Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

The above vote is established by the evidence of George E. Hart, one of the supervisors, and corroborated by the evidence of A. Lathrop, who was cross-examined by Samuel Dibble, the sitting member. The managers of the election, after they had counted the ballots as above, put the ballot-box into the hands of George E. Hart, one of the supervisors, for delivery to the county canvassers; Hart handed it over to Mr. Lathrop, who took it to the board of county canvassers, but the board declined to receive the box, and refused to count the ballots therein. The managers of the election were not even called by the contestee to contradict the result of the vote in the precinct as testified to by Mr. Hart, who saw them count it as above on the evening of the election, and whose return is also in evidence.

This is a brief statement of the number of votes cast and canvassed at these eleven polls rejected by the county board of canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg Counties. It is true that Mr. O'Connor in his answer set up that these polls were thrown out because “ threats, acts of intimidation, and violence were perpetrated by the partisans and supporters of Mr. Mackey,” “to the serious interference with the managers of election in the discharge of their duties, and to the prevention of a free and fair election," but he utterly failed to establish the charges in his answer. Not a single manager testifies that they were overawed and forced to make a miscount; the farthest they go is that they believe many colored men would have voted for Mr. O'Connor if they had been left to their own free choice. The committee find that every allegation set up by Mr. O'Connor for the rejection of these polls is unsupported even by the testimony of his own witnesses. The reports of the contested-election cases for the last eighteen years do not show a more systematic effort to override the will of the people as expressed at the ballot-box than does this case. Ballot-boxes were stuffed in the interest of Mr. O'Connor, and when the excess was discovered on opening the box, the drawing-out process always resulted in the interest of Mr. C'Connor. A whole poll-Haut Gap-was reversed, making a fraudulent change of over two thousand votes in favor of Mr. O'Connor, and to cap the climax of fraud and perjury perpetrated by the managers of the election-all of whom were Democrats-precinct after precinct that had given Mr. Mackey majorities was thrown out by the county canvassers—all of whom were Democrats—until a false, fraudulent, and perjured majority was exhumed from this iniquity of 5,272 in favor of Mr. O'Connor.

But aside from this, it was the duty of the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg to have gone forward and canvassed the vote returned to them from these 11 precincts. In the election laws of South Carolina, so far as a member of Congress is concerned, there is absolutely nothing authorizing county canvassers to pass upon the validity of an election, and to decide whether or not the votes there cast are to be counted and canvassed. Such is the effect of the decision of the supreme court of that State, ex parte Mackey et al. vs. Canville et al., rendered upon an appeal taken by the contestant upon an application to one of the circuit judges for the writ of mandamus to compel the county canvassers of Charleston to count the votes of two of the polls rejected by them. Under the decision of the supreme court the vote of the eleven polls rejected by the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg ought now to be added to the vote certified by the State board of canvassers, provided the vote of those polls is established by the evidence of contestant. In the opinion of the committee, the vote of each of these polls is fully established by the testimony, and there is nothing whatever in the testimony of contestee to invalidate the election of any one of them.

By making the necessary correction in the vote of Haut Gap, because of the fraudulent change in the vote of that precinct, and by adding the vote of the eleven polls rejected by the county canvassers of Charleston and Orangeburg, the contestant would have a majority of 879 votes, according to the returns made by the managers of the election, as will be seen by the following table :

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

Although this majority of 879, shown to hare been returned by the managers of the elections to the county canvassers, is sufficient to entitle the contestant to be seated, nevertheless the committee cannot refrain from calling attention to the fact that the testimony shows that the contestant actually received a very much larger majority, and that it was reduced to 879 by a uniform system of ballot-box stuffing-by causing to be put in the ballot-boxes at a majority of the polls in the Congressional district an excess of votes over voters on the poll-lists, and then by drawing out a number of ballots equal to that excess—an operation by which the vote of Mr. Mackey was reduced, and the vote of Mr. O'Connor greatly increased.

In reference to these frauds the contestant in his notice of contest (specification 2, Record, p. 1) charged that at certain precincts the vote actually cast for him was larger and the vote actually cast for the contestee was smaller than appeared on the face of the returns made by the managers of the election at those precincts; that the difference between the vote as actually cast and the vote as returned by the managers arose from the fact that at each of those polls numerous ballots, bearing contestee's name, were fraudulently placed in the ballot-box for the purpose of creating in them an excess of votes over voters, and thereby compelling the managers to draw out and destroy the excess of ballots thus created, in order to reduce the number of ballots in the box to the

number of names on the poll-list; that in drawing out of the box at each of those polls the excess of ballots so created, numerous ballots with contestant's name thereon, which had been legally voted, were drawn out and destroyed, and in their place was counted a corresponding number of ballots with contestee's name thereon which had not been legally voted.

Neither in the answer of the contestee, nor in the testimony produced in his behalf, is there any denial of the fact that, at the poils referred to by the contestant, the ballots in the boxes, upon being counted at the close of the election, were found to be largely in excess of the number of persons recorded on the poll-lists as having voted at those polls. The extent to which the ballots in the boxes exceeded the number of names on the poll-lists at these polls is indicated in the following table, which exhibits, according to the testimony, the number of names recorded on the poll list kept at each poll by the managers, the number of ballots found in the box, and the amount of the excess of ballots over voters :

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[blocks in formation]

This large excess, occurring, as it did, at over two-thirds of the polls in the district, warrants the conclusion that the excess at those polls was not the result of mere accident or local manipulation, but of a welldefined and matured plan.

It is in evidence that the Republican voters throughout the district, in accordance with the advice publicly given them (and at one meeting in the presence of Mr. Dibble, the sitting member), by the contestant and his partisan supporters, went to the polls with open tickets, exhib. iting them to the managers and supervisors so that they could see that they each had but one ballot, folding them in the presence of these officers, that they might be satisfied that they cast but one vote. In addition to this thee vidence discloses the fact that at every precinct throughout the district the three managers and clerk, without exception, were the political partisans and supporters of Mr. O'Connor. The only officer present of the same political faith with Mr. Mackey was the supervisor. If he did not closely watch the voters as they approached the polls, and supervise the clerk whose duty it was to take down their names, it was possible for the clerk to add names to the poll-list who had not voted. While thus employed it was possible for one of the three managers to manipulate the ballot-box, which actually was done at 45 precincts, and 6,247 votes stuffed into these 45 ballot-boxes by the managers thereof, or by their connivance. To assume that this was done by the peaceable and quiet colored men” who supported Mr. Mackey, in the presence of these managers of opposite political faith, is to attribute a degree of stupidity on the part of these Democratic managers, and of courage on the part of these "peaceable and quiet colored men” who supported Mr. Mackey which is not warranted by the evidence in this case. The very violence of the presumption is its rejoinder.

Without the connivance of these managers of the election it is very evident that the ballot-boxes could not have been stuffed to the extent that they were; and it is equally as evident that without their active co-operation the contestee could not have benefited to the extent that the testimony proves he did, by the process of drawing out and destroy. ing surplus ballots.

The evidence shows that two kinds of Democratic ballots were generally used at every poll, one larger than the other, and the smaller

one as a rule printed on fine tissue paper, so that it was possible to fold a number of the smaller ballots within the folds of the larger one. In the boxes at many polls ballots bearing the name of Mr. O'Connor were frequently found inclosed in ballots also bearing his name and folded together in packages of 2, 3, 4, and upwards as high as 23.

A further proof that the excess of ballots found in the ballot-boxes was put there by the partisans and supporters of Mr. O'Connor is afforded by the fact that at several polls the number of Democratic tickets, with the name of the contestee thereon, found in the box was actually greater than the whole number of persons who voted at those particular polls. Such was the case at the following polls in Charleston County:

[blocks in formation]

A REMARKABLE DOCUMENT. In accounting for this systematic pollution of the ballot-box the committee is not left to inference. It is in evidence that the chief supervisor of the State instructed the precinct supervisors to set forth in their reports the number of ballots, if any, found in excess of the names on the poll-list, and to designate the character of the ballots drawn out and destroyed by reason of such excess. The chairman of the Democratic executive committee of the State, assuming upon which party the loss was to fall by the process of drawing out and destroying bal. lots, and to prevent, if possible the evidence from being obtained of the extent to which the Democratic candidates should profit by that process, issued the following circular, dated seven days prior to the election : ROOMS OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

Columbia, S. C., October 27, 1830. To

County Chairman : DEAR SIR: The attention of the State executive committee has been called to the instructions issued by Chief Supervisor Poinier to the supervisors of election in this State. These supervisors are directed to report "the number of ballots drawn out of the ballot-box and destroyed by the managers of election, because of the excess of votes over names on the poll-list”; also the number of such ballots that “bore the names of Republican candidates " and the number which bore the names of the Democratic candidates and Greenback candidates.

The instruction to report the character of the ballots drawn out and destroyed is unauthorized and illegal. The State election law, by which alone you are governed, requires (see compilation of Election Laws, section 12) that “if more ballots shall be found on opening the box than there are names on the poll-lists,

one of the managers or the clerk, without seeing the ballots, shall draw therefrom and immediately, destroy as many ballots as there are in excess of the number of names on the poll-list. You will, therefore, instruct the managers of election throughout your county at once that they must not allow the supervisors to see or inspect any ballots drawn from the box in excess of the number of names on the poll-list, in order to ascertain for whom such ballots were cast. The ballots must be drawn without being seen, and must be immediately destroyed, as the law directs. By order of the committee.

JOHN BRATTON,

Chairman. The positive language in which the chairman of the Democratic party of each county is commanded by the chairman of the State committee to instruct the managers of election in their respective counties shows how completely the managers of election were under the control of the Democratic executive committee of the State. If the partisans of Mr.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »