Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1847-02-05
OHIO LEGISLATURE.
IN SENATE-January IL, t347.
REPORT OF THE


Minority of the Committee on Privileges and
Elections.
Mr.. Madeira, from the Committee on Privi-
lepes and Elections, made the following
REPORT
The minority Of the Committee on Privileges
and Elections, concur in the report Of the ma.
iorty Of the committee so far as it relates to
the seats of all the members therein named,
except as to the seat of the Hon. Joseph viii.
ford, in regard to which, the minority submit
the following report;
The official vote returned for Joseph Wilford
is two thousand four hundred and forty.one, and
for Levi Cox, his competitor two thousand four
hundred and fory-making for Mr.. Willord on
ly a majority Of one.
The testimony Of Chas. c. Parsons, Lucas
Flauery, D. H. Howe and John Gowdy, all con-
cur and prove conclusiveIy, that from Sugar
Creek township there was one vote moro return
I'd for Joseph Wilord than the ballots given en-
tile him TO. And, also, that there were two bal
lots moro voted, and are still on file, than there
nre voters names on record on the poll book.
That said Willord's name was on tho last two
ballots taken from the box, and which are the
last two on file; and that they were both counted
md returned for him from said township. Tbs
ildeos and clerk Of Sugar Creek township, all
POLITICAL friends Of Mr. Wll(ord. made the cxa-
mination without any notice TO MIR. Cox, and as
ccrained these facts, as proved by the testimony
Of Charles c. Parsons, the clerk, before, aud in-
dependent Of, what the majority Of the committee
term "the expartc examination of Howe and
Flatterv," which il is true was afterwards taken
10 confirm the statement Of Parsons, all of which
sands uncontradictcd. The whole testimony
proving these facts. being taken in the presence
of both paruo5 and their counsel.
Those two ballots, by the provisions Of the
election law, should no, have been counted or re-
turned; for if one or two more may be counted
than there are voters, no good reason can be as
signed, why all Of the surplus votes that mny be
found in the ballot box, should not be counled
thereby losing all the security arising from the
record of the names on the poll book. The facts
above stated are fully established by tho ,estrno-
nv. There were then, in all, three votes more
returned from this township than, by law, there
should have been, and the same law which au-
,horized and required the judges in Baughman
township TO throw away ballot for Mr.. Cox,
because il was double, although, from the tcsti-
mony Of Andrew Ault, it was innoccnty voted
under the belief, on the part ofIhe voter that ii
was a single ballot, authorized and required the
Judges 70 throw away the two excess ballots from
Mr.. Wilfords vote in Sugar Creek township. Is
il said in reply that these votes may have been
actually given 10 Mr.. Wiordl 1t is much more
certain, and admits of no doubt that Cox receiv.
ed the ballot in Baughman. The same law,
however, treats alike and requires in both cases
that tho excess and double ballots be thrown a.
way. There must then be three votes deducted
from tho vote Of Mr. Willord from the township
of Sugar Crock, which alone would give the ma.
ority TO his competitor. In the township OF
Congress, also, as is proved by tho depostons OF
Christian Carver, John VanoSdall and Samuel
Kline, the Judges Of the election; g. X. Hickok
the clerk; David II. Howe and G. F. Leopold
thcre were two more votes returned for Mr.. Will
ford than the ballots on file entitled him to. Iii:
said that the Judges returned, and the clerks tai
led, for all the candidates who run the fnl
strength, eighty-nine ballots on tho Democratic
ticket and il is argued from this, that eighty
nine Democratic ballots must have been polled
In reply to this reasoning 1t may be said, tha
the clerks tailed in Sugar Creek township one
hundred and eghty.two for Joseph Willord
when the ballots show be had only one hundred
and eghty-onc; that the clerks in Wayne town
ship taIIied one more for Mr.. Cox than no re,
ceyed; that the clerks of Chippewa tailed one
less for both Mr.. Will9rd aud Mr.. Cox, thar
each received; aud in Lake township tho clerk,
tailed one less for each.
These facts show that the tallias of the clork
may be, and ofon ARE, wrong; and that they ar
by no means conclusive evidence; hence, if no
conclusive in one, they are not so to be regarde
in any other, not more 80 in Congress than i
Wayne or Chippewa. The truth is, and the ev
i1ence subs,anliates it, as will appear in the dc
positions already referred TO. thai there were on
~ eighty eight Democratic ballots poled 10 Con
gTess township, the proof aside from the talle:
has established II on every examination that ha
boen made by the Witnesses on both sides. 1
addition to this, if you count eighty nine Demo
cratic ballots, and give TO the ndcpend.n an
abolition tickets the number OF ballots talied b
,he clerks, aud returned by the Judges, for thos
running on those tickets, including the blank
found on said tickets, you will have one vote {
ballot more Than voters. The testimony has a
ways shown but Two hundred and seven,y.s
ballots on file. The iallios have clearly exhibi
ed one hundred and seyenly-eight for Cox, thr
for Taggart, and there were eight blanks for Sc
ator, including the ballot from which WilorC
name s erased; and every examination viii