Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1847-02-05


the Wayne vote, would leave his number as re-
turned for him 244O Deducting from Wiford
the three from Sugar Creek, and the two from
Congress, making five in all, from the whole
number Of his vote, 10 vii: 244l; leaves him
2436 votes, giving Cox majority of four, by a
correction of the returns. That the proof es-
iabIishes these facts, there can be but liule
doubt.
Beside denying the suiliciency and the effect Of
The evidence, in proving the result above stated.
the majority Of the committee avoid II, by taking
the bold and novel position that the evidence is
incompetent. Tha, is, that the ballots, at least,
are incompetent evidence TO contradici. explain,
or vary the returns Of the judges. And the rea-
soning Of the maiority Of the committee is predi.
Gated upon the assertion, that the law does not
require the ballots TO be preserved, or afix any
punishment upon the officers for not preserving
them. The assertion that the law docs not re-
quire the tickets to be preserved, is not correct
for the 9Th section Of the law regulating elec.
tons, expressly requires that one Judge shall
take each Of the ballots from the box, read and
pass il 10 the next, who shall examine and pass
il to the third Judge, who shall string it and care
fully preserve the same; and, continues the act,
the same method shall be observed in respect TO
each Of the tickets in the ballot box, until the
number Of tickets taken out Of the ballot box is
equal to the number Of names on the poll books.
Here he must stop. The law, then, expressly
provides, that not only the poll books shall be
kept for inspection, but the ballots shall be strung
OH a thread, and be carefully preserved.
The reasoning, then, based upon the fact that
the law did not so require, must of course be
erroneous. But why should the ballots not be
evidence, and for what purpose does the law re-
quire them to be put on a string and preserved,
iii were not to make them evidenced And if
they are not evidence, how are you to show whe-
her the returns the officers are correct or not.
or how many votes any candidate has received!
The poll book shows who has voted and the
number Of votes. But the ballots, alone, show
who is voted for, and the number for each, and
the ballots are the only proof Of these facts, that
could be relied on with any safety. Suppose the
poll books show 100 votes; the ballots filed and
preserved, show 80 votes for each candidate, but
the officers return all Of the votes for one ofthe
candidates only; is there any doubt but the bal
lots may be resorted to to show the truth and
prove how it isl There can be no doubt on the
subject, and if you could not, the officers could,
by accident or design, return just what they
please, and there would be no remedy. The le-
gal principle, however, is known TO be well set
tied, that the returns Of the election officers are
only prma facie evidence, and may be contra
dicied and explained, and for this purpose, that
the poll books and tickets may be examined, or
any proof taken that will prove an error. The
returns are not conclusive The very position,
then, taken by the majority of the committee, TO
get rid of the effect of the evidence by declaring
il incompetent, shows its force and effect as proof
upon their minds in the case.
There is. then, this state of facts, as the effect
and result Of the proof, before the committee and
the Senate, that the contestor, by correction
of the errors in the returns, has clear majority
of four votes; and if the evidence by which it is
proved is competent, as it seems it clearly is.
then the burden Of getting rid of this majority,
rests upon the contcstee. He, in the first place,
denies that the evidence which puts him in this
predicament is competent and legal. Tha
branch Of his defence has been disposed Of al
ready.
| He next attempts to show, by evidence Of the
same sort, that in Chippewa township, one vote
should be deducted from the votes OF the cones-
tor, upon the ground that in that township, there
was one vote more than voters, and that the con-
testors name is on the last ballot on the string.
The evidence OF both Joseph G. Smith and Jacob
Shaffer, the iudgeand clerk Of the election, is po-
sitive that the last ballot the string, in this case,
was not the last taken from the box; but that 1t is
the fifth ballot on the string, that was last taken
from the box, and that the four ballots that were
laid under the box when counting, were finally
put on the string after the others were all taken
from the box. The proof does not show who
this fifth ballot, being last taken from the box
was gven to-whelher to Cox OF Willord, and
therefore can be deducted from neither.
As to whether the four tickets put under the
box while counting, as proved by Smith and
ShafTer, were both double, or if either, which it
was. the evidence does not pretend to disclose,
and therefore no deduction can be made from
either party on that account.
The testimony of Jacob Shaffer, political
friend of Mr.. Wilford, whom Mr.. Willord had
declined TO examine, after he had been sworn
when examined by Mr.. Cox, proved, as did Jo
soph G. Smith, that Mr. Cox and Mr.. Wiltord
both received one vote more in Chippewa than
was officially returned for them, Notwithstanding
the report Of the majority asserts that Mr.. Coz
failed to sustain by proof that point Of his case
which claimed one vote more than was returned
for him. The next ground of defence relioC
upon by the contestee to break down the maori
~ shown for the conlestor is, that the confession
received certain illegal votes. The minority o
the commlteei is nolincned to deprive citizens o
their votes upon loose and uncertain grounds
But after a careful examination of all the testimo
ny in regard to those that are alleged to have
voted illegally for the contestor, and who are sa
tislactorily shown to have voted for him, thcr
is but one among the number, whose vote can b.
clearly regarded as illegal in the opinion of til
minority, and that is the vote Of Frederick Roes
Ter. There are, it is true, the votes Of Joh
Shearer and Godfrey Kber, of Wooster; Cyru
S. Barkdal, of Salt Creek, and c. &. Minklel
of Chippewa, which may be questionable. o.
the other hand it is believed, that the evdenc
will satisfactorily show that, Matthew Taggar