Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1838-02-10

too which had been but recently canYassed by
one At least ol the present claimants, II his lei
sure, without opposition aud with every advan-
tazs. Had We. therefore, been inclined to return
after the decision OF the House, il would not have
been possibls 10 notify all our friends Of our arr
val among them, before they would have been
called upon to vote. Wiling, as we might have
been. 10 submit our pielensions a second time TO
the people, the course pursued by the House
would have prevented Us from doing 30; and had
the decision been against Us, there would have
been found moro than one 70 say, that our defeat
in Mississippi, had We been defeated at ihe No
vember election was more to be attributed TO the
tardy action Of The House, than 10 the fair express
sion Of the will ofour constituents. Had the de-
eision Of the House been immediate, upon the OBJ
lection being made 70 ouE qualifying in SePtem-
Der, Justice would have been done 10 US. The
delay Of the journey to and from Washington
would have furnished no cause Of complainIi for
We made il at our own risk knowing the circum-
stances ofour election. But the decision was
postponed and the time lost here, awaiting the
action Of the House. was more than sufficient 10
enable Us to conduct the canvass at home, with
the certainty Of succeeding.
Not only, therefore, have We the claim upon
the House growing out Gifts decision in our ia.
vor, but The strong equity, addressed 10 its moral
sense, growing out Of the circumstances, just sta
ted. under which that decision was made and we
have these claims in the absence, too, Of any
thing gong to show that, at the time Of the de-
cision, tho House was not 10 the full possession Of
all the necessary facts, and assisted by all the
light which the arguments Of talent, learning. and
industry, actively employed on both sides Of the
question, could afford.
] have thus stated my views, supposing. for the
sake Of Argument, that the recent election in
Mississippi is indicative the opinions OF ma
iority Of the voters. This, however, by no
means believe to be tho case. My colleague
and myself were absent from the State. In some
ofthe counties oil our friends voted; in many
others, theyskd not. The decision of the House
had been so recently made, that there was hardly
time to circulate it; and although believe the
canvass TO have been conducted in all fairness by
the present claimants, still il is not pretended that
the strength Of The friends Of my colleague and
myself was at all tested have prepared state
Inent Of tho votes cast at the late election, and
have accompanied il with such remarks as must,
think, show, that the November election furnish
es no reason for believing, that my colleague and
myself would not have bees reelected even then,
had an opportunity been afforded US Of appearing
before the people, and procuring unity Of action
among our friends. The statement is hereto an
nexcd.
In conclusion, repeat that consider this
whole case settled and concluded, by virtue Of
the judgmentsof the House ajudgment founded
upon a full knowledge Of the law and the facts !;
judgment that prevented US from entering upon
canvass that subsequently took place, and res
trained majority Of our friends from the excr-
cise, on this occasion, orlncr elective franchise /;
judgment which the House had the express
constitutional power TO pronounce, and which,
once pronounced cannot be reviewed or rcyers'
3D. without injustice to the parties, and dispar'
agement to its own dignity.
JOHN. +. II. CLAIBORNE.
JanHargIl6, 1898.
Sldismsnt referred 10 ADORE.
The following tabular statement is based upo,
table published in the Chckasaw Union Of the
l4th ultino, which is believed 10 DO accurate. |
there be any variation between il aud the return
IN the Secrearys office, il Is very slight, and no
IN favor ofmy colleague and myself. This pres
ens statement is made with a view Of showing, thu
the people q ASisssisSS Representatives, and ha.
been laid before the Committee Of Elections.
Al the election in November, the on
tire vote was 27,702
For McNuu, (Democrai.) 1892
Grimball, llndepcndent 4,s77
Morgan, Wing, 9.oO3
The largest vote for Congress in July
was 1884,
For Claiborne li,2oS
Preniiss 7,l43
The largest vote for Congress in No.
ssmber was 1890
The vote for Cosgress in November
exceeded that given in July, only l,b6
For Claiborne Sass
Prentiss 1851
The highest Democratic vote in No.
ve:lber was for Auditor, when
Saunders obtained l4.s5
This exceeds Mr.. Preniiss's vote l,2O
The next highest Democratic vote in
November was for Secretary Of
State, when Benson obtained l4,3l
This exceeds Mr.. Premises vote Sc
The Democratic vote for McNuu in
November was 1902
Gnnbai received the Democratic
vote IN tho counties OF Copiah,
Hancock, Leake. Naskoha, New
ton, Scott, Simpson, and Smith, as
follows, las
--
Making the ascersaiaed Democratic
vote, say i4,25
This exceeds Premises vote II
The entire vote given for Governor
al the November election was 27,7C
The highest vote for Congress 1891
-
Difference 7.7s
MIR. Prontiss's vote falls short Of a
majority Of the votes cas-. for Gov
ernor, by "a
u IS contended by me tina, the satire opposite
vote was thrown for Mr.. Prentiss. and probab
more, because his vote Ear exceeds that of an
other Wing candidate, Mr.. Word not excep,e,