The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1857-11-05
The Kansas EIecIiOn.-Gov.W Walk.
eF Rejects the Vote OF Oxford
HIS Proclamation. . ..s.r

/
frauds perpetrated in Johnson county, at the
election precinct of Oxford, and the Pro-
clamOtion, or Report, as it may be more
properly styled, of Gov. Walker and Sec.
retnry Stanton, on the subject. Gov. Walk.
er visited the precinct in person and took
every pains to fully inform himself of the
whole facts. The protest is founded on the
following reasons, viz:-
"About 1926 were returned, purporting
to be polled at that precinct. where your
memorialists have good cause to believe,
and do believe, the were not to exceed
one hundred legal votes. They have infor-
nation in which they place, full confidence
that on the 9th day of October there were
only about about 9l votes polIed, that on
the dcy following, when it is purported
1888 votes were poled, there were no con-
siderable number of persons in attendance
or around the polls through the doy; in.
deed, they have the information that not to
exceed from twenty to thirty persons were
around the polls Of the said Oxford pre-.
cnct at any time during the 9Th day of Oc-
tober. They would further state that they
have satisfactory evidence that the popula-
ton of Johnson county is too sparse to con.
tain population SO great as is represented
to be polled at that precinct. They are as.
sured, too, that vast majority of the names
attached to the returns are not known in
Johnson county. To this they would add
the fact that the said Oxford precinct is sit
uated on the borders of the territory, with.
in q few rods of the territorial line, and
that the town of Little Santa Fe, in Mis-
souri, is contiguous ID said preCiTct, and
that if such number OF votes were poIed,
yodr 'nlemorialists believe they were poIled
by aon residents of the territory Of Kansas.
They also are confident that such large
number of votes could not have been polled
at one precinct, and by one set of officers,
Wnhinthe tim limited by law"
PROCLAMATION.
LECoMPToN, Oct. 19, 1857.
To3ke people Of Kansas.
BY the 32nd section of the organic act
establishing the tefTitdt& II government, it is
provided IN reference to the election of u
delegate to Congress, that "the person hav.
ing the greatest number OF votes shall be
declared by the G JYernor to be du y elected
and certificate thereof Shall be given ac-
cordingiy.
BY the 18Th section Of the net Of the ter
ritorial legislature OF Kansas, entitled "an
act to regulate elections" it is mude tne dtl-
ty Of the SeCrct1ry to examine the returns
in the presence OF the Governor, aud to
"give to the person having the highest
number of votes in their Respective districts,
certificate, Of their election to the Leajs
tive Assembly"
Under these two provisions OF the laws
prevailing in the territory, the recent gen.
eral election has presented for the join,
consideration of the Governor and Secre.
tary, question of the graVest i'm portance,
not only to cur own people, but also to
those of the whole Union. This question
arises upon the extraordinary returns made
from the precinct of Oxford in the county
of Johnson. What purports tor be the re-
turns OF the election held at that precinct
On the 9th and 9Th instant, have been re-
ceived by the Secretary, containing sixteen
hundred and twenty.eight names o pretend.
ed voters, or nearly one.half the number
given in the whole Representative District.
The disposition to be made of this suppos-
ed vote is rendered all important by the fact
that the political character Of the Legisla.
tive Assembly will be controlled BY the ad
ditto. of three Councilmen and eight Rep
resentatives, to the strength of one party
or the other, according TO the adoption or
rejection Of the returns in question.
In point of fact. it is well known that
even the whole county of johnson, com.
prising, us it does, part of an Indian Re-
serve, which, upon examination of the law
we find it not yet subject to settlement ol
pre-emptlon, can give no such vote as tha
which % represented to have been poi!ed a
this inconsderable precinct of Oxford Blu
while this unofficial knowledge, well estab
lished and universal as It may be, could no
become the ground Of decision and actor
upon election returns; in themselves regu
/ lar and authentic, tbs legitimate effect o
an apparent enormity, such as that in ques
ton, would necessarily be to induce Close
examination of the paper presented, and tt
require for its acceptance perfect compli
ance with all the essential provisions of th
law. Such an examination OF this docu
ment, conscientiously and impartially made
has brought US to the conclusion that the re
turns from Oxford precinct in johnson
county must be wholly rejected for the fol
lowing reasons: Ey
1st.s 1t does not appear on the face o
the document presented to us, or in an.
other manner, that the judges of the elec
{, ton took theoath imperatvely required b.
the statute. to secure the ,"impartial dis
charge OF their dates according to law. %
i I'd. 1t does not appear that the paper pre-
seRted to us was one of the two origina
poll-books kept at the election, as require
Il hu law. .hul on the contrarv. IL does aunea