Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-10-22

" explanation Of the alleged misconduct of Judge Crawford in the late elections taken from the Hunts vile Advocate. This will satisfy any one of the wan ton attack made upon the Judge, and make it appa- rent that the whole affair has been gotten up for party purposes. In addition to the Advocates statement we will add some other particulars and reflections. In one of his communications |" Citizen" says, " have to state that almost all the votes given for Mir Davis and Mr Lewis at the St. Stephens precinct in Washington county, in the handwriting ofthis high federal dgntary Judge Crawford) and that at period of the day, when the contest seemed to be waxing warm, he took hls station near the table of the managers and caused the vote of young man by the name of Baker to be excluded, who had au his tye resided in the county of Washington" If by the above statement, Ctzen' intends to convey the idea that Judge Crawford influenced almost all the votes' which were given against Judge Gayle and Col Murphy he certainly attributes to the Judge an influence which few individuals attain, and which, we suspect, the Judge does not claim.
 The vote of Mir John Baker, the individual alluded to by Citizen" was, it is believed the last oae of. fered and not than minutes before the polls were closed Yet for the purposes of Citizen" he thinks proper to represent that it at the "period of the day when the contest seemed to be waxing warm" MT Baker we are informed, is the overseer of Dr Aston, of Clarke county and resided oih his tamiiy upon the pLantatiOn 0f Me Doctor in Ciarke Sometime before the election the small pox appeared among the negroes ofthe Doctor, and Mrs Baker left there and spent few weeks at her fathers in Wash ington county; but Mir Baker continued in Clarke the overseer ofthe Doctor and his house in Wash ington county was occupied by another family It may be remarked that MT Baker, together with his family, is residing in Clarke county in the house of the late Dr Alston. Judge Crawford returned from dinner not than fifteen minutes before the polls were closed, and, even his position to be important he was standing outside of the house, because it was less oppressive than inside, when the vote of MT Baker was offered. His attention was first attracted by some remarks of Mir Owen, tte Receirer cf Public Moneys at St. Stephens, who urged the right of MT Baker to vote upon the ground that he (Mr Baker) intended toremoue to Washington county at the end ofthe year, or at some other time Judge Crawford observed that public ministers and other public officers did not lose their residence by an absence upon public business, but he presumed this construction of law was not applicable to an overseer.
 The judges of the election decided that MT Baker did not reside in Washington county, and yet "Ct zen" has the hardihood to assert that he had all his lle resided in Washington. MT Baker said before the election and has since said that he doubted his right to vote in Washington county. Although "Citizen asserted that almost all the votes for Mir Davis were in the handwriting of Judge Crawford yet such is not the fact The only one for Governor in his handwriting, is that given by himself can be verified by the tickets, if they have not been de- stroyed.
 Citizen" speaks of the official influence of Judge Crawford as exerted in the late election. When Judge Crawford went to the polls, he went as an in- dividual. not Judge and could, of course exert none ofthe powers of Judge. He went, however not distranchised individual but with all the rights and privileges of any other individual. The right to vote carries with it, certainly the privilege to dis cuss the merits and demerits of candidates. If"Ci- tzen could establish his doctrine, it would be most effectual gag la,o, efficient than the sedition law of the elder Adams, and more dangerous to the liberties of the people. The right of speech was deemed by the framers of the Constitution of the Union ofsuch paramount importance, that is even ' in this land of freedom and happiness, we are no longer under the necessity ofobtaining from the Co., vernment much less from individuals the privilege to speak and to write what we may think proper, being responsible alone to the la,cs of the land.
 In his first communication, Citizen" says that Judge Crawford "appeared at one ofthe precints at an early hour," carefully suppressing the fact that he appeared at the place of his residence. Is at all surprising that Judge Crawford appeared at the pre- cinct most convenient 10 him, for the purpose of ex- ercising right which will ever be dear to freemen, and without which our Government would speedily degenerate into monarchy7 However unpleasant to"Ctzen," it is still hoped that every freeman will continue to exercise this right, together with its at tendant privileges, and by the exercise of it, our go- vernment continue to the latest posterity "Citzen also says, Judge Crawford "must have been quite in earnest on the subject ofthe repeal of the ,oentyh section it would take from his Court most of its jurisdiction, and add greatly to the enjoyment ofthe sofa." "Citzen" professes to be greatly in love with the 25th section of the judiciary act, and yet it isapparen that he knows not ,oi hat he is in love. The repeal oflhe 25th section would neither add to, nor diminish the jurisdiction of the District Court, and of course neither increase nor diminish the la- bors of Judge Crawford. In virtue of that section the Supreme Court of The United States IS enabled to review in certain specified cases, the judgements ofthe Supreme Courts of the several States. One would be almost tempted to suspect that, however "Citizen may be versed in the local laws, his know ledge in regard to the laws of the Union is only of limited extent. Another suspicion might also arise, if it were not against the gag law to utter it, that <,f tbaf coss ,ho ant