New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-07-20

cided and the election Of Buchanan secured, by
the result Of the State Election in Pennsylvania on
tbs second Tuesday in October last. That result
was produced by money contributed in this City
and expended in Pennsylvania just before that cleo
ton. Had the vote been taken two weeks earlier,
Buchanan would have lost the State By from i've
to ten Thousand majority. His leading supporters
knew il was against them when they came here
and pre,red our Pro-Slavery bankers, brokers and
Office holders into giving them the requisite money
whrIewiih to reverse the popular verdict. And
they know now that Mr.. Buchanan was made
President by that levy.
At that election, Philadelphia was made to give
q Buchanan majority Of 3,435-the vote for Canal
Commissioner standing Scott (Buch.) 36,O33;
Cochrape Union Opp 32,6O3. And this Bu-
cbaDan majority in the City was more than the
ticket obtained in the State: the total vote stand
ing-Scott, 2l2, $50; Cochrane, 30, Ill: SCOTS
majority, 2775. Thus outside of Philadelphia in
spite of the universally of the frauds whereof that
city was the focus, Cochrane had clear majority
of go votes.
Tie frauds in Philadelphia were so gross that
William Mann, the Opposition candidate for
District Attorney, who was beaten in the vote
pclled by Lewis c. Cassidy, the Buchanan candi-
date, resolved to contest the return before the
higher Courts of that city. The cas-, has at length
been brought to issue, and on Saturday Judge
Thompson delivered the unanimous opinion of the
Court, busting Mr.. Cassidy and affirming the cleo
ton of Mr.. Mann.
The investigation on which the decision was
based was extended to but eight Of the hundred or
mole polls held throughout the City, these suf-
6cng to prove Mr.. Mapn's election but the defense
were at perfect liberty to extend the scrutiny to
any or all other polls. These polls returned $500
for Cassidy to sos for Mann while the whole mum.
Der of taxables (synonymOus with legal voters) in
the districts in which these polls he'd was but
LILY, or 903 less than Cassdy's vote alone or
the illegal VOTE it proved the trial that at
least /, I6S must have been east for Cassidy, re-
duciDg bis returned vote from "a AS to 80, }O7 and
electing Mr. Mann BY 5l8 majority. This being
practically as good ten thousand, Alr. Mann had
10 motive for increasing the expense Of the contest
by going further, or be might doubtless have proved
these |, l6o.
Here are few samples of the facts proved be-
yond contradiction by the contestant and embodied
in the judgment Of the Court:
in direct testimony that the polls Of some of the
said divisions the election officers absolutely refused to dts
charge their duties and admitted every offered VOTE III
spite If 7. nou,tisnce challenge.
the 9Th division Of the 4h Ward 70 votes proved 70
b,v. esther right to vote
objected by qualified citizen or the name OF the voter was
Lot the liz, Of tasee. without oh or pro-; OeSs re-
THE box without waiting for the Inspectors decide and that
tho kept the list which seldom looked
at IL than one instance drunten men were sweI 20
vote and man. the witness was so drunk hsy naI
10 hold him up Fifyegh added 10 the list Of
taxsbes but tor WHIST reason il not stated
Tin n, seventh Division OF the Fourth Ward the law
e OH, o adj to voters. -Four u ontradis,ed wiz:
e-e Lev, ssrpsn Ne aid Hscket testify = the fact that
nun, made without effect The Inspectors
required produce proof and hs in
,u.v. the challenges made one of the H. 'prcrs would
rsply General baen2e don't live here One witness,
vy says No person that day in support Of the
,o,eis ,haensrd but few on their taxes Nef also
fes that vouchers produced to prove residence
persons ouy sworn TO prove TAX receipts sud
that chae entirely d'esA'csd heurther s.rs tht
wrr. hsed UP showed aud other
would cell out their names 1t in prof that
vote haush challenged wa. received in the Of " an
We,; who had died considerable time pFeSiously
tie eighth division Of the Fourth ware the list ofaIa
biz, d. not Kept by The Inspectors Nj Msthicu an In
ntor was exruned and testified that the Judge John
MGOnsa took the book s the optnns OF ne poll ana kept
The OF no legal evidence can be derived
were here also received from persons the list
without their being to residence and say, tho vi"
Oh lie li,, and hen looked could ad IT, Not than
.ish; 81 nine proved their residence Outing the day
tbs poi urTsd transs tnn which II truly lated
ought TO cover al parties With enduring shame
more stack the purity Of the eaotboK could
mo-, he conceived D. NJ Natiheu the Inspector, testi
fr. that uton difficulty having arisen within the ROOM
the ecerton the vote Of who gave the pane OF PAT
Dornsn the other Inspector 20 put the ticket in the
box He aid the witness IL yoa don't put that ticket INFO
lous. and jumped partition which ueo,ed the cleo
officer. and the table anon; TIE books aud papers
being the ASSESSOR list he hsttheu
times shook lis him, AMI said be would fix h
b,Ie be let the polls After he bad bee, n few MINUTES
The IL then down from the table and ont Of
the door Amore honest men, such transaction could not
hsve been permitted 10 pass unnoiced and VINO thus
susrd tie ballot boxes not e1pec; that their swon
viii receive any consideration nom judicial tribunal
TIE My witness called 10 rebuff This testimony va. Patrick
kouu1 panty whose offer 10 vote caused the dispute He
he hadd in his ticket they looked to see MS name
the boob aud then TOOK bis vote Inf was al that
done upon ne say' tidnot know wh9
Nov INSIDE took ny ticket dient 20 away iil he
ted me s was Tgh; not challenged not a.hed for
wonders Nc Auin there's did not see nan speak TO any
How far this testimony the evidence Of the Inspector
Nsbl a. 10 what occurred inside BE- question and
ssye il with single remark that more Of the Other PARTIES
ea,S to testify ~ 'e 'DleS Mr. co.,
pencil were without examining the lis, of txsbes and
80 bs go fat thst be hsd no time it He iarthe
tb. the kidd ticket could be dstir shed from the
heading and upon being asked whether the particular heading
on Ian tickets was the Of tneT being received so
declined respond to the question Al the witnesses
con eide in stating that il this Division nuoes OF voters
uton ths list ~ taxAts received without giving
81 any ~, whatever Indeed BE whole testimony
shows that the election was here carried OF ~ the mos ect
object hepg apparently u g., votes into
The ballot tos regsrdess IT their legality number sInount
g l5 OF ioregneIs, Italians cAithy organ if'ndsr' OF
rfrd "a were A. thi. poll admitted - vote, under
,pce. ,ba awe the ground for the suspicion ths these
bsrzr- he y Our
persons outsce were received though known to be lie
cal Several witnesses u thed that these men were
brought IN hy Henry Mogsshan, police otcrT.
,rsl Az time snd upon their being challenged Monaghan
would pull their papers tnatusT .iionl out Of ~. pocke,
AZ there spUeaf 70 than two tbrse papers for
s and dat ., las, a. papers back he put ta-m
io s pocket and again produced them the next up