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


Of the tally y.and Ihl return ofJhe Judges for all Of
the candidates fur the Senate. except in relation
To the tally and count for Mr.. Wiiford. Taking
this tally and count Cor Mr.. Cox and Mr.. Tag
gau, and the number Of blanks, shows that II
there were eighty-nine Democratic ballots, il
would make one ballot more than votes polled.
As then there never was any thing only the tally
show eightv-nine Democratic votes polled, and
as that IS dsproyed, and il is shown both by the
number ofvotes polled and by the number Of
Democratic ballots on file, and which have al
ways been there, that there never could right
fully have been any more; these facts should be
taken and deemed TO be conclusive, especially in
the absence ofall proof to the contrary. There
was then, by the testimony, only eighiy-eighl
Democratic ballots, and from one Of these, il is
conceded. the name Of Mr.. Wilford is erased.
The assertion Of the majority Of the COM
mirtee, that there were eghiy--nine DEM
ocratic ballots at any time on file, instead Of
lightweight, and thai Hickok and Powell found
such number on the string on the night when
| they counted the ballots, has no foundation in
the testimony Of Hickok or any other witness.
| IIckok does not pretend any such thing in his
testimony: nor did Hickok ever pretend in his
deposition to say. Tint George Kremer had three
votes for commissioner, except that il so appear.
ed from the poll books; but on the contrary he
expressly swears, that from memory he could
tell nothing about il. Nor is it true, stated by
the emaiority, that the judges swore except that il
so appeared on the poll book, that there were
eighty-nine Democratic ballots polled; for the
Judges did not profess to have any memory or
swear to any thing about the number, except so
| far as the poll book showed, or so far as they
remembered the number on the poll book.
| And how could they otherwise swearl for they
never examined the ballots, only as they count
ed them off on the night of the election, until the
| day they gave their testimony; and from such
reading, twould 10 impossible for them to re.
member or know any thing Of the number, ex.
cepting from the tally, as it appeared on the poll
book. There is not an iola Of proof then TO
show there was ever eighty-nine Democratic bal.
lots, except the tally and that tally is proved to
be wrong, from the fact that the poll book, as to
the whole number Of votes and the ballots on file
| in every examination that has been made Of them,
show it impossible that there could have been
eighty-nipe. There was, then, by the testimo-
ny, only eighty-cight Democratic ballots, aud
from one Of those the name Of Joseph Wilford is
admitted to be erased. The majority of the com.
mittee affirm, that as this erasure was not discov.
cred on counting out the yotes and as Powell
and Hckok in counting the ballots on the string
on Thursday night after the election, did not
discover the erasurc, it must have been made af.
ter tho election. In the first place Hickok does
not swear that Powell and he did any thing more
in the examination Of the tickets than barely to
count and ascertain the whole number on the
string. lie does not pretend that they examin.
ed the face Of the tickets, or counted the mum.
Der Of the same for each candidate; but swcars
that was not done until the next morning, in the
presence Of Howe, Leopold, Carlan, Fresh, Roe,
Beal, and himself, at which time the erased tick
ct was discovered by Leopold, who was then
reading off the tickets in making the count. This
/ Leopold also proves. There was no opporun.
,y then on the night Of the counting Of the bal.
lots by Powell and flickok, TO make the discove-
ry of the crasurc. In regard to the fact of the
Judges not discovering the erasure, they all swear
that the light upon the occasion was but one can.
die, and that gave an imperfect light; and that
the oversight of the two Judges was bad and that
Mr.. Kline read of the tickets very rapidly; and
Vanosdall swearS expressly, and the others all
prove the fact from which the same thing can be
easily inferred, that the name could have been
there without their noticing it, taking the cir.
Gums ances as they were at the time, and which
they had detailed; and considering the light cha.
racter of this erasure, that il could have existed
and passed unnoliced in counting, no one will
doubt, who will give credit to the dcpositions of
the Judges and clerk of Paint township, in the
mater of the Paint ticket. They all swear
without hesitation, that when counting off, they
could notsee the name OF Cox, or any writing, on
! e.. a. {
erased; yet an inspection of the ticket, as we'll as
from the testimony of Irwin and McSweeny,
clearly shows that there was writing on this
ticket, and that it was as clearly the contestor's
name.
! Ifnciher the contestor's name, nor any thing
looked like writing, could be discovered on the
Paint ticket, and that too, when all the Judges
and clerks examined il for that purpose, who can
doubt but the crasure in the Congress ticket
would have existed and, under the circumstances,
haVo pissed without noticcl There can be no
doubt on the subject. These ballots, as all the
proof shows, were locked up, and us carefully
kept and guarded us any other ballots; and from
the proof, there is not single circumstance TO
create any suspicion as TO unfair dealing in re-
: gard TO them. II would be Just as true and gen.
: erous, to assume that the contostoT's name had
been written on the Paint ticket since the cleo
ton, because no one saw it there when it was
counted of, and even moro so, because that was
particularly examined at tho time. The era
|, sure on the Congress ticket was discovered few
days after tho election, and the very first time
thereafter that the face of the tickets wero exa.
, mined, Is there any doubt, then, about the ex,
istence Of the erasure at the time of counting
and will il do to assume, without the sghtes
I proof, that this name was erased after the elcc
, Iuonl If will not, then it loowseand the ev
dence ju5tiies the conclusion, that Mr. Wlort
had two more votes from tbs township, than he
in fact. received and that these two votes shoult
be deducted from his official return.
There was one ballot in Wooster township
mhich was moi counted for Mr. Cox and whicl