Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-10-16


claim. and stands upon it his right. 1t has been
so;a tbat the Sheriff of Camden refused to give the
certificate until he could consult with the lnsPec-
TORS of Canal Bridge precinct in Camden County,
and IN find out what alteration he had made In his
certificate and that after he ascertaineu the l4ior
nation he gave Mr. Barnard the certlhcate. but'
Mr.. Sneaker, this position gets the Shenn OF Gam
den into difficulty-the SherH OF Cani1ei s'"1eS
in his certificate to Mr.. Barnard that he demanded
the pol books from the Coroner of Currituck they
wore not produced and he therefore declared Mr..
Rarnard duly elected. So that the statement OF
the friends of Mr. Barnard has placed the Sheriff
of Camden in the light of having made false re-
turn There is a conflict between the argument
of Senators and the certificate Of the Camden Sher
if but taking the true ground to be that the Poil
hooks of Currtuck were not produced when ne
demanded them the question arises had the Sheriff
of Camden the right to demand the poll books OF
Currituck County? The Sheriff of Camden had
only the control of his own records he was not re-
sponsible for any other records than his own ne
had no authority over the election In Currltuck he
was not the guardian of their privileges, ne was
not responsible for eir records, and had no right
to demand them all that he had a right to de-
mand was a true statement of the returns OF that
County, and nothing beyond. But even this po-
stion will not answer Mr.. Barnard, for the facts OF
the case are against him; the Sheriff OF Camden
oes not certify that he did not see the poll books
of Currituck County, he only demanded the poll
books of one precinct in Currituck-lt was not at
Indian Town on the first day, and the Shertts ad-
iourned over to the second day, when the poll books
of that precinct were produced and compared by
the two Sheriffs The Coroners certificate states
this to be the fact and the certificate OF the Cam
den Sheriff does not deny it, so that in either point
of view it does not strengthen Mr.. Barnards case.
1t has been urged that the inspector at Canal Brdge
precinct in Camden struck one vote from the num-
ber polled for Mr. Barnard and certified to one less
than he received, which, if given to MIR. Barnard,
would make it tie in the District, and to prove
this the Senate have had read to them the affidavit
of the Inspector. DIR. Shaw at that precinct re-
ceved seventeen votes and Mr.. Barnard sixty two
which was altered to sixty-one by the Inspector
in the affidavit of the inspector he attempts to &C
count for it there were votes in the box than
names on the roll The inspector strong y lntimates
that Dr. Shaw had to his knowledge received sew
enteen votes, and of course he ought not to have
lost the vote-the Inspector was Wing, and act
ING at the time under an oath.
His leaning and feelings were for Mr. Barnard
the appearance to him that there had been
some foul voting-he knew the number of votes
that had been cast for DIR. Shaw, and of course the
illegal vote was given for Mr.. Barnard but after
his duties had ceased, his erplrte affidavit is eX-
hibited in which he endeavors to explain the way
in which the occurred. The conclusion that
forces itself on the mind is that Mr.. Barnard had
received two votes from one man, and unless the
fact proven otherwise it is irresistible. The In
spector attempts to account for it differently but
make his statement satisfactory the proof should
have been given to the Senate of the name of the
person who had voted at the precinct, aud whose
name had not been recorded. Without this proof
the inspectors certificate is Uague conjecture. Be-
fore and up to the time he made his to the
Sheriff he had the control of the certificate, and
when he made the alteration had the reason as l
have stated it. 1t has been urged that he ought
even after the day of his RETURN to have the
power to make second alteration. But his pow
er as Judge ceased after his return-he was then
acting under the solemn responsibilities of OATH
After his return his duties ceased, and the obiga-
tons of the oath ceased to bind him. To say that
inspectors could make such alterations and that
Shers should give their certificate according there
to, would be vitality dangerous doctrine to the ell
ection franchive
But these objections to DR.. Shaw's right to his
seat are after thoughts-they were not raised on
the day the polls were compared at Indian Town.
The Sheriff of Camden refused to give his certifi-
cate that day because he alleged the strength
of reports that two votes had been wrongfully
counted for DR.. Shaw at Coenjock precinct; which
if taken from him would elect Mr.. Barnard by one
vote. He here claimed the right to purge the
polls-he had no proof of the fact. The certified
returns of the judges of the election were before
him-the race close one-some flaw must
be picked-and he took exception to the two votes
but finding out that the position untenable,
the ground was shifted and others urged which l
have endeavcred to show are equally untenable
and which raised after the day of comparing
the polls had passed. Why has ont Mr. Barnard given
the proper notice and proceeded to contest the seat
of DIR. Shaw as the law prescribes Did he fear
to rip open the polls His papers all drawn
with legal ingenuity-he was advised as to the law
on the subject-he knew the step necessary to be
taken-hs friends have not pretended that he is en-
titled to his seat-they have not urged his right to
be admitted but still he presents the certificate of
the Camden Sheriff, declaring him duly elected.
Is there not something very suspicious in all this
Ii MIR. Barnard is not entitled to qualify, then
Dr. Shaw has a right to the seat. An election has
been held, there is no tie as the record shows and
one or the other must be admitted. DIR. Shaw pre-
sents majority of one vote-his claim has as much
binding force as if it were one hundred votes-the
people have spoken in his favor-he has the larg-
est number of votes-the Counties of Camden
and Currtuck have spoken in his favor and we
should not attempt to thwart their voice and de-
prive them of their legally chosen representative
In the celebrated New Jersey case the seat was
given to the candidates who had the majority of
the votes in their favor, although the seal of the
Governor and his certificate against them. The
certificate of the Sherfs is only an evidence of the
right. The returns give the only legal right. DIR.
Shaw has the required returns in his favor-he has
the lawThe has justice-he has the voice of the