Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-04-20

the new regulation slst they exccut-
ed in sucha mann heir own parti-
zans cried shame .ey not only ap-
pointed every ma them democrats,
bur out of twelve commissioners FIVE at
least were candidates for seats in the coun-
Gil; this shameful conduct reused the fe-
deralists from their lethargy, and with a
becoming spirit they determined to shew
that Alexandria still had some pretensions
TO responsibility; the issue was such as
might be expected from the business Of their
cause, and the honorable means taken to
attain It..
The ETtositor then states, " When,
however, the election came on, many diff
hcult points were found, almost uainteli-
glble, and the opinion Of council, of the.
most deserved eminence were taken, un-
dertheseth thenjadges ofelecfion acted, J"
&c. That the opinion of counsel might
have been taken is possible; buff SO, how
did it happen that every set of commissi-
oners acted On different Principles--this
was VIGOROUSLY the case, and tits also Of
equal notoriety that SO far from disfran.
chising ,good men, under the new charter,
more votes were taken in than ever were
known to have been taken any election
ia thetown.
Itmay not BE smissin this place to state
a few facts, relative to the occasion 81 the
election held on Friday last, in the second
Ward, end which has drawn forth remarks
from the Editor of the E.cDositor. At the
first election it was supposed the commits
sieners had laid down certain fixed princi-
pies, by which they were to be governed,
it however, SO happened, that one Of the
commissioners differed from the other two
in his opinion of what constituted the legal
qualification of voters, and it likewise SO
happened, that this circumstance turned
oatyery convenient to the MAJORITY Of them
for 1t enabled Them to leaUe their. minds
open to c9noiction, and when man oftheir
own sect possessed ofcertain qualifications,
offered himself as a voter, very little argu-
ment was necessary to convince one of them
that hs had taken up wrong ideas, and con-
sequently the vote was a good one, but
when person differing from them in poll
tics came forward, it was fixed BY the ma
FORTY of the commits sioncrs that his vote
was not adnissible; and in addition to this
shameful inconsistency, votes were receiv.
ed which were notoriously known to be
bad, and some Of which we conscientiously
believe one of the commissioners knew to
be SO. The consequence was that two of
their men were returned as duly elected:
Such Caring misconduct induced one of
the candidates on the Federal ticket to
contest the validity of the election, and he
was enabled to prove SO clearly to the
Council the unfair principles on which the
election was conducted that they could not
hcsitate a moment in setting it aside
aconvincing ploof Of their own con-
viction that under the direction of proper
Judges they would stand no chance to effect
theirpurposes, sitheirnot attempting to run
any candidate on Friday last Of their own
politics, the only opposition they did make
was by running good staunch Federalist
in the hopes to divide the Federal interest,
and thereby keep out the man who had
been the most active in bringing to view
their nefarious practices--in this they were
likewise disappointed.
The Expositor of Saturday last and a
gain on Tuesday asserts that the Commits
sioners refused the vote Of a person who
had taken the oath of allegiance and again
of a Citizen of the State of Virginia. We
presume in this he alluaes to the case Of
Mr.. Lumsden, if so, either he must have
asserted falsehood, knowing it to be SO,
or Mr.. Lumsden tells two seories-For on
the day of the election the Editor of this
paper happened in company with Mr..