Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-10-27

nou book Why, Sir, it is nothing more nor less
/ than simple list of the voters names, and does
not and cannot show how many votes ether parry
received: the certificate of the inspectors on the
: contrary declares on oath the number OF votes
.ocb marty received and must be the guide and the
record to the Sheriffs, beyond which they have no
1T 70 oo If this were not so, what course could
The sberis pursue in case the certificate and poll
books did not agree?
S;r after the returns had all been produced and
compared, it was found that had maorlty .,
one vote. The Sheriff of Camden was then called
| on To sion a Certificate of election, and assert
here, upon my responsibility as man, that he au-
tborized one of the three freeholders present 10
write one: he however, left the room and having
consulted with his Wing friends outside came
back and refused to sign it. The Sheriff OF Cur
rituck came forward and made proclamation de-
clarng that, according to the returns lcaue i.oa
all the precincts in the district, Fl. NJ. Shaw was
elected by one majority. The Sheriff OF Camden
then proclaimed that according to the returns OF
the votes pven for Senator in that district 1t appear
ed that of the taco Uotes taken out OF the co.,
ernors boz acre Illegal then Mr.. Barnard was cleo
ted bv one majority" Nothing was then SAID
about illegal returns or altered certifcates-no
other reason was assigned for his refusal to perform
the duty imposed upon him by the law which de-
clares that the Sherfs shall give a certificate to
him who has the largest number of votes
But it is now said that the Sheriff of Camden
called the attention of the Sheriff of Currituck to
the alteration of certificate which 1T IS alleged
Cherry the inspector of a precinct In Camden had
made and insisted upon that certificate being cor
rected so as to give one more vote to Mr.. Barnard,
thereby making a tie; and that he proposed to de-
eide the election by drawing in the manner pre-
scribed in the statute | do not know where the
Senator obtained his information but from what
ever source it may have come have only one an
swer to make to it; and that Is, the Senator has
been misinformeG; no such thing occurred-no
sucn proposition was made. repeat, the only rea-
son assigned for his refusal to give certificate
of election, was the taking the two votes out of
the Governors box, and the disparity between the
poll books and the certificate, which was caused by
the omission of the names of two voters. AS to
this omission, it proved on the day the polls
were compared, and it was freely admitted by the
inspector of that election (who is whg) that two
individuals, the one named Samuel Pell, the other
Peter Forbes, were present, and did vote at that
precinct; one having voted for me, the other for
my competitor and the poll books then and there
| exhibited, showed that their names were not re-
corded. Had these two names been recorded,
there would have been eighty names on the poll
books the exact number certified to by the inspec
tor the two votes taken out of the Governors box
being included. Now, Mr.. Speaker was there any
fraud or corruption here If so, where was it q
Was it in Withholding the poll books on the first
day? If so, that fraud and corruption must be
traced to a Whig inspector. Was it in counting
the two votes taken out of the Governors box
Then that fraud and corruption must be traced to
the base heart of perjured Wing inspector. But
charge no such fraud or corruption upon either
of these inspectors; they both Justices of the
Peace and gentlemen of standing in their County
if any such unworthy aspersion is cast upon them,
it is not done by me or any friend of mine.
But, Sir, it is said that Cherry, the inspector at
Canal Bridge in Camden, altered his certificate
making the vote of Mr. Barnard one less than the |
number he was entitled to. Well, it appears that
there more vote in the box than there
were names on the list; that there 90 votes
for Mr.. B. and II for me. in the box, while there
were only IS on the poll books that it was
known that II persons did vote for me at that
place; that the most diligent search and inquiry
were made for some Wing who voted there, whose |
name not recorded yes Sir, loud call was
made for such voter, but it was like Glendower
calling spirits from the vastly Deep" no came
to his call. The fair inference is that some one
more anxious to secure the election of Mr.. b. than
scrupulous of the means employed, put two votes
in the box, in which case Mr.. Cherry should have
thrown both away instead of one. Be that as it
may-Mr. c. was the inspector, and therefore the !
Judge; and acting as such, under the solemn res
possibility of oath, he rejected one vote and GER
titled to the balance, returned his certificate in due
time to the Sheriff, and that return was the Sher-
IFS law. Was there any corruption here If so !
it must be traced to Wing Inspector. Sir, it is a
remarkable fact that in every single instance where
objections have been made to the returns in this
election, they have been the returns of Wing in
spect6rs, gentlemen DESTROYS of securing the |
election of my competitor as any others in that
district
Mr.. Speaker, a good deal has been said about
spurious votes. Why, Sir, if my competitor be- |
lieved that he had received majority of the legal
votes of the district, ask Senators upon the op-
posite side, why he did not give the thirty days
notice required by the law, and bring this up here
as regular case of contested election2 By pur-
suing such a course, he could easily have unseated |
me by proving that he had majority of the legal
votes cast at that election. But, Sir, my competi
tor knew too much-his friends lat home) knew
too much, to be drawn into such contest.
Mr. Speaker, the Senator from Rutherford took |
occasion to contrast the open and manly course of
the Sheriff of Camden with that of the Sheriff of
Currituck, and declared that the latter had sent
certificate here which had been written expressly
with view of avoiding the penalties of the law,
and that he did not dare to put his hand and seal
to II. have only to say that Mr.. Simmons, the
gentleman alluded to, is as high minded and hon
orable man as the Senator from Rutherford or
any other here elsewhere-and as to the charge
OF his seeking to evade the penalties of the law by
emitting seal, will undertake to say in that
gentleman's name, that if any one wishes to enforce
the law against him on account of his acts in this
matter, that he will not seek to avoid its penalties
by sheltering himself behind any such techncality.