Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1840-08-13

theirs for the same reason in respect to which
the committee, with the facts substantially
the same, came to directly opposite results.
Candor Carr voted the Administration
ticket in the township of Hardiston, in the
county of Sussex, at the Congressional cleo
ton in 1888. His vote was objected to by
Messrs. Aycrigg aud others on the ground of
alienage. He was summoned as witness,
and appeared before the magistrates, but, on
the oath being rendered to him, he refused to
be sworn or to testify his knowledge of the
facts in the case.
Samuel nj. Peck testified that he knew
Candor Carr had heard him say that he
came from Ireland; that he was not natu-
ralizcd in New York when he first came to
that city; did not say how long after, but it
was soon after. 1t was in 1898, some time
before the election, that witness heard him
say that he had been naturalized. 1t appears
from the evidence that, in that township, the
election officers held that aliens or unnaturali-
zed foreigners were, according to the laws Of
New Jersey, entitled to a vote-a decision
which it is admitted on all hands was palpa-
bly, erroneous. One would suppose that it
would be difficult to raise presumption in
favor of a vote from the mere reception of it
by election officers under such circumstances,
but the majority, notwithstanding the deter
liens, and notwithstanding the voter stood OBJ
stinately mute when his right was in ques-
ton, and when he could have vindicated that
right by breath, lift had been susceptible of
vindication, held that the mere admission of
the vote at the polls proved that the voter was
no alien; or in other words, they gravely
concluded from such premises that he had
been naturalized; they overruled the objec-
ton OF Messrs. Aycrigg and others, and held
the vote to be a lawful one.
We submit to the House whether under
the circumstances, we use too strong language
in pronouncing this result a judicial perver-
sion. But the enorrnity of the decision cam
not be understood, till we contrast 1t with a
case to which we now ask the attention of
the House.
James B. Bolton voted the Opposition tick
ct in the township of Frankfort, in the same
county, and at the same election. His vote
was objected to by Messrs. Vroom and 9TH
ers for the same reason; he was duly sum-
moned by them and refused to appear as a
witness. Nathaniel Roe proves that he
knows Bolton; that he is foreigner; from
his acquaintance with him, he supposes him
to be a foreigner; he has told the witness once
and since the election that he had been natural
lied; has known him five or six years; his vote
was not objected to, and nothing was said at
that election about foreigners voting. Sam
uel Price proves conversation between him.
self and Bolton in substance as follows
told him that if he had been naturalized
considered him legal voter in the township;
he said he had been naturalized in Albany, in
the State of New York. then told him he
had better come down and state the fact, and
it would make him legal voter under the
old law; that the new law would require him
81, 4 4.
tify to the fact and then send to Albany to
get his papers, and that would make him a
legal voter next fall he said it would not
cost more to be naturalized again than to get
the certificate from Albany; this the witness
contradicted, and other conversation followed
which need not be repeated. The witness
adds : then told him that | suspected for
long time that he had never been naturalizcd,
from loose expressions that l had heard him
make at different times on that subject
Mrs. Buchanan, who was present, then said:
suppose you are now satisfied that he has never
been naturalized; / replied that was. This
was said in his presence, to which he made
no remarks in reply; it appeared from the ev-
idence that Bolton had voted five or six times
before without any objection being made al
SO the conversation detailed by Price took
place when the subpoena was served on Boil
ton, he, Price, actlngas an officer for thatpu
pose. The declaration, therefore, was made
by Bolton, pending the controversy, and was
on that account, in the opinion of the COM
mittee, wholly inadmissible.
1t would be Of dangerous consequence to
receive and give effect to conversations had
under such circumstances In case of con-
tested elections. The House can hardly fail
to be impressed with the wonderful coinci-
dence between these cases. In both the for
eigners were voters-in both, they affirmed
that they had been naturalized-in both they
refused to be sworn or disclose the facts-and
in both they stood mute when their right was
called in question. There are strong circum-
stances in favor of the vote of Bolton which
do not exist in the case of Carr: one is, that
the authorities of frankfort, unlike those of
Hardston, did not Intentionally admit alien
votes contrary to law; SO that the vote of
Bolton was sustained by whatever of pre-
sumption there may be resulting from it's pre-
sentation and admission at the polls. And
another is, that Carr affirmed that he was nat
uralized at time when he could not have
been by the laws Of the land, that is to say,
when he first came into New York from Ire
land; whereas no such objection exists in
the case of Bolton; and yet the majority
held, after sustaining the vote of Carr, that
the vote Of Bolton was an unlawful vote
BY what process of reasoning they arrived at
such a conclusion the undersigned are at a
loss 10 understand-they are reluctant to be-
lieve that il was because Carr voted the Adj
ninistration, and Bolton the Opposition
ticket.
The undersigned will now advert to two
very remarkable cases, and which will serve
better perhaps than any other to characterize
,F L..