The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-08-01

i
votes counted for Mr. Archer forty-sesen for Mr. Allen
and three not counted at ALL and that they had ouly 4
compare this result with the the clerks Office
and inform Mr. Archer or body else" To whom wer
these facts so notorious2 Who knew them2 VIII my
colleague show me word of proof that any kne
these facts until after the contestant "orne the Judges
for the judges state not that they told Mr. Archer of bu
that he told them The judges and clerks believed ali
right until Mr. Archer told them differently If my col
league has any knowledge beyond the evidence il may
have weight with him but the House, think, ought tc
decide the upon the law and the evidence Besides
the point raised by my colleague could have no force
contestng this election. The law of our State requires
that when there are ballots in the box than
upon the tally list the judges shall draw from the box
differently ballots until the number of shall
pond This was not done and ii is asserted by them
that it ought TO have been done and yet the evidence
shows that Mr. Allen justly received his oryseyen
at the Livingston precinct and Mr. Archer received
hundred, of which was illegal
Let us examine this matter little closely 1t il
stated that when the clerks had proceeded TO certain
point in the count discovered that had
been made in the tayis and the judges ordered the
clerks back until the error should be discovered
This was done, and the found and what
Why, the error was that Hongshead of the clerks
had one more vote for Archer than he ought to have had
Here is what Mr.. Hanks, the other clerk, says:
"Mr. Hollngsbead contended that mistake had been
made and ordered by the judges count back
the preceding tally saying that they would call the tickets
back in like manner to ascertain where the mistake
made and which OF the clek wrong and
ing counted back some four five ballots
that Mr. Hollingshead had marked vote many for
Mr. Holiingsheads tally list and being done, the tally
lists agreed.
This shows that if Allen had too many votes 1a,lied TO
him. all the judges and both the clerks bad not discovered
and it also shows, if true that Hoingshead had msde
tive miStakesone ngving vote too many for Alen and
In giving vote many for Archer and also shows,
if true that both clerks bad bundered but upon opposite
sides Now this is strainnR the judges and clerks too
mitch and the only way to relieve them to take it upon
their statement and allow Of giving Archer
extra vote which error was promptly discovered and
corrected All satisfied they were right and they
were right They closed up their work. and gave Archer
Erndred Allen fortySeven, and never dreamed OF
How ID this conclusion overturned Why four
months afterwards proniscuous crowd overhauled the
baot-box find error known only to contestant who
had the inside Of the box end at this recount
only fortysx ballots found for Alen and they forth
with him down to that number If the next day they
had taken another and found ortyve ballots they
would have cut him down agnin Of course If they made
Mt ALL they would make it as they found 1T but
the objection is to their making second return ut ALL
1t is said the box was safely kept" But how safely
Where lit The witnesses say it was safely kept
That might be matter OF opinion-what one person
would consider safe keeping, another would not Was IL
in garret cellar-iu counting rooms lumber shed
in iron safe with divers kys Let US have the facts
and judge how safely it was kept But we have
not a word of it. The witness, Mr. Hutchinson estifes
like man of TRUTH and believe he is but opinions arc
evidence And yet with all these doubts omissions
and Irregularities clouding the case of the contestant we
asked to set aside the unanimous return OF the judges
and cerks-made when there passion prejudice
sway and chance for fraud to deceveand substitute
made of time out o place and after circumstances
had ranspired which lead look with the strongest
grounds Of suspicion upon the OF the balobox
cannot tell how gentlemen will vote in this but do
believe there is member here who would not consider
unjust TO be turned out OF his seat upon the same state
of facts. ME
There are two ballots which we're rejected by the judges
and clerks at the original of the votes which, II
alleged ought TO be counted for the contestant When
they cast when the marks fresh upon them, all
the judges and clerks eced them Yet four months af
terwards when was necessary TO change the result OF
al .Ia had thnrttv nf
lava crowd Of bystanders present. the ballots were
= about and fingered at viii by all who chose TO
,, after all this, the two judges present dsl-
greed and third sent o.' Sno SA,s sHes iuuss
be counted for Archer and vas uone. a S any @ Gue
suppose that different ballots could not oes uu,ns
this time substituted for those originally poliee " ~
the pencil marks the of Archer could not ha'U
been remoyed7 b there any reasonable doubt that the
first made when the marks fresh, and
when all the judges and clerks agreed in throwing them
out was upon which reliance ought to be placed
than the ast2 But where those ballots II ~ Is oo-
ected TO throwing them out-and it is matter TO be de-
cided by inspecton-we should have an opportunity 70
see them The Judgment had once been passed and as y
matter Of opinion and not fact when hey reeouneu
assert that they had no power subsequent time to re-
their judgment
Bot IL is said there only attempt at erAsure not
an easure in fact and that therefore they ought TO DC
counted for Mr. Archer IL is pretended that the con-
tesant has complied with the law In making his contest
He relies upon certain equities Is II not rule OF equity
that thing to be considered as done which Is nhIeH
10 be done2 IL II Is manifest from the inspection OF
ticket that the voter intended to erase name rom ~
ought the judges say that t true he intended TO scra
II oG-to but be has only drawn his pencil
pen e. and has entirely Scratched II on that
therefore II shall be counted and the will Of the voter DIS
regarded mark-a scratch, whether made by pen,
pencil charcoafi Is clear that the intention was 70
mark Off the name il ought not 70 be counted Yet by
peco petty special pleading such rs but one man IN m
could get up II Is said despite the intention OF the
voter that they do not the name and the Votes
be counted. II could the tickets, we could
Judge Of the inenton and could form some opinion
Of the faca Nov We must form our opinions from the
opinions Of others Look at the circumstances attending
this recount The first made under authority OF law
unaffected by interest passion when the ballots were IN
a condition most clearly indicate the Intention oil tne
voter and all concurred in rejecting these two let iour
months afterwards when IL was known supposed that
change OF would change the ecction-when an
important political object 10 be ganedaer keys to
the baotbox had been scattered around and opportunity
offered Of the ballots after the contestant him
self informed the judges Of what they never dreamed OF
beforethat error had occurred in their count-the
judges crowd assemblies and while the other bal
lots counting the crowd lingering and rubbing the
questionable hallota-to rub rub in the judges
then after all ths by division Of tpo three reverse
their first judgment-whch had been unanimous-and
count these ballots and thus the election And
now when the ballots, they are not 20 be
found You might as well try upon deposition
not read 10 decide upon these tickets without seeing
them. They missing from cause unknown. !
charge with having taken them away, for know
nothing about H. But they attached TO the dposi-
tions aud even they are shown by the committee
Mr.. WASHBURN, Of Maine. I wish 10 say that those
ballots were brought here by the contestant TO make out
his They sent TO the Clerks desk and thence
the public printer political friend OF the sitting mem
Der. II s fair ingenious TO insist there Is wrong
in the These ballots lost and they arc proved
TO have been in the hands Of the printer when they were