Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1842-12-20
SD a Year, I'm advance.

ticket after his fashion and himself he depos-
tied in the bsotbo, and II in evidence the testmo
ny Of Beas friends that there only ticket
found counting the sOtes. Smith. fact, assisted
Shoemaker the vote. which ne afterwards.
of the judges of the election, rejected illegal There
another fact proved, that Smith. Of the Judges
Of election. after tire votes hal been counted back
picked up from the floor the pieces of the rejected ticket
placed them together and found them 10 III every par
iicula with the sheet Of tickets which he gave to Shoe
maker. Whist is the conclusion from tins. but that the
rejected ticket Shoemaker
Ii is argued, however. that the ticket found upon
the floor was placed there purpose : that IL
trick of Mr.. Alarshs friends TO meet
emergency Most absurd and impotent conclu-
son, truly How could his friends have known. on
the day 81 the election, aud upon the close of the
bal.oting, that IN district composed of two coun
ties, with a scattered and sparse populaii0n, the
vote between the candidates would have been so
tie, and that this rejected and mutlaied vote
would have saved their favorite candidate from de-
feat Mr.. Marsh's friends miist have been pecu-
liary gifted with prophecy To have 20 mraculously
anticipated this emergency. Otherwise, theg must
have been foolish 70 adopt such inadequate means
to meet an emergency, before they could possibly
have known how many votes were necessary TO
save their candidate from defeat. Before the rotes
in SmIthfeld township were counted. Mr.. Marsh's
friends according TO the absurd position of those who
oppose the legality of hrs elcc,ionl. were schemng,
not by pamlng off numerous votes but BY pa'rirs of
SOLITARY illegal vote TO elect him. and de'eat Mr.
i
20 preSumeany such motive. The means adopted, nt
that early stage the contest were totally INADEQUATE
to any probable emergency which isht occur. No
one, not soothsayer, could have anticipated So
close a contest, and hence the absurdiy of the as
sertion. No. gentlemen If YOU are afisen 10 such
shifts keep M. Bea.l IN his seat, yonr cause -
gone. Ii is against reason aud common sense.
There Is another fact, gentlemen Mr.. Smith -
evidently mistaken IN one thing. lie swears
that Shocmaker's ticket printed IN cap
Hat letters. Other dispositions show he was mls-
taken IN this. The specimen of the ticket which
now hold in my hand there Mr.. ". held Il up and
called The attention OF those around hm to it,
shows that the rejected vote printed IN sInaf
letters, and not in capitals. The aeadfhg OF
the ticket, - For Reprssen'GiiUe,' was printed m
small italics This has been relied upon 10 discrc-
dit, I'm some degree the testimony of Smith. az
say, sir that he To lie, or that lac could
be induced, deliberately, 20 do 20. lie swears that
the cut vote was rejected and PAGES that rejection
on the ground that the ticket was cut-tlfat h1f
was the sole and only ground of It's rejection. lie
does not say lhat IT was because, some aAege.
the word - Representative" wrs omitted. On
taking the vote from the ballot tox, anu h5d'ng Il
cut. he swears that he asked his associates wn4.
he must DO with it. and that they, as well as
the by-standers, replied, " throw 1t away
| beg leave. Mr. Speaker to call your attention.
to one other matter. ] mean, sir, 10 the conduct
ot these mdges-to the condcct of men who were
placed there guard the ballot box from pollTion
and fraud. What, sir, was their conduct Aiier
furnishing - the innocent voter the means Of muir
laton, Mr.. Smith. Judge 81 the election, Sas tho
hrst person 10 pronounce that vote Illegal Should
we not. sir, take the deposition Of person who
could thus demcan himself, whilst filling the Office
he did, with great caution. particularly in casc
where his feelings partizan and tho interests
of his friend were involved We certainly should.
IL appears, also. from the testimony, that Henry
Shoemaker was very particular and caatiods shout
fs.t-o l..r aF..
handed TO him by Smith, before he vas suited. u
thus particular, n not he evidence Better entitled
20 credit than that 81 person who furnished hiui
with the means of mutilating hs ticket, and was
afterwards the first 10 cry out TOR It's rejection
The gentleman who has spoken on the other side
Of tins question, seems to look forward with rnrctI
selr-compscency, 20 the decision OF this question.
and seems 10 iecitate himself with tie belief that
this house Will do right ia tae premises. ' admire
sr this spirit and part 'cularly congratulate the
gentleman from Llportc thrt he and agree on one
point al least If NC disagree all Uthcfs W
that this House viii do rght-that u VIII decide
IN favor OF tic claimant Tor whom the greatest number
OF legal votes shall appear % have been cast ana
not according 10 party prejudice or psruzan bias
never, sir, entertained Tor a moment any o'her
thought ! never believed that u could BRING itse''
10 any other decision, than such "a legumately
lowed from The priuculcs ~ asv. iIstlce, and
equity The conclusion Of the genDcwfTs speech
respecting CatalIne ,althonsn must confess dou
know ruch about him,i ! admire. because, cvsli
though do not understand precisely is f-'-e aud
bearing, presume there must be srl'c;i ny pecu-
llarly fine Al the bottom Of =. Like all lawyers
with a bad cause, be very adroitly lodges the real
question al issue as much rs p1ssbIe, and ends his
p,sadngs with grand G,gr,st. Who. SIR. IS the
Catalina in tins case is be- 100 this House OF IN
tie other ! shall not call that gentleman the Cat
allnc Of this House a. ;'ns state. again ast.
who il the Catalina he-el iease i 10 his cando'
l., say ! hone he .yIlf inform