Litchfield enquirer., 1830-01-28

their vORVs into the ballot box, Herr we Rnd
the principle on which we IRE 10 decide, II
the eleCtWFs have deposited their votes Nc'
cOrdlnw 10 law, the negligence at The 0ttlceEs
ought "a be permitted TO NWl(lly these votes
he (hOMRht there was no doubt what the O.
leclWrs Intended, whatever were the IEregN-
lNIltles of the officers.
Ma HuNrlNUTUN briefly NdVerted to the
nature OC the irregularities which had taken
PLACE n the election, He thought these ir.
Irregularities were Wr an extraordinary charac'
ter, he considered that neither the letter
nor tho spirit Of the law OC Tennessee had
hren observed. he was led 10 this conclusion
Oy reflection on the circumstances attending
the election ofTNaEewe(l precinct, which he re
peatctl, lie admitted that the firm Of Ora
ham g. Co, were shown 10 be honorable but
they had made beta on the election. He al.
United that L was sufficient for us to know
that, In the certificate Of the election, we have
the voice Or the electors. He was OF Opln'
ION, that the box ought 10 be where the In
sncctOrs should have the custody and con.
troll Of the box. The object Ot the law Ut
Tennessee was 70 provide security against
the influence uf prejUdices and Improper
feelings, and hence the forms prescribed but
that object 10 evaded by the committal ofthe
box to the custody Of Others than those to
whom tho law gives It In charge. Could ell
Their &c the Inspectors have delegated to an
other the charge ofthe box, ar the decision
&c the qualifications Of any Of the electors
He commended that they could not; nor could
they any more leave the custody aud control
of the box 20 any one but one oftheIr own
number. They have not obeyed this provision
or the law. If any thing was proved, It was
al. knA nne anil fnh
tho custody and control Of the box, but had
transferred It to those who had strong Ia.
ducement to violate It's sanctity. lie enter
tanned very serious doubts whether any such
principle AZ that laid down by his colleague
ought 10 prevail; because the law "F Tennrs.
see seems 10 have laid down the "nly rule Of
evidence on the subject H. contrnded that,
In the present stat OF facts. 1t sremed imp"s-
sible To determine whether any fraud had
been committed; and that We have much
reason 10 demand evidence, ihat all which
has been done l. right. Has such evidence
been furnished! We find that an old law Of
Tennessee prcscribrs certain forms; aud that
these forms have been violated. He referred
to tho Cnmmittal Of the ballot box to one who
was not M Inspector, but who had made bets
on the election. He remarked on the fact
e,ven In evidence, that the lid Of the box VAS
80 Fixed, that Il could be removed without a.
nv mark of violation. 1t might have beer
violated and although the numbers IN the box
might be the same, the result may be- totally
changed. He looked at the principle by which
a party IL excluded from giving evidence IN
a suit, which is he shall not be placed under
the temptation to commit perjury. On the
same principle trustee 10 prohibited from
Kidding MT the aal~ OF an estate, lest he should
be- tempted to the violation Of trust. With.
out intending the slightest impu,ation on the
witnesses Ia this case, he submitted whether
they were not placed 10 this situation, in
! which, by the rules Of evidence, they would
be preclIdcd from giving testimony in u
Court Of Justice. There Is, perhaps, no one
thing which requires, the Vigilant ociiun of
this House. more than the preservation ofthe
guards which the laws Of the States have
provided for the purity Of elections. He
knew none Of the parties, not even the sitting
member, although from what he had heard
of him, he considered him worthy Of all re.
spect but he was compelled to vote for the
amendment.