Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1813-10-30

The following letter from gentle.
man Ia Baltimore. 20 \ member OF
the Ilosse OF Delegates. has been
publicly faraishstl for publication,
10 the Editor OF the Federal Ga
xette.
RALTIMoRF. esd Oct. 1913.
The great anxiety which every
where prevailed apou the subject of
the election in Alieghaney having
been in part removed by The re-
turn Of the Judges OF election in that
eoaaiy."-it has become matter OF
interesting enquiry. how far that
/" return" will be a1irmed by the
House of Delegates, anti what con-
sequences will be likely to ensne
should the ..return" not he reversed
before the. second Monday of De-
e-mber. the DAY appointed by the
constitution for the choice OF - TO
vernon.
You have no doubt been, informed
that two OF the Judges have made u
communication TO the Chancellor,
contra,lieting the return oFthcr bro
Their Judges, and that upon their
statement il appears. ihat Bruce.
Jom!inson. and Greenwich. all demo
erats, and VIM. HiIieary, one OF the
federal candidates had majority OF
the votes in all the districts OF the
county. You must have seen ais"
upsn the memorandum attached the
regular. 81 return," that the judges
Armstrong. Hoffman. Crawford and
Cresap. made up their reara from
the votes taken in districts No. 1. 3.
s, ), s, they having considered that
the votes taken in district. No. /,
were not allowable :, consequence Of
the election in that district having
been I" lille ,a,.y held and conducted"
/ shall not stop to enquire which
or these returas. Of indeed the com
munication Of Me Nier and eilsze can
be called u return.) is entitledto most
respect, nor will | bestow any farther
patiee upon that (" protest" OF
McNeir and Glaze than TO remark,
that its total disregard Of the I" re-
tnfn." and its bold and unqualified
assertion that the facts it certisics
were true, contrary to decision Of
the majority Of the judges. IRE gea-
lures highly characteristic or indie
eeney and, arrogance.
IL is indeed matter of astonish-
maat to me, that the clerk OF the
county should have considered him
self bound or even authorised to re-
cord aud certify any document con-
Trajectory to another which he had
previously received. But these are
sabierts Of miaor Importance, and 1
shall proceed at once to consider tue
validity of the return, asd the line OF
conduct waich in my opiaion, the
House of Delegates ought 90 pursue.
Ii will be eoniended by the demo
Gratis that there is no precedent FOR
this conduct Of the judges OF Ai!eg-
hany. ami if they are defeated on
that grounl, it will be said that the
conduct Of the Judges in the presen,
case is illegal, uaiastiliabie and cor
rupt.
Let us then examine all their re-
doubts. and in the first place. let as
explore with caution the ic!d ofpre-
ee,ient. t
II happens fhrtnr iy, that We
need not go back very ,ar in search
OF analogous eases. Two such eases
occurred at the elections in Talbot i
Alisghaney in the year 1912. In
Talbot. at the meeting OF the judges
two days after the election. it APP,
peared chat the four federal delegates
had a majority Of the votes. David
Kerr. the highest Democratic eandi-
date had 72l votes, beng TWO vaies
behind John Seth, the lowest federal
list. Il was suggestedte the judges,
that seine illegal votes had been al
lowed in one of the districts for
John Sr,!. these votes were accord.
iugly rejected aad David Kerr was
returned anong the Delegates to the
exclusion orJohn Seth. who peti;ion-
sd-the House that the seat oil David
Kerr might be vacated. The eom-
mittce ofelGetions. did afterwards re-
pert that John Seth was entitled TO
his seat. and {" that the presiding
Judges Of the election in said county
exercised power not delegated to
them by any law. ofrargias. from the
certificates eff the sitting Judges. and
the books Of the polls" Whilst
however, this ease strongly indicates
~