Bedford inquirer and chronicle. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1854-1857, 1857-07-31
The late Philadelphia Election
4Al Frauds Proved, IN

The late Presidential Election was viz
tually decided, and the election Of Bucha-
nan secuFed, by the result of tho State
Election in Pennsylyania on the second
Tuesdsy 10 0etober last. That result vas
produced BY money contributed in tiis City
aud expended in Pennsylvania just before
that election. Had the vote been taken .
two weeks earlier, Bucbsnan would have
lost The State BY frohf Eve to ten thousand
majority H Leading supporters knew saais it
was against vi INST 'heaaai when they ,eauc bore and
pressed oara. Pro-SlaEerys bankers, brokers',
and ofice-holdcrs into giving them the re-
quisite money ewheregith 10 revdrso thb
pOFqlf verdict. AZ And 4, they Know now that
Mr. Baehanan yas made President b.. that
leVytiooj 9di 30 aeR ssra ~ Il - le
/ At that elcctiolaf,, Philadelphia was made
to give : Busshbaaan majority of 3,4S5-rthe
vete for Gapal Commissioner standing Scott,
lBueh.) 3G, ,o33f Cochraae, (Uuion Opp.)
32,603. And this Buchanan rna rna iiority in
the City was more than the ticket obtained
IN the State. the total vote standing-Scott
2l2, 1856; Cochrane 5l0,lll; Scotss nido-
rity, 2,TI5. Thus outside Of Philadelpbia.
in spite of tie uniucrsalty of tie frauds
/ whereof thar city was the focus, Cochrano
had clear majority of 660 votes
The frauds in Philade;phia were so gross
that William b. Mann, the Opposition can
didate for District Attorney, who was beat
en- in the vote by Lewis G. Cassidg, the
Buchauuan candidate, resolved to contest
the return before the higher Courts of that
city The case has At length boon broughs
70 ISSUE, and on Saturday Judge Thompson
delivered the unanimous opinion of the
Uoart, ousting Mr.. Cassidy aud affirming
the election Of Mr. Mann.
TIE Investigation on which the decisiou
was based was extended TO but eight of the =
hundred or more polls held throughous the
City, these suificing to prove Mr.. Mann's
election, but the defense we're at perfec.
liberty to extend the scrutiny to any or all
other polls. These polls retained 2,62O
fnr Cassidy to sos for Mann, while tho
whole oumber of taxables tsynonymous with
legal voters) in the districts in which these
polls were held was but LII, or 903 less
than Cassidy's vote alone. OF the illegal
vote, it was proved on the trial that at least
| l,l6S must have been cast for Cassidy, re-
ducing his returned vote from 3I,475 ta
33,30T, and electing Mr. Mann by Sig
majority. This being practically as good
as ten thousand, Mr. Mann had no motive
for increasing the cxpenseof the contest by
going further, or he might doubtless have
proved thousands more of his opponents
votes as bad as these ], ,l6S.
Here are few samples of the facts pro-
we'd beyond contradiction BY the contestant,
and embodied in the Judgment of fne Court
at is in direct testimony, that at the polls
of some Of the said divisions, the eleetin,
Off .ers absolutely refused to discharge their
sworn duties, and admitted every offered
vote, in spite of remonsrance or challenge.
.sIn the 9th division Of the 4th Ward.73
votes are proved to have been received, in
cases where either the right to vote was OBJ
jected 10 by qualified citizen, or the name
of the voter was not upon the list xf3xaxa-
bles, without oath or proof being required
The wituess adds that sMcQaaid put all the
rotes in the box without waiting for the In
spcctors TO decide, and thar the Judge kept
the list Of taxi.bies, which was very seldom
looked al. In more than one instance,
drunken men were allowed 10 vote, and sone
lnaii, says the witness, saas SO drunk they
had TO hold him up Fifty-eight names
we're added to the list of taxabiss, but for
what re1son Is not stated.
ala the Seventh Division Of the FourtI.
Ward, the law was openly violated by The
election officers. They refused to take no
tice' OF objections made to voters Four
uncontradictcd witnesses, Levy, Sigman,
Neff and Hacket, testify to the fact thar
numerous challenges were made without
effect. The Inspectors required no one to
be sworn, or to pr 5duce proof, and that in
answer to the challenges made, one of the.
Inspectors would reply, General Challenge
dou't live here.' One witness, Levy, says.
NO person was sworn that day iii support
Of the voters challenged, but some few on
their taxes Neff also testi6es that nc
vouchers 4ere produced to prove residence,
shat Four persons only were sworn to prova
tax receipts, and that challenges were en-
tirely iisrcgafdea. He further states tnat
be made challenges in consequence of the
manner the voters were shovsd Up to rots;s
some were showed up and other persons
would call cut their names for them Il is
in clear proof, that vote, though eiailen-
ged, was received in the rams OF William