Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1848-08-16

a. ne next objection to the election IS, that two
officers, viz: Leuts Hizer and Picker, voted for
me, who had forfeited their commissions by fail
ure to qualify to them within sixty days.
| 1t is true that these officers voted for NO. and
that they had no right to vote-but knew nothing
of the fact until the day of the- Regimenal MUSTER
and as soon as discovered it, declared their pa-
ces vacant, and held elections TO supply the
cies. They were both reelected and certified
the facts to the Adjutant General These two votes
being taken from my poll, there would have been
tie between McCue and myself, if all the votes
his poll had been good
| Unfortunately, however, there was a vote given
for McCue which was illegal for the same reason.
Maj. McCue informs us that there was differ
ence Between the cases, and will endeavor to aid
| him i'm showing il.
John Dinkle, Cd Lieut. in Capt Todd's COM
pany, was elected on the day Of May, lS47,
and his commission was issued on tho Goth of the
same month. He never qualified to his commits
sion until the 10th day of March, 1S4S-the day
before the second election for Colonel. His COM
mission, then, like those of Hzer and Plecker was
forfeited, and his vote was illegal. The difference
between his case and that Of the other two, was
THIS: did not know of the defect in the votes of
Hizer and Picker, but Maj McCue did know that
Dlnkle had no right TO vote, as will proceed to
| show
| have in my possession the commission Of Mr.. Din
kle and upon the back of it in the hand writing Of
Major McCue, is written the following certificate
CERTIFICATE.
AUGUSTA COUNTY, Set:
| This day John Dinkle personally appeared be-
fore me, Justice of the Peace for the county afore
said and took the several oaths required by law as
a Lieutenant Of Infantry of the Line-to rank as
such from the 18th May, lS47. Given under nv
hand this 10th March, 184S.
JAMES A. McCUE.
M,in cC oIr ,h,tb H.
cate, but informs us that his father administered
the Oahs. He also admits that he was fully aware
OF the provision of the Militia law vacatinu COM
missions for failure to qualify within sixty DAYS
but thinks it probable his father was not He also
knew the date of the commission, for he rected it
I'm the certificate. He then knew that the commis-
sion had issued from the office of the Adjutant Cen
eral more than nine months before the day upon
which the qualification took place, and that unless
Ut had been more than seven months in coming from
Richmond, 1t was invalid for any purpose Can
any one believe that the Major under these cir
| cumstances, was not fully aware when he wrote
the certificate that the commission was wholly null
and void! Yet on the very next day he stood by
and saw Dinkle vote for him in an election where it
was well known single vote might determine the
result. think the public will agree with the Major
In thinking the cases decidedly dissimilar
| The Major charges that Capt. Burke knew of
the defect In the votes Of Hizer and Picker, and
he seems to be greatly shocked at the idea of the
| Captains having permitted them to vote! He re-
| grets the necessity of exposing the Captain
IL know Thomas Burke he will place a proper
estimate upon such charity from such source, and
In relation to such subject He is a man who is
best liked when most exposed, and who is most ap
proved where he is best known
4. The next objection to the election is that
some of my friends resored to unfair and dishonor-
able means to secure my election
\ ic
shrewd suspicion of Mr.. Jared Nj. Hotel, that nv
friends had liquor at the barn. will say, however
| that II my friends had any such refreshment they
| KEEP, it entirely too close for my comfort!
The only charge that have heard, and the only
one noticed by Maj. McCue, is that against Capt.
| Hartman and Lieut.. Sterrett.
/ 1t is said that one or both of them influenced the
vote of Lieut.. Henry Meyers in some way. not
clearly explained, by of horse trade, or the
| promise of horse trade.
Messrs. Hartman and Sterrett have undertaken to
defend themselves against this charge, and have
no doubt they will be able to meet in manner
which will be entirely satisfactory to the public
do not propose to interfere in that defence but
will merely notice few striking points in the
case, made by Maj McCue.
The charge, in It's terms, is against both Hartman
and Sterrett-and yet the whole effort of the Ma
jor be addressed to the conviction of Har
man. This must have struck every one who read
the Majors card-and no one can be at any loss as
| to the motive
1t will be observed that no one pretends ever to
have seen Hartman have any communication with
Meyers except that which occurred in full view
and hearing ofthe assembled officers and McCues
own witnesses testify, that on that OCCASION no
thing whatever was said about horse or a horse
trade-on the contrary it is distinctly proved that
Hartman said nothing but "vote for Baldwin, ;" while
Capt. Todd and SAINT Fl. Bell said, "vote for Nc
| Cue"
have some personal knowledge of what occur
red on that occasion, for was standing near, and
saw and heard all that passed. / know that if
Hartman were capable Of offering a bribe-as |
know he is not-he could not possibly have done so
without having been overheard by more than TWEEN
ty persons. The whole affair did not occupy two
minutes. 1t occurred in the presence of more than
hny persons, all OF whom seemed TO be highly a.
unused at the game of eectioneerng for a floating
vote-a game which was played fairly openly and
actively. The idea that Hartman, at that time,
was guilty OF the improperly charged against him.
is ridiculous In the extreme; indeed his conduct
on that occasion goes very far to dsproye the whole
charge-for, If he had bought the vote of Meyers,
why did he follow him to the polls to eIectioneer
! for that vote?
Having signaIy failed to procure any direct proof
; against Hartman, the Major seeks to connect him
with horse trade in which Sterrett and Meyers
were engaged on that day. The only proof offered
for this purpose, is the declaration said TO have been
made by Meyers, that he had sold his horse to Ste-
; reu and Hartman. This declaration may have
been made by Meyers, but think the strong proba-
bility is, that Meyers has been misunderstood and
| am confirmed in this belief not only by the fact
that such misunderstanding might readily have
7 happened, but by the whole conduct of Meyers,
which is entirely inconsistent with the idea that
= Hartman had anything 10 do with the horse trade.
Meyers declares that he never had any conversation
I with Harman, except that which took place when