The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-10-15
WING NOMINATIONS.
For President,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
For Vice President,
WILLIAM A. GRAHAM.
General Pierce's Regard for Purity OF Elec-
ton.

There is one feature in General PlERcE's
Congressional career which has hitherto es-
caped public criticism. Ea is known as the
antagonist Of every measure of liberal policy.
as the opponent of the South upon TWO coca
sions " hen southern interests were at stake,
and as an economist who would enrich the
Treasury at the expense of the widow and
the orphan. We have now TO present him as
one whose par,isanship impelled him to sustain
the action of the Democracy in a matter which
involved the exercise Of electoral rights, and in
IN especial manner the purity Of popular cleo
ton.
In 1888 Governor LErCHER, late Minister
to Mexico, contested the fifth Congressional
district Of Kentucky; MIR. THos. B. MOORE
being his Democratic opponent. The law of
the State required the certificate Of the sheriff
of each county in the district as evidence of the
members elect,on and upon this evidence, and
none else, member could be considered entitled
to seat in Congress. Mr.. LErcHER's district
comprised five counties, the Oldest and most i'm
proved of which-namely, the county Of Lin
coln-gave Wing majority. Blu, Lincoln coun
,y, though giving majority for MIR. LETcHER,
had at that period Democratic sheriff, who
pocketed the poll books at the close Of the
election, and either left the county or secreted
himself, with the view Of preventing return.
1t was known that the books which were
thus carried away showed "a majority of
one hundred and fifty votes in Mr.. LETcH-
Frs favor, but in the sherif's absence
there was no mode in which the fact could
be legally certified. The four other coun-
ties collectively gave to Mr.. Moore a ma
joriy of forty four votes. Three of these counties
through their sherffs certified that Mr.. moore
had maj 'rty IN each; and upon these certifi-
Gates representing an electoral minority Of The
district, Mr.. MOORE claimed admission to the
House of Representatives. Mr.. LErcHER
contested the seat upon the ground that he
was entitled to the seat, and that the creden-
tials Of Mr.. Moore did not comply with the
terms of the State law, inasmuch as they did
no, aver that he received the largest number of
Votes.
The question came before the House of Rep
resentatives in this shape, and formed the sub
ject Of frequent debate and numerous divisions.
The real question at Issue was, whether a
fraudulent act Of a county officer could be held
to disfranchise county, and whether Demo-
cratic member should be allowed to profit by
the roguery of at eas; one Of his party. If Mr..
MooRE's credentials were sufficient, then mi
norty in any district might, by chicanery or
force, deprive the majority Of their electoral |
power. A rascally sheriff would be able to
serve his party at the cost Of the majority. and
by little maneuvrng literally disfranchise
them. Under such a system. all guarantees
for the freedom and purity Of election would
be destroyed.
Now for the point Of our story. In all the
divisions which took place upon the question,
the name Of FRANKLIN PIERCE appears as one
who voted to sustain the act of the absconding
sheriff, and thereby to deprive the citizens of
a Wing county Of their electoral privilege.
FRANKLIN PIERCE voted from first to last
in support of the Democratic claimant, whose
title to the seat rested upon insufficient cer-
tifcates, and whose admission upon that ii.
tie would have amounted 10 a premium on
the rascal,y of sheriffs. We will add that
General PIERCE 80 voted n conjunction with
the ultra members of his party. But we
have yet to learn that rank partisanship affords
any justification for votes which strike at the
root Of all political integrity.
M