asked to be allowed to copy and examine the poll-list?—A. I first asked in the morning when the voting commenced, and again that night when the polls closed.

Q. What did the managers say in reply to your request ?-A. They said I could not be allowed to interrupt the clerk. That was in the morning. But at night when I asked to be allowed to examine the list, they refused to let me examine it, but had no objections to the clerk calling the names so I could take them down, but said it was too late to remain.

Q. Who was the clerk ?-A. Captain E. W. Loyd.

On his cross-examination he further states (Record, p. 368):

Q. What time did you reach the polls on the morning of the election ?-A. A few minutes after five o'clock.

Q. What did you see there ?—A. I saw a lot of Democrats around the polls and the door guarded by policemen and constables.

Q. Did you try to gain admission to the polls?-A. I did.

Q. To whom did you apply for admission ?-A. I started to the polls and was stopped by policemen and constables and told that I could not go up.

Q. What policemen and constables denied you admission?-A. T. D. Brunson, John Dockery, E. M. Selfe; those were the policemen, and Z. T. Kershaw was the constable. Q. What did they tell you?-A. That I could not go up to the polls. I told them I was United States supervisor, and showed them my commission, and told them I must go up.

Q. Is that all they said to you?-A. Yes; that I could not go up, and shoved me out of the way.

Q. Did they or not tell you that nobody but policemen and constables could go into that house?-A. They had a line drawn, and told me that nobody else had any right in there.

Q. Did they or not tell you that nobody but policemen and constables could go into that house?

(Counsel for contestee demands an answer, yes or no.)

A. I have answered it already.

Q. Did you show your commission to anybody ?-A. I did.

Q. To whom did you show it?-A. I showed it to the very men that stopped me, and Captain Gaillard.

Q. Did they then admit you?-A. Captain Gaillard told me to wait until he saw Captain Blackwell.

Q. Did he say anything else besides this ?-A. Not until after he saw Captain Blackwell.

Q. Did he or not tell you to wait until he saw Captain Blackwell as to whether or not you had a right to go in ?-A. He did; but Captain Blackwell is a private citizen, and I did not think he had a right to pass upon my commission.

H. Mis. 35-35

He also swears (Record, p. 366) that 300 or 400 Republicans were standing in line, ready to vote, when the polls closed, while the Democrats were allowed to vote freely and unobstructedly during the day; that late in the evening 60 or 75 Democrats came in from Timmonsville; that the line of Republicans that had been standing there all day were made to stand back, by the constables and town marshals, and those men from Timmonsville allowed to go up and vote. He is corroborated by 208 voters who were prevented from voting, whose depositions are found between pages 139 and 342 of Record. They all swear they de sired to vote for Samuel Lee, but were forcibly prevented from getting to the ballot-box. Asked why they did not, the answers were, "because the Democrats would not let me get to the polls." Witness after wit ness swears that he was there from 6 o'clock a. m. to 6 o'clock p. m. trying to vote. What was done was excused by Mr. Richardson (brief, p. 148) on the ground that the Republicans intended to take possession of the polls and vote first, and asks

Can the Democrats be blamed for standing their ground and voting first and before they gave way to the colored voters, who had laid a trap in which they were caught? Surely not, but neither party had the right to prevent the other party from voting.

John T. Rafra was United States supervisor at Timmonsville, and swears (Record, p. 85) he saw a crowd of Democrats, he counted 75 on the top of the flat cars, "and the coach was full of them," going in the direction of Florence. He swears they all voted before leaving Timmonsville. In this he is corroborated by John E. Keeler (Record, p. 374), who testifies he counted 75, and that every one of them had voted before they left Timmonsville. S. W. Gadsden gives the names (Record, p. 365) of persons he knew who came from Timmonsville and voted at Florence, viz, Alexander Taylor, Yanty Byrd, H. M. Oliver, W. J. Stradford, and George Montgomery. Not one of these persons was called in rebuttal! The few witnesses examined by Mr. Richardson touching Florence poll were the officers who held the election, the policeman who kept the colored Republicans from the polls, and a few active Democratic partisans.

We have seen (Record, p. 571) that the contestee puts in evidence a schedule of the vote at each precinct in Darlington County, accom panied by the certificate of J. Ñ. Garner, the clerk of the court of common pleas, that—

The schedule represents truly and correctly the balloting for member of the Fortyseventh Congress.

Sworn as a witness, the same Garner testifies as follows (Record, p. 738, bottom):

Q. Have you not had occasion to certify to the correctness of the precinct returns touching the last election for member of Congress ?-A. I don't think I did, because I could not certify to the correctness of the returns, as it seems to me that a commissioner ought to do that.

Q. Did you or not?-A. I did not.

It appears further, by his testimony, that the precinct returns, instead of being sent, as the law requires, to the secretary of state, were with the ballot-boxes placed in the jury-room opening into the courtroom, which was open for all public purposes, and only when not used was it locked up. Two terms of court were passed before he was examined.

Your committee feel constrained to say we must reject Florence poll, because there was an unlawful interference with the United States su

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »