The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1847-01-29
.ooyNTy ONO, TRIDAy, -AegARy .

A ! .sFt 1.lI It
ford, other than that he was a democrat, and
said he voted for the democratic licket.-
Your committee would hero remark, that in
the cases Of Illegal voting, charged on The
}parto Of the contestor, If Il be clearly proved
lthevote was 'ilegal, II should as clearly be
proved for whom the vote was gwen. .Posi-
I tive proof should alone be received. III
elections, where The contest is of. strict
tpaIty character, il may be fair TO presume,
that each voter whose political feelings are
known, voted for the person ~hose political
priDciples accorded with his own; but even
then we may err, as personal prejudices aud
personal friendship towards sene particular
candidate will always exist, and produce de-
viation from strict party vots.9 But in an
election of the nature Of the one in the dis.
tictin which this contest arises, mans
party predelctiens would be no evidence as
10 The manner Of his voting. Neither should
his declarations, not uador oath, be received
Many from fear, and others from sense Of
their own error will not acknowledge they
voted againstst the candidates Of their ewn
party. Numerous democratic tickets with
Mr.. Wilford's name erased, received and in
evidence in this contest, show such to be
the fact. The only secret some men can
keep, and tho enly independence they ever
EXHIBIT, is in relation to their voting. IT is
a right about which they will net be ques-
ltionsd, and when they are, make II prin-
ciple to deceive. The declarations Of men
net under oath. in contest of a.. peculiar
and important character as this, should be
received with extreme caution, and 'by no,
means US positive testimony. But in this
same township, illegal voting isicbarged on.
tho part Of the contestoe,a Mr. Wilford.
Joel Cradle, John Cradle, and Peter Garbcr,
all swear, that this same Jo!i1 HI. Klippart,
BY whom the contcster attempts 10 prove The
iIlsgslity1 1ofJeel CRADLES vote, also an illegal
voter not having resided in The State ene
year previous 10 tho election. 1t is clearly
proved by his ewn declaration and otherwise, /,
thathele left the State with the intention of
remaining toay--sf ling business and a
home at the West--and that love aud lack
| Of business--natural concomitants-
duced his return II Grable was an Illegal
voter, so alse by the same kind Of testimony,
was Klippart. yisFs.e aPa.@ ah'' Nsss'csl
g Itis also charged that Matthew Taggart-
voted in Sugar Creek township, net being a
resident of the township. He was young
man whose father resided in Baughman
Etownship, but who was at work by the month.
and whose home and actual residence at the
1 time of The election, was considered by HIM
solf and ihe Judges, in Sugar Creek township.
His vote was not challenged. The p-oof as
10 the person for whom he voted is ia legal
point Of view, of the same objectionable
character, as in the case above stated . a
Itis ialse charged in the memorial that
Emanuel Hostetter and John Fike, illegally
voted for Mr.. Willford in the township of
Wooster. 1t is proved that both voted.
Neither of them were challenged. There is
conflicting Testimony as sregards their resi-
dencs. 3 They both claim TO be residents Of
the township. Fike had hired to John Grill
for nine months, and was thee at the time
Of taking the dspositions. In an election as
closely contested as this, andin the township
Of Wooster, the residence of the confession,
Fit is somewhat singular, If these men were
notoriously Illegal voters, or there was any
question as to their right, that sems person
did no, challenge them. The law provides
that the Judges, if requested, shall permit
the candidates, or some of their friendste be
| in the room with the Judges, during the re-
ceiving and counting the ballots; and this is
done 10 enable each party 10 challenge in all
cases Of doubt, andto prevsn: illegal voting,
But the testimonyi is only circumsiantial in
its character, as TO which of the two candi-
dates received The votes Of these men, or as
to The fact efiheir voting for Senator at all.
Their depositiens are not taken. Those
who voted next before and after Fiks, were
wings, and next 10 Hostetter we're ssofts,"
and they were the most btlerin their opposi-
ton TO Willfcrd. In the opinion of your
committee, it is not proved these msn were
illegal voters, or that they voted for Mr.. Will.
/ ford. iiq ga b. nn ossa alqt a. 4
It is also alleged in tho memorial, that
Daniel i Marklinger, George Widen, and
George F. Widen, illegally voted in Plain
tewnship, being foreign Germans by birth,
who were never naturalizsd. Marklinger
voted; his right to vote was questioned by
some, and others thought he could vote.
He had voted before Itis not proved for
Which candidate he voted. He was doubt
fuLin politics ard voted to suit his custoniers,
Says he voted the ticket Anderson gave
him,ssn that it was folded up, and that he
did not open it. This he states to M'Millen,
and also, that he meant to pote for Coz, that
no and Anderses had agreed 70 do so. An
derson was democrat and gave him dem
4 ocratic ticket. hut Il was net folded up An