The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-11-04
LEcoNpToN, Oct. %, 1857

LEcoMPToN, Oct %, 1857.
Since our proclamation of the 10th inst rejecting the
so-caed election returns from the Oxford precinct, In
johnson county another very similar has been pre-
scented for our official action 1t is that of pretended
turns from three precincts of MCGEE county, in this Ter
rtory containing aggregate OF more than twelve hun
drcd votes This county is located in the extreme south
eastern portion of Kansas Is constituted nom the lands
of the Cherokee Indians which not yet open to pre-
emption settlement and is consequently of the
sparscy populated counties of the Territory
tning less than hundred qualified voters and giving
last June but fourteen votes for delegates to the cons
tionnl convention
Indeed all persons actually conversant with the
Der Of the population of the county treat with derson
the large vote pretended to have been given there Our
information also excludes the idea that there any
incnrsion OF voters from the neghborng State OF Mis-
souri, whose people do not Seem to have mterfered with
the recent election II is, them quite evident that
such vote is presented in these pretended returns
given at the late election in this county.
II is not, however the grounds above stated that
reject these pretended returns but feeling confident
that such vote given one-tenh part of IT,
induced by such considerations to give These al
legged returns the most rigid scrutiny, in order to
tain whether they genuine legal, and valid
From intrinsic evidence the face Of these papers
convinced they not genuine, but simulated aud
fictitious. Besides, they present evidence that the
oath required by statutes administered To the
clerks judges OF the election to from each and
all OF them the impartial discharge OF their duties
cordng to law aH.at ts#
But in addition these grounds Of decision against the
legality and validity OF these pretended returns there is
vet conclusive which constrans not TO
count them While the of the voters and of the
candidates all appear to lie entered the lists, ao
ne oce' IS mentioned for rhich the candidates respectively
intended 70 be d,acd We cannot determine, therefore,
from the face of these papers, for what Office any of
the candidates supported The uniformity in this
particular OF these pretended returns from three separate
and distant precincts, especially the forms not
made up IN the handwriting, with certain
ceptions which only add force to the arguncnD the
same kind of paper renders with other circumstances
conclusive to minds the conviction that they arc
above stated, fictitious and simulated II is most extra
ordinary also that not single vote appears to have been
given for any county officers.
In Rejecting these papers do not 90 behind he returns,
because no legal valid returns made Neiher III
The former instance this ha,c oamed the loer jae
~ qualifications Of co and 10 ecgdt po DEEMED 10 he u
tgh What constitutes return is defined Ivy the terri
torih statutes and TO reject paper spurious fcti
ons, or because in points OF vital Importance, it devi
ates from the acquisitions of the law and therefore is
return IN legal parlance, is not going behind the
turns as we have been unjustly charged with doing
II these papers like those from the Oxford prccincf
would increase by nearly twelve hundred the apparent
vote for the candidates of party although the Offices
are not named, our obligation Is the less paramount
70 reject them, as we do spurious and Illegal An
election secured through sanction, by frauds
strous would be fatal to party than any defeat