The Shasta courier., 1859-07-02
The Recent County conven,,on.

In the Herald of last week we find n card
from j. Van Schaiek, the President of the Com
yentlon, correcting some errors into which, he
says, the Courier has fallen. We will here state
that the votes fthe Convention, as giyen bvus
were furnished US by other parties-by, if we
mistake not, the Secretary of the Convention
No record of them was given us, however
Hence our errors, if errors they were. Our
statement was this:
"The vote stood for Garter "A; for DANGER
| field 80. Three of the Daingerfeld votes were
thrown out for some kind of informality. Two
of them were for the reason that they were on
the same piece of paper. They were voted by
Jack Wilson, as honest man as lives, who had
his own vote and that of a proxy, and therefore
thought it proper for him to vote his two votes
without tearing them apart. Another gentleman.
with three votes, states that lie put IN ballots
against Daingerfield through mistake For these
reasons Daingerfield's friends demanded n new
ballot which the Chairman refused to grant
From his decision an appeal. was taken, and lost
by one vote"
| The Chair thas cofrects our error:
| ssOn counting the ballots, it was found that
| the whole number of votes had been cast, viz :
SO. In canvassing the ballots, two were found to
contain the names of two sets of Delegates each,
and the Chairman decided that they both be
thrown out as being illegal ballots One ballot
containedthe name of ofDaingerfied alone and was
so ceunted-i. c. one vote for Daingerfeld as Del
egate to the Judicial District Convention. The
result as announced by the Chair, Stood SO votes
for set of Delegates, A votes for another set
of Delegates, one vote for Daingerfeld and two
double votes thrown OUT the delegates having
itv Of oil tha tI,o
declared to be elected.
Let us examine this point little. The stChair'
will admit that the correct rule is when more
votes than compose Convention are cast it is
false ballot. Two years ago, when the same
gentleman presided, he will remember that or
several occasions he so ruled, and, whenever
such false ballot was shown, requested the
delegates to prepare their ballots for another
vote. Well now, here, according to the @Chair's"
own showing, on canvassing the votes there
were found to be S5 ballots in the box-or taro
more than were in the Convention If this was
not false ballot pray, will the Chair" state
what is false ballot?
But again: We stated that the appeal from the
decision of the "Chair" was sustained by one
vote. The "Chair says that it was sustained
by majority of three votes. The Chair says
that its decision, "on the throwing out of the
two double ballots" &C., was appealed from
"by a 2aember Of the Convention" (why these
words are in italics we cannot perceive, as no
one supposes that an outsider made the appeal)
=" and the ayes and nays called, which re-
suited (amidst great con:usion) in 43 voting in
favor of sustaining the decision, and 40 against
it the Chair not voting"
The "Chairf has just stated that the whole
number of votes in the Convention was SO. And
yet the Chair states that its decision was sus-
tanned by vote of 43 ayes to 40 noes" the
Chair not voting" Now, if our arithmetic is
correct, 43 and 40, and the vote of the /" Chair
make 81 or just one vote more than there were
voters in the whole Conventionl So here was
another false ballot!
In conclusion, in our article of the 18th we
found no fault with the action of the Chair
man. According to his own showing, however
his action was such as would have justified an
imadversiun.